User options for visualizing homeless data include comparing results from 2016 and 2017 for everyone who was homeless or for individuals who were sheltered or unsheltered, and subgroups broken out by gender, ethnicity, age, as well as a menu of detailed population characteristics. Results that can be compared include the size of each population group in 2016 and 2017, as well as the reasons people in each group gave for the cause of their homelessness, and their employment status.
Reliable estimates of time spent homeless during a year are important for an evidence-based intervention framework. Understanding the prevalence of short-term versus persistent episodes of homelessness enables accurate allocation of resources based on differing levels of need. The prevailing approach to homelessness prevention and intervention is “progressive engagement.” This entails treating new entrants into homelessness with a light touch and providing progressively more intensive services as needed to help individuals re-establish themselves in stable housing.
Overview of Data: Fifty-seven files from homeless street counts, demographic surveys of unsheltered individuals, and intake data for shelter residents, along with supporting documentation are available in this data library. These open source, de-identified person records provided by the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) are a resource for homeless research.
We can’t navigate without a map. If we can't see the whole picture of homelessness, we can't begin to solve the problem. This meta-analysis brings together 26 point-in-time data sets to provide a single panoramic description of people without homes who are living in places not meant for human habitation. In addition to building affordable housing, the path for ending Los Angeles County’s crisis of chronic homelessness is through identifying individuals with a high risk of becoming chronically homeless early after the onset of homelessness and intervening with coordinated system-wide assistance that supports a permanent exit from homelessness before the problem is catastrophic.
The current issue of HUD’s peer-reviewed journal, Cityscape, includes an article on the Silicon Valley Triage Tool that was developed by the Economic Roundtable. This statistical model provides a fair, objective tool for triage—prioritizing which individuals should have immediate access to permanent supportive housing. Santa Clara County voters have approved major investments in affordable housing for people experiencing homelessness, but the number of individuals who need housing still substantially exceeds the amount of housing that is available for them.
Disneyland Resort is the most iconic theme park in the world. Disney’s best-known characters are present in the park and woven into America’s national culture, recognized and celebrated around the world. People share more photographs from their visits to Disneyland than from any other place in the world, making it the most Instagrammed location on earth. However, employees report high instances of homelessness, food insecurity, ever-shifting work schedules, extra-long commutes, and low wages.
Within the past year, Los Angeles County and City voters approved $4.75 billion for services and housing to combat homelessness. The Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count is crucial for identifying how this money should be used to help people escape homelessness. The Count is an increasingly comprehensive effort to count and describe Los Angeles’ homeless residents, but it is not yet sufficiently accurate to identify year-to-year changes in homelessness.
This paper explains the methods used to develop the Silicon Valley Triage Tool for identifying homeless individuals in jails, hospitals and clinics who have continuing crises in their lives that create very high public costs. The model is very robust and accurate, taking advantage of advanced prediction methodologies and a unique and exceptionally valuable database created by Santa Clara County, home to Silicon Valley, linking service and cost records across county departments for the entire population of residents who experienced homelessness over a six-year period – a total of 104,206 individuals.
Why the Silicon Valley Triage Tool is Important: The number of homeless people needing housing far exceeds the available housing supply, and there is not a fair, objective system for prioritizing who gets to be housed. The triage tool addresses this problem by identifying individuals for whom the solution of housing costs less than the problem of homelessness.
Public assistance programs are Los Angeles’s primary interface with individuals experiencing homelessness and can be a catalyst for connecting at-risk and homeless recipients with crucial services and reducing the massive public costs associated with chronic homelessness. The vital role is to identify tripwire events among all recipients, particularly children and transition-age youth, and quickly connect at-risk individuals with needed employment, behavioral health and housing services.
This report identifies the characteristics of the most vulnerable, distressed and costly homeless residents of Santa Clara County to guide strategies for stabilizing their lives through housing and supportive services, improving their wellbeing and reducing public costs for their care. The county spent $520 million a year providing services for homeless residents over the six years covered by this study. Costs are heavily skewed toward a comparatively small number of frequent users of public and medical services. Individuals with costs in the top 5% accounted for 47 percent of all costs and had average costs of over $100,000 per year.
Evaluating the outcomes for 163 hospital patients screened from April 2011 to May 2013 by the 10th Decile Project in Los Angeles, which works with hospitals to identify the 10 percent of homeless patients with the highest public and hospital costs – the 10th decile – and provide immediate services for placing these individuals into permanent supportive housing.
This study extrapolates data about public costs for homelessness in Los Angeles County to clients of three San Francisco Collaborative Courts: Drug Court, Community Justice Center (CJC) and Behavioral Health Court. This information identifies the probable level of engagement by health care providers, public assistance agencies and the jail system in providing services to different cohorts of court clients that are experiencing homelessness. For clients with the most acute problems, who have recurrent encounters with hospitals and jails, information about high public costs associated with homelessness can point the way toward cost-effective investments in housing and supportive services that reduce net public outlays.
The triage tool, or crisis indicator, identifies homeless individuals in hospitals and jails who have continuing crises in their lives that create very high public costs. This redesigned tool is four times more accurate than the earlier screening tool released in 2010. The tool is developed for use in jails, hospitals and clinics where homeless individuals with high levels of need and high public costs are most likely to be found. Discovery of the exceptionally high public costs for people in the 10th cost decile has led to interest in identifying these individuals and giving them high priority for access to permanent supportive housing. This group accounts for well over half of all public costs for homeless adults, and their costs decrease by 86 percent when they live in permanent supportive housing.
Counties bear large hidden costs for individuals with disabilities who are indigent or homeless. This includes costs for health care, jails and probation in addition to readily identifiable county costs for public assistance. A large share of this cost is health related – costs that the federal and state governments would pay through Medi-Cal if the individuals were receiving Supplemental Social Security Income (SSI).
The central question investigated in this study is the public costs for people in supportive housing compared to similar people that are homeless. The typical public cost for residents in supportive housing is $605 a month. The typical public cost for similar homeless persons is $2,897, five-times greater than their counterparts that are housed. This remarkable finding demonstrates that practical, tangible public benefits result from providing supportive housing for vulnerable homeless individuals. The stabilizing effect of housing plus supportive care is demonstrated by a 79 percent reduction in public costs for these residents.
The most concrete characteristic of a recession is that demand disappears for some of the commodities produced by workers and unwanted unemployment is imposed on a large segment of the labor force. With growing job losses in the current recession it is important to know, whose boat falls when the economic tide recedes?
A comprehensive strategy with 25 actions, accountable agencies, timelines, and performance benchmarks to prevent and end homelessness in Los Angeles County. From 2002 through 2004 the Economic Roundtable and the Institute for the Study of Homelessness and Poverty at the Weingart Center carried out research, listened to ideas from community stakeholders, and met with public officials in order to prepare this strategic plan for ending homelessness in Los Angeles County.
Policy Questions Covered: How many people are homeless? What services are needed? How much spendable resources do homeless people have? How are housing needs met? Summary of Findings: More effective efforts to help homeless residents re-enter the labor force and obtain public benefits will reduce costs by an estimated 16 percent (cautious to semi-optimistic scenario).
Policy Issues Covered: Acute poverty Vulnerable groups Institutional accountability Municipal Engagement Findings About Efforts by Local Government to Address Homelessness: Only 24 of the 88 cities in Los Angeles County report making any expenditures for homeless services or housing. Expenditures among cities making outlays range from $25.21 per capita in Pasadena to $.01 per capita in Bellflower.