2. Waive various permits and inspection costs for apartment owners who accept HCVs.
The HCV program currently provides housing to 6,641 families with approximately 75 percent, or 4,980 families, living in multi-family buildings.
Over 80 percent of the multi-family buildings in the City contain between four and ten units and the vast majority of buildings in this category contain four units. The PRHIP annual fee for a building with four to ten units is currently $230, or $57 .50 per unit for a four-unit building. With the assumption that most of the families within the HCV program are currently living in buildings within this range, a per unit fee waiver for the 4,980 HCV units at a base unit fee of $57.50 would result in a significant impact to PRHIP fees in the amount of $286,350, which equates to three full-time positions (FTEs). The loss of three FTEs would have a dramatic impact on PRHIP and significantly extend the current inspection cycle of approximately five years. Currently, annual fee revenue supports approximately 12 FTEs. As such, the loss of revenue could reduce the number of units inspected up to 25 percent annually. Should the HCV program increase to its ultimate allocation (7,398 allocations) the impact to PRHIP would be greater.
Given the relatively small benefit to the property owner when compared to the overall impact on the efficacy of the PHRIP program, staff do not recommend a fee waiver at this time.
3. Create an incentive package for owners to include: a Holding Fee to entice owners to lease housing units to subsidized families by offering one month's free rent to hold available units while applicants are referred; a Damage Mitigation Fund that provides a financial safety net to landlords for unit costs beyond the security deposit; Move-In Assistance that provides financial assistance such as a security deposit, utility assistance, and/or furniture essentials.
Los Angeles County's recently passed Measure H will provide funding to support holding fees, damage mitigation funds and move-in assistance for persons experiencing homelessness to increase the likelihood of their being housed. The Long Beach Housing Authority will utilize these Measure H funds for:
• Holding Fee - provide a holding fee to apartment owners to hold a unit vacant while the HUD required inspections and approval process take place and families are referred for occupancy.
• Damage Mitigation Fund - provide damage mitigation funding of up to $2,000 over the security deposit for damages caused by tenants during the first year of occupancy.
Housing Choice Voucher Landlord Incentive Program
June 30, 2017
• Move-In Assistance - provide assistance with security and utility deposits or appliances for tenants as these can frequently delay a tenant taking possession of the unit.
These opportunities are only available to serve people experiencing homelessness and who are linked from the City's Multi-Service Center/Coordinated Entry System. The Housing Authority has requested Measure H funding to support 275 homeless families.
Additionally, the Housing Authority will provide a program matching the incentives outlined above for the first 75 new rental units provided to existing voucher holders who are not considered homeless by federal definition but are unattached to a unit and have exceeded 150 days of seeking housing with their voucher. The estimated cost of this program in FY 2018 will be $265,000 and will be funded by the Housing Authority.
Staff believe this new program will help and be a significant improvement to those searching for a unit, as well as incentivize landlords to participate in the HCV program.
Staff will provide a staff report on the items covered in this memorandum to the City Council on July 11, 2017.
Should you have any questions, please contact Kelly Colopy, Director of Health and Human Services, at (562) 570-4016.
CC: CHARLES PARKIN, CITY ATTORNEY
LAURA DOUD, CITY AUDITOR
TOM MODICA, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER
ANITRA DEMPSEY, INTERIM DEPUTY CITY MANAGER
REBECCA JIMENEZ, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER
DEPARTMENT HEADS
CITY CLERK (REF. FILE #17-0247)
APPENDICES | Page 6
APPENDIX D – LONG BEACH CENTER FOR HEALTHY AGING
GAP ANALYSIS
(This page intentionally left blank.)
Establishing Care Systems for
an Age-Friendly Community
City of Long Beach GAP Analysis
Karen Doolittle, FUSE Executive Fellow
May 1, 2018
Supported by a grant from SCAN Health Plan, based in Long Beach, California.
SCAN is an nonprofit public benefit corporation dedicated to finding innovative ways to enhance seniors’ ability to manage their health and to continue to control where and how they live.
2 Acknowledgement
Table of Contents
Context & Scope
Executive Summary
Aging Population Demographics
SWOT Analysis Summary
SWOT Analysis per Major Category
Trends
Hassle Maps
Unique Challenges - LGBTQ & Cambodian
Digital Divide Barriers
Inputs to Resources Mapping
Senior Services Heat Map
Appendix - Analysis of Service Providers
Housing
Transportation
Health
Safety
Quality of Life
1. Senior Links
2. Parks Recreation & Marine (PRM)
3. Senior Center Information &
Assistance
4. Multi-Service Center (MSC)
5. Long Beach Police Department
6. Jewish Family & Children’s Services
(JFCS)
7. SCAN Health Plan
8. Los Angeles County Area Agency on
Aging (AAA)
3 4
5 6
7 8-12
13 14-19
20-21
22 23
24 25-55
Topic Page(s)
Context & Scope
With an estimated 470,000 residents, Long Beach is the
second largest city in Los Angeles County and the seventh largest city in California. One quarter of its current population is over 50 years old and 9% is over 65 years old, which forecasts a dramatic increase in the need for senior services in the areas of housing, transportation, safety, health, and quality of life. Providing quality support to the growing population of seniors is further complicated by the demographic changes underway. Long Beach’s residents are expected to become not only more ethnically diverse, but also older and financially insecure. By 2025, more than 22% of Long Beach’s senior residents will be living below the poverty line.
Long Beach has identified major gaps and lack of coordination in the services it currently offers its older adult residents.
The City of Long Beach is partnering with
FUSE Corps to host an executive-level Fellow
for one year to design a coordinated and
data-driven system for delivering and
financing services to seniors.
The fellow will also develop a system for
measuring and communicating the economic
and social value of services provided to
seniors to help the city leverage potential
public funding and private-sector
partnerships. These efforts will help Long
Beach realize its overarching goal: to improve
the quality of life for the city’s older adult
residents by linking them to a coordinated
health and social service continuum of care.
4 The City of Long Beach, and its supporters, are actively pursuing ways to innovate and collaborate on ideas and approaches to close their greatest gaps in systems for the Aging Population, namely Housing and Transportation.
Local organizations are securing grants and working together to create housing communities offering a safe place for one-stop access to meet needs around basic care, health, and quality of life. These early models can serve as pilots to replicate and scale services. This wraparound model typically applied to youth, can help assist caregivers and family members with an extra layer of support to navigate a continuum of care for their clients and loved ones, which relates to the third greatest need, in-home care.
Next to housing and transportation, the greatest need lies in affordable in-home care. Significant gaps exist due to the rise in demand for caregivers from increases in Alzheimer’s, dementia, or milder cognitive impairment, other disabilities, and complexities associated with multiple chronic diseases (diabetes, cardiovascular, etc.). Demographic shifts and other trends that limit the availability of potential caregivers, including lack of affordable care (especially a growing need for the middle class), an increased share of employed women, and caregiving expectations weakened by divorce and alternative lifestyles. Long Beach’s LGBTQ and Cambodian populations face a unique set of challenges that makes finding appropriate, affordable, safe and trustworthy caregivers yet more challenging.
Gerontological training and education on the needs of seniors, along with cultural and sensitivity training on equity and aging is needed across the community. A shared online referral system will assist with coordination, collaboration, tracking and reporting on systems of care, thus providing valuable feedback for decision making, and improved sustainability and impact. It is important to note that the online referral system will only be effective if the proper operating model and processes are thoughtfully established and continually enhanced. Innovative solutions and policies that improve housing, transportation, and long-term health and care services and supports, and reduce unmet needs, could benefit both older adults, their families and caregivers, for an age-friendly Long Beach.
Executive Summary
Long Beach has committed
to serve and support the
older adult population as an
age-friendly community!
Mapping the Older Adults’ Journey
Evaluating the problems and multiple gaps seniors
face when seeking services is a starting point for
journey mapping the experience from the senior’s
point-of-view. How can the city leverage inputs from
the Senior Commissioners and activist groups like
the Gray Panthers to help define the desired
journey for older adults?
Inclusion of Vulnerable Communities
Long Beach protects its Veterans through priority
treatment at the Multi-Service Center and Housing
Authority, and focus through the newly established
Veterans Affairs Commission. What can the city do to
promote and enhance acceptance of its vulnerable
seniors from the LGBTQ and Cambodian communities?
Just-in-Time Systems
The Multi-Services Center (MSC) is a one-of-a-kind
first point-of-contact for homelessness services.
How can the MSC and the community best address
the increase in homelessness and financial abuse
among older adults?
Seniors Volunteerism
Senior Police Partners and the 4th Street Senior
Center are two examples of the less recognized
plethora of volunteer opportunities within the city.
What opportunities exist to create structures
(without over formalizing) to help seniors help
themselves, create purpose and prevent isolation?
Scalability of Co-Located Services
American Gold Star Manor, Villages at Cabrillo, and
LINC Housing are co-locating services to create
villages of care. How can these concepts be scaled
while considering the benefits of inclusion,
diversity, and intergenerational opportunities?
Coordination of Like Services
How can service agencies better coordinate and
collaborate to improve health and wellness for
seniors?
2017 Key City of Long Beach Accomplishments for Seniors • Provided 512,000 senior participant days in Parks, Recreation and Marine Department programs
• Capital improvements at the 4th Street Senior Center
• Completed four housing projects, creating 355 affordable units for seniors:
Immanuel Place (3215 E. 3rd St.); Anchor Place/Villages at Cabrillo (2001 River Ave.); Long Beach Professional Building (117 E. 8th St.); and The Beacon (1201- 1235 Long Beach Blvd.)
Integration of City Social Services
How can the Police, Fire, Department of Health &
Human Services (DHHS), and other agencies
better share information to improve client
outcomes and prevent unnecessary spending?
Reviewing the Systems
Acknowledging People
Addressing the Gaps
Adoption of an Age-Friendly Mindset
How can the greater community members elevate
themselves above structural and political barriers to
innovate on solutions for an age-friendly city?
5 Long Beach Aging Population Demographics
Zip Code 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ TOTAL Per 10,000
90805 9,616 5,434 2,187 750 17,987 1.80
90808 5,997 3,703 1,795 1,004 12,499 1.25
90803 5,464 4,155 1,755 731 12,105 1.21
90815 5,373 3,541 1,894 1,204 12,012 1.20
90807 4,615 2,981 1,320 888 9,804 0.98
90813 5,255 2,782 1,165 378 9,580 0.96
90802 4,817 2,975 1,212 489 9,493 0.95
90806 4,587 2,715 1,186 438 8,926 0.89
90810 4,088 2,622 1,357 522 8,589 0.86
90804 4,002 2,171 801 438 7,412 0.74
90814 2,465 1,556 627 276 4,924 0.49
Total 56,279 34,635 15,299 7,118 113,331
Age Range (Yrs)
Numbers of Seniors by Zip Code
People 65+ Living Below Poverty Level People 65+ Living Alone Comparison of Percentage of Aging Population
6Source: http://www.livewelllongbeach.org
SWOT Analysis Summary of Findings
Collaboration & Technology
Strengths
➢ A Caring Community
• Stakeholders and advocates engage with the community to address and support senior issues
• Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Parks recreation & Marine (PRM), and affinity groups offer
dozens of enriching programs, providing high levels of
individual hands-on attention to seniors
• DHHS staff help seniors prepare for doctor visits, reviewing what to ask the doctor, writing down instructions, and
showing seniors how to use their smart phone
➢ Focus on Innovative Solutions
• Existing City interdepartmental efforts work to improve livability and mobility for the community
• Agencies and affiliates are entrepreneurial and innovative, and collaborate to improve policies and processes
Weaknesses
➢ Disjointed & Fragmented Services
• Silos of duplicate activities exist, versus a cohesive supportive fabric to navigate program offerings
• Staffing constraints facing many providers result in not enough home visits and assessments; home visits allow
for a comprehensive assessment of the senior
• Necessity for greater in-home outreach to address issues with self-care, alienation and isolation
➢ Lack of Senior Focus Lens
• Vulnerability of seniors requires greater attention to what and how services are offered
• Lack of cultural awareness and understanding of the
needs of aging population, and special groups such as
Veteran, Cambodian, Black, Hispanic, and LGBTQ seniors
Opportunities
➢ Cultural Awareness & Sensitivity
• Existing City plans can be revisited to specifically highlight needs of older adults to be addressed in policies
➢ Coordination & Collaboration of Care
• Connecting seniors with services through a technology and people solution to close the information services gap
• Community coordination and collaboration through a
Warm Hand-off/Closed-Loop referral by city departments, healthcare, and senior services organizations
• Need to frame a model for operating and funding services that can be shared across systems
Threats
➢ Lack of Housing & Transportation
• Housing & Transportation are the foundation to support needs around health, safety and quality of life; these are not just senior related issues
• Ignoring the utility of seniors helping seniors could prevent potential progress in housing and transportation ➢ Disparate Funding
• Inadequate City funding for Senior Programs. City
programs and non-profit providers operate heavily on
fundraising and grants, which is not sustainable
• Funding that is often framed in cost-avoidance, ignores the cost-benefit of a thriving senior population
Future State Solution for
Long Beach Aging Services
Current State Situation Facing Seniors in Long Beach
• On January 23, 2018, the City Long Beach was
accepted into the AARP & WHO Network of Age-
Friendly Communities
• Establish office focusing on older adults as a
neutral convener of services and provide an
Institutional Standard of Practice for Continuity
• Foster systems-change and collaboration through
an Age Friendly Consortium (22+ organizations)
• Collaborate across City Departments and County
Agencies on services and fundraising
• Involve line staff to help implement a stronger
integration of services with both a technology and
people solution
7 Housing Strengths Weaknesses
Opportunities Threats
Lack of Affordable Housing
• Seniors are being displaced by high rents and many move away, or become homeless.
Currently there is not enough affordable Senior Housing. Point in time count rendered 3 available spots in 40+ housing centers. Market rate is ~$2000 for a 1 bedroom, or ~$1000-$1700 for a studio.
• In May 2016, Section 8 waiting list opened for the first time in years, with 17,000 individuals on the waiting list
• Section 8 does not cover utilities, one can be housed and still not afford utilities • More vouchers than units: Of 7,398 vouchers, 87% are in leases, 480 people have unused vouchers, because they cannot find housing that accepts Section 8 • Long Beach housing assistance is 100% Federally funded, with no city support • 648 persons experiencing homelessness over the age of 50 accessed the MSC in 2017 Lack of Senior-appropriate Housing
• Shelters not appropriate for seniors – lack easier-to-grab door handles, grab bars • Covenants expired: multi-year senior housing contracts up for renewal Seniors Face additional Barriers when Seeking Housing
• Seniors may lack transportation to search and interview for housing • Hoarding is an Obsessive Compulsive Disorder that is more prevalent at age 50+ (can be related to anxiety & depression). Hoarding escalates the more isolated a senior becomes---Stage 4 hoarding is up to the ceiling. Section 8 vouchers require a fire safety inspection and hoarding can lead to eviction. • Substance use disorder makes it difficult to find and keep housing • LGBTQ seniors may face additional challenges: not feeling safe expressing their sexual preference in a senior housing living environment, or living with HIV/AIDS Modular Housing: Faster than construction
Seniors could co-locate to provide support to one-another • Can convert living room to an additional bedroom
• Roommate locator service for seniors
• Both address isolation factor
Group homes for Seniors – Ranch Style group home and meal sharing Intergenerational housing – Long Beach City College property includes grandparents aged 55-75 yrs. caring for their grandchildren American Goldstar Manor
• Four organizations each donated $50K to improve the Quality of Life at Gold Star Manor (American Goldstar Manor, CSULB, Archstone and SCAN) for developing new assisted living facilities, a possible memory care center and a medical clinic
Villages at Cabrillo
• Co-location of 20+ organization provides support ranging from shelter and treatment, to transitional and permanent housing
LINC Housing
• Develop and construct new affordable housing for seniors and others • Retrofits existing affordable housing to create energy savings • Protects affordable housing supply through purchase of existing rentals 8 Transportation Strengths Weaknesses
Opportunities Threats
Transportation Challenges
Positive reviews of transportation options are riddled with caveats • Must articulate needs properly
• Can be unreliable: Dial-a-Lift & Yellow-Cab: “Good to pick you up, but bad at returning you.” • Adult Day Care Providers: Sometimes vehicle still needs fixed • Need to book well in advance: Access works well, but requires 24hr. notice for reservation • At mercy of public transportation: Bus system is good, but vulnerable to delays o Routes are only on major thoroughfares, otherwise required to walk o Timing can be tricky: Frequency changes at different times of the day and on weekends • Based on medical needs: Free Shuttles may be limited to doctor’s appointments • Ride Share scheduling can be difficult: “I don’t want to spend 5 hours in transportation, for a 1 hour appointment.”
Long Beach Transit both faces and contributes to barriers for transportation
1. Seniors are not aware of their eligibility for discounted bus fairs
2. Seniors expressed level of fear and reluctance to ride the bus
3. LB Transit federal funding is based on paid ridership, which acts as a disincentive to provide completely free rides
First mile/last mile is the greatest challenge: People will walk a ¼ mile to get to a bus stop • Other agencies are partnering with Uber or Lyft just to get to a bus stop • Some vouchers are provided for short term rides to get to a transit center Transportation Considerations for Seniors:
• Curb-to-Curb – issues with walkers and canes
• Elbow-to-Elbow – need assistance beyond door-to-door and with Wheelchairs • Crosswalk timers not long enough; if disabled “crossing PCH is dangerous” • Resources and services exist in the city, but transportation remains a barrier • “We could potentially have 20-30 more participants at the Senior Center per day if seniors had transportation”
Pilot senior transportation projects in other cities:
• Sacramento MicroTransit: For no extra fees, a shuttle will pick up and drop off passengers across the city to fill gaps in bus routes
• Laguna Beach contracts with Uber for subsidized transportation for seniors LB Transit launched Connected Seniors Club in October 2017 • Groups of seniors will form their own club
• Ambussador will lead them on a fun excursion trip
• LB Transit provides Train-the-Trainer for the Ambussador • Ambussador gets 30 days free if they plan and lead 2 trips a month.
FAME (First African Methodist Episcopal) provides monthly Taxi coupons and Bus tokens for those with proof of income <$1500/month
City of Long Beach hosts annual place-based Livability Summit • City is looking at ways to make Long Beach more transportation friendly • Walkability and bikeability questionnaires evaluate transportation options DHHS Nurses work hard to navigate the transportation systems to ensure their disabled and vulnerable clients can make multiple appointment in one day Long Beach needs to stay ahead to prevent gaps in transportation • Molina shuttle ended its transportation services in the Houghton neighborhood 9 Health Strengths Weaknesses
Opportunities Threats
Caregiving is becoming increasingly challenging, and particularly for the Middle Class Chronic Illnesses & Complexities Impacting Seniors
• Nationally 77% of older adults live with at least 2 chronic conditions, such as: Diabetes, Thyroid Conditions, Heart Disease, and Mental Illness * • Nationally 23.5% of persons over age 65 are obese *
• Senior may be on 15-25 medications, breathing machine, electric wheelchair, plus special bed • Falls and hip issues, addictions to pain medications, and bed bugs exacerbate conditions Senior Mental Health Issues
• Dementia & Alzheimer’s – Late to diagnose and difficult to treat • Many Long Beach CBOs interviewed noted that hoarding is pervasive, and they see many clients with schizophrenia and bi-polar disorder
• Experiencing homelessness and substance use disorder
“Take away my pensions so I can be eligible”— One client who is receiving a Pension and Social Security totaling $1800/month. For Cal Fresh and Medi-Cal, the income cap is $1200 or $1600 for a couple Challenges with Qualifying for Support Programs
• Must demonstrate need to qualify, need to re-apply every year, may need assistance to complete forms, requires continuous follow-up
Greatest Need is for Affordable Non-Clinical In-Home Care • If Medi-Cal can get IHSS homeworker; otherwise cost is $25/hour to hire a caregiver. If just over Medi-Cal income threshold, but not wealthy, cannot afford it. • Medicare does not pay for assisted living, only for skilled nursing. This leaves a large need for seniors who do not have severe medical issues, but need someone to assist them in Activities of Daily Living (ADL), such as bathing, laundry, counting pills. • Agencies receive lots of calls from adult children living out of state who need help for their parents, requesting an assessment to see if their parent can live by themselves.
Agencies can only do so many free assessments.
Two elderly seniors were living together malnourished and each accidentally took the other’s meds and forgot to get more Health Insurance Coverage among Older Adults
• 99.6% of persons over age 65 are insured, compared to only 88.3% of adults aged 64 and under *
Hoarding Task Force
• Long Beach hosts a monthly Hoarding Task Force to share the latest information and leading practices, and offer collaborative support on challenging, multi-faceted mental health cases
In-home Assessments
• Many non-profit organizations, such as Heart of Ida, SCAN, Meals-On-Wheels and Pathways, provide in-home assessments to address risks to health, falls, food security, social-emotional, and abuse.
Elders need patient advocates & outreach to follow-up after medical appointments • Quick discharge via taxi, then what do next?
• Medication distribution - Did not get medication because there was no one to assist Seniors need Wellness Checks via Home Visits
• Home environment can be more revealing than a physician visit: can see how the senior moves in the home, observe medication usage, assess food security, identify social isolation and hoarding, to determine level of support required. • Similar to Life Alerts and Panic Buttons, use telehealth or telephones to check-up on seniors to avert a crisis.
Improved Coordination will use resources more effectively • Opportunities exist for referrals from state of crisis to treatment and prevention:
- Fire Department could refer assist-up/falls calls to on-going case management - Hospital ERs could refer non-emergency cases to primary care or case management - Expand training opportunities for students to gain experience with senior clients 10 Sources: 2015 Los Angeles County Health Survey; National Council on Aging www.ncoa.org/news/resources-for- reporters/get-the-facts/healthy-aging-facts/; State of Obesity, a project of the Trust for America’s Health & Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. https://stateofobesity.org/obesity-by-age/
Strengths Weaknesses
Opportunities Threats
Seniors are vulnerable in active daily living to:
• Scams
• Fraud
• Physical abuse
• Neglect
Many opportunities exist to teach the Older Adults about Safety:
• How to access services
• How to speak up for themselves
• Self Determination as long as not impacting the welfare of others • To call APS to investigate senior abuse for themselves or for others • How to double check references to be wise to financial scams Holistic Elder Abuse Response Team (HEART)
HEART is a Program of WISE & Healthy Aging that is operating on a grant to provide elder abuse case management to LA County, including Long Beach:
Long Term Care Ombudsman, Licensed Clinical Social Worker, Core Support Group (therapy), and coordination with Adult Protective Services (APS) Long Beach Elder Abuse Prevention Team
Group of abuse and neglect focused professionals and volunteers who meet quarterly to stay abreast of financial scams, case conference, and inter-refer “In one case, the daughter was addicted to drugs and was stealing money from her elder mother and physically
abusing her when she could not get enough money.”
Adult Protective Services (APS) Department of Children & Family Services (DCFS) 40,000 cases for 200 social workers* 50,000 cases. for 5,000 social workers Ratio: 200 to 1 Ratio: 10 to 1
Significant Gaps Exist across LA County for Elder Abuse Social Workers * People do not want to talk about Elder Abuse
• Financial abuse is highest among seniors, scams change constantly so people can’t keep up • Need Older Adult Shelters for those evicted or fleeing Domestic Violence • Need public guardians office and more staffing to step in and remove someone when they cannot defend themselves. Support groups, case management, and therapy are needed • Care taker may be neglecting them or taking advantage • Senior may not understand how to keep themselves out of the hospital • Those aged 80+ are from a generation that still sweeps things under the rug, and not report • Senior Centers not funded to purvey case management
Safe Community Spaces
• Growing homelessness in parks and public spaces, deters frail elders from attending because they fear for their safety
“We owe Seniors safe housing, safe neighbors, and places to go and be themselves.” “Parks are safer when seniors are out walking and there is activity going on” Parks are a Catch-22 when it comes to safety
• Seniors need a safe way to walk and navigate the park; while at the same time, having seniors out walking acts as a watch-dog to help reduce crime • Ramona Park is improving its “Livability” through fixes to sidewalks and lighting to improve its safety. Next lies opportunities to offer programming and draw attendance from three surrounding senior housing facilities.
Long Beach Police Department Retired & Senior Volunteer Program served roughly 85-100 seniors in 2017 across all zip codes while engaging persons 55+ in enriching community service.
• 38% of visits resulted in referrals to APS
• Majority (65%) served were ages 65-79, 29% were 80+; 6% were 50-64 • 10% served were Veterans
Safety
Source: California Department of Social Services http://www.cdss.ca.gov/inforesources/Research-and-Data/Disability-Adult- Programs-Data-Tables/SOC-242
*Same ratio at the state level for 2016/17, APS closed 159,782 investigations (based on numbers to be reported to the National Adult Maltreatment Reporting System). Therefore, APS workers handled, on average, 200 investigations per year l 11 Quality of Life Strengths Weaknesses
Opportunities Threats
Attacking the Digital Divide – Even though the digital divide remains prevalent, on demand access is becoming increasingly important for seniors
• Considering technology access vs. Knowledge of how to use technology • The “senior” population encompasses many generations that have varying degrees of tech savviness
• Technology can become overwhelming for some seniors; however, it can be leveraged to help seniors to live more independently and age in place Expo Center offers well received programming, but its existence is threatened and needs financial support to provide structure for volunteers and to expand programs • Currently have word-of-mouth marketing and weekly email to 409 seniors from a socio- economic diverse group from Del Amo Gardens to Carmelitos Sharing Economy “Time Banking” Time is exchanged hour for hour to leverage the richness of one another’s talents and assets. Services may include driving, banking and taxes, or even making tamales. We need to encourage the use among seniors.
Restaurants can serve as gathering place where seniors own the dining room during the day, and the facility serves as a restaurant at night Opportunity exists to make Senior Centers more physically appealing PRM Senior Centers offer quality programming and information, but how can leading practices be shared and replicated across organizations? • How should programs be better structured?
• El Dorado leads popular Tech Talk sessions with groups of 15 seniors that lead to spin-off topics in smaller breakouts session
• Services are currently facility centric with ethnic clusters • Should programs be offered across all sites and on the weekends? LGBTQ and United Cambodian Centers (UCC) focus to improve the quality of life of the population they serve and continuously evolve to address the most pressing issues and strive to promote community awareness of vulnerabilities PRM Programming and Intergenerational Events– Long Beach PRM offers social and wellness programs for seniors. Senior Center hosted a Thanksgiving Lunch with 200+ attendees where teens spoke with seniors to understand how they grew up, played games, mingled, and entertained, while seniors served as role models.
CSULB implements programs for peer to peer support and for pairing younger generations with seniors
Successful Aging Expo: In October 2017, seniors were offered a resource fair to explore available options to support and enrich their quality of life “People are working until their last breath!”
