HOUSING AND HOMELESS NEEDS ASSESSMENT
This section of the Consolidated Plan projects the estimated housing needs for the next five years in Riverside County through 2009. Except where noted, however, the following information continues to be based exclusively on the 2000 U.S. Census, and the assumption is that the level of need evaluated during the previous consolidated planning period will remain consistent through 2009.
A. ESTIMATED HOUSING NEEDS
Population Estimates
According to the U.S. Census, the population of Riverside County was 1,545,387 in 2000. The 1990 U.S. Census reported a Riverside County population of 1,170,413. This represents an increase of 374,974 persons or a 32.04% increase in population during the period between the 1990 Census and the 2000 Census. Evaluating the aforementioned population growth on an annual basis from 1990 to 2000, it appears that the County population grew by 37,497 persons per year for an annual average growth rate of 2.81%; if the County continues to grow at this rate, its population should increase to 1,983,150by 2009.
Household Income, Estimated Housing Need, Estimated Households by Income Group
As illustrated in Chart 1, below, an examination of 2000 Census data indicates that 38.9% of the County's households had incomes of less than 81% of the County's median family income and are thus considered low income.
|CHART 1 |
|HOUSEHOLD INCOME |
|RIVERSIDE COUNTY |
|% of Median Income |Number of Households |Percent of Households |
|Extremely Low |54,289 |10.7% |
|Below 30% | | |
|Very Low |56,886 |11.3% |
|30% to 50% | | |
|Low |85,536 |16.9% |
|50% to 80% | | |
|Moderate |306,816 |60.9% |
|80% to 120% | | |
|All Households |503,227 |100% |
|CHART 2 |
|TENANT VERSUS OWNER OCCUPIED HOUSEHOLDS |
|RIVERSIDE COUNTY |
|Occupancy Tenure |Number of Households |Percent of Households |
|Owner Occupied Households |348,532 |68.9% |
|Tenant Occupied Households |157,686 |31.1% |
|TOTAL |506,218 |100% |
|Homeowner Vacancy Rate |XXX |2.5% |
|Rental Vacancy Rate |XXX |7.2% |
|Source: 2000 United States Census |
In 2000, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) presented the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for Riverside County. The RHNA analyzed the existing unmet housing needs of the County as of 2000. The assessment then projected the number of new housing units that would be required to meet the need of each representative income category from 1998 to 2005. The results of this analyses were used to determine the overall housing need for the aforementioned seven and one-half year period. The Chart 3, below, presents the RHNA projections. Two sub regional councils of governments including the Western Riverside Council of Governments and Coachella Valley Association of Governments represent Riverside County. Through delegation agreements with SCAG, both of these sub regions assumed responsibility for administering the RHNA distribution among the individual jurisdictions within their respective sub regions. The chart below presents data for each sub region.
| |
|CHART 3 |
|ESTIMATED HOUSING NEED |
|1998 - 2005 |
| | | | | | |
|Jurisdiction |Very Low |Low |Moderate |Upper |Total Need |
| |0-50% |51-80% |81-120% |Above 120% | |
| | | | | | |
|WRCOG Region |6,331 |3,980 |4,478 |9,837 |24,626 |
| | | | | | |
|CVAG Region |1,649 |1,028 |1,150 |2,224 |6,051 |
| | | | | | |
|County Total |7,980 |5,008 |5,628 |12,061 |30,677 |
| |
|SOURCE: 2000 SCAG Regional Housing Needs Assessment. |
B. CATEGORIES OF PERSONS AFFECTED
This section estimates the number and type of families requiring housing assistance by income group, tenure, and special needs. This evaluation is based on 2000 U.S. Census data.
Cost Burden
Cost burden is a serious problem for many Riverside County residents. Cost burden (also referred to as overpayment of rent), occurs when a household spends more that 30% of its income on housing, including utilities. Incidence of cost burden is of concern for several reasons. A household that is spending 30% or more of its income on housing has less income available for other basic necessities, such as food, clothing, transportation and health care. Cost burdened households potentially experience-increased stress relating to financial matters. Incidence of cost burden is most alarming among lower income households since, by definition, their income is limited to the point that overpayment for housing endangers their ability to pay for the aforementioned basic necessities. Cost burden is a concern among owner-occupied households as well. An owner that is cost-burdened potentially lacks sufficient resources to properly maintain his or her home, thus accelerating the deterioration of the home.
