Orange County’s Homeless Problem and What’s to Be Done About It
The following are excerpts from the 1990-91 Orange County Grand Jury’s report on homelessness issued last month.
Introduction
The 1988-89 Orange County Grand Jury submitted a report addressing homelessness in Orange County. Since that time, events have conspired to make the situation worse. Nationwide homelessness and its poverty partner, hunger, have been on the increase. In this sense, Orange County mirrors the nation. Increasingly, homelessness and hunger are not transient problems which time will heal. Factors such as lack of low-cost housing, growing numbers of immigrants, lack of facilities for the mentally ill and those who have fallen victim to drug and alcohol abuse will make these long-term problems, demanding long-term solutions. The local newspapers have given increasing attention to the homeless problem, but do not suggest many solutions. This is understandable. The problems are complex and solutions difficult. Public perception is blurred, and the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) syndrome prevails, making even the providing of basic services difficult.
Purpose of Study
The grand jury recognizes that many of the problems associated with homelessness and hunger are beyond local solution. 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. Lack of very low cost housing, a major cause of homelessness, is a more complex problem.
Findings
According to the Homeless Issues Task Force, there are at least 10,000 homeless in Orange County. There is a widely held public perception that the homeless person is a single man, often on drugs or alcohol, disruptive within his community.
In fact, although there is a hard core of such homeless, they tend to distort the picture. The composition of the homeless population is much more heterogeneous and complex and becoming more so. It consists of families, children, single women and the temporarily unemployed. Each homeless segment requires a different solution. There is no single approach which will apply to all groups of homeless.
The mobility of the homeless makes the problem even more acute. The homeless are easy for jurisdictions within the county to ignore. One of the results is the NIMBY syndrome. There have even been reported instances of homeless being forced out of one city, to become another city’s problem. They are, in the view of many, somebody else’s problem. The fact is that homeless children, single women and families, as well as the stereotypical derelict, can be found throughout Orange County. 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.
In February, 1990, the Research Committee of the Orange County Homeless Issues Task Force issued a report . . . a sampling done within the limitations imposed by lack of resources. This survey is especially instructive as to the composition of the homeless group. Of the 1,974 persons surveyed, 710 were children, 371 under the age of 5. The most frequent reason given for being homeless was lack of affordable housing. Most surveyed had lived in Orange County for three or more years. About half had been homeless less than a year, and about one-fifth for more than three years. A number (12%) were working poor, and a large number (67%) claimed to be actively seeking employment.
Of the estimated 10,000 homeless in Orange County, almost half have been added in the past two to three years. The fastest growing homeless sector is families with children. Homeless families can be found in most areas of the county. The number is continuing to grow. Much of the more recent homelessness is directly related to lack of low-cost housing. This situation represents a very serious long-range problem for Orange County.
Increasingly, the homeless fall into two broad categories, each calling for a different approach. The first group fit the stereotype of Skid Row: middle-aged with severe drinking or drug problems; drifters; mentally ill and homeless because of state and national deinstitutionalization of mental health care. There are the runaway youths and the emotionally displaced. These people require group homes, emergency shelter, social services and food, and probably will continue to have these needs. Some respond to rehabilitation; regrettably, many do not, and they will require help and attention into the indefinite future.
The second group may be referred to as the “working poor” or perhaps the “able-to-work poor.” Evidence strongly suggests that the second category is growing rapidly. These are the economically disadvantaged, often working but unable to afford housing of any kind. It is here where we see the most direct connection between housing and homelessness, and where well-designed and innovative housing programs can reduce the number of homeless significantly. “Hunger in Orange County” by Anne Cotter, published Aug. 10, 1990, an update of an ongoing survey, draws a direct relationship between lack of affordable housing, homelessness and hunger.
The survey showed that only 17% of all Orange County families had incomes which would qualify them to buy homes. About one-third paid a larger percentage of their incomes on housing than the federal guidelines recommend. The rapid increase in housing costs caused many to lose their places to live. This situation has been further exacerbated by the recent economic downturn and the growing number of immigrants.
Most of those interviewed see the working poor as a group that can be benefited by well-designed, innovative, very (low) cost housing programs. This type of housing has the potential for reducing the number of homeless significantly, thus freeing up limited resources for the more intractable categories of homeless. The grand jury found a number of innovative programs and approaches which could be viewed as developmental models. These include building density incentives. Countywide transitional housing, Block Grant grouping arrangements, and a greater involvement by the Building Industry Assn. and its nonprofit arm, HomeAid. Habitat for Humanity, a Georgia religious nonprofit group, with which former President Jimmy Carter has been associated, is actively building in the county of Orange.