“Long Beach has a Village of Health philosophy in that health encompassing Physically, Spiritually, Mentally and Emotionally equals true health.” Lack of funding and delayed focus on issues for seniors prevents continuity and depth of services to address the needs of the aging population
Complexity and interdependency of housing, transportation, health and safety issues creates barriers to gain traction on holistic solutions Senior Economic Drivers are currently Cost Avoidance
• Economic benefit of seniors can no longer be ignored
• There is an economic benefit from seniors continuing to work from age 50-75 • Seniors who want to work is around 30%, and reality is that about 70% of seniors work because they have to!
12 Trends
In many parts of the country, seniors are “aging in place” because disproportionate shares of young people have moved elsewhere. Older adults can remain safely in their own homes and communities, regardless of mobility, ability, age, or income through updates to existing homes to meet age-friendly universal design standards, and using smart technologies to assist with personal care. For example, Oregon's Rogue Valley in collaboration with AARP Oregon, developed a Lifelong Housing Certification program that provides an age-friendly livability checklist to assist buyers and renters and boosts benefits for property owners.
The number of Americans living with Alzheimer’s disease could nearly triple by 2050 to 14 million, from 5 million in 2013, increasing the demand for elder care. The Alzheimer’s
Association says, “Someone in the United States develops Alzheimer's dementia every 66 seconds.” An estimated 5.5 million Americans are living with Alzheimer’s disease, and one in 10 people age 65 and older (10 percent) has Alzheimer's dementia. (AARP Nov 2017)
The number of people in need of in-home care in the United States is expected to reach 117 million by 2020, according to AARP. While families provide the vast majority of the informal care received by older adults, geographic mobility often demands caregiving at a distance. As the disproportionately large baby boom generation ages, the gap between elder care needs and available caregivers will widen dramatically. In 2010, there were seven potential caregivers ages 45 to 64 (the age group of the average family caregiver) for every person age 80 and older (the age group most likely to have a disability) (Redfoot, Feinberg, and Houser 2013). That ratio is projected to drop to 4 to 1 by 2030 and bottom out at 3 to 1 in 2050 when the entire baby boom generation passes the age 80 milestone.
Intergenerational equity is the concept or idea of fairness or justice in relationships between children, youth, adults and seniors, particularly in relation to treatment and interactions.
Intergenerational conflict describes a more abstract conflict based on prejudices, and also cultural, social, or economic discrepancies between generations, which may be caused by shifts in values or conflicts of interest between younger and older generations. Intergenerational housing in cities allows for children to stay close to their aging relatives and to nourish relationships in real time. Many seniors are taking care of their grandchildren well into their 60’s, 70’s, and even 80’s, while their adult children are working. Senior centers are hosting inter- generational events to prevent older adult isolation, mentor today’s youth, and preserve cultural traditions.
Trends of
the Aging
Population
In-Home Care
Gaps
Alzheimer’s on the
Rise
Intergenerational
Equity
Digital Caregiving
Longevity
Economy
Aging in Place
Caregiving is going digital with over half (53 percent) of projected market revenues expected to be from digital solutions in 2017-2021, up from just 28 percent in 2016. Just as consumers are increasingly able to manage life’s many details from a smartphone or tablet, so too will caregivers. Innovators are building intelligence into existing caregiving products such as voice-activated home assistants, virtual nurse avatars for routine checkups, and even sophisticated robotic home companions. (AARP June 2017) Source: The Population Reference Bureau report, “Aging in the United States”, (Jan 2016); AARP; Alzheimer’s Association, Population Reference Bureau According to AARP’s 2016 Longevity Economy Report, the 50-plus age group generates $7.6 trillion in economic activity, including $5 trillion in consumer spending by people 50-plus combined with the further economic activity this spending generates (i.e. $1.8 trillion in federal, state and local taxes). Older adults are working longer because they are living longer and may benefit from additional income and activity. In 2014, 23 percent of men and about 15 percent of women ages 65 and older were in the labor force, and these levels are projected to rise further by 2022, to 27 percent for men and 20 percent for women.
People over 50 are also critical in driving entrepreneurship and investment, and account for the majority of volunteering and philanthropic activities.
13 Hassle Maps
• A Hassle Map is a detailed study of problems, large and small, that people experience whenever they use their products or services. Hassle Maps are from Adrian Slywotsky’s book, “Demand”. • A similar tool is the Customer Journey Map where you view the customer service process flow from the perspective of the client or customer, and includes the customer emotions experienced at each touchpoint.
• The Hassle Maps on the following slides illustrate the compounding effects of multiple gaps within the aging population. These gaps identify the opportunity where demand is hiding. • The Hassle Maps synthesize interview findings and research. Each map reflects actual case situations supported by research articles.
• The maps serve as tools for analysis and planning of programs and services to support the aging population.
• The LGBTQ and Cambodian Snapshots describe in detail the barrier overlays to the existing hassles.
Source: http://changethis.com/manifesto/86.01.Demand/pdf/86.01.Demand.pdf 14 Veteran at risk of homelessness
Source: UCLA, VA launch first-of-its-kind family wellness center, new legal clinic for veterans: Alison Hewitt | November 27, 2017 http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/ucla-va-collaboration-fills-gaps-in-existing-services-for-vulnerable-veterans#.WiPb5Cue5cQ.email For veterans at risk of homelessness, the tipping point can be as trivial as a jaywalking ticket.
The veteran may not be able to pay the fee for that
ticket, and then could not get to court to explain the
circumstances — perhaps because of a lack of access to
transportation, an inability to miss a day of work, or
crippling depression. Late-payment fines are tacked on to the original fine. A court warrant, a revoked driver’s
license and a ruined credit history follow.
What might have seemed like a trivial citation has
spiraled into a serious obstacle to being approved for
housing, finding employment, driving to doctor’s
appointments and reintegrating into civilian life.
Veteran receives a jaywalking ticket
Cannot afford to pay for ticket
Late-payment fines
Cannot get to court to explain
circumstances (Lack of transportation,
cannot miss work, or crippling depression)
Escalating Hassle Map
Court warrant, revoked driver’s
license, and ruined credit history
could lead to homelessness
15 Homeless senior with substance use disorder
Source: http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/addiction.pdf Substance use disorder is much more common among
persons experiencing homelessness than in the general
population. Since substance use can be both a cause and a result of homelessness, both issues need to be addressed simultaneously.
Breaking an addiction is difficult for anyone, especially for someone experiencing homelessness. Motivation to stop
using may be poor, because day-to-day survival takes
priority. Many persons experiencing homelessness and
substance use disorder have also become estranged from
their families and friends and lack a social support network.
Sometimes people with untreated mental illnesses use
illicit drugs as an inappropriate form of self-medication.
Few programs for individuals experiencing homelessness
also treat co-occurring issues of both mental illness and substance use disorder, and a person experiencing both
could remain unsheltered.
Person experiencing homelessness and increased
stress of living on the street
Turn to drugs and alcohol to cope with their
situation or self-medicate for mental illness
Mental illness and homelessness
leads to increased risk of
violence and victimization, and
high utilization of health and
justice systems
Finding food and shelter takes priority over
substance use disorder treatment, and
perhaps they refuse help
Escalating Hassle Map
Cannot find a shelter that treats both
mental illness and substance use
disorder. Thus remains unsheltered.
16 LGBTQ senior seeking housing
Source: http://sageusa.org
Many LGBTQ older adults encounter long-term care
settings that are not welcoming to their LGBTQ
identities—and many report encountering hostility and
discrimination. Moreover, the available research shows
that few aging providers are trained in LGBTQ cultural
competency, few conduct outreach to the LGBTQ
community, and few are prepared to address acts of
discrimination aimed at LGBTQ seniors by staff or other residents. This makes many LGBTQ older adults reluctant to access mainstream aging services, which can heighten their social isolation and negatively impact their physical and mental health.
LGBTQ seniors face difficulty finding an LGBTQ-identified or LGBTQ-competent caregiver who can understand their
situation and provide in-home support. Transgender
individuals feel even more isolated and rejected than
their other LGBQ peers.
LGBTQ Senior does not feel welcome in a long-term care
setting for fear of hostility and discrimination
Few aging providers are trained in LGBTQ cultural
sensitivity awareness
LGBTQ older adult is reluctant to
access mainstream aging services
Difficult to find an LGBTQ caregiver who can
understand their situation and provide in-
home support
Escalating Hassle Map
Heightening social isolation and
negatively impacting health
17 Dementia client in abusive living condition
Source: Stakeholder Interviews & Research, https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/does-domestic-violence-lead-to-dementia-researchers-urge-more-st Elderly woman with dementia experiences verbal abuse
by her adult daughter
Abuse from daughter escalates to physical abuse
when mother cannot provide her daughter enough
money to support her addiction
Shortage of Adult Protective Service
case workers delays intervention
Awkward to seek help when seniors do not
feel comfortable sharing personal details
with strangers and ignore problems
Escalating Hassle Map
Lack of shelters catering to the
senior population prohibits
immediate removal and attention
Due to lack of insight and cognitive changes, a person with Alzheimer's disease may be unable to safely and adequately provide for their day-to-day needs, and may be at risk for falls, wandering, malnutrition, and abuse.
People with dementia are especially vulnerable because the disease may prevent them from reporting the abuse or
recognizing it. They also may fall prey to family, caregivers, and strangers who take advantage of their cognitive impairment.
Willfully denying a person’s access to medication, medical care, food, shelter or physical assistance, can expose the individual with Alzheimer's to further risk of physical, mental or emotional harm.
Some scientists are researching whether repeated physical abuse to the head could actually lead to dementia itself. 18 Middle-income couple experiencing food insecurity
Source: Stakeholder Interviews & Research, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/hunger/ Lack of in-home care support can lead to medication
mismanagement. It is important that seniors get the right medicine, at the right dose, at the right time. For seniors with multiple medicines, or with memory loss, this benefit alone can be a lifesaver.
Even when taking the correct medications, drug interactions and side effects often mimic the symptoms of age-related cognitive disorders.
A growing group of middle-class and working-class individuals are food insecure, meaning they have difficulty feeding one or more of their household members at some point because of a lack of money.
Do they use their income -- if they have one -- to pay their mortgage or feed themselves? Do they pay for a hospital visit or put dinner on the table?
When someone struggles to feed their family, they experience psychological and emotional consequences and often face stigmas. These struggles can exacerbate or lead to depression, which creates another barrier to receiving financial support and recovering from the situation.
A couple accidentally take one another’s medications
and are unable to replace due to difficulty with memory Unable to get replacement medication due to
lacking transportation to physician and pharmacy
Combined Social Security & Pension
income does not meet qualification
for food stamps
Cannot afford in-home care provider for
help with everyday life skills
Escalating Hassle Map
Overwhelming shame for
middle-income retirees now
facing food insecurity for the
first time, prevents couple
from seeking help
19 LGBTQ Community Snapshot
Source(s): Addressing Social, Economic, and Health Disparities of LGBT Older Adults & Best Practices in Data Collection, LGBT+ National Aging Research Center, www.age-pride.org. Promoting Health Equity Among LGBTQ Mid-Life and Older Adults. Generations PMC: 2015 May 14 • Lesbian and bisexual women: Higher rates of disability, cardiovascular disease, overweight, and poor general health • Gay and bisexual men: Twice as likely to live alone; higher risk of cancer, and HIV
• Transgender older adults: Higher rates of discrimination, victimization, mental distress, poor health, and less support • Bisexual older adults: Higher stigma, less likely to disclose sexual orientation, lower income, and have less support • Older adults of color, and those with lower income and education: Elevated risk of health disparities and limited access to aging, health, and support services
Social Isolation in LGBTQ Older Adults
Current Challenges Potential Solutions
LGBTQ older adults are 20% less likely to have access
to government services such as housing assistance,
meal programs, and senior centers
The LGBTQ Center of Long Beach serves as a hub of support for the LGBTQ community and initiating collaborations with Long Beach government and social sector organizations.
Lifetime discrimination and victimization leads to
weakened immune system and mental distress.
Surviving these experiences has strengthened
resilience in some LGBTQ seniors.
Cultural competency training through groups like SAGE is in its infancy to train service and care providers. GRIOT Circle is a pioneer as the country’s only service provider focused on LGBTQ seniors of color. LGBTQ-friendly older person services must be geographically and equitably accessible.
Elevated risk of poor general health and disability
due to delayed and limited access to care, due to
lower income, or not feeling comfortable disclosing
their sexual orientation to their medical provider
Senior equity focused groups like DHHS Office of Equity, Gray Panthers, Senior Commission are taking the lead to ensure services provided to the senior and LGBTQ community align with policies, research, community input, and best practices.
Elevated risk of isolation and lack of caregiving since less likely partnered or married, often live alone and
have much fewer children than heterosexual seniors
Innovative approaches are being explored to reach hidden or potentially isolated seniors such as targeted community events and partnerships with Meals on Wheels and Hospice
40%
Do not disclose their sexual
orientation to their
healthcare provider
LGBTQ Seniors’ Health Statistics - Nationally (Source: SAGE) 42%
Fear they will outlive their
retirement savings
34%
Live Alone
Currently: An estimated 2.7 million adults ages 50 and older self-identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender in the U.S. including 1.1 million age 65 and older.
Estimates more than double based on same-sex behavior and romantic relationships.
By 2060: The number of LGBTQ older adults will exceed 5 million Key Disparities among LGBTQ Sub-groups
~3100 Same Sex
Couples in Long Beach
20 Cambodian Community Snapshot
Source(s): Interview with Susana Sngeim, Executive Director, United Cambodian Community (UCC) https://www.presstelegram.com/2018/01/25/federal-judge-again-stops-deportation-of-long-beach-man-other-cambodian-americans/ In the beginning: Khmer, Lao, and Chinese refugees from Cambodia began settling in Long Beach in 1975, and increased dramatically in the 1980's. In addition to the trauma of fleeing violence, refugees experienced cultural isolation in a foreign country. Social support institutions, such as United Cambodian Community (UCC) have been providing culturally-appropriate services for 40 years.
Today: The Cambodian community of Long Beach is multi-generational, with children born in the US, and multi-racial. Cambodian seniors still face cultural isolation, trauma, and language barriers.
Many older Cambodians prefer to reach out
to historically Cambodian organizations,
such as United Cambodian Community,
Cambodian Association of America, and
Khmer Parents Association, rather than the
city, due to distrust of government.
50%
Have 5+ chronic
health conditions
Long Beach Cambodian Seniors’ Health Statistics
51%
Experience
depression
62%
Experience
PTSD
Current Challenges Potential Solutions
Half of Long Beach Cambodian seniors live with5 or more chronic health conditions, including mental health and diabetes Assist seniors with benefits enrollment through NationalCouncil on Aging (NCOA) to discover benefits like Medicare/Medicaid, CalFresh, etc. DHHS Partnering with PRM to co-locate trained enrollers.
Older adults need intensive case management and one-on-one support
Certified Nursing Assistants training: Support for caregivers through National Asian Pacific Center for Aging provides senior care training. McBridePark Senior Center serves Cambodian meals, Dream Beyond Foundation Older adults silently internalize their experiences – headaches, stomach aches, nightmares, stigma for labeling as mental health Address emotional needs through Buddhist Mind, Body & Spirit approach.
Social networks are better than therapy.
Lack of affordable housing Seniors are beginning to co-rent studio apartments (for example,$500/month for rent, with only $200 left for living)
Fear of deportation Utilize trusted Cambodian serving organizations to provide services and reassure seniors they can access services without fear of deportation.
Transportation is a barrier for many Helping clients apply for Access for free transportation Many are unfamiliar with technology and smart devices Adapting to use of Facebook and YouTube; training on filteringSPAM mail 74% of Cambodian Seniors are Monolingual Offer translation in Khmer and Lao 21 Long Beach’s Digital Divide
Source: Long Beach Business Journal – Oct 26 - Nov 6, 2017 Even if no longer working, online access for seniors is becoming increasingly important since information for
banking, social security and medicine is more often being dispensed online
“24% of people 65+ do not subscribe to broadband, and 17% don’t even own a computer of any kind.”
Barriers to access can include cost, lack of skills, lack of trust “Close to half of households subsisting on $10,000 or less per year – 42.9% – don’t have Internet access of any kind at home.” Lack of online access compounds existing inequalities in income, education level, and race
“While just 7% of whites living in Long Beach lack an Internet connection, the percentage rises to 12.4% for Asian-American residents, 16.9% for Latinos and 19.2% for Blacks.”
Even though the digital divide remains prevalent, access is becoming increasingly important for seniors
22 Source(s): Compilation of services from One Degree and Aunt Bertha data extracts, AgeWell Magazine, discoveries from interviews, and The LGBTQ Center of Long Beach, DHHS Mental Health, and SAFE Long Beach Resource Guides Inputs to Resources Mapping
Heat Map Assumptions & Observations
- Mapped only those services with Long Beach and Signal Hill zip codes - Mapped only low or no-cost services
- Listed organizations more than once to include multiple locations - Many Federal and State resources are not included in this map that can be accessed virtually.
1) The BenefitsCheckUp (www.NCOA.org) team monitors over 2,500 federal, state, and private benefit programs that can match to individual’s eligibility requirements using their comprehensive tool.
2) Last year, the United Cambodian Community (UCC) enrolled 595 clients into benefits that resulted in over $2 million dollars in savings for the community. 3) Aunt Bertha includes these federal and state programs in their online referral database, which is why the original search for Long Beach senior programs returned 1500 results. The search results were reduced by more than half to approximately 648 resources once the state and national providers were excluded.
- Removed Children related services, including children’s health (i.e. Children’s Institute), and children/youth mentorship (i.e. Centro CHA, Inc.); however, these organizations could serve as beneficial resources for the Senior population:
1) Seniors are more often caring for their grandchildren and could benefit from having family services information at their fingertips, just as a parent or any childcare provider
2) Several organizations that serve to mentor children and youth can serve as enriching volunteer opportunities for Seniors. The Youth/Children related organizations can provide Intergenerational opportunities for knowledge sharing, cultural enrichment, mentorship, and career counseling. 23 Senior Resources Matrix was compiled from:
1. One Degree www.1degree.org
2. Aunt Bertha www.auntbertha.com
3. AgeWell Magazine www.heartofida.org/agewell-long-beach/
4. LGBTQ Center Guide https://goo.gl/gh6UWH
5. Mental Health Guide https://goo.gl/SpctV3
6. SAFE Long Beach Guide
http://www.lbds.info/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=5507
7. Research discoveries
416
Total
Resources
Compiled
Categories for Mapping Services
Category Description
Support & Safety Support groups, case management, programs for crisis, addiction, grief, and family, cultural & life issues Volunteer/Activities Volunteer programs, activities, classes, museums, libraries, Health & Wellness Hospitals, clinics, medical offices, and medical equipment Housing Senior housing, convelesecent and nursing homes, and assisted living Basics Miscellaneous category providing 3 or more basic needs such as housing, food, clothing and clinic type services Mental Health Counsleing, therapy and support for mental health diagnosed conditions and disabilities Financial Career, legal and tax advisory services, and financial support, such as payment assistance for facilities Food Congregate meals, food programs and pantries
In-Home Care In-Home caregiver referrals including skilled medical and nursing, personal care and housekeeping support Transportation Dial-a-Lift, Transit Bus and Yellow Cab
Source(s): Senior Services Matrix data plotted using GPS tool by Emily Holman, DHHS, 4/17/2018 24 Heat Map of Low
and No-Cost
Senior Services
by Zip Code
Appendix
Analysis of Service Providers
1. Senior Links – Department of Health & Human Services (DHHS)
2. Parks Recreation & Marine (PRM) Senior Services
3. PRM 4th Street Senior Center Information & Assistance (I&A)
4. DHHS Multi-Service Center (MSC)
5. Long Beach Police Department (LBPD) – Senior Police Partners
6. Jewish Family & Children’s Services (JFCS)
7. SCAN Independence at Home (IAH)
8. Los Angeles County Area Agency on Aging (AAA) 25
DHHS Senior Links: Category of Services
• Over 88% of services provided at Senior
Links were Health/Medical
• Only 6% of services were housing related
• During the data collection period, the
Senior Links program operated with
minimal staffing and primarily for health
referrals. At full capacity, Senior Links
would have more social worker time to
address mental health and social services.
2 1
108
8 2
1 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Food
Health Insurance
Health/Medical
Housing
Mental Health
Other
S ERVI CES C ATEGO RI ES B AR C H ART
Cat 1 Count of Cat 1
Food 2
Health Insurance 1
Health/Medical 108
Housing 8
Mental Health 2
Other 1
122
26Source: Department of Health and Human Services (Long Beach Health Department) DHHS Senior Links: Type & Category of Services
• 122 Seniors were served over
the period of 1 ½ months
• Overwhelming majority of
clients are accessing the Senior
Links program as walk-ins 1 1 1
52 4
1 6
21 42
2 1
8 Other
Food
Health Insurance
Health/Medical
Housing
Mental Health
Health/Medical
Housing
Field Office Phone
Services provided by Type & Category by Sex
(Aug 31 - Oct 12, 2017) (1.5 months)
Female Male
27Source: Department of Health and Human Services (Long Beach Health Department) DHHS Senior Links: Age Ranges Served
• Diverse age ranges were equally served
• 33% are 60-69 yrs.
• 35% are 70-79 yrs.
• 25% are 80+ yrs.
• Only 8% were 50-59 yrs.
• Overall, 56% of those served were Female and
44% were male
• Females dominated each age range, with the
exception of 60-69 yrs., where there were 20%
more males. This is not surprising when
compared with demographic trends.
8%
33%
35%
21%
3%
Percentage Served by Age Range
50-59
60-69
70-79
80-89
90-99
8 16
27 14
32 24
15 12
1 0
5 10
15 20
25 30
50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-99
Female
Male
28Source: Department of Health and Human Services (Long Beach Health Department) DHHS Senior Links: Zip Codes Served
• Majority served reside within the Long
Beach Senior Center Zip Code 90802 (60%);
Senior Links is located at the 4th Street
Senior Center
• Next greatest number served come from
the adjacent zip code 90813 (14%)
Count of ID Column Labels
Row Labels 90802 90803 90804 90805 90806 90807 90810 90813 90814Grand Total 50-59 7 1 1 1 10
60-69 23 1 4 1 2 1 1 5 2 40
70-79 21 8 3 9 1 42
80-89 19 2 2 3 26
90-99 3 1 4
Grand Total 73 2 12 1 5 4 1 17 7 122
0 5
10 15
20 25
50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-99
90802
90803
90804
90805
90806
90807
90810
90813
90814
*Please note there is no representation from zip codes 90815 29Source: Department of Health and Human Services (Long Beach Health Department) Parks Recreation & Marine (PRM) Senior Services Breakdown - FY17 Senior Center
52%
Eldorado
21%
McBride
17%
Houghton
6%
Silverado
3%
Chavez
1%
Senior Services Breakdown - FY17
Senior Center Eldorado McBride Houghton Silverado Chavez Senior Center 213,438
Eldorado 85,317
McBride 68,676
Houghton 24,910
Silverado 12,529
Chavez 6,379
Total Services 411,249
Source: Parks, Recreation & Marine (PRM) 30
PRM Senior Services Breakdown - FY17
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 Programs
Drop-In, Self-Guided Activities
Active Class & Self-Guided Activities
Special Events
Lunch Program (Only)
Senior Services Comparison
Chavez Eldorado Houghton McBride Silverado Senior Center S
• Caring staff listening to and addressing the needs of each center’s population
• Variety of fun and entertaining programs are offered for socialization and stimulation
W
• Fragmentation of services for seniors across the centers O
• Provide institutional standard of practice for continuity of care • How many seniors are not leaving their homes to benefit from the services?
T
• Lack of funding sources
• Senior center facilities are old and need repairs, residents complain that senior centers do not have inviting facilities.
31Source: Parks, Recreation & Marine (PRM)
PRM Lunch Program Breakdown - FY17
26,252
17,459
13,506
9,917
2,455
1,208
0 5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
Senior Center Eldorado McBride Houghton Silverado Chavez Lunch Programs Served - FY 17
32Source: Parks, Recreation & Marine (PRM)
S
• Human Services Assn LA (HSA) provides meals at 4 of the 6 senior centers
• McBride offers both Cambodian and American menus daily W
• Disparate information dissuades patrons
• Different organizations provide meals, some organizations expect a $1 donation
O
• Congregate meals counter social isolation, improve mental health, and physical wellbeing
• Houghton Park has started a Crop Swap where residents exchange left over fruits and vegetables from their home gardens • Engage Long Beach-based Food Finders organization to serve seniors T
• Chavez currently serves around 5 meals a day --does not appear sustainable
4th Street Senior Center Services - FY17
20,600
17,050 16,231 15,370 14,654
18,926
16,094 17,500 17,837 17,111
19,358
22,707
0 5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
SENIOR CENTER SERVICES - FY17
Programs Drop-In, Self-Guided Activities
Active Class & Self-Guided Activities Special Events
Lunch Program (Only) Total
Programs
27%
Drop-In, Self-
Guided
Activities
35%
Active Class &
Self-Guided
Activities
21%
Special Events
5%
Lunch Program
(Only)
12%
SENIOR CENTER SERVICES BREAKDOWN - FY17
Senior Center Services - FY17
Programs 57,598
Drop-In, Self-Guided Activities 75,768
Active Class & Self-Guided Activities 44,151
Special Events 9,669
Lunch Program (Only) 26,252
Total 213,438
Community Services Supervisor Elyse Garcia
Daily Avg. Program Participants 890
Daily Avg. Meals 100
33Source: Parks, Recreation & Marine (PRM)
S • The Resource Center, Senior Links, and diversity of program offerings W • Dense location offers minimal parking
O • Establish an Office focusing on older adults
T
• Homelessness issues need to be addressed
El Dorado Senior Services - FY17
Eldorado West Senior Services - FY17
Programs 17,103
Drop-In, Self-Guided Activities 20,235
Active Class & Self-Guided Activities 30,520
Special Events 0
Lunch Program (Only) 17,459
Total 85,317
7,306 7,378 7,337 6,817
5,828
7,994 7,127 7,513 7,239 6,632
7,566
6,580
0 5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
EL DORADO WEST SENIOR PROGRAMS - FY17
Programs Drop-In, Self-Guided Activities
Active Class & Self-Guided Activities Special Events
Lunch Program (Only) Total
Programs
20%
Drop-In, Self-
Guided
Activities
24%
Active Class &
Self-Guided
Activities
36%
Special Events
0%
Lunch Program
(Only)
20%
EL DORADO SERVICES BREAKDOWN - FY17
Community Services Supervisor Sonny Seng
Daily Avg. Program Participants 100’s
Daily Avg. Meals 65
34Source: Parks, Recreation & Marine (PRM)
S
• Draw crowds: 200-300 for special events, 125-150 for dance/band, 65-70 for flower arranging
W
• Location is difficult to reach via public transportation O
• Opportunity to take best practical ideas and implement for Tech Talk classes across senior centers (how to check bus schedules, check store hours, setup online banking, pay utility bills, navigate doctors). Educatein groups based on levels of knowledge.
