Grand Jury Faults Local Leaders Over Homelessness : Poverty: Report says number has doubled to 10,000 in recent years. It cites progress but sees a long-range problem and chides officials ‘who wish to ignore it.’

Orange County’s homeless population, estimated at 10,000, doubled in the past few years and continues to grow, mostly because of “lack of county leadership, coordination and action,” the 1990-91 grand jury said in a report released Thursday.

The report makes five recommendations to the Board of Supervisors, including forming a blue-ribbon commission and appointing a full-time county coordinator, to deal with the problem.

“There is evidence that some groups, some officials, some citizens, see that Orange County has a serious homeless problem, and it probably will be long range,” says the 11-page report, signed by foreman Grant Baldwin. “There is also strong evidence that many do not see the problem, or wish to ignore it.”

Baldwin said homelessness has become more common since the 1988-89 grand jury submitted a report on the scope of the problem. While some progress has been made in finding solutions, and many cities individually have made efforts to deal with the homeless, for the most part the problem has not been addressed, the new report said.

The current Orange County Grand Jury chose to examine existing services and organizations and how they coordinate with each other. They also wanted to find out where the gaps in services are and whose responsibility it is to deal with the homeless.

“The grand jury recognizes that many of the problems associated with homelessness and hunger are beyond local solution,” the report says. “However, many aspects of homelessness, especially those of temporary shelter and food, are solvable within the resources of the County of Orange and the cities within the county.”

Supervisor Thomas F. Riley, who had not seen the report, said, however, that it “certainly merits consideration. But I’m not going to accept any guilt on the part of the Board of Supervisors,” he added. “We have lots of demands on our resources. . . .”

“You can’t dismiss this out of hand, and I’m not prepared to elaborate, but I do think the Board of Supervisors is well aware of this problem and within our resources, we’re trying to be responsive,” he said.

The report also says that too many communities would rather try to force outthe homeless than try to help them.

“There have been reported instances of homeless being forced out of one city, to become another city’s problem,” the report states. “ . . . Homelessness must be viewed as a countywide problem, which can be solved only on an integrated, cooperative, fair-share basis between the county and the cities.”

Several studies, both nationally and locally, have shown that lack of affordable housing is a root cause of homelessness. And the grand jury reports that Orange County has made some attempt to address that issue.

For example, some cities and the county have offered incentives to developers to build more affordable housing. Also, the grand jury notes a greater involvement by the Building Industry Assn. and its nonprofit arm, HomeAid, to try to address the problem.

The report also lauds Supervisor Roger R. Stanton and Santa Ana Mayor Daniel H. Young, who headed a task force that last year produced an “excellent” handbook about single-occupancy rooms, a source of housing for the homeless.

But, it says, “Orange County has been making slow progress toward acceptance of this concept.”

The Orange County Homeless Issues Task Force, founded in 1986, “has done a fine job of advocacy with limited resources, and in building a network of churches and other charitable groups willing to help.” But the group, the report states, “appears to be both understaffed and under-funded.”

While other counties in the state have programs for homeless people, and most of the larger counties have full-time coordinators, Orange County has neither, and the report says “county organization to deal with the homeless/housing problem is, in the view of the grand jury, inadequate.”

In Orange County, a director of housing within the county’s Environmental Management Agency deals more with “bricks and mortar” issues like monitoring the housing stock, and not with social implications of homelessness, the report states. Those implications include, for example, the problem of education for the children of homeless people.

Both the 1988-89 grand jury, and a 1990 report by the county administrative office, recommend appointment of a coordinator for homeless issues. But neither recommendation has been accepted by the supervisors.

In spite of the fragmented efforts from different cities, private industry and to some extent the county, the main problem, the report says, was lack of county leadership.

The grand jury also recommends a long-range action plan, providing more funding and support to the Homeless Issues Task Force and reorganization of the county’s housing office so that it also addresses the topic of homelessness.

“The widespread and diffused nature of homelessness and the special need for fairness and equity present a unique situation which only countywide action can address,” the grand jury says.