One especially hopeful sign in the development of very low cost housing are the Single Residence Occupancy (SRO) hotels. These small, efficient basic units provide housing for singles, and sometimes couples. San Diego has effectively utilized SROs in providing some housing for the poor. The SRO concept has worked in San Diego because of a close working relationship among builders, the county and the cities. Orange County has been making slow progress toward acceptance of this concept. The EMA Housing Office has recently developed an SRO Housing Development Plan. The Building Industries Assn.’s nonprofit branch, HomeAid, is becoming increasingly active in planning SROs and other low-cost projects.
SROs, when developed in Orange County, will serve to reduce the homeless working poor to some degree. However, the impact of SROs will be limited. They will not serve families. Moreover, the rental costs, estimated to be in the $350 to $400 range, will price them out of the reach of many of the working poor. However, the SRO concept has served to focus attention on a serious Orange County problem. Perhaps even more important, development of the SRO Guide required the cooperative efforts of cities, county, BIA and others. Such coordinated countywide efforts are required if there is to be a significant impact on the housing/homeless problem.
The public view of homelessness is ambiguous. Residents of Orange County view homelessness as the second most serious social problem in Orange County, according to United Way. Lack of low-cost housing and temporary shelters also ranked very high on the concern scale. At the same time, there appears to be a reluctance to search for short- or long-term solutions among the official county or city organizations. In addition, the NIMBY syndrome seems to run counter to the concerns expressed by county residents.
Local awareness of the homeless issue has been reinforced by the amount of national attention to the subject, echoed by the two major newspapers in Orange County, the Register and the Los Angeles Times. Awareness of the problem has not, regrettably, translated into any significant increase in major charitable contributions to meet the problem, or housing needed. There is an obvious need for all citizens to realize that homelessness is a broad social and economic problem countywide.
The Orange County Homeless Issues Task Force was founded in 1986 by state Sen. Marian Bergeson. It is countywide, and seeks solutions to the homeless problems through broad-based policies, plans and actions. Its role is mainly one of advocacy, facilitation, coordination, research. It is not an operating agency. Its membership is voluntary and includes city and county agencies, nonprofit and religious groups, business organizations and homeless advocacy groups. It employs an executive director, but relies heavily on volunteer efforts. It appears to be both understaffed and under-funded.
County organization to deal with the homeless/housing problem is inadequate. Most of the counties in the state have homeless programs, and most of the major counties have full-time homeless coordinators. Orange County has neither.
Although there have been several proposals for the county reorganization to combat the problem of homelessness, few concrete steps have been taken. A recent study prepared by the county administrative office suggests that there continues to be a lack of coordination between the different agencies concerned with housing and homeless problems.
Conclusion
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. There is also strong evidence that many do not see the problem, or wish to ignore it. There are some hopeful signs, however; the newspapers by and large have done a good job in bringing the problem to the attention of the public. The Homeless Issues Task Force has done a fine job of advocacy with limited resources, and in building a network of churches and other charitable groups willing to help. The building industries are beginning to see some commercial possibilities and sense that they might “do well by doing good.” The response of the individual cities appears to be uneven. The grand jury could find no Orange County city with a designated homeless coordinator.
The grand jury found the major obstacle to be the lack of county leadership, coordination and action. The widespread and diffused nature of homelessness and the special need for fairness and equity presents a unique situation which only countywide action can address.
Recommendations
The 1990-91 Orange County Grand Jury recommends that the Orange County Board of Supervisors initiate action to:
1. Appoint a County Blue-Ribbon Commission on Homelessness. This action would underscore the countywide nature of homelessness. This commission should be composed of individuals of stature within the communities, and should include representatives from the county, the cities, the nonprofit and the business sectors. The commission would be able to bring attention to homeless issues, and to urge policies which would be implemented on a countywide basis. Fair share among communities is an important concept in this instance. The commission and the homeless coordinator (see 2 below) should make use of local university and college resources to provide a strong factual database on the impact of homelessness, and to make future projections for planning purposes.
2. Appoint a full-time Orange County homeless coordinator. This person should be at the highest staff level, able to influence policy and work effectively with the commission recommended above. The homeless coordinator should be charged with coordination of all programs involving homeless, and with establishing meaningful links with cities, nonprofit groups and other government agencies.
3. Develop a long-range homeless action plan.
4. Provide funding and support to the Homeless Issues Task Force. Currently the county does not provide any significant funding for the task force. One of the most effective means of providing needed relief in this area is to provide some funding for mechanisms which are already in place and working. The Homeless Issues Task Force can be effective in mobilizing and strengthening the humanitarian efforts (mostly voluntary) within the county, at the lowest cost.
5. Study and reconsider the organizational placement of the Orange County Housing Office. The grand jury is concerned that the placement of the Housing Office, low in the administrative hierarchy, impedes its ability to bring about needed change. The relationship between housing and homelessness is highly symbiotic. It cannot be divided neatly into “homelessness” on the one hand and “bricks and mortar” on the other. Low-cost housing and homelessness are two sides of the same coin, and county organization should reflect this.