• Nice to have day trips
• Potential 10% increase in attendance if transportation provided.
T
• Digital Divide threatening independence and risking abuse from scam sites.
Technology can become overpowering. Lack of knowledge in use, not access to technology. Technology can liberate seniors to live independently.
McBride Senior Services Breakdown - FY17
5,344
7,258 7,349
3,807
5,511
6,680
5,418 5,278 5,849 5,883 5,850
4,449
0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
MCBRIDE SENIOR PROGRAMS - FY17
Programs Drop-In, Self-Guided Activities
Active Class & Self-Guided Activities Special Events
Lunch Program (Only) Total
Programs
15%
Drop-In, Self-
Guided
Activities
49%
Active Class &
Self-Guided
Activities
12%
Special Events
4%
Lunch Program
(Only)
20%
MCBRIDE SERVICES BREAKDOWN - FY17
McBride Senior Services - FY17
Programs 10,315
Drop-In, Self-Guided Activities 33,686
Active Class & Self-Guided Activities 8,669
Special Events 2,500
Lunch Program (Only) 13,506
Total 68,676
Community Services Supervisor Daveth Yoak
Daily Avg. Program Participants 25-60
Daily Avg. Meals 50-60
35Source: Parks, Recreation & Marine (PRM)
S • Offer Cambodian and American lunches
W • No transportation offered, Wi-Fi is unreliable
O
• Frequent calls requesting pickup of seniors from their homes to attend programs.
Could potentially increase participation by upwards of 20-30 more guests if provided transportation.
• Opportunity for better outreach and promotion
T
• Recent homeless encampment of 15 people ranging 35-60 years (smoking, trash, using bathroom outdoors, pets off leash), refused referral to MSC Houghton Senior Services Breakdown - FY17
2,511 1,978 1,955 1,839 1,585
5,056
1,763 1,940 1,550 1,348 1,709 1,676
0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
HOUGHTON SENIOR PROGRAMS - FY17
Programs Drop-In, Self-Guided Activities
Active Class & Self-Guided Activities Special Events
Lunch Program (Only) Total
Programs
10%
Drop-In, Self-
Guided
Activities
29%
Active Class &
Self-Guided
Activities
20%
Special Events
1%
Lunch Program
(Only)
40%
HOUGHTON SERVICES BREAKDOWN - FY17
Community Services Supervisor Kameron Talavera
Daily Avg. Program Participants 35-40
Daily Avg. Meals 20-40
Houghton Senior Services - FY17
Programs 2,390
Drop-In, Self-Guided Activities 7,339
Active Class & Self-Guided Activities 5,119
Special Events 145
Lunch Program (Only) 9,917
Total 24,910
36Source: Parks, Recreation & Marine (PRM)
S
• Offer Special Programs/Field Trips: i.e. OC Fair, America’s Got Talent taping • Provide Taxi vouchers and bus tokens as needed for ride home, doctor, shelter • Provide monthly Medical screenings: Healthcare Partners, CA Exchange, Caremore, SCAN
W
• Lost Free Molina Neighborhood Shuttle (lost 10-15 lunch participants) • Senior Wing was damaged by flooding (small cardio room, library and computer room)
O
• Recent groundbreaking of 5-year project to construct entire new building • Should be a curriculum for older adults shared across the senior centers • Resume Saturday and Sunday Programs
T
• 3 year waiting list for Senior Apartments
• Homelessness and substance use (4-5 people loiter after 6:30 pm) Silverado Senior Services Breakdown - FY17
Silverado Senior Services - FY17
Programs 4,650
Drop-In, Self-Guided Activities 106
Active Class & Self-Guided Activities 4,533
Special Events 785
Lunch Program (Only) 2,455
Total 12,529
991 862 728 783 727 696 643
1,272
1,523 1,421
1,595
1,288
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
SILVERADO SENIOR PROGRAMS - FY17
Programs Drop-In, Self-Guided Activities
Active Class & Self-Guided Activities Special Events
Lunch Program (Only) Total
Programs
37%
Drop-In, Self-
Guided
Activities
1%
Active Class &
Self-Guided
Activities
36%
Special Events
6%
Lunch Program
(Only)
20%
SILVERADO SERVICES BREAKDOWN - FY17
Community Services Supervisor Etnangte Roeung
Daily Avg. Program Participants 25-60
Daily Avg. Meals 20-40
37Source: Parks, Recreation & Marine (PRM)
S
• Individualized attention. For example, writing down questions they should ask their doctor during their visit
• Amenities: Olympic Pool for water aerobics, large gym, and social hall with stage for dances • Intergenerational event overThanksgiving with games and mingling, where teens put on a show, and seniors served as role models (~ 200 attendees) W • Transportation: Most accessible for those who can walk, drive, or dropped off by care takers. Senior apartment across the street,yet unsure they are participating.
O
• Offer Intergenerational visits across parks as “Park Fairs” to intermingle and engage with all ages of Long Beach
• Attract more men, and more programming for male population • Engage senior apartments across the street for tailored programming • Increased senior “eyes” and presence in the park would decrease unwanted activity in the park
T • Residents express safety concerns about this park
• Nearby Century Villages at Cabrillo has a waitlist for Veteranhousing Chavez Senior Services Breakdown - FY17
Cesar Chavez Senior Services - FY17
Programs 0
Drop-In, Self-Guided Activities 1,888
Active Class & Self-Guided Activities 3,109
Special Events 174
Lunch Program (Only) 1,208
Total 6,379
507
401 354 348 374
494 543
845
700 663 680
470
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
CESAR CHAVEZ SENIOR PROGRAMS - FY17
Programs Drop-In, Self-Guided Activities
Active Class & Self-Guided Activities Special Events
Lunch Program (Only) Total
Programs
0% Drop-In, Self-
Guided
Activities
29%
Active Class &
Self-Guided
Activities
49%
Special Events
3%
Lunch Program
(Only)
19%
CESAR CHAVEZ SERVICES BREAKDOWN - FY17
Community Services Supervisor Heidi Mazas
Daily Avg. Program Participants 4-11
Daily Avg. Meals 5 (previously 15)
38Source: Parks, Recreation & Marine (PRM)
S
• Collaboration amongst seniors and teens to implement carnival for kids • Outdoor garden for cooking activities
• Shared workout facility with dedicated time for women and seniors only • Bus stop is in close proximity
W
• Lack of senior participation overall. Programming posted in 7 senior homes in the area.
However, competing proximity to 4th street Senior Center draws a greater audience O
• Opportunity to draw more male programming since majority attendance is female • Vibrant child and teen program can address senior needs • Desire more partnerships with neighboring organizations (i.e. to provide pottery classes) T
• Homeless population of around 50 seniors (accessing facility to charge phones), removed electrical outlets outside the building
• Some homeless have vouchers, but lack of housing to accept vouchers 4th Street Senior Center Information & Assistance (I&A) Stats299 387
353
317
276
264
158
146
176
160
672
609
697
610
513
513
312
244
326
221
750
886
958
903
706
800
461
341
461
357
J A N U A R Y F E B R U A R Y M A R C H A P R I L M A Y J U N E J U L Y A U G U S T S E P T E M B E R O C T O B E R INCOMING CALLS & WALK -INS - SENIOR CENTER 2017
Incoming Calls - Reception Incoming Calls - Direct Svc Walk-Ins • The next several slides share data from January through October 2017 demonstrating the extensive level of care and service provided through calls coming into the reception desk, and I&A hotline and walk-ins *Caveat that drop in numbers has to do with 1) issues with the new phone system not routing rotary dial calls and 2) volunteers not always capturing stats on a consistent basis 39Source: Parks, Recreation & Marine (PRM)
4th Street Senior Center I&A Stats
1721
1882
2008
1830
1495 1577
931
731
963
738
0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER TOTAL VISITS - SENIOR CENTER 2017
Incoming Calls Walk-Ins Total Visits
• Consolidated data for all incoming calls, whether to the reception desk or I&A office • Displays total incoming touchpoints for each month
40Source: Parks, Recreation & Marine (PRM)
4th Street Senior Center I&A Stats
189 187
245
193
163 161 163
104
159
80 0
100
200
300
400
500
600
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT
Advocacy Outreach Touchpoints
Senior Center 2017
Advocacy - Calls Made Advocacy - Letters Written Advocacy - Total • Consolidated data for all incoming calls, whether to the reception desk or to Room 107 • Displays total incoming touchpoints for each month
41Source: Parks, Recreation & Marine (PRM)
4th Street Senior Center I&A Stats
• Majority of requests are for the 10 food related resources, the most active onsite being Food Finders • Transportation is the second most requested referral
• Also popular is help signing up for PRM classes, utilities, discount programs, and filing income taxes 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Appt - Bet Tzedek/Other
Appt - Notary
Food - Emerg. Food Pantry
Food - Food Stamps
Food - OCFB Food Distrib.
Income Tax Assistance
Info - Brochures/Literature
Medical - Assistive Devices
Police - Sr. Police Partners
Referral - Case Mgmt
Referral - Financial
Referral - In-Home Services
Referral - Mental Health
Referral - St. Mary Senior Clinic
Registr - Classes
Registr - Trips
Transp - Bus Passes
Transp - Dial-a-Lift/Access
Transp - Pkg Permit - NIGHT
Transp - General
Utility - UUTE
Requested Service by Month Jan-Oct 2017
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT
42Source: Parks, Recreation & Marine (PRM)
4th Street Senior Center I&A Stats
Financial/Legal Appt - Bet Tzedek/Other
Financial/Legal Appt - Notary
Financial/Legal Referral - Financial
Financial/Legal Referral - Legal
Financial/Legal Income Tax Assistance
Financial/Legal Referral - Employment
Financial/Legal Social Security Issues
Food Food - Brown Bag Distrib.
Food Food - Emerg. Food Pantry
Food Food - Food Finders Distrib.
Food Food - Food Stamps
Food Food - Human Svc Assoc
Food Food - OCFB Food Distrib.
Housing Housing
Housing Referral - Homeless Issues
General Info Info - Board Postings/Binders
General Info Info - Brochures/Literature
General Info Info - Sr Ctr General/Vol Info
General Info Utility
Health Medical - Assistive Devices
Health Medical - Equip. Loans
Health Appt - HICAP
Health Referral - Mental Health
Health Referral - Senior Links
Health Referral - St. Mary Senior Clinic
Health Referral - Case Mgmt
Safety Police - Sr. Police Partners
Safety Referral - APS/Ombudsman
Quality of Life Referral - In-Home Services
Quality of Life Registr - Classes
Quality of Life Registr - Special Events
Quality of Life Registr - Trips
Transportation Transp - Bus Passes
Transportation Tranp - Bus Tokens
Transportation Transp - Dial-a-Lift/Access
Transportation Transp - Pkg Permit - DAY
Transportation Transp - Pkg Permit - NIGHT
Transportation Transp - Taxi Vouchers
Transportation Transp - General
Transportation Registr - AARP Driving
3677
4280
4605
2449
3381
2913 2792
2500 2499
2124
0 1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT
NUMBER OF TOUCHPOINTS
REFERRALS/SERVICES
SENIOR CENTER - JAN - OCT 2017
Financial/Legal Food Housing General Info Health Safety Quality of Life Transportation TOTAL • Touchpoints made for Referrals/Services handled on the spot or referred out • Recategorized the stats based on input from Staff and Clients to get a better idea of categories of service provided • Will be refining these categories with the Office of Aging in the future 43Source: Parks, Recreation & Marine (PRM)
4th Street Senior Center I&A Stats
Financial/Legal, 2,694, 9%
Food, 14,221, 46%
Housing, 1,743, 6%
General Info, 3,563, 11%
Health, 1,532, 5%
Safety, 163, 0%
Quality of Life, 2,228, 7%
Transportation, 5,076, 16%
CATEGORIES OF SERVICES
At the time of data collection, the I&A office was
staffed by one fulltime employee and part-time
volunteers.
44Source: Parks, Recreation & Marine (PRM)
4th Street Senior Center I&A Stats – Oct 2017
103, 33%
209, 67%
The Center
Incoming Calls Walk-Ins
22 10
17 9 9
12 24
21 17
12 27
18 22
4 3
22 21
6 14
10 12
00 10
20 30
40 50
60 SENIOR RESOURCE CENTER VISITS - OCT 2017
Incoming Calls Walk-Ins Total Visits
0 5
10 15
20 25
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Monday
Tuesday
Senior Center Visits by Weekday - Oct 2017
Incoming Calls Walk-Ins
• Snapshot of October 2017 for a drilldown on the daily data 45Source: Parks, Recreation & Marine (PRM)
Age 50+ Accessing the DHHS Multi-Service Center (MSC)
October 2016 - September 2017
Source: Long Beach Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) The Multi-Service Center (MSC) is the
homeless continuum of care for the city
of Long Beach. Multiple providers
serving individuals experiencing
homelessness are co-located at the MSC
in West Long Beach. The MSC is
managed by the City of Long Beach
Department of Health & Human
Services.
46 Age 50+ Accessing the MSC
October 2016 - September 2017
47Source: Long Beach Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) Age 50+ Accessing the MSC
October 2016 - September 2017
• Recipients of services entered from 134 known zip codes o Below is a breakdown of the numbers of seniors served per the 10 zip codes within Long Beach o Seniors access the Multi-Services Center came from 125 zip codes outside of Long Beach Zip Code Number Served
90813 238
90802 41
90805 32
90804 29
90810 23
90806 20
90807 10
90803 7
90814 7
90808 3
48Source: Long Beach Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) LBPD Senior Police Partners
Snapshot of January – June 2017
38%
Referred to Adult
Protective Services
10%
Veteran
Status
2, 6%
20, 65%
9, 29%
Majority of visits were for those aged 65+
50-64 65-79 80+
*Please note that a single visit may have multiple reasons for contact 49Source: Long Beach Police Department (LBPD)
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 90802 90808 90805 90813 90804 90803 90806 90815 90810 90814 Number of Visits by Zip Code
Intake & Referral Requests by Category
Sept 2016 – Dec 2017
Ages 50+
Reference: Data provided by Leslie R. Evans, LCSW, Director of Social Work and Older Adult Services 0 10
20 30
40 50
60 246 Total Intake & Referral
Total
• JFCS’ mission is to empower people to make positive changes through professional, affordable counseling and support services • The Intake & Referral Hotline provides assistance, resources and tools for people who don't know where to go, or who to ask • The goal is to help seniors to live with dignity and age safely in their homes • JFCS Hotline received a total of 246 calls from Sept 2016-Dec 2017 • Not surprising, housing requests was at the top of the list, followed by the growing need for in-home health care assistance 50 Count of Need by Age Range, Ethnicity and Religion
Sept 2016 – Dec 2017
Ages 50+
Reference: Data provided by Leslie R. Evans, LCSW, Director of Social Work and Older Adult Services 0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
50-61 62-74 75-89 90+
Count of Need by Age Range
Total
0 50 100 150 200
Asian
Black
Caucasian
Latino
Other
(blank)
Count of Need by Ethnicity
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
Jewish Non-Jewish (blank)
Count of Need by Religion
Total
51 Needs by Age Range
Sept 2016 – Dec 2017
Reference: Data provided by Leslie R. Evans, LCSW, Director of Social Work and Older Adult Services 16 10 9
6 4
2 2 1 1 1 1
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
Age Range: 50 -61 years
Total
21 18
12 10
5 4 3 2 2 2 1 1 1
0 5
10 15
20 25
Age Range: 62 -74 years
Total
20 14
11 11
4 3 3 2 2 2 1
0 5
10 15
20 25
Age Range: 75 -89 years
Total
16 7 6
3 2 2 1 1
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
Age Range: 90+ years
Total
52 SCAN Independence at Home
Program (IAH)
Jan-Nov 2017
• General Questions about Aging is the largest category: Unduplicated count, therefore, those with multiple needs are categorized as “General Questions” (see next slide for the categories)
• IAH Service (grey) is third largest category (after follow-up): Calls to an Independence at Home (IAH) program are handled by highly trained professionals who complete an assessment for referrals to IAH programs or other agencies as appropriate (i.e. health, safety and welfare issues).
• Data includes all of Los Angeles and Orange counties, and thus is not specific to Long Beach. It is estimated that 40% of IAH data is for Long Beach Combination of IAH Calls Provided –
January to November 2017 (Unduplicated Count)
Category Count
Assistive Devices/DME 15
Caregiving/In-Home Care 168
Case Management 415
Community Based Adult Services (CBAS) 3
Case Manager/Care Planner Follow Up 188
Counseling Services 84
Emergency Response System Assistance 23
Finances/Money Management 12
Follow-up on a prior call (repeat) 816
Food Services 40
Health ED 23
Health Fair 4
Health Services 3
Housing 74
IAH Services (General Information) 484
In Home Supportive Services (IHSS) 31
General questions about aging and related
services (multiple issues and questions) 1,588
Legal 0
Medi-Cal/Medi-Care 8
Medication Mgmt. 9
MKT 4
Respite Care 5
SCAN Member 64
SCAN Sales 8
Socialization 7
Transportation Assistance 53
Unknown 18
Waitlist Status for IAH Programs 101
TOTAL 3802
Averaging 17 calls per day*
Categories of Calls
General questions about aging and related services
(multiple issues and questions)
Follow-up on a prior call (repeat)
IAH Services (General Information)
Case Mgmt.
Case Manager/Care Planner Follow Up
*Assumption: 3802/220 days (20 working days/month *11 months) 53 SCAN Independence at Home (IAH) Categories
• Multipurpose Senior Services Program (MSSP): Long-term care management for nursing home certifiable community dwellers. Services provided in Southern Los Angeles County including Long Beach. • Supportive Services Program: Los Angeles County service for short term care management of individuals 60+. Services are providing in southern Los Angeles County including Long Beach. • Family Caregiver Support Program: Los Angeles County service for family caregivers of older adults. Services are providing in southern Los Angeles County including Long Beach.
• Insights Behavioral Health Support Services: In-home counseling for depression and anxiety. Services are provided throughout Los Angeles and Orange Counties.
• COACH: Care management program for either older adults or their caregivers. Services are provided throughout Los Angeles and Orange Counties.
• Volunteer Action for Aging: Volunteer program to decrease senior social isolation. Services are provided throughout Los Angeles and Orange Counties.
• Health & Wellness Community Services: Health education staff that go out into the community and provide group healthy living education in multiple languages utilizing an evidence-based library of more than 50 topics. Additionally, they also go out and provide free health screenings. Services are provided throughout Los Angeles, Orange, and Riverside Counties. • C-MEDS, Medication Safety Program: In-home service to help properly understand medication administration, storage and increase medication literacy. Services are provided throughout Los Angeles and Orange Counties.
Many calls are directly requesting enrollment in one of IAH’s community-wide free services.
IAH delivers the following direct services:
54 Los Angeles County AAA Data on Numbers Served
55 Human Services Association (HSA) is the primary, AAA-funded provider of Elderly Nutrition Program Services, Family Caregiver Support Services (FCSP) and Supportive Services operating in the Long Beach area. The nutrition funding is allocated to HSA for one of eight geographical areas, Gateway Cities, whereas FCSP and Supportive Services funding is allocated to serve District 4, both of which include Long Beach. The total funding allocated to HSA for these services is $5.46 million but please note that this allocation is not only for Long Beach but for all cities and Census Designate of Places within the geographical region that they serve. Funding by city is not available.
Additionally, LA County Workforce Development, Aging and Community Services provides the following Countywide services at an annual allocation of about $2.1 million, which includes services to Long Beach:
• Health Insurance Counseling and Advocacy Program
• Disease Prevention and Health Promotion Program
• Ombudsman Program
Source: LA County Workforce Development, Aging and Community Services Note: Counts represent information for data collected on registered participants; Client level data is not available for additional non-registered services delivered in the report period
Thank you
Karen Doolittle, FUSE Executive Fellow
[email protected]
APPENDICES | Page 7
APPENDIX E – RELOCATION ASSISTANCE POLICIES
CITY REQUIRED RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM SUMMARY
BERKELEY38 Determined on a case by case basis. Relocation ordinance for repairs unassociated with natural disasters,
uniform reloca tion act for
rehabilitation/housing projects.
Ellis Act O rdinance for relocation
assistance applies for low -income
tenants subject to eviction through the
Ellis act.
A per diem payment to compensate for
hotel or motel accommodations and
meals. Such payme nt amount shall be
established by City Council Resolution
and be based upon Tenant Household
size.
The City may provide payment required
by Section 13.84.070 to Tenant
Households in situations where the
Owner fails or refuses to pay for
required Relocation costs. The City shall
recover from the Owner all costs
incurred because of making such
payments.
EL MONTE39 Information not available. Tenant Relocation Ordinance for Mobile Homes. City staff reported this , but
detailed information was not provided.
FRESNO40 A sum equal to two months of fair
market rent for the area as determined
by HUD.
Tenants are eligible if they are displaced
and ordered to vacate due to health and
safety risks , a nd are entitled to an
amount sufficient for utility deposits as
determined by local enforcement
agency, and the return of a security
deposit.
GLENDALE41 Two (2) times the amount of current fair
market rent plus $1,000
If a rental unit of similar size is chosen,
tenant receives the additional amount.
38 https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Housing/Level_3_-_General/RelocationOrdinance.pdf 39 Reported by City of El Monte.
40 https://www.fresno.gov/cityattorney/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2016/08/Tenant-Relocation- Assistance.pdf
41 http://qcode.us/codes/glendale/view.php?topic=9-9_30-9_30_035&frames=on
APPENDICES | Page 8
CITY REQUIRED RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM SUMMARY
HAWTHORNE42 Qualified tenants: $2,500
Eligible Tenants: $1,000
Higher rents for replacement housing,
and related expenses, which payment
shall be made as follows:
Entire fee paid to a single tenant.
If a unit is occupied by two or more
tenants, any one of which is a qualified
tenant, each will be paid a pro rata share
of the $2,500 fee.
If none of whom is a qualified tenant,
each will be paid a pro rata share of the
$1,000 fee.
In no event shall the landlord be liable to
pay more than $2,500 to all tenants
residing in a unit in which at least one
qualified tenant lives, or to pay more
than $1000 to all tenants residing in a
unit in which no tenant is a qualified
tenant.
Where a tenant is entitled to relocation
benefits pursuant to any local, state or
federal law, such benefits shall operate
as a credit against any fee required to be
paid to the tenant.
LONG BEACH43 $4,500 per household, plus the
following based on eligibility:
- $2,000 for senior households
- $2,500 reimbursement for
disability modifications
Relocation assistance payments only
applicable within Coastal Zone for very -
low and low -income households due to
demolition or condominium conversion.
(LBMC 21.60.310)
LOS ANGELES44 Eligible Tenants: $7,750 - $10,550
Qualified Tenants: $15,550 - $20,050
Relocation Assistance Program applies
for no -fault evictions. Level of required
assistance depends on the length of
tenancy, income, and other
characteristics of the household being
relocated, as well as the type of unit.
Higher relocation assistance required
for households with seniors, members
42 http://www.qcode.us/codes/hawthorne/view.php?topic=9-vi-9_72-9_72_040 43https://library.municode.com/ca/long_beach/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT21ZO_CH21.60 R EASMEHONEPEVELOLOINHO_DIVIIIREAS_21.60.310REBEBEPR
44 http://hcidla.lacity.org/Relocation-Assistance
APPENDICES | Page 9
CITY REQUIRED RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM SUMMARY
with disabilities, or children; or who are
under 80%.
NEWPORT
BEACH45
Determined by relocation impact
report.
Mobile Home Parks Only. In accordance
with GC 65863.7, requires a relocation
impact report as a prerequisite for the
closure of a mobile home park. Report
includes options for tenants for
relocation assistance, including payment
of reasonable costs to relocate mobile
homes, payments to purchase the
homes, and payment o f relocation
expenses.
OAKLAND46 Equal to two times the current monthly
rent.
A unit of comparable or same size must
be identified.
For temporary displacement, the
landlord will pay actual and reasonable
moving costs and accommodation costs.
PALM
SPRINGS47
Mobile home owners who move their
homes receive the following:
- $6,000 for spaces occupied by
single-wide mobile homes
- $12,000 for spaces occupied by
doublewide mobile homes
- $15,000 for spaces occupied by
triple-wide mobile homes
Said sums sha ll be adjusted by the
percentage increase in the Consumer
Price Index since January 1989.
Mobile home owners who do not move
their mobile home shall be entitled to
the “in -place” value of their mobile
homes.
PASADENA48 An amount based on a daily rate equal
to two (2) times the daily pro -rata
portion of the rental rate of the tenant's
unit.
Actual costs of moving and storage.
For each day that temporary housing is
required, tenant shall not be required to
pay rent. Landlord may select a storage
facility within a five (5) mile radius of
tenant's rental unit.
The displacement and relocation of a
tenant pursuant to this section shall not
terminate the tenancy of the displaced
45 http://www.newportbeachca.gov/pln/general_plan/06_ch5_housing_web.pdf 46 http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/groups/ceda/documents/agenda/oak045391.pdf 47 http://www.qcode.us/codes/palmsprings/
48https://library.municode.com/ca/pasadena/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT9PUPEMOWE _ARTVIIMI_CH9.75TEPR_9.75.070TERE
APPENDICES | Page 10
CITY REQUIRED RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM SUMMARY
$1,200 for tenants of housing
associated with their educational
institution,
The displacement and relocation of a
tenant pursuant to this section shall not
terminate the tenancy of the displaced
tenant. The displaced tenant shall have
the right to reo ccupy his/her unit upon
the completion of the work necessary
for the unit to comply with housing,
health, building or safety laws or any
governmental order , and the tenant
shall retain all rights of tenancy that
existed prior to the displacement.
Should temporary relocation exceed 120
days, landlord may opt to terminate
tenancy. Landlord shall however be
required to pay all relocation fees.
The relocation allowance and moving
expense allowance is available to
students, faculty members, and/or staff
members, of any educational institution,
living in housing provided by that same
educational institution, if such student,
faculty member. These persons must be
able to demonstrate , with evidence
acceptable to the city, that their tenancy
was terminated by the landlord on a
date that is more than 365 days after the
date on which the student, faculty
member, and/or staff member
discontinued enrollment in the
institution as a student or discontinued
employment as a faculty member
and/or staff member at the educati onal
institution.
For cases in which the educational
institution enters into separate leases
with individuals sharing a rental unit as
roommates, the following relocation
allowance and moving expense
allowance shall apply per person: (i)
Relocation allow ance—Twice the HUD
fair market rent for a studio unit; and (ii)
Moving expenses.