Chart 4, below, presents the incidence of cost burden among Riverside County's renter households:
|CHART 4 |
|INCIDENCE OF COST BURDEN |
|RENTER HOUSEHOLDS - 2000 CENSUS |
| | | |
|Selected Monthly Renter Costs as a Percentage of Household Income |Number of Households |Percentage |
| | | |
|Less that 15% |21662 |13.8% |
| | | |
|15% to 19% |19400 |12.4% |
| | | |
|20% to 24% |20449 |13.0% |
| | | |
|25% to 29% |17072 |10.9% |
| | | |
|30% to 34% |12475 |8.0% |
| | | |
|35% or more |56463 |36.0% |
| | | |
|Not Available |9318 |5.9% |
|Source: 2000 United States Census |
As Chart 4, above, illustrates, 44% of Riverside County tenant occupied households are cost burden. The Cost Burden is most prevalent among extremely low income and very low-income renter households. Severe cost burden is projected to continue to affect approximately two-thirds of extremely low-income households. Large families with extremely low incomes experience the most severe incidence of cost burden. Among the total renter population, the elderly still face the highest incidence of cost burden, with 60% of these households spending more than 30% of their income on housing and 31% spending more than half of their incomes on housing. Likewise, among other low income and moderate-income renter households, the highest incidence of cost burden occurs in elderly households. This may be due to the fact that many elderly households have fixed incomes that do not adjust to keep up with inflation. More important, since many elderly households tend to have high health care costs, overpayment for housing may cause these households to eliminate needed medications and medical visits. The costs involved with an illness or hospitalization may put elderly households at risk of losing their housing.
Chart 5, below, evaluates the incidence of cost burden for owner occupied households:
|CHART 5 |
|INCIDENCE OF COST BURDEN |
|Owner Households - 1990 Census |
| | | |
|Selected Monthly Owner Costs as a Percentage of Household Income |Number of Households |Percentage |
| | | |
|Less that 15% |68364 |24.3% |
| | | |
|15% to 19% |44495 |15.8% |
| | | |
|20% to 24% |42083 |15.0% |
| | | |
|25% to 29% |33694 |12.0% |
| | | |
|30% to 34% |24520 |8.7% |
| | | |
|35% or more |65518 |23.3% |
| | | |
|Not Available |2312 |0.8% |
| |
|Source: 2000 United States Census |
While it remains a problem, cost burden among owner occupied households appears to not be as severe as that of renter households. Approximately 32% of all owner households experience a cost burden. Foreclosure rates in the County are declining. However, the incidence of cost burden is expected to remain unchanged.
Among owner households in every income group, the highest incidence of cost burden is among "all other" households or those that are non-senior. The cost burden rate for elderly homeowners is expected to remain lower than that for all homeowners. This may result from the fact that many elderly households who purchased their homes many years ago own those homes free and clear or have a very low mortgage payment. Not surprisingly, cost burden has been and is expected to continue to be most severe among extremely low-income households, with 60% cost burdened and 44% severely cost burdened.
Overcrowding
Overcrowding is defined as a condition where a dwelling unit has more than 1.01 persons per room (excluding bathrooms, halls, foyers, porches and half-rooms). Overcrowding is generally indicative of a failure in the housing market that prevents some households from finding housing that is both affordable and of adequate size. Overcrowding can result in rapid wear of the housing, as all systems receive heavier use than that for which they were designed, and potentially impacts public health and safety. Chart 6, below, documents the incidence of overcrowding in Riverside County.
| |
|CHART 6 |
|OVERCROWDED HOUSEHOLDS AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS |
| | | |
|Income Group |Renters |Owners |
| | | | | |
| |All Renters |Large Related |All Owners |Non-elderly households|
| | | | | |
|Extremely Low Income |20.4% |75.6% |5.1% |12.6% |
| | | | | |
|Very Low Income |25.7% |74.4% |7.8% |19.8% |
| | | | | |
|Low Income |21.3% |64.7% |10.6% |19.4% |
| | | | | |
|All Households |17.6% |62.1% |5.6% |8.0% |
| |
|Source: 2000 U.S. Census |
The statistics, demonstrate that overcrowding is much more prevalent among renter households than owner households. Large related renter households (those with five or more members of which at least two are related) experience severe overcrowding in every income category. Approximately 62% of all large related households are overcrowded, including 75.6% of those with very low and 74.4% with extremely low incomes, respectively.