APPENDICES | Page 11
CITY REQUIRED RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM SUMMARY
REDDING49 One and one -half times the monthly
rent.
- $50 utility allowance
The subdivider shall provide moving
expenses of one and one -half times the
monthly rent to any tenant household
that relocates from the building to be
converted after approval of the
condominium conversion by the city,
except when the tenant household has
given written notice of its intent to
convert or the tenant household is being
evicted for proven per formance failure
in a rental agreement.
Utility Allowances: The subdivider shall
provide a utility connection and deposit
allowance of fifty dollars to each tenant
household upon vacation of its unit.
RICHMOND50 Maximum cap per unit based on type of
rental unit and nature of relocation:
Owner Move In
Base Amount
- Studio $3,400
- 1 Bedroom $5,250
- 2+ Bedroom $7,150
Qualified Tenant
- Studio $3,950
- 1 Bedroom $6,050
- 2+ Bedroom $8,200
Withdrawal from Rental Market
Base Amount
- Studio $6,850
- 1 Bedroom $10,500
- 2+ Bedroom $14,250
Qualified Tenant
- Studio $7,850
- 1 Bedroom $12,100
- 2+ Bedroom $16,400
If a Rental Unit is occupied by one
Tenant then the entire per unit
Relocation Payment shall be paid to the
Tenant. If more than one Tenant
occupies the Rental Unit, the total
amount of the Relocation Paymen ts
shall be paid on a pro-rata share to each
Eligible Tenant.
If a Rental Unit is occupied by one
Tenant then the entire per unit
Relocation Payment shall be paid to the
Tenant. If more than one Tenant
occupies the Rental Unit, the total
amount of the Rel ocation Payments
shall be paid on a pro-rata share to each
Eligible Tenant.
The Relocation Payments will be
calculated on a per Rental Unit basis,
distributed on a per Tenant basis, and
includes a maximum cap per Rental
Unit.
49https://library.municode.com/ca/redding/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT17SU_ CH17.34RECOCO_17.34.060TERI
50 http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/3374/Fees
APPENDICES | Page 12
CITY REQUIRED RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM SUMMARY
In the Event of Substantial Repairs
Hotel or Motel, $145 per day per
household
Meal Expenses, $29 per day per person
Laundry $1, per day per household
Pet Accommodations
Cat - $28
Dog - $51
per day per animal
A "Qualified Tenant Househo ld" is any
household that includes at least one
Tenant that is a Senior Citizen, Disabled,
or has at least one minor dependent
child.
RIVERSIDE51 Information not provided. Relocation Allowance was reported by City staff, but no details were provided.
SAN
FRANCISCO52
$4,500 for each tenant, but not to
exceed $13,000 to all tenants in the
same unit.
And additional $3000 for 60+ years of
age, if there’s at least one minor.
Of the $4,500, half is paid at the time of
the service of the notice to quit, and t he
rest of which shall be paid when the unit
is vacated.
Of the $3,000, half is paid within fifteen
(15) calendar days of the landlord's
receipt of written notice from the Eligible
Tenant of entitlement to the relocation
payment along with supporting
evidence, and the remaining $1,500
when the Eligible Tenant vacates the
unit.
Within 30 days after notification to the
landlord of a claim of entitlement to
additional relocation expenses because
of disability, age, or having children in
the household, the l andlord shall give
written notice to the Rent Board of the
claim for additional relocation
assistance, and if the landlord disputes
the claim.
Commencing March 1, 2007, these
relocation expenses, including the
51 Reported by City of Riverside.
52 https://sfrb.org/section-379c-tenants-rights-relocation-no-fault-evictions
APPENDICES | Page 13
CITY REQUIRED RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM SUMMARY
maximum relocation expenses per unit,
shall i ncrease annually, rounded to the
nearest dollar, at the rate of increase in
the "rent of primary residence"
expenditure category of the Consumer
Price Index (CPI).
SAN JOSE53 Base Assistance:
Studio: $6,925
1 Bedroom: $8,400
2 Bedroom: $10,353
3 Bedroom: $12,414
Qualified Assistance
Studio: $2,770
1 Bedroom: $3,360
2 Bedroom: $4,141
3 Bedroom: $4,966
Total Base + Qualified
Studio: $9,695
1 Bedroom: $11,760
2 Bedroom: $14,494
3 Bedroom: $17,380
The City’s Relocation Consultant
determines the amount a tenant may be
entitled to, otherwise the determination
is based on the information provided by
the Landlord.
SAN
LEANDRO54
$7000, and $1,000 for special -
circumstances households.
The landlord shall provide relocation
assistance in the following amounts:
Three times the most current Fair
Market Rents or three times the monthly
rent that the tenant(s) is paying at the
time the notice of the landlord -caused
termination is delivered, whichever
amount is greater.
SAN MARCOS55 No Information Provided Nothing was provided by City staff.
SANTA
MONICA56
The landlord has the option to provide:
• 5 days or less: tenant may be
temporarily placed in a safe and
sanitary hotel/motel, receive per
diem money for temporary housing
Landlords are required to provide
temporary relocation assistance in the
following cases:
• When the landlord needs to
complete repairs to comply with the
law
53 http://www.sanjoseca.gov/index.aspx?NID=5517
54 https://www.sanleandro.org/depts/cd/housing/tra/default.asp 55 Reported by City of San Marcos.
56 https://www.smgov.net/departments/cpu/content.aspx?id=8472
APPENDICES | Page 14
CITY REQUIRED RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM SUMMARY
and expenses, or alter nate
comparable housing
• 6 days or more: tenant gets per
diem money or alternate
comparable housing
The landlord must pay for all actual
reasonable moving costs, including
expenses for:
• transporting personal property
• packing and unpacking
• insurance of per sonal property
while in transit
• compensation for any damage
during the move
• necessary storage of personal
property
• disconnection and re-connection of
utilities
• other costs due to a tenant’s special
needs, including needs resulting
from disability or age
Fixed amounts to cover the costs of
hotel, meals, laundry and pet boarding.
These amounts are updated each year.
Effective July 1, 2016, the amounts are:
• Hotel or motel: $155 per day per
household
• Meal expenses: $29 per day per
person
• Laundry: $1 per day per household
if the rental property included
laundry facilities.
• Pet accommodations: $28 per day
per cat; $51 per day per dog; and
actual daily boarding cost for all
other pets. The pet
accommodation per diem is
required for lawful pets if the
temporary relocation
accommodation does not accept
pets.
• When the unit is deemed
uninhabitable, for e xample the unit
does not have a working bathroom,
or there is no hot water, etc.
• When a government officer or
agency requires a tenant to vacate
If a tenant must move out of their rental
and the owner chose not to provide
comparable housing, the owner mus t
pay for:
• Hotel or motel room
• Meal expenses
• Moving and storage expenses (when
• required)
• Laundry (if the property has laundry
• facilities)
• Pet accommodations (if the tenant
has a
lawful pet)
APPENDICES | Page 15
CITY REQUIRED RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM SUMMARY
VENTURA57 • Determined on a case by case basis. Relocation assistance for mobile home parks only. Relocation benefits for
mobile homes must bear a relationship
to the cost of displaced residents finding
alternative housing and are determined
on a case-by-case basis.
57 https://www.cityofventura.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/7055/Ord__6_600_000____Mobile_home 1 City Relocation
Program Trigger(s) Amount Property Type Household Type Total Units Rental Units % Rental Units
Median
Rent, 2017
ACS 1-Yr
Estimates
Anaheim No - - - - 104,533 55,228 52.8% $ 1,578.00 Bakersfield No - - - - 122,829 49,639 40.4% $ 1,082.00 Sacramento No - - - - 194,917 95,780 49.1% $ 1,215.00 San Diego No - - - - 533,973 264,523 49.5% $ 1,642.00 Fresno Limited Code Enforcement,
Demolition
2 months' HUD Fair Market
Rent, utility service deposits,
and refund of security deposit
All Rentals All Tenants 176,617 87,715 49.7% $ 954.00 Long Beach Limited Code Enforcement,
Demolition
$3,941 base, $2,000 for senior,
up to $2,500 for disability
modifications; increased by CPI
annually (LBMC 21.30)
All Rentals All Tenants 173,741 99,002 57.0% $ 1,278.00 Los Angeles Yes Code Enforcement,
Demolition, Ellis Act,
No-Fault Eviction
$7,750 to $20,050 (higher
amount for lower-income,
disabled, seniors, and families)
Units covered
under Rent
Stabilization
All Tenants 1,457,762 862,062 59.1% $ 1,397.00 Oakland Yes Code Enforcement,
Condo Conversion,
Ellis Act, No-Fault
Eviction
$6,875 to $10,545 depending on
unit size. Additional $2,500 for
lower income, senior, disabled,
and families
All Rentals All Tenants 169,303 96,048 56.7% $ 1,394.00 San Francisco Yes Code Enforcement,
Demolition, Ellis Act,
No-Fault Eviction
$5,470 to $19,449 depending on
unit size
Units Covered
under Rent
Stabilization
Ordinance
All Tenants 390,376 224,960 57.6% $ 1,836.00 San Jose Yes Code Enforcement,
Substantial
Rehabilitation, Ellis
Act, Owner Move-In,
Conversion to
Permitted Use
$6,925 to $17,380 depending on
unit size and household
characteristics
All Rentals All Tenants 331,510 135,834 41.0% $ 2,109.00 CITIES THAT DO NOT OFFER RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS (4) CITIES THAT HAVE CODIFIED STATE REQUIREMENTS (2)
CITIES WITH EXPANDED RELOCATION REQUIREMENTS (4)
TEN LARGEST CALIFORNIA CITIES
1 of 1
APPENDICES | Page 16
APPENDIX F – REPORT ON CITYWIDE RENTAL RATES
City of Long Beach
Working Together to Serve
Date: September 29, 2017
To: {atrick H. West, City Manag�
From:
For:
Subject:
Amy J. Sodek, Director of Develo m
John Keisler, Director of Economic:'h]�ftlroA1
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Report on Citywide Rental Rates
Memorandum
On February 21, 2017, the City Council held a Study Session on a draft affordable housing report entitled "Revenue Tools and Incentives for the Production of Affordable and Workforce Housing (Housing Report)." The Housing Report contained, among other things, data on current and historical rental rates in Long Beach. Specifically, the Housing Report contained rental data obtained through Zillow, an online real estate and rental marketplace.
During the Study Session, concern was expressed over the accuracy of this data. Staff was asked to conduct additional research on rental rates.
To address the City Council's concern on the accuracy of rental rates, Economic Development Department staff have entered into a contract with Costar Group, Inc. (Costar), a firm that provides information, analytics, and market research to the multi-family commercial real estate industry. The data provided by Costar is consistent and reliable, and has been used to prepare the attached final Report of Citywide Rental Rates. The Economic Development Department will update the Rent Report on an annual basis beginning July 2018, and will utilize this data to monitor progress toward Quality of Life objectives related to housing access as outlined in the Economic Development Blueprint.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Patrick Ure, Housing Development Officer, at (562) 570-6026 or [email protected].
AB:PU:KB
R:ITO-FROM-FOR MEMOS\2017\9 2617 RENTAL RATE RESEARCH V10.DOCX ATTACHMENT:
REPORT ON CITYWIDE RENTAL RATES
CC: CHARLES PARKIN, CITY ATTORNEY
LAURA L. DOUD, CITY AUDITOR
TOM MODICA, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER
KEVIN JACKSON, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER
REBECCA JIMENEZ, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER
OSCAR W. ORCI, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
PATRICK URE, HOUSING DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
CITY CLERK (REF. FILE #17-0108)
CITY OF
LONG BEACH
REPORT ON CITYWIDE RENTAL RATES
Through June 30, 2017
Department of Development Services
Housing and Neighborhood Services Bureau
Department of Economic and Property Development
September 26, 2017
Report on Citywide Rental Rates
Background
On February 21, 2017, the City Council held a Study Session to discuss a draft affordable housing report entitled "Revenue Tools and Incentives for the Production of Affordable and Workforce Housing" (Housing Report). The background research in the draft report contained data from online real estate and rental marketplace Zillow.com.
However, concerns were expressed over the accuracy and reliability of the data provided by Zillow. The City Council requested that staff conduct additional research on rental rates to paint a more comprehensive picture of the state of the rental market in Long Beach.
In April 2017 staff provided a draft rental report via a memorandum to City Council. The report contained a survey of a number of different data sources regarding rental rates in Long Beach. These sources included commercial real-estate data firm REIS, Inc., the American Community Survey, Apartments.com, and Craigslist.org. Staff found that there was no reliable way to determine whether the data from these sources was up-to date or comprehensive, and began investigation into a more thorough and current data source.
In May 2017 Economic Development staff began a subscription service to the commercial real-estate database Costar Market Analytics (Costar). This incluc;les access to the Costar Group's comprehensive database for Orange, Los Angeles, and Ventura counties, as well as to a variety of tools for market analysis. Costar provides granular, verified data on commercial, industrial, and multi-family residential real estate.
To obtain this data, CoStar's market research team investigates, tracks, and verifies property characteristics in major markets using phone surveys of property owners and managers, as well as provides up-to-date field research, which is updated for all properties in a market on a monthly basis. Thus, Costar provides the most comprehensive source of data on current rental rates in Long Beach.
This data source is not without its limitations. Many households in Long Beach rent non apartment rental properties such as condominiums, single-family homes, duplexes, and triplexes. Costar does not gather data for these types of properties. Furthermore, the City of Long Beach (City) does not require owners of 1-, 2- and 3-unit properties to obtain a residential rental business license, making it challenging to track the number of these units that are considered rental properties.
costar Analytics
There are approximately 67,500 rental housing units in 7,500 multi-family residential rental properties containing four or more housing units, according to business license records kept by the City1• As of Q1 2017, CoStar's database contained data fo·r 4,085 multi-family rental properties containing 56,220 housing units in Long Beach. Of these properties, Costar has collected quarterly data on asking rents dating to 2007 or earlier for 1,458 multi-family properties containing 29,039 housing units. This means that 1 City of Long Beach, Department of Financial Management Report on Citywide Rental Rates
Costar provides comprehensive subset data for approximately 20% of all multi-family buildings, and for 43% of all multi-family housing units citywide. While Costar attempts to obtain complete rental rate data for all properties in the city, not all property owners provide this data. Nevertheless, the Costar database represents the most comprehensive, up to date, and verifiable source of rental rate data available to staff.
Inventory of Rental Projects and Units
Table 1 presents the Costar rental inventory results organized to show the five ZIP codes with the largest number of buildings and units first. These five ZIP codes represent 78% of the buildings and 74% of the units identified in the overall Costar database.
Table 1. Costar Rent Data Availability 2
Total in CoStar
Buildings Units
• . ' t: 56,220
14,100
90804 776 7,270
90805 301 6,561
90806 410 4,058
90813 854 9,685
90803 325 4,034
90807 128 2,285
90808 34 619
90810 73 1,692
90814 298 3,222
90815 55 2,694
Source: Costar Market Analytics
Average Rents: 2007-2017
With Rent Data Since
2007
Buildings Units
29,039
6,890
238 3,076
143 4,432
175 2,039
340 5,124
99 1,519
46 1,284
14 431
22 992
86 1,209
23 2,091
Staff obtained the mean rents, published by Costar quarterly, dating back to 2007 for both Long Beach as a whole, and for the ZIP codes within the city. 3 This data is summarized in the following table.
2 The Costar information is compiled from multiple data sets. There is a seven building and 48 unit difference between the ZIP code estimates and the summation used to reach the citywide estimates. 3 "Mean" and "average" are used interchangeably throughout this analysis.
Report on Citywide Rental Rates
Table 2. Mean Rents
ZIP Q1 2017
Citywide $1,333
90802 $1,595
90804 $1,261
90805 $1,159
90806 $954
90813 $1,089
90803 $1,545
90807 $1,399
90808 $1,380
90810 $777
90814 $1,317
90815 $1,947
Q1 2016
$1,280
$1,516
$1,215
$1,113
$919
$1,046
$1,504
$1,335
$1,307
$752
$1,287
$1,909
Source: Costar Market Analytics
Changes in Average Rents: 2007-2017
Q1 2012 Q1 2007
$1,091 $1,092
$1,244 $1,210
$1,034 $1,028
$1,002 $1,022
$774 $778
$881 $904
$1,345 $1,406
$1,108 $1,100
$1,170 $1,149
$849 $875
$1,127 $1,139
$1,548 $1,535
Citywide, the mean rent for multi-family housing units, of all bedroom configurations, rose from $1,280 in Q1 2016 to $1,333 in Q1 2017. This represents a 4.1 % increase. As shown in Table 3, when all the ZIP codes are considered separately, the increases between 2016 and 2017 range from 2.0% to 5.6%. The five ZIP codes with the largest number of buildings and units exhibited one-year growth rates ranging from 3.8% to
5.2%.
Table 3. Total Rent Growth, 2007-2017
ZIP 1-Year 5-Year 10-Year
Citywide 4.1% 22.2% 22.1%
90802 5.2% 28.2% 31.8%
90804 3.8% 22.0% 22.7%
90805 4.1% 15.7% 13.4%
90806 3.8% 23.3% 22.6%
90813 4.1% 23.6% 20.5%
90803 2.7% 14.9% 9.9%
90807 4.8% 26.3% 27.2%
90808 5.6% 17.9% 20.1%
90810 3.3% -8.5% -11.2%
90814 2.3% 16.9% 15.6%
90815 2.0% 25.8% 26.8%
Source: Costar Market Analytics
Report on Citywide Rental Rates
Compound Annual Rent Changes: 2007-2017
Table 4 presents the compound annual change in rent for the period between 2007 and 2017. According to Costar, all but one ZIP code in Long Beach experienced an increase in rents since 2012. The five ZIP code with the largest number of buildings and units exhibited compound growth ranging from 3.0% to 5.1 % annually. Five of the remaining ZIP codes generated compound growth ranging from 2.8% to 4.8% annually.
Only one ZIP code, 90810, experienced a decrease in rents between 2012 and 2017.
This decrease is likely due to a change in the reported asking rents at both the 348-unit Gold Star Manor senior housing complex and the 410-unit Springdale West apartments.
These 7 48 units comprise 75% of the units for which Costar has data in ZIP code 90810. The acquisition, rehabilitation, and renewal of HUD Section 8 contracts in 2015 at both Gold Star Manor and Springdale West briefly changed the reported asking rents at these properties. Reported rents at Gold Star Manor dropped from $724 in 2015 Q1 to $389 in 2015 Q3, while reported rents at Springdale West jumped from $973 in Q1 2014 to $1,601 in Q4 2014 and then fell to the previous rate of $973 by Q3 2015.
Table 4. Compound Annual Growth
Compound Annual Percentage Change
ZIP 2007 · 2017 2007 · 2012 2012 · 2017 2016 · 2017
---
2.8% 5.1% 5.2%
90804 2.1% 0.1% 4.0% 3.8%
90805 1.3% -0.4% 3.0% 4.1%
90806 2.1% -0.1% 4.3% 3.8%
90813 1.9% -0.5% 4.3% 4.1%
90803 0.9% -0.9% 2.8% 2.7%
90807 2.4% 0.1% 4.8% 4.8%
90808 1.8% 0.4% 3.4% 5.6%
90810 -1.2% -0.6% -1.8% 3.3%
90814 1.5% -0.2% 3.2% 2.3%
90815 2.4% 0.2% 4.7% 2.0%
Source: Costar Market Analytics
The chart on the following page provides a graphic representation of the annual changes in the mean rents exhibited between 2007 and 2017.
Report on Citywide Rental Rates
'\<-,(:)
i:,",.•
�(:) "
i:,",.•
- n(:',- '\;
� i:,",.•
Cl/
ex:
r::
Cl/
i5P
t:i",.•
n<::> ½'
Source: Costar Market Analytics
Asking Rents, 2007-2017
(All Bedroom Configurations)
90815, $1,947
�
90802, $1,595
90803, $1,545
90807, $1,399
90808,$1,380
Citywide, $1,333
90814, $1,317
90804, $1,261
90805, $1,159
90813, $1,089
90806,$954
90810, $777
Report on Citywide Rental Rates
Variances in rental rates among ZIP codes can also be affected by the unit configuration mix. As shown in Table 5, with the exception of ZIP code 90805, the apartment projects within the Long Beach ZIP codes are dominated by one- and two bedroom units (73% to 97% of the total units). Charts showing the asking rents by bedroom configuration from 2007 through 2017 for all the Long Beach ZIP codes can be found in Appendix A.
Table 5. Bedroom Configurations
ZIP Units Studio 1 BR
,. ----6,811 1,760 3,258 1,712 81
90804 3,077 1,206 1,399 355 117
90805 4,430 374 1,801 1,851 404
90806 2,007 323 947 636 101
90813 5,080 723 2,819 1,351 187
90803 1,518 242 805 446 25
90807 1,283 190 585 503 5
90808 426 14 168 244 0
90810 991 63 348 456 124
90814 1,232 70 681 434 47
90815 2,090 168 738 1,041 143
Source: Costar Market Analytics
VACANCY RATES
A certain number of vacant units are needed to moderate the cost of housing, allow sufficient choice for residents, and provide an incentive for unit upkeep and repair. An optimum vacancy rate allows for the healthy functioning of the housing market. When vacancy rates drop below a healthy rate, residents will likely have a difficult time finding units that are matched to their household and income needs. Furthermore, as the vacancy rate drops, competition for units increases, causing housing prices and rental rates to rise.
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) considers healthy vacancy rates to range from 1 % to 4% for owner-occupied housing and 4% to 8% for multi-family rental units, depending on market conditions4. For the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region which includes Long Beach, HCD utilized a healthy vacancy rate of 4.5% for multifamily rental units in calculating the Regional Housing Need Assessment (RHNA) Determination for the 2014-2021 projection period.
According to Costar, the citywide multi-family vacancy rate was 4.6% in Q1 of 2017.
While the overall vacancy rate remains relatively low, vacancy rates rose from 4.0% in 4 Department of Housing and Community Development, Division of Housing Policy Development Report on Citywide Rental Rates
Q1 2016 to 4.6% in 2017, and rose most dramatically in ZIP codes 90802, 90808, and 90815 during this time. In 90802, which includes most of downtown as well as dense residential areas along the coast, this phenomenon can be attributed to large residential rental properties coming online in 2016, specifically The Current (223 units, May 2016) and The Edison (156 units, Sep 2016).
Table 6. Vacancy Rates
ZIP Q1 2017 Q1 2016 Q1 2012 Q1 2007
Citywide 4.6% 4.0% 5.0% 4.2%
90802 6.7% 4.8% 5.8% 4.6%
90804 3.9% 3.6% 4.8% 3.9%
90805 2.9% 3.1% 4.8% 3.7%
90806 3.8% 3.9% 4.7% 4.1%
90813 4.0% 4.2% 4.8% 4.4%
90803 5.2% 5.1% 5.5% 4.5%
90807 4.0% 3.9% 4.3% 3.2%
90808 3.1% 2.1% 2.9% 1.8%
90810 1.9% 2.0% 3.8% 3.0%
90814 3.8% 3.8% 4.9% 4.1%
90815 5.9% 4.2% 6.1% 6.4%
Source: costar Market Analytics
Charts showing vacancy rates by ZIP code are presented on the following two pages.
As can be seen on the charts, vacancy rates generally peaked in 2009-2010 following the 2008 recession and since that time have generally trended downward.
Report on Citywide Rental Rates
Vacancy Rates
Top 5 ZIP Codes by Number of Rental Units
9 8
7 6
�5
� 4
�
3 2
1 0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Source: Costar Market Analytics
90802
Citywide
90804
90813
90806
90805
Report on Citywide Rental Rates
7 6
5 3
2 1
Vacancy Rates
By ZIP Code
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Source: Costar Market Analytics
90815
90803
Citywide
90814
90807
90808
Report on Citywide Rental Rates
Building Rating
Rental rates also differ within a geography depending on the building quality, amenities, and age. Typically, buildings are classified using a Class A, B, and C system. Costar provides these ratings for residential buildings using the following criteria:
• Class A: New construction (within last 10 years) or substantially renovated.
Landscaping, attractive rental offices and/or club buildings. High-end exterior and interior amenities as dictated by market. High-quality construction with highest quality materials. Commands highest rents in markets.
• Class B: Recent construction (within last 20 years) Exterior and interiors may be dated. Good-quality construction with little deferred maintenance. • Class C: Limited/dated exterior and interior amenities. Properties show some age and deferred maintenance. Majority of appliances are original.
Accordingly, the average rents in Long Beach are higher in Class A buildings. However, of the approximately 29,000 units that Costar has published rent data for, only 1,428 are Class A, compared to 6,208 Class B units and 21, 403 Class C units. This distribution reflects the general age of the housing stock in Long Beach. The following chart shows the mean rents by building class since 2007. As of August 2017, Class A units rent for an average of $2,532, Class B units for an average of $1,689, and Class C units for an average of $1,158. Note that these averages are not standardized for unit size or bedroom configuration.
$3,000 Mean Rents by Building Class, 2007-2017
Class A
$2,532
$2,500
$2,000 Class 8
$1,689
$1,500 Class C
$1,158
$1,000
$500
$0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1
Source: Costar Market Analytics
Report on Citywide Rental Rates
Conclusions
The following conclusions have been derived from the Costar Market Analytics data presented in this analysis:
1. In 2010, rents began rebounding from the 2008 recession, and returned to 2007 levels by 2012.
2. During the 2007 to 2017 time period, the citywide vacancy rate reached a peak of
5. 7% in 2010, and then over time fell to the current rate of 4.6%.
Report: Long Beach Rental Rates
Appendix A - Asking Rents Per Unit by Bedroom
Citywide
�2 O)J
S 1 500
S1 000
$500-----<
08 ■ $rude •
90803
$3 000
S2 000
$1 000
so 08
■ S1ud,o
90805
$1 600
$1 400
�
$1 200
$1 000
5800
$600
or.
■ Studio
90807
$2 000
51 5)0
$1 000
S500
08 ■ St ,do
•
•
10 1 8e(l
10 1 B1,d
,o
1 Bed
10 1 Bed
-------
--t--... ---4--t -
12. 1.l 1€
■ 2 Bed 3 Bed
-t
12 14 16
• 2 Bed 3 Bed
-➔ - -+---➔
12 u 16
■ 2 Beel 3 Bed
12 1.l 16
■ 2 Bed 3 Bed
90802
S2 500
$2 000
$1 50(1
$1 000
S500 .. -t
06 • Studio •
90804
S2 000
S1 500
$1 000
S500 _,_
08 • Studio
90806
S2 000
$1 500
$1 000
5500
so -
08 • Studio
90808
$2 000
51 500
51 000
S500
08 ■ Stud,o
...