Overcrowding among owner non-elderly households affects 8% of those households. Almost 20% of low and very low-income non-elderly homeowners are overcrowded. Among owner households, overcrowding can often be alleviated by a room addition to the home. However, many lower income households may lack the resources for a room addition, and some owners may not be able to expand the size of their homes due to lot configurations or other types of site constraints.
Substandard Housing Conditions
A housing unit is considered substandard if any of the following exists to an extent that it endangers the life, health, property, safety or welfare of the public or the occupants of the housing unit: inadequate sanitation, structural hazards, nuisances, faulty weather protection, fire hazards, inadequate maintenance, overcrowding, or hazardous wiring, plumbing or mechanical equipment. The County estimates that ten percent of the housing stock is in need of rehabilitation or replacement. Substandard housing units were either not constructed properly, were constructed to a building code that is now outdated, or have been allowed to deteriorate as the unit aged. While the U.S. Census did not tabulate the total number of substandard units, data is available for certain conditions which would indicate that the unit was substandard or in need of rehabilitation.
This data include lack of complete kitchens or plumbing and housing units built prior to 1960 (thirty years or older). 81,627 dwelling units in the County were built prior to 1960. 3,407 units lacked complete kitchens and 2,360 units lacked complete plumbing. It is anticipated that lower income households occupy the majority of these units, as this type of housing tends to be less expansive.
Racial Distribution
A special concern in analyzing housing needs is whether or not any racial or ethnic group has a disproportionately greater need in comparison to the needs of the category as a whole. For the purposes of this analysis, a disproportionate need is defined as a disparity in need within the racial or ethnic group that is at least ten (10) percentage points higher than the category that includes all households. Chart 7, below, documents the percentage of cost burden by minority status:
| |
|CHART 7 |
|PERCENT OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH ANY HOUSING PROBLEMS BY MINORITY STATUS |
| | | | | |
|Household Type |Extremely Low Income |Very Low Income |Low Income |Total |
| | | | | |
|Renter Households | | | | |
| | | | | |
|All minority households |87.1% |86.7% |72.8% |69.3% |
| | | | | |
|Black households |87.0% |83.4% |66.6% |60.6% |
| | | | | |
|Hispanic households |88.1% |89.9% |74.0% |72.8% |
| | | | | |
|All Renter households |83.3% |87.9% |70.1% |57.2% |
| | | | | |
|Owner Households | | | | |
| | | | | |
|All minority households |68.7% |71.0% |69.2% |51.8% |
| | | | | |
|Black households |62.9% |58.7% |63.7% |40.8% |
| | | | | |
|Hispanic households |71.3% |73.7% |70.5% |55.0% |
| | | | | |
|All Owner households |62.1% |52.0% |47.9% |35.3% |
| |
|Source: 2000 U. S. Census |
As illustrated in Chart 7, above, a disproportionate need exists for most minority renter households in comparison to the total needs of all renter households. However, within each of the lower income renter categories, a disproportionate need does not appear to exist. This data does show that, as compared to owner households, minority renters face a disproportionate housing need. Furthermore, in terms of ethnicity, the data suggests that Hispanic renter and owner households are affected the most by housing problems.
C. HOMELESS NEEDS
Nature and Extent of Homelessness
The Department of Public Social Services contracted with a consultant to conduct a point-in time census of the homeless population of Riverside County during March 11-14, 2003. Based on the point-in time census results there are 2,931 unsheltered and sheltered homeless persons in Riverside County on a given day.
Based on homeless population data collected in previous years, along with service provider data and general County demographic data, it is believed that the point-in-time count represents a significant undercount of the actual homeless population on any given day in the County, and that there were an additional number of homeless persons who were not known and therefore were not counted. According to an in-depth analysis of the homeless census data by the consultant hired to conduct the census, an annualized population of 8,954 homeless persons was calculated from the point-in-time data gathered. Based on this analysis and annualization of census data there were 8,954 persons in Riverside County who were homeless during part or all of that year.