•
•
■
--
10 1 Bed
➔-•
10 1 Bed
-·
10 1 Bed
10 1 Bed
t
�
----
.... ___, ·-
12 l.l 16
• 2 Bed 3 Bed
-----
-t ·• ➔ --
12 14 1r
■ 2 Bed 3 Bed
-t__...,-+--+
12 14 16
• 2 Bed 3 Bed
12 1.l 16
• 2 Bed 3 Bed
Report: Long Beach Rental Rates
Appendix A - Asking Rents Per Unit by Bedroom
90810
S2 000
--
S1 000 ----------'
so - -------·-- - •--t- __ ,... ____ ..., __ _,__
08 10 12 14
Studio ■ 1 Bed ■ 2 Bed
90814
S2 000
16 3 Bed
S1500 ____.-___ ,__ ______ _
S1 000 ::::=---::::::::::::::::_,---_._
ssoo--c-�--+-... •·-------
00 10 12 14 16
Studio ■ 1 Bed ■ 2 6&d 3 Bed
Source: Costar Market Analytics
90813
S1 400
S1 200
S1 000
$800
$600-+--<·----·-+---+----+-+---+--
0B 10
Studio ■ 1 Bed
90815
S4 000
$3 000
S2 000
12 14 16
2 Bed 3 Bed
S1 ODO_;;;;;:::::=: ?¢ • ?.:_
08 10 12 14 16
2 Bed 3 Bed
APPENDICES | Page 17
APPENDIX G – STAKEHOLDER FOCUS GROUPS
(This page intentionally left blank.)
Tenant Protections Focus Group
Michelle Obama Library, 5870 Atlantic Ave.
August 14, 2018
2:00 PM – 5:00 PM
I. Introductions
II. Background & Purpose
III. Focus Group Process
IV. Case Studies
V. Small Group Discussion
VI. Break
VII. Large Group Exercise
Tenant Protections Focus Group
City of Long Beach Development Services
Date: August 14. 2018
Name Email
10/29/2018
1 Tenant
Protections
Focus Group
AUGUST 2018
Agenda
Introductions
Background & Purpose
Process
Case Studies
Small Group Discussion
Break
Large Group Exercise
Introductions
• Centro CHA
• DisABLED Professionals
Association
• Filipino Migrant Center
• Housing Long Beach
• Khmer Girls in Action
• Latinos in Action
• Legal Aid Foundation
• Long Beach City
College
• Long Beach Forward
• Long Beach Gray
Panthers
• Long Beach Interfaith
Community
Organization (ICO)
• Long Beach Residents
Empowered (LiBRE)
• The LGBTQ Center
Long Beach
• United Cambodian
Community
Focus Group Invitees
Background & Purpose
On January 16, 2018 the City Council directed staff
to reach out to landlord and tenant
representatives to:
• Gather feedback on potential tenant protection
policies that could work for Long Beach
• Find common ground amongst different
advocacy groups
Purpose: Identify potential opportunities for tenant
protections in Long Beach to be considered by the
City Council
Process
• Two Focus Groups meet separately
• Identify common ground for potential tenant
protection policies
• Conduct a third focus group meeting
• Present draft findings to City Council
Purpose: Identify potential opportunities for tenant
protections in Long Beach to be considered by the
City Council
Background & Purpose
Today we are focused on:
• Relocation assistance (including seniors)
• Just cause termination of tenancy
• Anti-retaliation policies
• Source of income anti-discrimination
• Legal information or assistance
• Seniors-only rental assistance
• Enhanced notice provisions
• Right of first refusal
10/29/2018
2 Background & Purpose
• You are representing a stakeholder group
• Everyone’s perspective has value
• Share in a constructive manner
• Everyone has an equal opportunity to participate
• Look for common ground
Process
Potential Guiding Principles for Future Policies
• Address housing problems impacting Long
Beach
• Seek a balance between tenant protections and
property owner investments
• Consider unintended consequences
Case Studies
What have we explored so far?
• Originally surveyed 100 most populous cities in
California
− 15 most populous cities (Long Beach #7) all have tenant protection policies or programs beyond state
requirements, except Bakersfield (#9)
• Expanded research to include several less
populous cities, some counties, and out-of-state
cities
Case Studies
Out of the 113 jurisdictions surveyed...
• 46 (41%) - no tenant protections above state law
• 25 (22%) – proactive unit inspection program
• 19 (17%) – tenant relocation assistance
• 17 (15%) – just cause for termination of tenancy policy • 10 (9%) – anti-retaliation policy
• 6 (5%) – source of income anti-discrimination policy
• 5 (4%) – legal information or assistance
• 3 (3%) – enhanced notice provisions
• 2 (2%) – senior-only relocation assistance
• 1 (1%) – right of first refusal
Note: Some cities fall into several categories; Long Beach has the highlighted protections Case Studies: Tenant Relocation Assistance
Tenant Relocation Assistance
Ordinances that require owners to make a relocation payment to eligible tenants who are displaced by demolition or conversion.
• California Health & Safety Code 17975-17975.10 requires owners to pay a relocation fee to renters ordered to vacate due to serious code violations
• Long Beach Tenant Relocation Program (LBMC 21.60) requires owners to pay $3,941 lower income tenant households displaced due to demolition or condo conversion (or in Coastal Zone per state law)
− Additional payments for displaced households with seniors and/or people with disabilities in Coastal Zone
− Fee annually increased based on Consumer Price Index
− 18 months notice
Case Studies: Tenant Relocation Assistance
Of the cities surveyed, 19 have adopted their own tenant relocation assistance policies for lower income renters • Berkeley
• El Monte
• Fresno
• Glendale
• Hawthorne
• Long Beach
• Los Angeles
• Newport Beach
• Oakland
• Pasadena*
• Redding
• Richmond
• Riverside
• San Francisco
• San Jose
• San Leandro
• San Marcos
• Santa Monica
• Ventura
*Pasadena includes moderate income renters
10/29/2018
3 Case Studies: Tenant Relocation Assistance
• Like Long Beach, many cities require additional
financial assistance for tenants with qualifying age
or disability status
• Some cities require relocation benefits to be paid if the tenant is being removed at no fault of their own
Case Studies: Senior Relocation Assistance
Senior Relocation Assistance
Cities can require relocation assistance to be paid by an owner upon the termination of senior renter’s tenancy
• Long Beach owners in the Coastal Zone pay additional monies to qualifying displaced households with seniors and/or
people with disabilities (up to $8,441; $3,941 base, $2,000 extra, plus up to $2,500 for accessibility improvements) Of the cities surveyed, 2 have senior-only programs
• Santa Monica: households with a member age 62 and over are eligible for up to $3,950
• Ventura: senior mobile home renter relocation, amount determined on a case-by-case basis
Case Studies: Just Cause
Just Cause for Termination of Tenancy
A local policy that requires landlords to provide evidence prior to terminating tenancy.
• A city can adopt “just cause” requirements such as
documenting:
− Breaking the lease
− Failure to pay rent or habitual tardiness
− Significant building rehabilitation
− Withdrawing the unit from the rental market under the Ellis Act − Creation of a substantial nuisance
− Owner-occupancy or occupancy by a member of the landlord's immediate family
Case Studies: Just Cause
Of the cities surveyed, 17 have adopted just cause for
termination of tenancy policies
• Alhambra
• Berkeley
• Carson
• Fremont
• Glendale
• Hayward
• Los Angeles
• Oakland
• Rialto
• Richmond
• San Diego
• San Francisco
• San Jose
• San Leandro
• Santa Monica
• Thousand Oaks
• Ventura
Case Studies: Anti-Retaliation
Anti-Retaliation Policies
State law protects tenants if they are evicted within 6 months of… − Complaining to the landlord or government about unsafe conditions
− Repair and deduct remedy
− Filing a lawsuit or beginning arbitration over the condition of the unit
− Causing a public agency to inspect the unit
• Tenant needs to prove the termination was following a complaint (keep records)
• Court typically defers to state law and can award actual damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees to the
prevailing party
Case Studies: Anti-Retaliation
Of the cities surveyed,10 have adopted local anti-
retaliation policies
• Beverly Hills
• Carson
• Concord
• Glendale
• Moreno Valley
• Oakland
• Pasadena
• Santa Monica
• Ventura
• West Hollywood
10/29/2018
4 Case Studies: Anti-Retaliation
• Some list types of retaliation and harassment
• Oakland, Santa Monica, and West Hollywood can
take civil action at the discretion of the City
Attorney
Case Studies: Income Anti-Discrimination
Source of Income Anti-Discrimination
Local ordinances protecting households who are seeking rental housing from discrimination based on their source of income, such as a government subsidy or housing voucher
• California state law bars discrimination based on source of income, but that does not cover housing vouchers
Of those surveyed, 6 cities address vouchers
• Berkeley
• Corte Madera
• East Palo Alto
• Santa Monica
• Pittsburgh, PA
• Woodland
• Marin County
• Santa Clara County
Case Studies: Legal
Legal Information or Assistance
Local regulations on legal information, assistance, or mediation Of the cities surveyed, 5 have different programs
• Fremont: Rent Review Board offers mediation during tenant and landlord disputes for rent increases > 5%
• Gardena: Owners must provide mediation and hearing
procedure information to tenants
• San Leandro contracts with ECHO housing to provide housing rights and responsibilities information
• New York City, NY: Lower income tenants facing eviction can receive free legal assistance from the city (2017)
• Washington D.C: $4.5 million pilot program offering some lower income renters free legal counsel during eviction proceedings (2017)
Case Studies: Enhanced Notice Provisions
Enhanced Notice Provisions
Cities can require extended noticing for no-fault lease terminations to give tenants more time to prepare
Of the cities surveyed, 3 have enhanced notice
provisions
• San Jose: 90 days for tenants of at least one year (notice extends to 120 days when the city declares a severe
housing shortage)
• Portland, OR: 90 days before the effective dates
• Tacoma, WA: 90 days when due to demolition, substantial rehabilitation, or change of use
Case Studies: Right of First Refusal
Right of First Refusal
Tenant right of first refusal laws give tenants the right to first refusal when the building they live in is to be demolished or converted to a condominium. Right of first refusal policies can provide a path to homeownership and give households an opportunity to occupy affordable units in a replacement building.
Of the cities surveyed, 1 has an ordinance
• Washington D.C.: Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act
− For a single unit, tenant has 30 days to respond
− 2 to 4 units, tenants have 15 days to respond jointly and an additional 7 days to respond individually
− 5 or more units, tenants respond jointly within 30 to 45 days
Small Group Discussion
Degrees of
Consensus
On which
protections
does your
group have
the most
consensus?
10/29/2018
5 Small Group Discussion – 30 mins.
Which, if any, new/enhanced tenant protections are
needed in Long Beach, over and above State law?
• T enant relocation assistance (including seniors)
− Priority waiting list for new affordable units (for
previously displaced lower income tenants)
• Just cause for termination of tenancy
• Anti‐retaliation policies
• Source of income anti‐discrimination
• Legal information or assistance
• Enhanced notice provisions
• Right of first refusal
Small group
presentations
then
quick break
Large Group Exercise
Which of these approaches to tenant protection do
you think are the most appropriate or important for
the future of Long Beach?
• Everyone gets 5 stickers, worth 1 to 5 points
• Place #5 on your highest priority
• How does the large groups’ priorities add up?
• Where do you appear to have the most common ground?
Thank you for
participating
in this focus
group!
Our next step
is to study
your priorities
and ideas!
Tenant
Protections
Focus Group
AUGUST 2018
Tenant Protections Focus Group
City of Long Beach Development Services
Date: August 14, 2018
Name Email
�C,
Tenant Protections Focus Group
City of Long Beach Development Services
Date: August 29, 2018
Name Organization Email
Tenant Protections Focus Group
City of Long Beach Development Services
Date: August 29, 2018
Name Organization Email
V,J\. v-u-)
10/29/2018
1 Tenant
Protections
Focus Group
AUGUST 2018
Agenda
Introductions
Background & Purpose
Process
Case Studies
Small Group Discussion
Break
Large Group Exercise
Introductions
• Apartment Association,
California Southern
Cities
• Apartment Owners
Association
• Better Housing for Long
Beach
• California Apartment
Association
• Minority Property
Owners Association
• Pacific West Realtors
• Small Property Owners
Alliance of Southern
California
• Spurr Management
Focus Group Invitees
Background & Purpose
On January 16, 2018 the City Council directed staff
to reach out to landlord and tenant
representatives to:
• Gather feedback on potential tenant protection
policies that could work for Long Beach
• Find common ground amongst different
advocacy groups
Purpose: Identify potential opportunities for tenant
protections in Long Beach to be considered by the
City Council
Process
• Two Focus Groups meet separately
• Identify common ground for potential tenant
protection policies
• Conduct a third focus group meeting
• Present draft findings to City Council
Purpose: Identify potential opportunities for tenant
protections in Long Beach to be considered by the
City Council
Background & Purpose
Today we are focused on:
• Relocation assistance (including seniors)
• Just cause termination of tenancy
• Anti-retaliation policies
• Source of income anti-discrimination
• Legal information or assistance
• Enhanced notice provisions
• Right of first refusal
10/29/2018
2 Background & Purpose
• You are representing a stakeholder group
• Everyone’s perspective has value
• Share in a constructive manner
• Everyone has an equal opportunity to participate
• Look for common ground
Process
Potential Guiding Principles for Future Policies
• Address housing problems impacting Long
Beach
• Seek a balance between tenant protections and
property owner investments
• Consider unintended consequences
Case Studies
What have we explored so far?
• Originally surveyed 100 most populous cities in
California
− 15 most populous cities (Long Beach #7) all have tenant protection policies or programs beyond state
requirements, except Bakersfield (#9)
• Expanded research to include several less
populous cities, some counties, and out-of-state
cities
Case Studies
Out of the 113 jurisdictions surveyed...
• 46 (41%) - no tenant protections above state law
• 25 (22%) – proactive unit inspection program
• 19 (17%) – tenant relocation assistance
• 17 (15%) – just cause for termination of tenancy policy • 10 (9%) – anti-retaliation policy
• 6 (5%) – source of income anti-discrimination policy
• 5 (4%) – legal information or assistance
• 3 (3%) – enhanced notice provisions
• 2 (2%) – senior-only relocation assistance
• 1 (1%) – right of first refusal
Note: Some cities fall into several categories; Long Beach has the highlighted programs Case Studies: Tenant Relocation Assistance
Tenant Relocation Assistance
Ordinances that require owners to make a relocation payment to eligible tenants who are displaced by demolition or conversion.
• California Health & Safety Code 17975-17975.10 requires owners to pay a relocation fee to renters ordered to vacate due to serious code violations
• Long Beach Tenant Relocation Program (LBMC 21.60) requires owners to pay $3,941 lower income tenant households displaced due to demolition or condo conversion (or in Coastal Zone per state law)
− Additional payments for displaced households with seniors and/or people with disabilities in Coastal Zone
− Fee annually increased based on Consumer Price Index
− 18 months notice
Case Studies: Tenant Relocation Assistance
Of the cities surveyed, 19 have adopted their own tenant relocation assistance policies for lower income renters • Berkeley
• El Monte
• Fresno
• Glendale
• Hawthorne
• Long Beach
• Los Angeles
• Newport Beach
• Oakland
• Pasadena*
• Redding
• Richmond
• Riverside
• San Francisco
• San Jose
• San Leandro
• San Marcos
• Santa Monica
• Ventura
*Pasadena includes moderate income renters
10/29/2018
3 Case Studies: Tenant Relocation Assistance
• Like Long Beach, many cities require additional
financial assistance for tenants with qualifying age
or disability status
• Some cities require relocation benefits to be paid if the tenant is being removed at no fault of their own
Case Studies: Senior Relocation Assistance
Senior Relocation Assistance
Cities can require relocation assistance to be paid by an owner upon the termination of senior renter’s tenancy
• Long Beach owners in the Coastal Zone pay additional monies to qualifying displaced households with seniors and/or
people with disabilities (up to $8,441; $3,941 base, $2,000 extra, plus up to $2,500 for accessibility improvements) Of the cities surveyed, 2 have senior-only programs
• Santa Monica: households with a member age 62 and over are eligible for up to $3,950
• Ventura: senior mobile home renter relocation, amount determined on a case-by-case basis
Case Studies: Just Cause
Just Cause for Termination of Tenancy
A local policy that requires landlords to provide evidence prior to terminating tenancy.
• A city can adopt “just cause” requirements such as
documenting:
− Breaking the lease
− Failure to pay rent or habitual tardiness
− Significant building rehabilitation
− Withdrawing the unit from the rental market under the Ellis Act − Creation of a substantial nuisance
− Owner-occupancy or occupancy by a member of the landlord's immediate family
Case Studies: Just Cause
Of the cities surveyed, 17 have adopted just cause for
termination of tenancy policies
• Alhambra
• Berkeley
• Carson
• Fremont
• Glendale
• Hayward
• Los Angeles
• Oakland
• Rialto
• Richmond
• San Diego
• San Francisco
• San Jose
• San Leandro
• Santa Monica
• Thousand Oaks
• Ventura
Case Studies: Anti-Retaliation
Anti-Retaliation Policies
State law protects tenants if they are evicted within 6 months of… − Complaining to the landlord or government about unsafe conditions
− Repair and deduct remedy
− Filing a lawsuit or beginning arbitration over the condition of the unit
− Causing a public agency to inspect the unit
• Tenant needs to prove the termination was following a complaint (keep records)
• Court can award actual damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees to the prevailing party
Case Studies: Anti-Retaliation
Of the cities surveyed,10 have adopted local anti-
retaliation policies
• Beverly Hills
• Carson
• Concord
• Glendale
• Moreno Valley
• Oakland
• Pasadena
• Santa Monica
• Ventura
• West Hollywood
10/29/2018
4 Case Studies: Anti-Retaliation
• Some list types of retaliation and harassment
• Oakland, Santa Monica, and West Hollywood can
take civil action at the discretion of the City
Attorney
Case Studies: Income Anti-Discrimination
Source of Income Anti-Discrimination
Local ordinances protecting households who are seeking rental housing from discrimination based on their source of income, such as a government subsidy or housing voucher
• California state law bars discrimination based on source of income, but that does not cover housing vouchers
Of those surveyed, 6 cities address vouchers
• Berkeley
• Corte Madera
• East Palo Alto
• Santa Monica
• Pittsburgh, PA
• Woodland
• Marin County
• Santa Clara County
Case Studies: Legal
Legal Information or Assistance
Local regulations on legal information, assistance, or mediation Of the cities surveyed, 5 have different programs
• Fremont: Rent Review Board offers mediation during tenant and landlord disputes for rent increases > 5%
• Gardena: Owners must provide mediation and hearing
procedure information to tenants
• San Leandro contracts with ECHO housing to provide housing rights and responsibilities information
• New York City, NY: Lower income tenants facing eviction can receive free legal assistance from the city (2017)
• Washington D.C: $4.5 million pilot program offering some lower income renters free legal counsel during eviction proceedings (2017)
Case Studies: Enhanced Notice Provisions
Enhanced Notice Provisions
Cities can require extended noticing for no-fault lease terminations to give tenants more time to prepare
Of the cities surveyed, 3 have enhanced notice
provisions
• San Jose: 90 days for tenants of at least one year (notice extends to 120 days when the city declares a severe
housing shortage)
• Portland, OR: 90 days before the effective dates
• Tacoma, WA: 90 days when due to demolition, substantial rehabilitation, or change of use
Case Studies: Right of First Refusal
Right of First Refusal
Tenant right of first refusal laws give tenants the right to first refusal when the building they live in is to be demolished or converted to a condominium. Right of first refusal policies can provide a path to homeownership and give households an opportunity to occupy affordable units in a replacement building.
Of the cities surveyed, 1 has an ordinance
• Washington D.C.: Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act
− For a single unit, tenant has 30 days to respond
− 2 to 4 units, tenants have 15 days to respond jointly and an additional 7 days to respond individually
− 5 or more units, tenants respond jointly within 30 to 45 days
Small Group Discussion
Degrees of
Consensus
On which
protections
does your
group have
the most
consensus?
10/29/2018
5 Small Group Discussion – 30 mins.
Which, if any, new/enhanced tenant protections are
needed in Long Beach, over and above State law?
• Tenant relocation assistance (including seniors)
− Priority waiting list for new affordable units (for
previously displaced lower income tenants)
• Just cause for termination of tenancy
• Anti‐retaliation policies
• Source of income anti‐discrimination
• Legal information or assistance
• Enhanced notice provisions
• Right of first refusal
Small group
presentations
then
quick break
Large Group Exercise
Which of these approaches to tenant protection do
you think are the most appropriate or important for
the future of Long Beach?
• Everyone gets 5 stickers, worth 1 to 5 points
• Place #5 on your highest priority
• How does the large groups’ priorities add up?
• Where do you appear to have the most common ground?
Thank you for
participating
in this focus
group!
Our next step
is to study
your priorities
and ideas!
Tenant
Protections
Focus Group
AUGUST 2018
Meeting of the Minds Focus Group #3
September 26, 2018
3:00 to 5:00 PM
333 W. Ocean Blvd.
3rd Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802
AGENDA
• Welcome
• Self-Introductions
• Brief Presentation
» Background & Purpose
» What We’ve Heard So Far
• Group Discussion
» Handout
• Next Steps
City of Long Beach Meeting of the Minds Focus Group Sign-In Sheet September 26, 2018
----
Name
KNZI �l71tfUvl-r
S\A_s�� �qnvJ�
� \ g7A� (2L-�
)os � 1; v+�«
J1/l 4-J, {;,e;I) >M ff'� )'t//?.e1f-. '
f/t1) 4v-�
_ Joo./l,' IAJ e-r'r
� ��
�S5t�0/�t�
Organization
ttALl--�
LV�\r,
L-,� -�JLS
iJi'AvFl
c4A-
bl! t/ l1s
<! ..e vt,J--vv CL-frr
DRAFT
Termination of Tenancy Policy Discussion
How should the City of Long Beach define types of termination of tenancy (other than eviction)? Potentially:
No Fault Termination
• Substantial rehabilitation of the unit
• Removal of the unit from the rental market under the Ellis Act • Owner or owner’s family move-in
• City code enforcement actions requiring vacating the unit • Conversion of an unpermitted unit to a permitted use
Just Cause Termination
• Nonpayment of rent
• Refusing to agree to a similar or new rental agreement • Unapproved subtenant/occupant
• Refusing access to the unit when requested in accordance with law • Violation of the lease/rental agreement
• Material damage to the unit
• Disorderly behavior/disturbing the peace
• Using the premises for unlawful activities
Meeting of
the Minds
Focus Group
September 2018
Introductions
• Apartment Association,
California Southern
Cities
• Better Housing for Long
Beach
• California Apartment
Association
• Centro CHA
• Housing Long Beach
• Legal Aid Foundation
• Long Beach Residents
Empowered (LiBRE)
• Minority Property
Owners Association
• Small Property Owners
Alliance of Southern
California
• United Cambodian
Community
Stakeholder Groups
Background & Purpose
On January 16, 2018 the City Council directed staff
to reach out to landlord and tenant
representatives to:
• Gather feedback on potential tenant protection
policies that could work for Long Beach
• Find common ground amongst different
advocacy groups
Purpose: Identify potential opportunities for tenant
protections in Long Beach to be considered by the
City Council
Background & Purpose
At previous Focus Groups, participants discussed
the following types of potential policies:
• Source of income anti-discrimination
• On August 21, 2018, City Council requested staff to develop this policy.
• Right of first refusal
• Legal information or assistance
• Anti-retaliation policies
• Enhanced notice provisions
• Just cause for termination of tenancy
• Tenant relocation assistance
What We’ve Heard So Far
Perspectives on Right of First Refusal
• 1: Would be ineffective if the new rates are market
level; moderate and lower income households
would still get displaced.
• 2: Should be voluntary and at market rates to
incentivize updating aging properties.
What We’ve Heard So Far
Perspectives on Legal Information and Assistance
• 1: Tenants, especially lower income households,
need additional information and legal assistance to
understand their rights and obtain representation.
• 2: Any legal information or assistance from the City
should also be offered to owners because those
with multiple properties can be significantly
burdened by multiple legal actions.
What We’ve Heard So Far
Perspectives on Anti-Retaliation
• 1: State law is ineffective because it is extremely
challenging to prove that the owner/manager’s
intent was retaliatory.
• 2: An anti-retaliation policy that goes above and
beyond state law should be designed to also
protect owner/managers from being harassed by
tenants.
What We’ve Heard So Far
Perspectives on Just Cause Termination
• 1: A just cause for termination policy is needed to
protect tenants from being displaced at no fault of
their own. Displacement is especially hard on senior
citizens, families, and people with disabilities.
• 2: Evidence is hard to collect unless the police are
involved. Prolonging tenancy keeps bad tenants in
the building (often impacting good tenants) and they
typically stop paying rent once a notice is issued.
Should focus any just cause policy on investors (or
“flippers”) upgrading to luxury units.
What We’ve Heard So Far
Perspectives on Relocation Assistance
• 1: Tenant relocation assistance policies should
apply citywide for lower income renter
households.
• 2: Relocation payments for lower income renter
households make sense in the case of property
“flipping.”
What We’ve Heard So Far
Perspectives on Enhanced Noticing
• 1: Enhanced notice provisions would be especially
helpful for lower income, senior, and long-term
tenants. Extended noticing, however, does not
prevent displacement.
• 2: Extended noticing times could result prolonging
conflict with bad tenants. Additionally, some
tenants would not pay rent once notified.
What We’ve Heard So Far
Common Ground
• Desire to protect good tenants
• Desire to address displacement due to extensive
upgrading or rebranding of apartment buildings
(e.g., The Driftwood)
• Some interest in enhancing relocation assistance
Potential Policy Areas
1. Termination of Tenancy – distinguish No Fault
from Just Cause (see handout)
2. Relocation Assistance Payments
3. Enhanced Noticing Provisions
Small Group Discussion
• You are representing a stakeholder group
• Everyone’s perspective has value
• Share in a constructive manner
• Everyone has an equal opportunity to participate
• Look for common ground
Small Group Discussion
Common Ground
• Desire to protect good tenants
• Desire to address displacement due to extensive
upgrading or rebranding of apartment buildings
• Some interest in enhancing relocation assistance
Potential Guiding Principals for Policymaking
• Address housing problems impacting Long Beach
• Seek a balance between tenant protections and
property owner investments
• Consider unintended consequences
Thank you for
participating in
the meeting of
the minds focus
group.