In Chart 8 below, the distribution of homeless is shown based on the 2003 homeless census. There are no duplications or estimates shown in these figures.
| |
|CHART 8 |
|DISTRIBUTION OF HOMELESS POPULATION |
| | | | |
|Location |Unincorporated Areas |Within Cities |Unable to Determine |
| |
|REGION A, WESTERN: Total Homeless -1,257 (49%) |
|Glen Avon/Pedley |35 |- |- |
|Mead Valley |9 |- |- |
|Moreno Valley* |40 |145 |- |
|Perris |6 |82 |- |
|Riverside (City)* |- |902 | |
|Rubidoux |38 |- |- |
|Subtotal |128 |1129 |- |
|REGION B, SOUTH CENTRAL I-15/215 CORRIDOR: Total Homeless – 431 (17%) |
|Corona* |- |79 |- |
|Home Gardens |13 |- |- |
|Lake Elsinore |17 |164 |- |
|Lake Matthews |2 |- |- |
|Lakeland Village |13 |- |- |
|Mira Loma |36 |- |- |
|Murrieta |- |35 |- |
|Norco (across river) |20 |- |- |
|Temecula |6 |36 |4 |
|Wildomar |6 |- |- |
| |113 |314 |4 |
|Subtotal | | | |
|REGION C, NORTH CENTRAL: Total Homeless – 254 (10%) |
|Banning |2 |3 |- |
|Beaumont |- |10 |- |
|Calimesa |- |2 |- |
|Cherry Valley |2 |- |- |
|Hemet* |- |152 |- |
|Homeland |53 |- |- |
|Romoland |1 |- |- |
|San Jacinto |- |15 |- |
|Sun City |12 |- |- |
|Valley Vista |2 |- |- |
|Subtotal |72 |182 |- |
|REGION D, EASTERN: Total Homeless – 632 (24%) |
|Anza |34 |- |- |
|Blythe |4 |112 |- |
|Cathedral City |- |12 |- |
|Coachella |6 |31 |- |
|Desert Hot Springs |- |88 |5 |
|Indio |- |256 |- |
|Palm Desert |- |2 |- |
|Palm Springs* |- |79 |3 |
|Subtotal |44 |580 |8 |
|TOTAL |357 |2205 |12 |
|Source: Riverside County CA, Dept. of Public Social Services Homeless Census, May, 2003 * Indicates |
|Entitlement City |
Characteristics of the Homeless
Based on the results of the homeless census and interviews conducted with 644 homeless persons during the census period, the general homeless population in Riverside County consists of families, single men, single women and unaccompanied youth having the following characteristics:
1. The homeless account for approximately 0.55% (approximately 8,954) of the total population of the County.
2. The homeless can be found in virtually any part of Riverside County, with 86% found within cities and 14% in unincorporated areas.
3. One third of homeless adults suffer from one or more types of mental illness, mainly depression.
4. Over one-third (38%) of the homeless have been homeless for more than a year.
5. Chronic (over 1 year) homeless adults are more likely to suffer substance abuse.
6. Of the homeless persons interviewed, 39% use alcohol or harder drugs.
7. Women make up 33% of the homeless population.
8. Of the homeless persons interviewed, 13% had children under the age of 18 with them.
9. The average number of children in a homeless household is 2.2, and of school age children, 78% attend school.
10. Homeless persons under age 20 represent 19% of the homeless population and 4% percent of the homeless are over the age of 60.
11. Over half (53%) of the homeless women and 16% of homeless men said they had been victims of domestic violence or abuse.
The large numbers of homeless persons, the high cost of housing and the number of people living in poverty combine to create a serious situation. This combination of circumstances exacerbates the problem of finding suitable and affordable housing for homeless and at-risk families. Without comprehensive intervention the majority of the homeless will remain while more families will fall into the at-risk and actual category of homelessness.