Next Steps
• Research
• Present findings
• Request
direction from
City Council
Meeting of
the Minds
Focus Group
September 2018
MEETING OF THE MINDS 2
October 8, 2018
3:00 to 5:00 PM
333 W. Ocean Blvd., 3rd Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802
DRAFT AGENDA
1. Welcome
2. Overview of areas of consensus from Meeting of the Minds 1 a. Relocation assistance will help Long Beach residents stay within our community, but more details are needed.
b. Support for extended noticing for no fault terminations of tenancy to 90 days, citywide, only if tenant continues to pay the rent (with reasonable accommodation in accordance with state and federal laws). This does not remove an owner’s ability to use 3-day notices related to causes specified in the California Code of Civil Procedures Section 1161. Terminations of tenancy for cause do not qualify for extended noticing.
c. Staff will request that the City Council authorizes them to move forward with drafting an extended noticing ordinance, in cooperation with the City Attorney and other related departments. Details to be addressed include how the City will be involved in the process, including identifying staffing needs to facilitate the program (long-term).
3. Under which circumstances would relocation assistance provisions apply beyond existing Long Beach procedures?
a. When a tenant is asked to vacate at no fault of their own (and they are current on the rental payment with reasonable accommodation in accordance with state and federal laws). No fault terminations:
i. Substantial rehabilitation requiring tenant displacement (HUD definition attached for your review and input)
ii. Removal of the units from the market (Ellis Act)
iii. Owner or owner’s family move-in
iv. Code enforcement action requiring vacating the unit v. Conversion of an unpermitted use to a permitted use (resulting in vacating the unit)
vi. Any other request to vacate that is not a For-Cause Termination of Tenancy
b. Note that rental security deposits must be refunded in accordance with existing state laws regardless of whether a household receives relocation assistance payments.
c. What are the draft For Cause Terminations of Tenancy? City of Long Beach Meeting of the Minds 2 Draft Agenda | Page 2 i. Nonpayment of rent (with reasonable accommodation in accordance with existing state and federal laws)
ii. Material or habitual violation of the rental agreement (including unapproved subtenant/occupant)
iii. Damage to the apartment unit (threshold needed above wear and tear)
iv. Disorderly behavior/disturbing the peace (documentation details TBD) v. Refusing access to the unit when requested in accordance with the law
vi. Using the premises for unlawful activities (documentation details TBD) d. What is an appropriate building size threshold for relocation assistance and why? Some stakeholders have suggested as high as ten or more units in a structure, others have gone as low as duplexes.
i. Which types of properties are exempt?
e. The City has an adopted relocation assistance payment of approximately $4,500 per unit that currently applies in specific circumstances like lower income households being displaced from the Coastal Zone. The fee is increased annually. Moving forward, can the proposed new relocation assistance payment program use this same fee?
4. Meeting of the Minds 1 ideas that were introduced, but not fully discussed a. Requiring relocation assistance in the event of a rent increase of a certain percentage or amount. Threshold relating assistance to income level or ability to pay?
b. What would happen if a property owner purchased a building not knowing that there is such a serious code violation or unpermitted use that it requires a termination of tenancy?
4460.1 REV 1
CHAPTER 4. REHABILITATION
4-1. GENERAL. All instructions of this Handbook apply to rehabilitation projects unless modified by this Chapter.
4-2. DEFINITIONS.
A. Substantial Rehabilitation. Required repairs, replacements, and improvements:
1. Involve the replacement of two or more major building components or,
2. Cost of which exceeds either:
a. 15 percent (exclusive of any soft costs) of the
property's replacement cost (fair market value)
after completion of all required repairs,
replacements, and improvements.
or
b. $6,500 per dwelling unit (adjusted by the Field
Office's authorized high cost percentage)
Note: Estates for determining the cost for
substantial must include general requirements
and fees for builder's general overhead and
profit, design architect and supervisory
architect. However, these estimated costs are
not applied when determining the eligibility
of Section 223(f) projects. (See Chapter 5 for
instructions).
B. Major Building Component. Roof structures; wall or floor structures; foundations; and plumbing, central heating and air conditioning, or electrical systems.
1. Major refers to the importance of the component and the extent of replacement.
a. The element must be significant to the building
and its use, normally expected to last the
useful life of the building, and not minor or
cosmetic.
4460.1 REV-2
(4-2) Examples: Major - roof sheathing, rafters,
trusses.
Minor - shingles, built-up roofing.
b. Total replacement is not required, but the
greater part (at least 50 percent) must be
replaced.
2. The term provides a great deal of latitude and,
therefore, good judgement is necessary and expected.
3. Architectural staff will make the determination.
4-3. ARCHITECTURAL PROCESSING. Rehabilitation processing consists of three stages: Feasibility, Conditional Commitment, and Firm Commitment.
The Field Office may allow the sponsor to combine one or more stages.
A. Feasibility. Upon notification of the receipt of an application, the Production Branch Chief will assign a staff member as Design Representative for the project.
1. Feasibility exhibits for architectural processing are:
a. Application.
b. Project location map.
c. Survey or site plan.
d. Drawings or sketches of the existing
building(s).
e. Description of the proposed rehabilitation
(work write- up), including any post-
rehabilitation sketches.
f. LBP test report for projects constructed
prior to 1978. (See paragraph 1-40).
2. Make a joint inspection of the project and modify the sponsor's work write-up as needed.
12/95 Page 4-2
4460.1 REV-2
(4-3) B. Conditional Commitment. The Design Representative provides liaison with the sponsor's architect during preparation of rehabilitation architectural exhibits if professional design service is required.
(See paragraph 4-5.).
1. Review architectural exhibits to assure compliance
with the work write-up.
2. Provide architectural conditions for the conditional commitment.
3. Review the Owner-Architect Agreement.
4. If an abnormal amount of time has elapsed since the
joint inspection, or if property damage may have
occurred, reinspect the property to determine current
Meeting of the Minds 2
October 9, 2018
3:00 to 5:00 PM
333 W. Ocean Blvd., 5th Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802
AGENDA
• Welcome
• Overview of areas of consensus from Meeting of the Minds 1 » Helping Long Beach residents stay here
» Extended noticing
• Further discuss relocation assistance beyond current City policies » No fault terminations
» Building scale thresholds
» Who qualifies
» Payment amount
• Discuss ideas that were previously introduced only briefly » Relocation assistance related to rent increase/ability to pay » New owner surprised by existing code violation
Degrees of Consensus
5. I strongly support this idea. I am enthusiastic about the idea and confident that it expresses the wisdom of the
group.
4. I support this idea. I support this idea and I think it is the best choice of the options available to us.
3. This idea is okay. I may not be especially enthusiastic about it, but I can accept the idea and feel the process has been fair and inclusive.
2. I do not agree with this idea. I am uncomfortable with it, but can live with it.
1. I dislike this idea. I do not like this idea, but am willing to defer to the wisdom of the group and promise not to
sabotage it.
0. I cannot support this idea. I will not support this idea for reasons that I have stated to the group.
Meeting of
the Minds
Focus Group 2
October 2018
Introductions
• Apartment Association,
California Southern
Cities
• Better Housing for Long
Beach
• California Apartment
Association
• Centro CHA
• Housing Long Beach
• Legal Aid Foundation
• Long Beach Residents
Empowered (LiBRE)
• Minority Property
Owners Association
• Small Property Owners
Alliance of Southern
California
• United Cambodian
Community
Stakeholder Groups
What We’ve Heard So Far
Common Ground After Meeting of the Minds 1
• Desire to protect good tenants
• Support for relocation assistance
• Support for extended noticing (90 days) for no fault
terminations of tenancy citywide
− Rent must be current, exception for reasonable
accommodation
− Owners can still use 3-day notices when warranted
− Need more details on applicability, amount, etc.
Relocation Assistance
Which types of terminations qualify?
• No Fault (rent is current, with reasonable
accommodation):
1. Substantial rehabilitation requiring tenant move-out (HUD definition)
2. Removal of the units from the market (Ellis Act)
3. Owner or owner’s family move-in
4. Rent increase of more than 10% (stay or vacate with relocation)
5. Code enforcement action requiring vacating the unit
6. Conversion of an unpermitted use to a permitted use (resulting in vacating the unit)
7. Any other request to vacate that is not a For-Cause Termination of Tenancy
Relocation Assistance
What are For Cause Terminations of Tenancy?
• For Causes (not eligible for relocation payments or
extended noticing)
8. Nonpayment of rent (with reasonable accommodation in accordance with existing laws)
9. Material or habitual violation of the rental agreement (including unapproved subtenant/occupant)
10. Damage to the apartment unit (threshold needed)
11. Disorderly behavior/disturbing the peace (documentation details TBD)
12. Refusing access to the unit when requested in accordance with the law
13. Using the premises for unlawful activities (documentation details TBD)
Relocation Assistance
What buildings participate? Which are excluded?
• Number of units in the building threshold
− 10 units or more?
− 4 units or more like City business licenses?
− Exclude single-family, duplex and triplex
− Housing stock data review
• Exemptions –properties/households receiving
government assistance
− Deed restricted affordable units / properties with deed restricted affordable units
− Units with housing voucher tenants
− Buildings acquired by government agencies
Relocation Assistance
How does tenant income play a role? Who is eligible for relocation assistance?
• Only Extremely low- and very low-income households eligible? • Households earning up to low-income (80% AMI) eligible? HUD 2018 INCOME LIMITS (Los Angeles County) (LA County Area Median /4-person household: $69,300 Income Level
Household Size
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Low-Income
80% AMI 54,250 62,000 69,750 77,500 83,700 89,900 96,100 102,300 Very-Low Income
50% AMI 33,950 38,800 43,650 48,450 52,350 56,250 60,100 64,000 Extremely Low-Income
30% AMI 20,350 23,250 26,150 29,050 31,400 33,740 38,060 42,380 Relocation Assistance
Local relocation assistance payments
• What does Long Beach currently require in other
relocation scenarios?
− $4,500 per unit (updated in 2009)
− Annual increase based on CPI
− Use this amount for new policy?
What about security deposits?
• Rental security deposits must be refunded in
accordance with existing state laws regardless of
whether a household receives relocation assistance
payments.
Meeting of
the Minds
Focus Group 2
October 2018
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
Q1
2012
Q2
2012
Q3
2012
Q4
2012
Q1
2013
Q2
2013
Q3
2013
Q4
2013
Q1
2014
Q2
2014
Q3
2014
Q4
2014
Q1
2015
Q2
2015
Q3
2015
Q4
2015
Q1
2016
Q2
2016
Q3
2016
Q4
2016
Q1
2017
Q2
2017
Q3
2017
Q4
2017
Q1
2018
Q2
2018
Q3
2018
Number of Properties
City of Long Beach Sales Volumes, Q1 2012 through Q3 2018 (Number of Properties Sold per Quarter)
Total Sales
Class C
Class B
Class A
Source: CoStar Market Analytics
DRAFT
0 200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Q1
2012
Q2
2012
Q3
2012
Q4
2012
Q1
2013
Q2
2013
Q3
2013
Q4
2013
Q1
2014
Q2
2014
Q3
2014
Q4
2014
Q1
2015
Q2
2015
Q3
2015
Q4
2015
Q1
2016
Q2
2016
Q3
2016
Q4
2016
Q1
2017
Q2
2017
Q3
2017
Q4
2017
Q1
2018
Q2
2018
Q3
2018
Number of Properties
County of Los Angeles, Q1 2012 through Q3 2018
(Number of Properties Sold per Quarter)
Total Sales
Class C
Class B
Class A
Source: CoStar Market Analytics
DRAFT
Multi-Housing Data: Long Beach, CA
All Multi-Housing Owners
Number of Owners in the City who own properties with 4+ units: 5,902 Owners Number of Total Properties with 4+ units in the City: 7,644 Properties Number of Total 4+ Units in the City: 70,317 Units
Multi-Housing Owners with 1 Property
Number of Owners/Properties in the City who own 1 property with 4+ units: 4,844 Owners/ Properties Number of Total Units of Owners who own 1 property with 4+units: 43,449 Units
Multi-Housing Owners with 2+ Properties
Number of Owners in the City who own 2+ properties with 4+ units: 1,058 Owners Number of Total Properties of Owners who own 2+ properties with 4+units: 2,800 Properties Number of Total Units of Owners who own 2+ properties with 4+ units: 26,868 Units
Single Owners (1 Property) Owner of 2+ Total
Properties Units Properties Units Properties Units
4 Units 2,194 8,776 694 2,776 2,888 11,552 5 Units 406 2,030 186 930 592 2,960 6 Units 454 2,724 303 1,818 757 4,542 7 Units 239 1,673 130 910 369 2,583 8 Units 478 3,824 420 3,360 898 7,184 9 Units 155 1,395 187 1,683 342 3,078 10 – 29 Units 809 11,564 818 11,542 1,627 3,106 30+ Units 109 11,463 62 3,849 171 15,312
Total 4,844 43,449 2,800 26,868 7,644 70,317
APPENDICES | Page 18
APPENDIX H – STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
(This page intentionally left blank.)
Examples of Anti-Displacement Policies
(Homeless Prevention)
1. Tenant Protections
a.
Just Cause Ordinances
: Tenants can only be evicted for cause (i.e., non-payment of rent)
b.
Rent Control Ordinances:
Limits on rent increases coupled with just cause protections
c.
Anti-Harassment Policies:
Typically coupled with rent control ordinances
d.
Limits on Condominium Conversions
: Limits on the number of rental units that can be converted to
condominiums (i.e., limits on number per year or moratoriums when the rental vacancy rate dips below 5%.)
e.
Legal Defense Funds / Right to Counsel
: for tenants at risk of losing their homes and need legal representation.
f.
Short-Term Rental Regulation
: Many apartments/homes are taken off the housing market leaving even less
units for long term tenancy in an already impacted market with low vacancy rates.
g.
Rent Freeze
: Freeze rents for a specified period of time in order to protect tenants during which time, resident
retention policies can be enacted
2. Affordable Housing Production Strategies
a.
Inclusionary Housing (IH)
: A percent of all new residential development (at least 10% to 15%) must be set
aside on-site as affordable. If in lieu fees are offered to developers, but they must be set at the economic
equivalent of providing the units on-site.
b.
Commercial Linkage Fees:
Commercial, office, retail and industrial developers are charged a fee per square
foot of new development. The fee goes to the local jurisdiction to pay for affordable housing to support a
housing-jobs balance.
c.
Boomerang Funds
: These funds are returning to local jurisdictions as a result of the demise of redevelopment
agencies. 20% of these funds were previously earmarked as affordable housing funds, yet they are returning
to local jurisdictions without any strings attached. Jurisdictions such as the County of LA have dedicated some
of these funds towards affordable housing.
d.
Other dedicated local sources of revenue that can be used for housing production:
(w/income targeting for
most at need)
i.
Affordable Housing Bonds
ii.
Hotel Taxes
iii.
Condominium Conversion Fees
e.
Section 8 Discrimination Policies:
passing policies making it illegal for landlords to discriminate against
persons/families solely on the basis they are Section 8 recipients.
3. Affordable Home Ownership Strategies
a.
Community Land Trusts and Co-operative Housing Agreements
: Affordable home ownership models where
low income residents own a proportional interest in the property.
4. Housing Preservation Strategies
a.
No Net Loss Policies:
i.
Affordable units lost through renovation, conversion or demolition must be replaced within the same
neighborhood
ii.
“Affordable units” are defined by rent levels OR incomes of residents
b.
Right to Return/Right of First Refusal:
If tenants are displaced by a new development and affordable units are
included as part of the new development, displaced residents have a right of to return/right of first refusal for
the new affordable units.
333 West Broadway, #204, Long Beach, CA 90802
(562) 444-5147
www.wearelbre.org
September 10, 2018
Patrick Ure
Housing and Neighborhood Services Bureau Manager
City of Long Beach
333 West Ocean Blvd.
Long Beach, CA 90802
SMALL PROPERTY OWNERS ALLIANCE (SPOA)
RESPONSE TO TENANT PROTECTION STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
MEETING - HOUSING PROVIDERS
Dear Patrick,
Small Property Owners Alliance (SPOA) appreciates the efforts of both PlaceWorks and Development Services for bringing housing provider groups together last week. SPOA wanted to share some feedback from our debriefing meeting.
1.Since none of the groups, including SPOA, had access to the agenda or presentation prior to the meeting, SPOA and the other groups were somewhat surprised to see "Just Cause Eviction" listed as one of the topics on the initial slide since city council did not direct city staff to review or consider this form of Rent Control based on the January 16, 2018 directive.
Due to the numerous documented negative unintended consequences associated with these types of policies, SPOA considers this a non-starter for rental housing providers.
2.SPOA generally agrees that offering existing residents with a “1st Right of Refusal” is a good idea as long as it is clear that a tenant would need to meet the new qualifications and perform in a timely manner.
3.SPOA agrees with a policy that does not allow for discrimination in advertising against Housing Voucher holders; we reiterate that SPOA members accept all applications. Some suggestions to make the program attractive to Housing Providers would be to implement supportive services for certain Housing Voucher holders, provide an education and outreach program and include a government backed tenant default/damage policy that applies to all voucher holders.
4.It would be valuable to know if current workforce, low income, and other types of developments in the City of Long Beach require rental housing providers to accept a certain percentage of Section 8 applicants.
Patrick Ure
September 10, 2018
5. In July, Long Beach voters had the opportunity to send to the ballot a Rent Control ordinance which included Just Cause Eviction and Tenant Relocation Payments. Proponents of the ballot initiative were unable to gather enough signatures to qualify. This was the second time voters in the City of Long Beach have rejected this type of initiative, so it is unclear as to why we are continuing this discussion.
6. SPOA recommends the following changes to the slides that were used for this and future presentations on this subject:
• Change “Tenant Relocation Benefit” to read “Tenant Relocation Payment”. There is no benefit to the Housing Provider.
• In support of transparency, SPOA recommends the following:
• For presentations involving this subject matter, it’s important to note that only 10 out of 100 cities studied supported some form of Rent Control regulation and the majority of cities in the state do not support any of these types of regulations at all. • Include the success/failure rates of those cities studied to determine if these regulations have justified their existence. • For a more accurate comparison of our market, we recommend limiting the discussion to cities in California of similar size since larger cities and cities outside of California generally do not share the same demographics, economic characteristics or real estate market place.
California offers some of the strongest tenant rights protections in the United States and duplicating regulations makes administering these policies more difficult and adds to the overall cost of housing. We believe that the above suggestions and recommendations will help continue to make the City of Long Beach a more desirable and business friendly environment where everyone can thrive. Thanks again for hosting this meeting and we look forward to the next steps.
Respectfully,
SMALL PROPERTY OWNERS ALLIANCE
Keith Kennedy
President/Founder SPOA
KK/jl
cc: SPOA General Membership
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Murchison <[email protected]>
To: Patrick Ure <[email protected]>
Cc: Gary Delong <[email protected]>; Malcolm Bennett <[email protected]>; Joani Weir <[email protected]>; Fred Sutton <[email protected]>
Sent: Tue, Oct 9, 2018 12:53 pm
Subject: Fwd: comments to staff letter
Good Afternoon Patrick,
We wanted to get back to you with our responses to your staff’s letter that recaps the two meetings we have had with the city, consultants and tenant rights groups prior to the meeting at 3pm.
I have asked for all of the rental property owner groups to comment and here are their thoughts to the Draft Agenda “Meeting of the Minds” 2:
2A ‐ generically we are fine with this statement; the key being what the details are. 2B ‐ Remove “no fault termination” verbiage. Any use of the word “for cause” is a non‐starter for our groups.
2C ‐ Staff is getting ahead of themselves; we do not support staff requesting that the council authorize an ordinance when we have no details/definitions. We also do not support any process that includes identifying staffing needs as this will result in budget increases and thus the potential for added city staff and fees.
3A ‐ We propose the following changes to 3Ai to 3Avi. Landlords in the City of LB are required to pay households a relocation assistance to existing tenants upon termination of tenancy through change of ownership, only within one year after change of ownership as well as 6 months prior to change of ownership. In addition, we believe that the overall discussions with our groups did not include defining causes of termination but exploring relocation assistance and enumerating when individuals would be eligible to receive it. We are concerned proposals to extend notice as previously discussed, likely violates the law because notice periods are mandated by state law. The court held that extended notice periods were unconstitutional in Tri‐County Apartment Assoc v City of Mountain View 1987.
A targeted relocation program can be created without incorporating termination controls.
3B ‐ We support state law.
3C ‐ We are not in support of this section from 3Ci to 3Cvi. 3D ‐ 10+ units; most units in LB are under 10 and ownership is made up of retirees that need rental income as their source of income; therefore they cannot afford tenant relocation payments. Additionally, this ownership segment is not vacating tenants due to construction activity.
3Di ‐ not enough info on this one for type of property required for exemption.
3E ‐ We support one month’s rent for someone that has rented from 1‐5 years. If after 5 years, we support two months rent in relocation payments as long as they meet the existing criteria. Our goal is to cover a tenant’s one time moving cost, not create a “profit” for them.
4A and B ‐ We are all opposed to the language in 4A/B. A’s language on certain percentage or amount from our perspective is “rent control”.
We also have questions about the data that was sent to us:
1. Who generated the data?
2. Graphs/Charts ‐ what is City staff/consultant’s position on these two charts if any?
We look forward to seeing you at 3pm.
Signed…..
BHLB, SPOA, CAA, AOA, Minority rental property owners, and Apartment Association, California Southern Cities.
Best Regards,
Mike Murchison - "Mike 24-7"
Murchison Consulting
[email protected]
www.murchisonconsulting.net
562-884-3009
October 15, 2018
Patrick Ure
Housing and Neighborhood Services Bureau
Manager
City of Long Beach
Dear Patrick,
We at Better Housing for Long Beach appreciate your efforts to bringing together Housing Advocates and Tenant Activists organizations to help facilitate a solution to Long Beach's housing challenges.
On April 25, 2018, Better Housing for Long Beach reached out to housing providers and community members to create a proactive solution to assist displaced tenants, that housing providers would support. On June 18, 2018, Better Housing for Long Beach submitted to all Long Beach council members, the City Clerk and Mayor Garciaour proactive solution to assist displaced tenants. See attached letter.
On August 29, 2018, in good faith, Better Housing for Long Beach attended a meeting on tenant protection policies with the City of Long Beach per your invitation.
On September 26, 2018, in good faith, Better Housing for Long Beach attended a Joint Stakeholder Engagement Meeting on tenant protection policies per your invitation.
On October 9, 2018, in good faith, Better Housing for Long Beach attended a second Joint Stakeholder Engagement Meeting on tenant protection policies per your invitation.
On October 9, 2018, prior to the meeting Mike Murchison sent you a letter on behalf of Better Housing for Long Beach and other housing advocates regarding what itemswe would collectively consider and which ones we were not in agreement with. See attached letter.
At the October 9, 2018, after lengthy discussions with tenant advocates and attempts to facilitate a solution to tenant displacement; Better Housing for Long Beach presented and shared our proactive solution to assist displaced tenants.
In spite of resistance in the room and a verbal ask from you to not share this information.
Prior to the meetings Better Housing for Long Beach had reached out to many of their members and asked what they would be comfortable with in regards to tenant assistance. Many of them expressed concern that this is opening the door to rent control and that demands and attacks on housing providers would increase and continue should we move forward and support relocation assistance.
After attending three of the meetings with an open mind, I came to the conclusion that these meetings were not to help a “targeted issue”, i.e., entire buildings being vacated. I am in agreement with many of the concerns expressed to me by supporters of BHFLB.
These meetings are an attempt to push rent control through the back door.
BHFLB attended the meeting expecting to discuss relocation fees for a mass displacement scenario, i.e., a large building set to be completely vacated. Ms. Brown attempted to turn the conversation into relocation fees for all people moving due to a 2- 3% rent increase. These rent control conversations suggested by Susanne Brown of Legal Aid would have to include all buildings. Just Cause Eviction was brought into conversation and was off topic. Josh Butler of Housing Long Beach, Ms. Brown started rent control discussions without calling it rent control in our first joint meeting and continued to the second joint meeting. Reasonable relocation fees were offered by housing providers/advocates. However the discussion became unreasonable when tenant activist Mr. Butler, demanded that we duplicate the $8000.00, Oakland relocation fees.
According to Ms. Brown, you suggested annual rent caps on housing providers, this is very concerning.
It was troubling to me to hear Mr. Butler state in the meeting that city staff had suggested to tenant advocates, to change our 60 day notice to vacate to a120 day notice to vacate. Mr. Butler stated he wanted to convert our 60 day notice to vacate into a 90 day notice to vacate and wanted to supersede existing State Law.
It is Better Housing for Long Beach’s opinion that these advocates were not negotiating in good faithto create a real solution. We feel these conversations were not reasonable solutions but another attack on housing providers.
Due to this realization, Better Housing for Long Beach is not in support of any of these tenant protection policies presented including but not limited to the three meetings. We want to be very clear that our name is not to be counted in supporting this road to rent control. We are not in support of anything related to these meetings that will be presented to council regarding tenant protection policies aka rent control.
You and Long Beach city staff must be very careful when you present damaging suggestions to tenant advocates that could have long term unintended consequences to our city and to small property owners.
Many of our Housing providers are alarmed that tenant activists are making financial decisions that can be very burdensome to their property and in some cases their home.
These tenant activists have never experienced the liability and the financial responsibility that comes with being a landlord. Some of these housing providers are struggling to make ends meet even today. These new policies could force them into bankruptcy or force them to sell their property which in turn displaces them and their renters. There are many housing providers on a fixed income, seniors who cannot afford these purposed programs.
I hope that a conversation can take place that can lead to a real solution–Not one that is guided by a city-paid consultant who is driving the conversation in a pre-determined direction.
Please include our documents in all information regarding these topics when presenting to the Mayor and City Council:
The Tenant Protection Policy Stakeholder Engagement Meeting Long Beach Tenant Protection Stakehol der Engagement Meeting – Property Owner/Manager Advocates
City Council Tenant Relocation Payment/Rights, Engagement Meeting Tenant Assistance Policy - Join t Stakeholder Engagement Meeting
Sincerely,
Joani Weir
President, Better Housing for Long Beach
Date created April 25, 2018 Updated October 15, 2018
Dear Mayor Garcia and City Council,
In an effort to bring proactive solutions to assist displaced tenants, Better Housing for Long Beach is providing this document to you in the hope that you will review it for consideration.
There are significant housing challenges facing both renters and landlords here in Long Beach. They stem from situations brought up at Council meetings where entire buildings are being vacated and new investors are entering the Long Beach market. We do not want to stop the positive growth by encumbering properties with restrictive ordinances. However, we do see a need to find a solution to the displacement of tenants when entire buildings are being vacated.
There are many reasons why buildings are vacated. They may include:
The owner is leaving the industry for various reasons such as relocation, retirement, or moving into another investment.
The owner’s inability to properly manage the building which can lead to code violations, neighborhood complaints, and potential disrepair and ultimate inhabitability.
Litigious actions against predatory lawsuits from eviction attorneys and advocacy groups who are taking advantage of unsuspecting tenants. These groups give advice to renters that have damaging consequences to the renter’s credit and their ability to rent in the future. In turn, it also damages the property owner’s financial solvency and at times pushes them into a financial situation where they are forced to sell.
o One prime example is a group of predatory attorneys who tell these tenants “Don’t pay your rent. We can get you 3 months of free rent.” This results in a “rent strike”. Of course, the landlord will start an eviction on these unsuspecting tenants and then they get their “3 months of free rent” and become homeless, because of bad advice from these legal groups.
The owner’s inability to manage a property where certain individuals are not acting in good faith.
A death in the family.
Dissolution of investor partnership.
Increased fees to operate properties, fear of rent control, and new policies implemented that may not be perceived as business friendly.
Any policy around relocation solutions has to take into consideration the various reasons why buildings are vacated. It’s a complex issue that cannot be quantified by any single reason. In the interest of bettering our community, we are proposing some solutions to this challenging housing situation. They include but are not limited to:
Creating a non‐profit organization funded by grant monies which focuses solely on assistance for displaced tenants. These focuses could start with:
1. Providing grant support for qualified individuals who need financial assistance.
2. Forming robust partnerships with cities and property owners to assist displaced tenants in finding comparable and suitable housing. The aim is to foster positive solutions so that displaced tenants can live in sustainable housing with dignity.
3. Bringing in seasoned grant writers to explore all organizations, state, and federal entities who provide much needed housing grants.
4. Tenant workshops to build a healthy community.
Where will the money come from?
There are many organizations who are currently giving grants to various non profits to encourage greater equity in the community and preserve our strong diversity. We would like to work with these organizations to create a long term sustainable solution regarding displacement. Some of these organizations that are at the forefront of the housing challenges are:
California Endowment
Gumbiner Foundation
Legal Aid
NextGen America
Housing Authority
And the list goes on. We must find permanent solutions to our housing challenges. Fostering communication by seeing the needs of our diverse community together, we can build a bridge of long term good will that will be passed on for years to come.
We hope that you will take these ideas into consideration and that we can be a partner in this solution.
Signed,
Better Housing for Long Beach
This information is available in alternative format by request at (562) 570-3807.
For an electronic version of this document, visit our website at www.lbds.info.
Long Beach Development Services
333 W. Ocean Blvd., 3rd Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802
Visit us at www.lbds.info
LongBeachBuilds
@LongBeachBuilds
ATTACHMENT B
City Relocation
Program Trigger(s) Amount Property Type Household Type Total Units Rental Units % Rental Units
Anaheim No - - - - 104,533 55,228 52.8% Bakersfield No - - - - 122,829 49,639 40.4% Sacramento No - - - - 194,917 95,780 49.1% San Diego No - - - - 533,973 264,523 49.5% Fresno Limited Code Enforcement,
Demolition
2 months' HUD Fair Market
Rent, utility service deposits,
and refund of security deposit
All Rentals All Tenants 176,617 87,715 49.7% Long Beach Limited Code Enforcement,
Demolition
$3,941 base, $2,000 for senior,
up to $2,500 for disability
modifications; increased by CPI
annually (LBMC 21.30)
All Rentals All Tenants 173,741 99,002 57.0% Los Angeles Yes Code Enforcement,
Demolition, Ellis Act,
No-Fault Eviction
$7,750 to $20,050 (higher
amount for lower-income,
disabled, seniors, and families)
Units covered
under Rent
Stabilization
All Tenants 1,457,762 862,062 59.1%
Oakland Yes Code Enforcement,
Condo Conversion,
Ellis Act, No-Fault
Eviction
$6,875 to $10,545 depending on
unit size. Additional $2,500 for
lower income, senior, disabled,
and families
All Rentals All Tenants 169,303 96,048 56.7% San Francisco Yes Code Enforcement,
Demolition, Ellis Act,
No-Fault Eviction
$5,470 to $19,449 depending on
unit size
Units Covered
under Rent
Stabilization
Ordinance
All Tenants 390,376 224,960 57.6%
San Jose Yes Code Enforcement,
Substantial
Rehabilitation, Ellis
Act, Owner Move-In,
Conversion to
Permitted Use
$6,925 to $17,380 depending on
unit size and household
characteristics
All Rentals All Tenants 331,510 135,834 41.0% CITIES THAT DO NOT OFFER RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS (4) CITIES THAT HAVE CODIFIED STATE REQUIREMENTS (2)
CITIES WITH EXPANDED RELOCATION REQUIREMENTS (4)
TEN LARGEST CALIFORNIA CITIES
1 of 1
ATTACHMENT C- Relocation Assistance Policy Options Chart
KEY RELOCATION ASSISTANCE POLICY OPTION TWO
COMPONENTS FOR ALL OPTIONS OPTION ONE (RECOMMENDED) OPTION THREE Benefits triggered upon the following:
A. Notice of rent increase of 10 percent or more in
any 12-month period.
B. Notice to vacate issued to tenant who has not:
1. Failed to pay rent
2. Violated lease or rental agreement
3. Materially damaged property
4. Interfered with other tenants
5. Committed violence or assault
6. Used premises for unlawful activity
7. Engaged in unlawful use or dealing of drugs
8. Conducted animal fighting
9. Engaged in unlawful use of weapons or
ammunition
Conditions:
• Rent must be paid during noticing period or
relocation benefits are not required.
• Households removed under provisions 1 through
9, or evicted, do not receive relocation benefits.
• Tenants vacating voluntarily do not receive
relocation benefits.
• Tenants receiving a rent increase of 10 percent or
more must notify owner within 7 days of their
intent to stay or leave with relocation benefits.
• Rental security deposits must be returned per
California law.
• Tenants shall be given reasonable
accommodation to cure causes for termination
per California law.
Other requirements I enforcement provisions
• Owners must include relocation information in
lease and rental agreements.
• Owners must report relocation payments to City.
• Owners must notify City when entire building is
being vacated.
• Affordable rent-restricted properties are exempt.
• Enforcement will include a "Private Right of
Action," and breach of local law as an "Affirmative
Defense to an Unlawful Detainer."
Includes key components, plus the following
applicability requirements:
• Relocation amount based on LBMC
21.60 - $4,500 for all unit types.
• Additional $2,000 for senior and
disabled households.
• Additional $1,000 for moving expenses.
• Applies to all rental properties, duplex
and above.
• Applies to all households regardless of
income.
Includes key components, plus the following
applicability requirements:
• Relocation amount of Two (2) month's
rent based on the current Housing
Authority Rent Payment Standards for a
similar unit size in the same Zip Code.
• Applies to all multi-family rental
properties with 4 units or more.
• Applies to lower- and moderate-income
households (earning 120% of Area
Median Income and below).
Includes key components, plus the following
applicability requirements:
• Relocation amount based on LBMC
21.60 - $4,500 for all unit types.
• Applies to all multi-family rental
properties with 10 units or more.
• Applies to lower-income households
earning 80% Area Median Income and
below.
CONSIDERATIONS CONSIDERATIONS CONSIDERATIONS
• Includes about 95,726 housing units
citywide.
• Potentially provides largest benefit to
tenants.
• Applies most broadly across all tenants
regardless of unit size or income.
• Negatively impacts non-commercial
properties (duplex, and triplex).
• Potentially places highest burden on all
owners.
• May have unintended consequence of
bias toward senior and disabled renters.
• Includes 7,644 multi-family properties
(100% of properties with 4 units or
more).
• Includes 70,317 multi-family units (100%
of the units in buildings with 4 units or
more).
• Provides targeted benefits to tenants
based on unit size and Zip Code.
• Addresses displacement without
impacting non-commercial properties.
• Result in a lower per unit relocation cost
to owners, but larger payments to
tenants in larger units.
• Assists lower- and moderate-income
households earning up to 120% of the
Area Median Income (up to $83,150 for
a 4-person household).
• Includes 1,798 multi-family properties
(23% of the properties with 4 units or
more).
• Includes 38,418 multi-family units (55%
of all the units in buildings with 4 units
or more).
• Focuses the program on large
commercial buildings.
• Addresses displacement on a limited
basis.
• Does not fully address displacement.
• · Assists lower-income households
earning up to 80% of the Area Median
Income (up to $77,500 for a 4-person
household).
ATTACHMENT D
HOUSING AUTHORITY FISCAL YEAR 2019 PAYMENT
STANDARDS
Effective Date: 12/12/2018
Zip OBdrm 1Bdrm 2Bdrm 3Bdrm 4Bdrm SBdrm 6Bdrm 7Bdrm
Code
90802 $1,291 $1,543 $1,995 $2,677 $2,940 $3,381 $3,822 $4,263 90803 $1,607 $1,922 $2,489 $3,339 $3,675 $4,226 $4,778 $5,329 90804 $1,431 $1,719 $2,218 $2,979 $3,268 $3,758 $4,249 $4,739 90805 $1,352 $1,614 $2,087 $2,796 $3,071 $3,532 $3,993 $4,453 90806 $1,378 $1,641 $2,126 $2,848 $3,137 $3,607 $4,078 $4,548 90807 $1,302 $1,554 $2,016 $2,699 $2,972 $3,417 $3,863 $4,309 90808 $1,439 $1,722 $2,226 $2,982 $3,287 $3,779 $4,272 $4,765 90810 $1,040 $1,239 $1,607 $2,153 $2,373 $2,729 $3,085 $3,441 90813 $1,263 $1,513 $1,950 $2,613 $2,875 $3,306 $3,738 $4,169 90814 $1,291 $1,543 $1,995 $2,677 $2,940 $3,381 $3,822 $4,263 90815 $1,491 $1,785 $2,310 $3,098 $3,413 $3,924 $4,436 $4,948 The above payment standard will be applied to new contracts effective December 12, 2018 and after and for existing participants beginning with annual certifications effective January 1, 2019 and after.
TASK FORCE
RECOMMENDATIONS
ATTACHMENT E
1 Acknowledgements
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
Mayor Robert Garcia
Mark Taylor, Chief of Staff
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
Kevin Lee, Public Affairs Officer
Harrison Huynh, Designer, Office of Public Affairs & Communications
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Kelly Colopy, Director
Teresa Chandler, Human Services Bureau Manager
Shannon Parker, Homeless Services Officer
David Thompson, Homeless Impacts Coordinator
Elsa Ramos, Special Projects Coordinator
Michelle MelDuch, Homeless Management Information System Coordinator Michelle Lim, Community Program Technician
Dennis Keith, Executive Assistant
Shaton Anderson, Bureau Secretary
Erica Valencia-Adachi, Administrative Analyst
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Linda Tatum, Director
Patrick Ure, Housing & Neighborhood Bureau Manager
EVERYONE HOME LONG BEACH TASKFORCE MEMBERS
Jane Close Conoley, California State University Long Beach Andy Kerr, Measure H Citizens’ Oversight Advisory Board Brenda Threatt, United States Veterans Initiative
Brian D’Andrea, Century Housing
Carol Williams, Interval House
Carolyn Caldwell, St. Mary Medical Center
Chris Miller, Mental Health America
Chris Steinhauser, Long Beach Unified School District
Chris Wing, SCAN Health Plan
Christine Petit, Long Beach Forward/Building Healthy Communities Erin Rank, Habitat for Humanity of Greater Los Angeles
Gregory Sanders, Long Beach Minister’s Alliance
Janet McCarthy, Goodwill, SOLAC
Jeff Johnson, Homeless Services Advisory Committee
Jeff Levine, Long Beach Rescue Mission & Continuum of Care Jessica Quintana, Centro CHA
John Bishop, Long Beach Memorial Medical Center
John Molina, Pacific 6
John Thomas, Long Beach Community Investment Corporation Kathryn Miles, Jewish Family Services
Kenneth McDonald, Long Beach Transit
Kraig Kojian, Downtown Long Beach Alliance
Mary Ellen Mitchell, WomenShelter of Long Beach
Porter Gilberg, Long Beach LGBTQ Center
Randy Gordon, Greater Long Beach Chamber of Commerce
Reagan Romali , Long Beach City College
Suny Lay Chang, LINC Housing
Susana Sngeim, United Cambodian Community
Thomas Hudson, Housing Authority of the City of Long Beach Tonya Burns, Children Today
Walt Dannenberg, Long Beach VA Medical Center
In May, the City of Long Beach launched Everyone Home Long Beach (EHLB), a new initiative to address the statewide homelessness crisis and its impacts on Long Beach. The EHLB Taskforce was assembled and is comprised of leaders from across the City and those with lived experience of homelessness. Its purpose was to build on the City’s comprehensive homeless services and affordable housing efforts and to identify innovative approaches to provide new pathways into housing, while preventing residents from falling into homelessness.
The City of Long Beach is pleased to present the final report of the EHLB Taskforce. This report makes policy and service recommendations that will improve our responses to this issue in Long Beach, including expanding prevention and mental health, and sets clear goals for housing that are needed to reduce the number of people who experience homelessness each year in Long Beach. It is an important report, which deserves serious consideration and concrete steps to implement the policies and recommendations contained herein.
Thanks go to all the members of the EHLB Taskforce for their hard work and especially CSULB President Jane Conoley and Andy Kerr, who served as the Chair and Vice Chair, respectively, and helped guide the work of the Taskforce. Special thanks also go to Kelly Colopy and the entire Homeless Services staff, the City’s Interdepartmental Team and Continuum of Care for their efforts to support the Taskforce, to develop the recommendations in this report, and for their work every day to provide services to those experiencing homelessness in Long Beach.
The City team looks forward to working with the City Council and our many community partners to achieve the statement of possibility that guides this report: to make the experience of homelessness in Long Beach rare and brief when it occurs.
Mayor Robert Garcia
2 Table of Contents
3 The Everyone Home Long Beach Taskforce ....................................................................................................................... 4 Statement of Possibility....................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Setting the Context ................................................................................................................................................................................. 6 Causes of Homelessness.................................................................................................................................................................... 7 The Current Homeless Services System ................................................................................................................................ 8 Governance.................................................................................................................................................................................. 8 Outreach and Services ........................................................................................................................................................ 9 Current Funding........................................................................................................................................................................ 11 The Need......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Prevention..................................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Housing ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Behavioral and Physical Health Services................................................................................................................................ 14 Discharge Planning.................................................................................................................................................................................. 14 Income and Employment................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Supporting Families................................................................................................................................................................................ 15 Taskforce Goals and Recommendations............................................................................................................................... 16 Goal 1: Strengthen Governance and Increase Funding.............................................................................. 16 Goal 2: Increase Housing Access ................................................................................................................................ 19 Goal 3: Reduce Homelessness...................................................................................................................................... 21 Goal 4: Employ People........................................................................................................................................................ 22 Goal 5: Support Families..................................................................................................................................................... 23 Goal 6: Connect to Health.................................................................................................................................................. 24 Goal 7: Develop Population Based Service Models...................................................................................... 25 Conclusion..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 26 4 THE EVERYONE HOME LONG BEACH TASKFORCE
On May 21, 2018, Mayor Robert Garcia launched the Everyone Home Long Beach (EHLB) Initiative to address homelessness and housing in the City of Long Beach. Everyone Home Long Beach was designed to build on the City’s comprehensive homeless services and affordable housing efforts already underway and to identify innovative approaches to provide new pathways into housing and to prevent residents from falling into homelessness.
On June 15, 2018, the City convened the first Everyone Home Long Beach (EHLB) Taskforce, chaired by Jane Close Conoley, President, California State University Long Beach. The Taskforce was comprised of leaders from across the City, including CEOs and leadership from major institutions, a diverse group of Long Beach organizations, community members and those with lived experience. Institutions represented include California State University Long Beach and Long Beach City College, Long Beach Unified School District, a variety of non-profit organizations, healthcare institutions, faith based organizations, Long Beach Transit, business organizations, Continuum of Care Board and Homeless Services Advisory Committee.
The EHLB Taskforce met five times over a six-month period. The first three meetings provided essential information regarding homeless service efforts underway within the City, gaps in housing and services, organizational infrastructure, and financing. Meetings four and five focused on developing and finalizing the goals and recommendations. A subgroup of Taskforce members met between the final meetings to refine and strengthen the recommendations.
In addition, Taskforce members engaged members of their organizations and communities to generate ideas and provide feedback throughout the process. The Mayor’s Homeless Services Advisory Commitee and the City’s Continuum of Care Board also reviewed and provided feedback to the recommendations. The Taskforce meetings were open meetings, and each included public comment opportunities which were also taken into account in the final recommendations.
5 STATEMENT OF POSSIBILITY
In 2017, nearly 100 Long Beach community stakeholders produced a Statement of Possibility to define success in Long Beach in its mission to end homelessness. This Statement of Possibility was affirmed by the Everyone Home Long Beach Taskforce members in 2018.
The Statement of Possibility is used as a guide as we develop strategies and initiatives for the next five years.
Making this Statement of Possibility a reality will require broadening the effort to the whole community. The goals and strategies of the Everyone Home Long Beach Taskforce align and support the Statement of Possibility.
The experience of homelessness in Long Beach is rare and brief when it occurs. • Capacity of strong and innovative collaborative partnerships are leveraged to ensure that individuals and families are sheltered within 48 hours of seeking shelter and quickly moved to permanent housing solutions integrated and supported in communities across Long Beach. • Prevention is a City priority reflected in concerted efforts to expand low-income and affordable housing and to ensure that supports are in place to help those at imminent risk of homelessness remain housed. Individuals and families at risk of homelessness are identified long before they fall into homelessness and supports are provided.
• Residents experiencing homelessness access culturally competent services available 24/7 across the City, that both allow them to acquire skills and resources needed to remain housed and that create a sense of purpose and belonging.
• Data are utilized to track results and successes and to identify areas in need of improvement. • Members of our communities can access the information needed to ensure they have the knowledge and comfort level to assist those experiencing homelessness and actively engage as part of a positive solution. • We do not give up on the possibility of yes.
6 SETTING THE CONTEXT
Every two years, in January, the City of Long Beach conducts a Point-In-Time (PIT) count where 400-500 volunteers walk through the streets, parks, beaches, and under bridges across Long Beach to identify and interview individuals and families experiencing homelessness. Those in temporary shelters are also interviewed and counted. PIT data for the past six years have demonstrated a 41 percent decline between 2011 and 2017. This decrease is due, in part, to the many innovative approaches to address homelessness in Long Beach such as our unique outreach model, coordinated entry system, conversion of transitional housing programs into rapid rehousing models, federal investments in housing resources for veterans and the expansion of permanent housing for homeless households.
The table below provides demographic information for those identified in the 2017 homeless count. We find that 13 percent are under age 24, over one-quarter (29 percent) are older adults, one-third (31 percent) report a mental illness and 21 percent report a substance use disorder. African Americans are approximately 13 percent of the population in Long Beach but are one-third of those experiencing homelessness. This over-representation in the homeless population mirrors poverty and unemployment trends within the City. Historical housing segregation practices that led to decreased home ownership and housing access nationally and in Long Beach has had long- term impacts on the financial success of the City’s African American population.
By the Numbers
7 We also know that five percent were formally in foster care, three percent are LBGTQ, and three percent are students
The Point-in-Time count provides a snap shot of homelessness on a particular day and only tells us part of the homeless story for Long Beach – it provides the story of those on the streets and in our shelters on one day.
However, it is estimated that approximately 4,000 people fall in and out of homelessness in Long Beach each year. 23.6 percent (37,941 households) of the City’s households are at 45 percent of the median income ($25,000) or less. In addition, nearly 20,000 households are living in over-crowded situations, of which over 9,000 are in severely overcrowded situations. These households are considered precariously housed, often one step away from homelessness.
The need for resources to prevent homelessness and to build low and very low-income housing far exceeds current capacity and resources.
CAUSES OF HOMELESSNESS
Studies have found that people fall into homelessness for many reasons. As the graphic below indicates, loss of job/insufficient wages, behavioral health and health issues, abuse, family breakdown, and incarceration are key factors. A homeless prevention and services system must move beyond immediate interventions and address issues around employment and wages, family supports, health and reentry from incarceration.
8 THE CURRENT HOMELESS SERVICES SYSTEM
Governance
The City’s homeless services and housing systems have four oversight bodies. Daily operations are managed by two City Departments, Health and Human Services and Development Services. Each oversight body has a different make-up and mission.
Homeless Services
One of the governing bodies is the Long Beach Continuum of Care (CoC) Board which is comprised of 17 members that are elected by the Long Beach Continuum of Care General Membership. They include representatives of organizations and projects serving homeless individuals and families in the City of Long Beach. The CoC Board is a requirement for Federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) CoC funding. The CoC Board serves as the oversight for HUD funded homeless services programs in the City. It approves Multi Service Center (MSC) operations, Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) policies and procedures, annual performance standards for CoC and Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) programs, and written standards for providing assistance under ESG and CoC programs. It also develops recommendations regarding homeless services related policies, programs and funding.
In addition to the CoC Board, the Mayor appoints, and the City Council confirms, a Homeless Services Advisory Committee (HSAC), comprised of 11 members - nine representing each council district in the City and two at-large members. HSAC advises the Mayor and Council members on policy, programs and activities related to homeless assistance resources.
The Homeless Services Division staffs HSAC, the CoC Board as well as the CoC General Membership meetings.
Information, recommendations and feedback are shared across the two oversight bodies. Additional information can be found in the Long Beach Continuum of Care Governance Charter and Bylaws.
9 Outreach and Services
The City has a robust system of care to address the needs of our diverse homeless population. The Long Beach Continuum of Care (CoC), made up of over 80 service partners, brings together the core services needed by our population experiencing homelessness. The City’s Health and Human Services Department provides the leadership for these efforts in Long Beach, and applies annually to HUD, the State and Los Angeles County to resource these services.
The CoC is an integrated and coordinated system that provides various services, including street outreach, intake and assessment, emergency shelter, transitional housing, permanent housing and supportive services. Each household has a unique set of needs and the system is designed to identify the appropriate services for each household. This collaborative group of service providers has the ability to meet those needs in part to being designated a Unified Funding Agency (UFA) by HUD in 2014. Given only to the highest quality Continuums of Care in the country, Long Beach is one of four UFA’s out of 400 continuums nationwide. This status allows the flexibility to move funding within the approved projects to address the unique needs of our community.
The Homeless Services Division operates the Multi-Service Center (MSC), which is located at 1301 W. 12th Street.
The MSC is an innovative best practice model and has been replicated by other communities. The MSC serves as the one-stop shop for homeless services. Over a dozen partner agencies operate at the MSC, working together to holistically address the needs of those accessing the center. The center provides a range of services from basic needs such as mail, transportation and shower facilities to assessments for more comprehensive needs such as Housing Development
The Planning Commission and Long Beach Community Investment Company are the primary governance structures for locating and developing housing. The Planning Commission, a seven-member charter commission appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council, advises the Mayor and City Council on all matters affecting development of the City’s general plan, zoning and other ordinances to guide the implementation of long range planning. Among other duties, the Planning Commission is responsible for approving development entitlements for housing projects, including affordable and supportive housing projects.
The Long Beach Community Investment Company (LBCIC) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit company established by the City of Long Beach, with the City serving as its sole
member. The LBCIC is led by a seven-member Board
of Directors appointed by the Mayor and confirmed
by the City Council. The LBCIC serves as the Housing
Successor to the former Redevelopment Agency
on behalf of the City and advises the City Council
regarding the delivery of housing and neighborhood
revitalization services, use of Community Development
Block Grant funding, and continuing administration
of the City’s affordable housing funds. Among other
duties, the LBCIC approves loans to developers for
the production of affordable and supportive housing
projects.
10 understanding the current living situation of each person and developing a housing plan that ultimately leads to a long-term housing solution. The MSC will have approximately 13,000 visits in 2018.
The Homeless Services Division is the lead agency for coordinated outreach, through the Outreach Network Team, and the City’s Interdepartmental efforts. The Interdepartmental Team meets monthly to discuss the City’s integrated and systemic approach to homelessness and plan resource allocation. This team includes the Police and Fire Departments, Public Works, the City Attorney’s Office, the Library, and Parks, Recreation & Marine. The Outreach Network Team includes our interdepartmental team as well as nonprofit providers and community-based agencies such as the Downtown Long Beach Association. The Homeless Services Officer coordinates proactive outreach events across the City.
The Outreach Network makes approximately 2,000 contacts per year. We know that it takes an average of 17 contacts with an individual experiencing homelessness on the street to engage in services. In 2018, the Homeless Services team and its partners found permanent housing for over 1,000 people experiencing homelessness.
An example of the power of this coordinated comprehensive partnership can be seen in our work with veterans and their families. The Homeless Services Division and its partners, which include the Long Beach Veterans Administration and multiple nonprofit providers serving Veterans, have coordinated
a comprehensive approach to assist homeless Veterans
achieve housing stability. The success of this effort has been the critical development of a seamless system of care for Veterans experiencing homeless. The key to this approach are dedicated resources that are flexible, sufficient and reliable to assist Veterans no matter where they are in the housing process, including those who are precariously housed, newly homeless, or chronically homeless. The collaboration provided emergency shelter, transitional housing, rapid rehousing and permanent housing or prevention services. At each stage of a Veteran’s housing process, the system can respond quickly and nimbly to each unique circumstance. Long Beach has effectively ended street homelessness in the city for Veterans.
Every Veteran is offered a permanent housing intervention and services to stabilize his or her situation.
11 Current Funding Available for Services
(in millions)
HUD Continuum of Care $8.18
HUD Other Sources $0.76
Measure H $5.61
HEAP (Services) $2.34
Other State Funding $1.58
Other County Funding $0.45
Housing Authority Vouchers $10.02
City Funding (Homeless Services) $1.21
Total Services, Shelter, Operations $30.15
Total Capital Funding (HEAP) $9.92
Current Funding
Most funding available to serve individuals and families who are precariously housed or homeless is held by the Long Beach Health and Human Services Department through both the Homeless Services Division and Housing Authority.
The Homeless Services Division applies each year for the HUD Continuum of Care Grant. This funding has been the main source of services and housing for homeless services for over 20 years in the City. The Homeless Services Division also receives HUD funds through its Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) and HOME funds and recently was awarded State ESG funding. More recently, the Homeless Services Division negotiated specifi c funding through Los Angeles County Measure H which is now in its second year of funding and received the State Homeless Emergency Assistance Program (HEAP) Grant ($12.3 million total) that is available over the next two years.
Finally, the Homeless Services Division was awarded California Emergency Solutions and Housing Program (CESH Program) which provides funding for five years
to strengthen the Coordinated Entry System and
HMIS. The Measure H, HEAP and CESH funds
have significantly expanded the City’s capacity to
provide services.