A survey of homeless persons during the March 2003 homeless census reveals the following characteristics of homeless persons as shown in Chart 9:
| |
|CHART 9 |
|CHARACTERISTICS OF HOMELESS PERSONS |
| | | |
|Characteristic |Riverside County Homeless |Riverside County Total Population |
| | | |
|RACE: | | |
| | | |
|Asian |1.1% |5% |
| | | |
|Black |20.8% |8% |
|Pacific Islander |1.7% |.3% |
| | | |
|Native American |5.6% |1.6% |
| | | |
|White |74.5% |84.9% |
|HISPANIC ORIGIN: | | |
| | | |
|Hispanic |21.7% |37.3% |
| | | |
|Non-Hispanic |79.1% |62.7% |
| | | |
|AGE: | | |
| | | |
|Children (0-9) |10.0% |16.6% |
| | | |
|Teen (10-19) |8.6% |16.4% |
| | | |
|Adult (20-59) |74.8% |63.7% |
| | | |
|Elderly ( 60+) |3.5% |16.3% |
| |
|Source: Riverside County Dept. of Public Social Services Homeless Census, May, 2003 |
Race and Ethnicity
Based on the above characteristics of the homeless population, there is a higher percentage (20.8%) of African Americans represented in the homeless population than for Riverside County, which has an 8% African American representation. Native Americans and Pacific Islanders are also over-represented in the homeless population with 5.6% and 1.7% respectively, as compared to 1.6% and 0.3 % for entire Riverside County.
Priority Homeless Needs
In response to the growing needs of the homeless population in Riverside County, a Continuum of Care process (COC) began in 1994 in order to provide a seamless delivery of facilities and services for homeless persons at each step of the transition from living on the street, to permanent and sustained, independent living. The continuum consists of four components:
1. Outreach and Assessment
2. Emergency Shelters with Supportive Services;
3. Transitional Housing with Supportive Services; and
4. Permanent and Affordable Housing.
The COC approach established a comprehensive foundation for a service delivery system that provides a balance of the four components of the Continuum of Care System to move homeless persons and families into the mainstream of society.
In consideration of the unique demographic needs of the homeless within the County, four regions have been established:
1. Region A consists of Moreno Valley, Perris, City of Riverside, Rubidoux, Jurupa, Woodcrest and surrounding communities
2. Region B consists of Corona, Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, Norco, Temecula and surrounding communities
3. Region C consists of Banning, Beaumont, Hemet, Idyllwild, San Jacinto and surrounding communities; and
4. Region D consists of the Desert communities from Palm Springs east to the City of Blythe.
In June of 2003 the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) undertook the vast task of developing the Gaps Analysis for the 2003 HUD Continuum of Care Consolidated Application. The results of the Homeless Census completed by DPSS in May 2003 provided the point-in-time data of the homeless population and county population from which the estimated need of homeless beds/units was determined. A listing of Countywide homeless facilities and bed capacity was compiled by DPSS, and the estimated number of homeless beds/units was subtracted from the number of available homeless bed/units to determine the unmet need.
In response to the findings and results of the 2003 Gaps Analysis, the County of Riverside issued a Request for Proposals for the County’s 2003 HUD Continuum of Care Consolidated Application to effectively meet gaps with the appropriate programs. Proposals received in response to the Request for Proposals were ranked and evaluated according to how the proposed projects met the established priorities and met the threshold requirements.
Existing Homeless Facilities
Chart 10 below is a listing of the facilities and bed capacity available under the Continuum of Care System Countywide as of June 2002 and July 2003:
|CHART 10 |
|Fundamental Components in COC System – Housing Activity Chart |
|Component: Emergency Shelter |
|Provider Name |Facility Name |Target Population |Bed Capacity |
| | | |Individuals |Families with Children |
|Current Inventory |A |B |2002 |2003 |2002 |2003 |
|EFSP Board /DPSS |Winter Shelter Program – Indio Armory |SMF | |75 |75 | | |
| | |FC | | | |25 |25 |
|EFSP Board /DPSS |Winter Shelter Program – Riverside |SMF | |85 |85 | | |
| |Armory |FC | | | |35 |35 |
|Catholic Charities |Nightengale Manor |FC | | | |40 |40 |
|Shelter from the Storm |Mary Stuart Rogers Center |SF |DV |40 |40 |20 |20 |
| | |FC | | | | | |
|ABC Recovery Center |Transitional Living Village |SMF | |40 |40 |28 |28 |
|Valley Restart Shelter |Emergency Drop-In Center |SMF | |51 |51 | | |
| | |FC | | | |38 |38 |
|Institute for Urban |Project ACHIEVE Men’s Shelter |SM | |50 |50 | | |
|Research & Development | | | | | | | |
|Institute for Urban |Project ACHIEVE Family Shelter |FC | | | |0 |50 |
|Research & Development | | | | | | | |
|Operation Safehouse |Safe House |YMF | |17 |17 | | |
|Alternatives to Domestic |Horizon House |FC |DV | | |15 |15 |
|Violence | | | | | | | |
|Richard Allen Community |Community Services Center |FC | | | |28 |28 |
|Services | | | | | | | |
|I Care Shelter |I Care Shelter |SMF | |20 |20 | | |
| | |FC | | | |10 |10 |
|Tender Loving Missions |Tender Loving Missions Shelter |SMF | | | | | |
| | |FC | | | | | |
|Corona Homeless Task Force|Circle of Hope |SMF | |30 |30 | | |
| | |FC | | | | | |
|Coachella Valley Rescue |Coachella Valley Mission Shelter |SMF | | | |20 |20 |
|Mission | |FC | | | | | |
|Path of Life Ministries |Transitional Housing and Work Program |SM | |34 |34 | | |
|Alpha Omega Homes Shelter |Alpha Omega Ranch |SM | |47 |47 | | |
| |Subtotal |534 |534 |284 |334 |
|Under Development |
|City of Riverside |Emergency Shelter |SMF | | |10 | | |
|Richard Allen Community |N/A |FC | | | | |24 |
|Services | | | | | | | |
|Subtotal | | | |10 | |24 |
|Component: Transitional Housing |
|Provider Name |Facility Name |Target Population |Bed Capacity |
| | | |Individuals |Families with Children |
|Current Inventory |A |B |2002 |2003 |
|ABC Recovery Center |Transitional Living Village |SMF | |20 |20 | | |
| | |FC | | | |20 |20 |
|Episcopal Community |Navajo Trails |SMF |HIV/AIDS |34 |34 | | |
|Services | | | | | | | |
|Riverside Recovery |Transitional Housing |SM | |21 |21 | | |
|Resources | | | | | | | |
|Corona Homeless Task Force|Circle of Hope |SMF | |20 |20 | | |
| | |FC | | | |15 |15 |
|Martha’s Village & Kitchen|Martha’s Village |SMF | |36 |36 | | |
| | |FC | | | |84 |84 |
|MFI Recovery Center |A Women’s Place |FC | | | |54 |54 |
|Riverside County Dept. of |Desert Community |SMF | |12 |12 | | |
|Mental Health | | | | | | | |
|Whiteside Manor |Housing for Dually Diagnosed |SMF | |47 |47 | | |
|Whiteside Manor |Sammon House |SF | |122 |122 | | |
|Whiteside Manor |Substance Abuse Recovery Program |SM | |21 |21 | | |
|God’s Helping Hand |God’s Helping Hand |SM | |15 |15 | | |
|Valley Restart Shelter |Restart Center |FC | | | |54 |54 |
|Lutheran Social Services |Transitional Living Center |FC | | | |30 |30 |
|Operation SafeHouse |Safe House |YMF | |20 |20 | | |
|Shelter from the Storm |Shelter from the Storm |FC | | | |102 |102 |
|Jefferson Transitional |Jefferson Transitional Housing |SMF | |30 |30 | | |
|Housing | | | | | | | |
|Riverside County Dept. of |N/A |SMF | |42 |42 | | |
|Mental Health | | | | | | | |
| |Subtotal |440 |440 |359 |359 |
|Under Development |
|Lutheran Social Services |Transitional Housing |FC | | | | | |
|US Vets |Inland Empire Veterans Housing |SMF | | | | | |
| |Subtotal | |50 | |80 |
|Component: Permanent Supportive Housing |
|Provider Name |Facility Name |Target Population |Bed Capacity |
| | | |Individuals |Families with Children |
|Current Inventory |A |B |2002 |2003 |2002 |2003 |
|Coachella Valley Housing |CASAS San Miguel de Allande |SM | |37 |37 | | |
|Coalition (CVHC) | | | | | | | |
|Housing Authority |Tenant-Based- Western Riverside County |SMF | |23 |23 | | |
| | |FC | | | | | |
|Housing Authority |Tenant-Based-Eastern Riverside County |SM | |5 |5 | | |
| | |FC | | | |12 |12 |
|Riverside County Mental |La Hacienda Apartments |SMF | |36 |36 | | |
|Health/CVHC | | | | | | | |
|Riverside County Mental |Women’s Home |SF | |6 |6 | | |
|Health | | | | | | | |