The Housing Authority provides 100 vouchers
specifically for those coming through Homeless
Services and another 702 vouchers for Veterans
Experiencing homelessness. These vouchers
equate to approximately $10 million in housing
subsidy for those experiencing homelessness.
The current funding available for services,
shelter, housing, and operations is approximately
$30 million in FY 2019.
While the Homeless Services Division generates significant funding to support those facing homelessness, the utilization of these funds is very prescribed and allows little flexibility in how they are used. Their focus is street outreach, emergency shelter, transitional housing, rapid rehousing, permanent supportive housing, and some supportive services. Funding for prevention has been minimal; resources for mental health and substance use treatment, pilot programs, and building facilities and housing are not funded under most of these sources.
The HEAP funding provided a much-needed level of flexibility and is allowing the City to increase its prevention funding, fund pilot programs for both employment opportunities and SAFE Parking, as well as purchase both a year-round shelter building and storage facility.
Available funding to support building additional housing within the City of Long Beach is minimal. The City’s only existing ongoing funding source for affordable housing is the Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) funds provided by HUD. The City’s allocation for 2019 is about $3 million, with an estimated $1.5 million in program income, for a total of $4.5 million. In 2017, the California Legislature adopted Senate Bill 2, which is intended to provide affordable housing funding to cities. The amount that Long Beach may receive through this source is estimated by staff at about $2 million annually, but the actual amount is unknown at this time. 12 Current Funding Available for Services
(in millions)
HUD Continuum of Care $8.18
HUD Other Sources $0.76
Measure H $5.61
HEAP (Services) $2.34
Other State Funding $1.58
Other County Funding $0.45
Housing Authority Vouchers $10.02
City Funding (Homeless Services) $1.21
Total Services, Shelter, Operations $30.15
Total Capital Funding (HEAP) $9.92
THE NEED
As a city-wide homeless services system, we focus on homeless prevention as well as services to assist individuals and families experiencing homelessness into temporary and permanent housing. The standard definition of prevention services includes rental assistance, rental arrears, security deposits, and utility assistance for those who are at-risk of, or are recently homeless. In Long Beach, we also define access to low and very-low income housing opportunities, mental health and substance use treatment as well as case management to assist with maintaining housing, employment training and employment opportunities as homeless prevention.
Prevention
For FY 2019, the Homeless Services Division received $1.5 million in prevention funding to serve approximately 430 households per year for the next two years, an increase from 150 households per year, from HEAP funding and an increase in Measure H funding. However, given that approximately 4,000 people fall into homelessness each year, the need is far greater. The average cost for prevention services per individual or family is $3,500. Assisting half of that number would require $7 million in prevention funding annually.
Housing
As previously discussed, nearly 4,000 individuals and families experience homelessness each year and over 20,000 households are precariously housed in our city. Creating access to permanent supportive, very low and low-income housing is essential. This could come in the form of new development, re-development of properties (including nuisance motels), and increasing the number of landlords that accept Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV).
13 It is estimated that to meet the needs of those falling into homelessness each year, the City would need an additional:
• 500 emergency shelter beds (including capacity for families, transition-aged youth, and other specific populations
• 350 Permanent Supportive Housing units including support services • 2,400 additional units that accept rental subsidies, including Housing Choice Vouchers (formerly known as Section 8)
• 450 rapid rehousing units
Through HEAP and Measure H funding, the City has generated sufficient funding to purchase, improve and operate a 125-bed year-round shelter which is expected to open in 2020. This leaves an additional need of 375 beds.
The Housing Authority has the voucher capacity and funding to house approximately 7,200 households within Long Beach. However, nearly 550 households have qualified and completed the application for a voucher but cannot find a unit available to them. Many unit advertisements state that “No Section 8” will be accepted. They remain precariously housed, and can fall into homelessness, during their housing search. Vouchers expire in 180 days, which means a person with a voucher who cannot find a unit within 180 days loses the voucher. The average time to find a unit is five months for those who do find housing. We estimate an additional need of nearly 2,400 units that will accept subsidies.
Currently, the City has 6,477 publically assisted housing units with long-term affordability covenants, and 6,666 Housing Choice Vouchers that are used citywide. The current Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) production goal for the City of Long Beach is an additional 2,517 low and very low-income units. 806 are currently in the development pipeline (9 units nearing completion, 233 units under construction, 265 units approved, and 299 proposed and upcoming). 235 permanent
supportive housing units are included in
the 806 number. In order to build the 1,711
additional units identified under RHNA, an
estimated additional $793,000,000 in total
development funding would be needed
(based on the average development cost of
projects in the pipeline). The RHNA number
addresses approximately 12.5 percent of the
units to meet the needs of those precariously
housed within the City. The graphic below
shows the number of units in development
and city and leveraged funds utilized for
development.
14 Behavioral and Physical Health Services
The 2017 Point-in-Time Count found that nearly one-third of those experiencing homelessness report a mental illness and 21 percent report using substances. This is a slightly higher rate of mental illness among those who are homeless than the national estimates (20-25 percent) and lower than the national estimates for substance use (38 percent abuse alcohol and 25 percent other drugs). Both Mental Health and Substance Use services are funded through Los Angeles County.
The County Department of Mental Health (DMH) both directly provides mental health services in the City and contracts with non-profit organizations to provide services. DMH is co-located at the MSC and works closely with the MSC team for assessment and referrals. DMH is working to identify additional locations for residential treatment in Long Beach and across the County. In 2017, Star Behavioral Health opened a DMH-funded Behavioral Health Urgent Care Center which provides 24-hour access to mental health services in Long Beach.
Substance use services are provided by non-profit providers in the City. LA County Substance Abuse Prevention and Control (SAP-C) is currently conducting a needs assessment to determine the levels and capacity of services needed for SPA-8, the Service Planning Area that includes Long Beach. At this time, SAP-C records show 196 residential treatment beds located in Long Beach and fewer than 10 medical detox beds. These beds are available to surrounding cities as well. Bed availability can be seen on the Service and Bed Availability Tool (http://sapccis. ph.lacounty.gov/sbat/). Current review shows little availability.
Discharge Planning
Due to recent State legislation (SB-1152 Hospital patient discharge process: homeless patients), hospitals are precluded from discharging people experiencing homelessness without a connection to shelter. The City of Long Beach has developed a Discharge Collaborative, working closely with hospitals and community partners to strengthen the process for accessing housing opportunities for patients who are homeless and at risk for return to the street. Planning and implementation efforts include: creating a mechanism for identifying homeless patients at admission and linking them to the Coordinated Entry System and/or current service provider as quickly as possible; developing a data base that can be accessed by all participating partners to coordinate care and services and access to housing opportunities; and developing a multi-disciplinary post discharge team that will work together to identify practices that can be designed and implemented to decrease repeat admissions to the emergency room or hospital.
A key service needed for effective discharges from hospitals are recuperative care beds. These beds provide a location for people who do not have access to a safe and clean place to recover from injury and illness.
Recuperative care is not a medical facility, but temporary housing with case management and care coordination for further medical and behavioral health follow-up. The Los Angeles County Department of Health Services has recuperative care beds located in the City of Long Beach and can accommodate approximately ten referrals to its system of care. This number of recuperative care beds does not meet the need for the number of people being discharged from our local hospitals.
15 Income and Employment
Over one-half of those falling into homelessness have either lost their job and or have insufficient income to pay for housing and bills. The poverty rate in the City of Long Beach is 20.3 percent and over 40 percent in some neighborhoods in Long Beach. The unemployment rate is 4.1 percent but over 30 percent in pockets of our City. Pacific Gateway Workforce Develop Board provides a number of employment programs for youth and adults who are precariously housed, including job search assistance, skills development, on-the-job training as well as a youth jobs program. Pacific Gateway matches on-the-job training opportunities and youth internship programs. Pacific Gateway serves over 4,000 people per year.
In addition, through the Continuum of Care, Goodwill SOLAC provides training, education, job preparation and placement programs for individuals experiencing homelessness. In 2019, the City will pilot an additional employment program for those experiencing homelessness through the HEAP funding.
Approximately 95,000 people live in poverty within the City.
Increasing access to job training and living wage employment opportunities is an essential step to reducing homelessness.
Supporting Families
The Corporation for Supportive Housing (CSH) and National Alliance to End Homelessness (NAEH) completed research on family homelessness called National Trends and Local System Responses. Families with short- and long-term stays in homeless service programs have a myriad of challenges that are similar to the challenges many other low-income families face who never become homeless. A small subset of families experience multiple episodes of homelessness. This group
of families requires more assistance than
homeless service programs typically provide
to achieve housing stability. Shelter, service
and housing options for families experiencing
homelessness can be more difficult to access.
Long Beach has one 56-bed shelter for families,
another 41 beds for women with children and 18
beds for veteran women with children.
Families generally become homeless after a
period of housing instability. They often move
from one doubled-up situation to another to avoid homelessness, which is reflected in the City’s overcrowded household numbers. However, when doubled-up situations are no longer tenable, they become homeless.
Homeless families reside in missions, emergency shelter, and transitional housing. They also can be found in cars, outdoors, or in other unsafe locations.
Homeless families have thinner social networks than their housed counterparts, with fewer people in their social networks that they can turn to for concrete assistance, to borrow money for example, or for social support. A multi-city study of homeless families found 27 percent of parents were in foster care as a child or an adolescent.
This suggests they may have strained or nonexistent familial resources. Most also have difficulties accessing social service benefits.
16 The Everyone Home Long Beach Taskforce was provided context, data, system and service information and formation on gaps through presentations provided by experts and people with lived experience. They listened to public comments, asked good questions and engaged in lively, thoughtful conversations. Staff responded to questions either at the meetings or electronically were information was available. From this process, the Taskforce determined specific categories for focus and developed the following goals and recommendations to guide the City’s next steps to end homelessness.
Goal 1: Strengthen Governance and Increase Funding
Governance
Currently, governance and oversight for housing and homelessness is held by multiple organizations, including the Mayor appointed Homeless Services Advisory Committee (HSAC), the Continuum of Care Board, Long Beach Community Investment Company, the Long Beach Planning Commission, Health and Human Services and Development Services Departments. Each plays a different role and oversees a portion of the system. Improved coordination of governance, planning, goals and accountability will build a stronger prevention and homeless response system.
Recommendations:
Restructure the Continuum of Care Board to serve as a City-wide umbrella governance structure to coordinate the expansion of housing opportunities, homeless services, and homeless response; to develop system performance measures; and ensure system accountability. Ensure Board’s membership reflects the cultures in the community and includes members with lived experience.
Strengthen City’s efforts to identify and implement affordable and homeless housing opportunities by creating a position dedicated to positioning the City for future housing funding, addressing zoning and entitlement concerns, and participating with expanded governance structure.
Data
The availability of data across the homeless services system is essential to improved services, coordination and system performance. Currently, only those organizations (11) who are funded through the Continuum of Care (CoC) and 7 unfunded partners provide service and utilization data into the Homeless Services Management Information System (HMIS). Utilization of an HMIS is required by HUD as a condition of CoC funding.
TASKFORCE GOALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1a.
1b.
Secure local sustainable
funding and leverage third
party sources
Secure $25 million in on-going
funding and $220 million in
capital funding
Build governance, data capabilities, communications and financing to support a coordinated and robust homeless services and housing system.
17 Recommendations:
Expand existing data sharing agreements (AR8-32 and HMIS) to County departments, non-profit organizations, developers, and hospitals to strengthen coordination and services for individuals and families experiencing homelessness. Precedence has been set through AB 210 (Homeless Services Multidisciplinary Personnel).
Design and utilize a common client consent form across the system (leveraging existing multi-organizational forms).
Implement a technology solution (or expand the Homeless Management Information System-HMIS) to include all partners in the homeless services system. This may include a single platform and/or migrating data from existing platforms into a data warehouse solution. Create incentives for organizations that are not funded through the CoC to participate in the system.
Communications, Education and Advocacy
Communications that educate our communities and partners about homeless services available in Long Beach, how communities can help, as well as build support within communities to accept organizations that provide services to support people experiencing homelessness and low-income housing is essential to reducing stigma related to homelessness and building our City’s capacity to end homelessness. Active contributions will be required from all sectors in Long Beach including other City departments, housing developers and policy makers, the Apartment Association, those who have experienced homelessness, businesses, hospitals, education systems, social services, and the general public.
Recommendations:
Implement the City’s strategic communications plan, which is currently under development. Engage City partners, community members, businesses, and providers to educate the community about City homeless services and performance and how they can help. Ensure solutions are integrated within the communications.
Expedite this plan to address:
• Short term and ongoing needs to de-escalate negative reactions to people experiencing homelessness on the streets of Long Beach.
• Long term issues regarding affordable housing needs and services for people experiencing homelessness.
Reduce stigma and fear surrounding homelessness by:
• Focusing on language and messaging
• Engaging in community education and communication
• Incorporating leading voices in the community
Utilize LA County YES in My Back Yard (YIMBY) education model:
• Use data and stories to build a case for investing in high quality affordable housing in Long Beach.
Publicize Long Beach’s efforts through a website portal that documents progress, celebrates successes, and mobilizes support.
Continue and expand City advocacy and education at the County, State and Federal levels to support housing, health and social support legislation and funding. 1e.
1f.
1g.
1h.
1i.
1d.
1c.
Funding
Current funding opportunities focus on specific homeless services such as outreach, emergency shelter, transitional and rapid rehousing, and services provided for permanent supportive housing. Current funds do not fund capital expenditures to build low-income and homeless housing, nor do they effectively fund homeless prevention services to ensure those who are formerly homeless or precariously housed do not fall into homelessness. The City Council received information on potential funding sources in August 2018 and directed staff to begin exploring possibilities with the community. The City Council allocated a contingent appropriation of $50,000 in the FY19 budget to initiate the work, which will begin in early 2019.
Recommendations:
Identify and implement one or more dedicated, sustainable revenue sources to meet governance, data, service, operations and lower-income housing gap financing assistance needs, including dedicated funding resources to support immediate prevention and case management needs. 18 1j.
Estimated Funding Need to Meet Goals
(In Millions)
Capitalize the City’s Housing Trust Fund. Local funds are critical to leveraging the resources of other public agencies including the County, State and federal resources such as the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) as administered by California’s Tax Credit Allocation Committee. 2,000 Low-Income Units $170
200 Permanent Supportive Housing Units $17
Purchase of buildings to support shelter opportunities and other programming $30 Resource the coordination and oversight of housing and homelessness Citywide, including data infrastructure and support. (Annually) $2 Prevention, retention, flexible subsidies, 24x7 outreach, and other health and support services. (Annually) $18
Landlord incentives/Homeless Incentive Program for precariously housed. (Annually) $2
Emergency Shelter Expansion/Storage Operations. (Annually) $2 Approximate Total Capital Costs $217
Approximate Total Operational Costs (on-going) $24
Goal 2: Increase Housing Access
Expand Housing Opportunities
Over 20,000 households are precariously housed and an estimated 4,000 people in the City of Long Beach experience homelessness each year. Expanding housing opportunities is imperative. In fall of 2016, the City’s Affordable and Workforce Housing Study Group, chaired by former Assemblywoman Bonnie Lowenthal, began meeting to identify strategies and best practices to expand housing opportunities. The Study Group provided 29 strategies for expanding housing opportunities (http:/ /www.lbds.info/civica/filebank/blobdload. asp?BlobID=6407). The Everyone Home Long Beach Taskforce supports these strategies and highlights the need to commit to a combination of short-term and long-term strategies to increase the stock of permanent low- income housing across the City while generating the necessary sustainable funding, public support and goodwill to successfully implement these strategies.
Recommendations:
Short-term
Adopt a progressive inclusionary housing ordinance that creates new affordable housing opportunities throughout the City while requiring payment of reasonable “in lieu” fees by developers.
Provide zoning accommodations to developers who wish to convert existing motels into permanent supportive housing.
Develop and adopt an ordinance that prohibits discrimination based on housing subsidy and other sources of income, including Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV-Section 8) and encourages housing providers to accept tenants with housing subsidies.
Identify properties and incentivize property owners in Long Beach to participate in a shared housing model program that allows for master leasing a property and matching tenants to affordable housing.
Expand the number of rent-stabilized units through options such as production, policy and preservation.
Long-term
Establish more geographically equitable distribution of lower-income housing units and supportive services across the City.
• Elicit commitments from every Council District to provide for a certain number of affordable and/or Emergency
Shelter
Add 200 beds of shelter/crisis
housing capacity by the end of
2020
Permanent
Supportive
Housing
200 new additional units of PSH
will be entitled, online, or in the
pipeline for construction by 2023
Low and Very
Low Income
Housing
2,000 very low or low income
units will be entitled, online, in
the pipeline for construction or
completed by 2023
19 2a.
2b.
2c.
2d.
2e.
2f.
supportive housing units/developments, including supportive services, within that City Council district. (These may include new development, re-purposed units, access to units utilizing subsidies, substance use services, mental health services, and other support services).
Increase low barrier emergency shelter beds and increase accessibility for populations that currently have limited shelter options:
• Couples, parents with children and people with pets so they can remain together • Transition-Aged Youth
• Older adults
• Re-entry population
• People with multiple diagnoses, particularly those with mental illness co-occurring with physical or substance use
• Individuals experiencing homelessness who do not meet requirements of current sheltering options or have other barriers to shelter
Utilize assets outside of the successor agency assets by identifying underutilized government or privately- controlled land assets that could be redeveloped to provide affordable housing opportunities while incorporating public uses.
Incentivize and engage landlords to provide housing to low-income and homeless individuals and families.
The current rental market is tight and finding housing if you are low-income, on assistance or homeless, is very difficult. An essential component to increasing rental housing opportunities for homeless and low-income individuals and families is partnering with and incentivizing landlords to open existing units. Landlords express concern about damage to their units, inability to pay, and behavior concerns. Incentives and services specifically designed to mitigate these landlord concerns can open existing and new units across the City.
Recommendations:
Finance, pilot and implement incentives commensurate to the Homeless Incentive Program (HIP) for landlords accepting Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV) or proposed flexible subsidy for both precariously housed and homeless households. Possible options may include:
• Funds to cover holding fees
• Damage mitigation fees
• Move in assistance
• New bonus for landlords partnering with the Housing Authority in communities where HCV access is limited • Landlord continuity bonus to reward landlords for renting to another participant from any housing program within 60 days
• Leasing bonus of up to $500 per unit for landlords newly leasing to a veteran experiencing homelessness • Property improvement incentives such as energy efficiency upgrades for landlords who lease to low income or homeless renters
• Application expense assistance of up to $25 to be paid directly to landlords to cover applicant costs, such as credit report and application fees
• On-call maintenance to assist with preparing the unit for inspection/rental or assist in repairs that deposits do not cover
• Tax incentive for landlords that exclusively rent to low-income households • 24/7 call-in availability to support property owners renting to formerly homeless or housing subsidy tenants 20 2g.
2h.
2i.
Goal 3: Reduce Homelessness
Prevention
Reduce the number of people
falling into homelessness to
1,500 or fewer annually by 2023
Immediate
Intervention
75% of people that exit into
housing do so within 6 months of
becoming homeless by 2023
Cnronic
Homelessness
Reduce the number of
chronically homeless to 350 or
fewer by January 2021
Provide services and incentives to prevent homelessness.
Homeless prevention opportunities focus on those who are precariously housed due to the rent burden over 40 percent of income, rapidly increasing rents or eviction. The City of Long Beach has been experiencing significant rent increases and increased displacement due to these rent increases, building sales and new ownership.
Ensuring tenant assistance policies are in place to support tenants and also maintaining naturally occuring low- income housing opportunities within the City are important to ensuring sufficient low-income housing access.
Recommendations:
Support and implement tenant assistance policies as developed in coordination with community members and landlords. These include:
• A Tenant Relocation Assistance Policy that provides relocation assistance to households impacted by rising rents and displacement.
• Support to increase the State’s noticing requirement for a no-fault termination of tenancy to a minimum of 90 days.
• Rapid rehousing services and deposit assistance, in addition to the tenant relocation assistance policy, for displaced very low-income older adults.
• Setting aside Housing Choice Vouchers for displaced extremely low- and very-low income older adults. • Establishing a communication framework with HUD, affordable apartment owners with expiring covenants or rental assistance contracts, and residents to improve knowledge of the housing preservation process and to increase housing preservation opportunities.
Provide support services and prevention funding to households at 60 percent (an increase from 40 percent) of average median income (AMI) who are at-risk of losing their housing.
Proactively identify buildings at risk of rent increases and/or evictions. Require owners to notify the City to allow for proactive support of tenants.
21 3a.
3b.
3c.
Provide case management and support services for people utilizing HCV and proposed flexible housing subsidies.
Design and implement anti-discrimination training required for landlords participating in any incentive program.
2j.
2k.
Goal 4: Employ People
Adult
Create 600 job opportunities, prioritizing living
wage, for people who are homeless or precariously
housed by 2021
Transition- Age Youth (TAY)
Create 240 job job opportunities, prioritizing living
wage, for Transition-Aged Youth (TAY) experiencing
homelessness or precariously housed by 2021
Increase employment opportunities for people who are at-risk of, or experiencing, homelessness.
While employment training and opportunities exist for those who are precariously housed or experiencing homelessness in the City of Long Beach, it is important to review these programs to determine where barriers to services exist and develop solutions to increase access. In addition, our City’s employers can play an essential role in building internship and employment opportunities.
Recommendations:
Partner with the City’s Workforce Development Board to examine and expand options for on-the-job training, dislocated workers, re-entry population and transition-aged youth at risk of, or experiencing, homelessness.
Partner with the Chamber of Commerce, Business Improvements Districts and the business community to provide job training and employment opportunities for individuals that are currently at-risk or experiencing homelessness. Where possible, provide opportunities to earn a living wage.
Reduce barriers to employment for those with criminal histories and/or system-impacted by:
• Supporting City Prosecutor’s Restoration Initiative for Safety and Employment (RISE) program to provide free assistance to those who are eligible to seal their criminal records, clear a minor warrant, convert court fines to community service as well as assist with finding employment, educational opportunities, and providing other benefits.
• Expanding employment opportunities specifically for people who are released from incarcerated settings.
Leverage and promote social enterprise opportunities that either employ individuals who are experiencing homelessness to support job skills and income generation or donate a percentage of profits to non-profit organizations to provide services to address needs of those experiencing homelessness.
Expand City’s youth internship program to include youth who are near or experiencing homelessness.
Research worker co-op models and implement best practices. 22 4a.
4b.
4c.
4d.
4e.
4f.
Goal 5: Support Families
Child Care
Create at least 400 new childcare slots available to
very low-income and homeless parents by 2021
Support children and families who are precariously housed or homeless.
Homelessness, poverty and domestic violence can have life-long impacts on a child’s well-being. Supporting families and children who are at-risk or experiencing homelessness due to income, family breakdown, domestic violence is essential. Many non-profits in the City of Long Beach serve children and their families by providing case management, mental health treatment, and access to supportive services. Key to success is the coordination of these services for those experiencing homelessness as well as finding child care opportunities that allow for employment and life skills training and participation in treatment services for parents.
Recommendations:
Increase childcare opportunities for low-income and homeless families, particularly infants and toddlers, including at provider sites to support family access to services.
Improve coordination between organizations to improve access and utilization of physical and mental health care by children and families.
Expand availability of life-skills training for families.
Increase services, supports and housing for families experiencing domestic violence.
Strengthen education and coordination of services for children, youth and young adults experiencing homelessness to support academic access and success.
23 5a.
5b.
5c.
5d.
5e.
Goal 6: Connect to Health
Substance Use
Triple the detox beds for Long
Beach residents to 30 by 2021.
Implement a sobering center by
2020
Health
Reduce the number of non-
emergency visits to the
ER for those experiencing
homelessness by 25% by 2023
Implement 30 new Recuperative
Care beds by 2021.
Hospital
Discharge
Reduce the number of people
who are discharged from
hospitals to homelessness to 0%
by 2023
Increase access to Behavioral Health and Physical Health Services Over 50 percent of homeless individuals in Long Beach experience either mental illness or a substance use disorder. Research indicates that 20 percent of people fall into homeless due to a behavioral or physical health condition or disability. Improving access to services is an important step to accessing housing and helping people maintain their housing once housed. In addition, our hospitals are impacted by those experiencing homelessness who have physical and behavioral health conditions. With state legislation in place that precludes discharging a person into homelessness, there is a tremendous need to increase collaboration among hospitals and community partners to access shelter and housing, as well as to increase the number of, and access to, recuperative care beds and sobering center opportunities in the City.
Recommendations:
Establish agreement with LA County Housing for Health program to allow for a coordinated referral program to serve the City’s most vulnerable and most frequent users of City resources.
Partner with LA County and the State to implement a substance use detox center, sobering center, and increased recuperative care beds in the City of Long Beach and explore and work to implement a safe needle exchange program for the City.
Engage non-profit partners and hospitals to increase substance use treatment opportunities.
Advocate at state and federal government levels to significantly increase long-term mental healthcare capacity and to reform the conservatorship rules and processes to make it easier to get people the care they need and maintain it as long as the level is appropriate.
Expand discharge planning process that engages hospitals, institutions, and community organizations to ensure that people experiencing homelessness are discharged and supported in an appropriate setting.
Provide care coordination upon discharge.
24 6a.
6b.
6c.
6d.
6e.
Develop service models specific to Older Adults, Transition-Aged Youth (TAY), LGTBQ, and Re- entry populations
The Taskforce members recognize that specific populations within our City face additional barriers to services and existing models may not have the current capacity to sufficiently address the range of needs presented.
To incorporate a strengths-based approach, the existing models will require identification and training on best practices to address the needs of those specific populations. Developing specific service models for Older Adult, TAY, LGBTQ and re-entry populations were beyond the scope and expertise of the Taskforce members. They instead recommend planning specific to each population.
Recommendations:
Develop and implement housing and service models including prevention, retention, housing access and support services specifically to meet the needs of older adults, transition-aged youth, LGTBQ and re-entry populations who are at-risk of, or experiencing, homelessness.
25 Goal 7: Develop Population Based Service Models
The Everyone Home Long Beach Taskforce asks that the City Council adopt this document outlining our vision, goals and recommendations for addressing housing and homelessness within the City of Long Beach. We look forward to a Long Beach where the experience of homelessness in our City is rare and brief when it occurs. We ask that the City work closely with community members and its community, business, finance, education, health and government partners to implement this aggressive vision-setting document. We understand that achieving this work will require significant dedicated funding and other resources. It is imperative that these resources are identified and prioritized to end homelessness in our City.
CONCLUSION
26 City of Long Beach
333 W. Ocean Blvd.
Long Beach, CA 90802
Visit us at www.longbeach.gov
facebook.com/CityofLongBeachCA
@LongBeachCity
This information is available in alternative format by request at 562.570.6257.
For an electronic version of this document, visit our website at www.longbeach.gov.