|Riverside County Mental |Men’s Home |SM | |10 |10 | | |
|Health | | | | | | | |
|Valley Restart |Valley Restart |SMF | |32 |32 | | |
|Inland AIDS |James Lenard |SMF | |20 |20 | | |
|Riverside County Mental |Miles Avenue SRO |SMF | |32 |32 | | |
|Health | | | | | | | |
|Riverside County Mental |Scattered-Site Project |SMF | |42 |42 | | |
|Health | | | | | | | |
| |Subtotal |243 |243 |27 |27 |
|Under Development |
|CVHC |SRO Housing |SMF | | |40 | | |
|Subtotal | |Subtotal | |40 | | |
|Source: Riverside County Continuum of Care Application 2003 |
Gaps Analysis
Chart 11 below is a Gaps Analysis and Homeless Population Chart for the Riverside County Continuum of Care System as of July 2003:
|CHART 11 |
|GAPS ANALYSIS AND HOMELESS POPULATION CHART |
|Type of Facility |Current Inventory in 2003 |Under Development in 2003 (Beds)|Unmet Need/Gap (Beds) |
| |(Beds) | | |
|Individuals |
|Emergency Shelter |534 |0 |309 |
|Transitional Housing |440 |50 |193 |
|Permanent Supportive Housing |243 |0 |193 |
|Total |1217 |0 |695 |
|Persons In Families With Children |
|Emergency Shelter |334 |24 |0 |
|Transitional Housing |359 |80 |321 |
|Permanent Supportive Housing |27 |0 |107 |
|Total |720 |0 |428 |
|Homeless Population and Subpopulations |
|Part 1. Homeless Population |Sheltered |Unsheltered |Total |
| |Emergency |Transitional | | |
|1. Homeless Individuals |484 (N) |393 (N) |1,005 (N) |1,882 (N) |
|2. Homeless Families with Children |104 (N) |132 (N) |155 (N) |391 (N) |
|2a. Persons in Homeless Families with Children |279 (N) |355 (N) |415 (N) |1,049 (N) |
|Total (lines 1 + 2a) |763 (N) |748 (N) |1,420 (N) |2,931 (N) |
|Part 2. Homeless Subpopulations |Sheltered |Unsheltered |Total |
|1. Chronic Homelessness |357 (S) |760 (S) |1,117 (S) |
|2. Seriously Mentally Ill |113 (S) | | |
|3. Chronic Substance Abuse |346 (S) | | |
|4. Veterans |43 (S) | | |
|5. Persons with HIV/AIDS |63 (S) | | |
|6. Victims of Domestic Violence |174 (S) | | |
|7. Youth |126 (S) | | |
According to the 2003 Continuum of Care Housing Gaps Analysis Chart, there were 1,667 emergency shelter and transitional housing beds available in the county during the census period. This means that at least 1,264 more shelter and transitional housing beds are needed.
Needs of Sheltered and Unsheltered Special Needs Populations
The need exists to recognize each sub-population as a separate and distinct group with special needs given the vast area and geographic differences within the County of Riverside. Whether they are sheltered or unsheltered, each special needs sub-population requires specialized supportive services or facilities. Examples of some of the special needs sub-populations are as follows:
1. Mentally Ill
2. Alcohol and Drug Addicted
3. Dually Diagnosed
4. Victims of Domestic Violence
5. Youth
6. AIDS/HIV
7. Veterans
8. Farm workers
9. Physically Disabled and Chronically Ill
10. Elderly
In short, every homeless person may be part of some special needs sub-population. All suffer from some circumstances or combination of circumstances, which in turn causes or contributes to their inability to cope with daily life. Determining the cause of homelessness for an individual person/family is best determined through an assessment given by a qualified case manager. Although clearly, there is a broad array of causative factors existing within each of the broad categories, studies suggest that the homeless fall into one or more of the following broad categories:
1. Those who are severely mentally ill or active substance abusers;
2. Those who are economically deprived (caused by a wide variety of problems); and
3. Those who consciously choose to become homeless by refusing to work.
D. OTHER SPECIAL NEEDS
Mentally Ill
It is unknown how many homeless mentally ill persons there are in Riverside County over the course of a year. According to the Riverside County DPSS Homeless Census 2003, one third of homeless adults suffer from one or more types of mental illness. There are currently no emergency shelter beds countywide specifically targeting mentally ill persons, which represents an unmet need of 100%.
While homeless mentally ill persons may benefit from the general system or continuum of care available to all homeless persons, they also require special services adapted to their particular need and circumstances. Among the homeless mentally ill special needs are:
1. Aggressive outreach
2. Intensive case management
3. Readily accessible psychiatric care and medications
4. Specialized intake centers and shelters
5. Transitional housing programs
6. Transportation to and from medical appointment
7. Food and nutrition services
In 1993, the Riverside County Department of Mental Health launched the Homeless Intervention Team Program (HIT). Persons with mental illness who are homeless need a system of supportive services that emphasizes assertive outreach and assessment, significant follow-up and time intensive case management. The HIT Program initially provided outreach, assessment and case management to homeless mentally ill persons in Western Riverside County. However, in 2002 services were expanded into Eastern Riverside County.
Studies have also shown that there is also an unmet need of specialized services for individuals who are mentally ill, but not necessarily homeless. These individuals either live semi-independently, with family members, or in a group home setting. Non-homeless special needs of the mentally ill consist of the following:
1. Case management
2. Money management
3. Transportation to/from medical appointments
4. Medication
5. Psychiatric counseling
6. Basic life skills
7. Meal delivery services
8. Utility discounts
9. Rental subsidies
10. Peer support
11. Community integration
Reliance on night shelters is particularly unsuited for the homeless mentally ill who generally need crisis intervention and stabilization services before they can undertake more permanent housing. The homeless mentally ill have few resources accessible to them and it is highly recognized that there exists a desperate need for sheltering the mentally ill as well as providing adequate services to those suffering from mental illness who are either living semi-independently or with family members.
Alcohol/Drug Addicted
It is estimated that at least one-third of the adult homeless population suffers from chronic substance abuse. Although there are a variety of recovery programs available throughout Riverside County, the homeless alcohol and drug abusers are generally not being reached by these services. The needs of the homeless alcohol and other drug abusers include:
1. Full access to comprehensive healthcare
2. Substance abuse treatment services
3. Transitional housing and residential programs
Current inventory (2003) of the Continuum of Care: Gaps Analysis indicates that 346 of the homeless alcohol and drug abuse population were provided supportive services at one moment in time. In addition to specialized resources for recovery and assistance in stabilization, many homeless persons abusing alcohol and drugs look to general homeless shelters for refuge. Many are intermittently able to meet admission requirements and behavior codes of the local shelters. While the community reaction to homelessness is particularly harsh on those who are chronically inebriated, the public generally acknowledges that alcoholism is an addictive disease in which the victim has become physically and psychologically dependent on the chemical alcohol.
Dually Diagnosed
In June 2002 DPSS estimated that over 40% of the homeless mentally ill also suffer from a dual diagnosed problem of alcohol and drug abuse. Substance abuse is both a cause and result of homelessness for the mentally ill. These dually diagnosed persons require skilled assessment and access to detoxification, treatment and recovery services. The need for affordable and decent housing is an unmet need for those with both mental illness and alcohol and drug substance abuse problems.
An extended list of homeless special needs of the dually diagnosed include:
1. Detoxification
2. Drug counseling
3. Education
4. Residential recovery services
However, due to the administrative separation of mental health and substance abuse service system, many dually diagnosed persons have been excluded from receiving one or the other service.
Stable and reliable housing plays a key role in ensuring regular participation in treatment programs and compliance with drug therapies. Non-homeless needs of the dually diagnosed include quick transition to permanent housing, as is continued access to supportive services such as intensive case management, psychiatric care, vocational training and job counseling, and substance abuse treatment. The lack of adequate shelter resources is still a high need as is access to recovery homes and supportive services.
Victims of Domestic Violence
The increased number of requests from the public and private sector for domestic violence training has helped raise awareness in the county, as such, the steady growth, as projected will increase due to a broader dissemination of information. Another factor that supports the projected increase in domestic violence clients is the implementation of welfare reform. The number of children clients has steadily increased, indicating a strong felt need among parents to help break the inter-generational cycle of violence. In addition, the issue of “Teen Dating Violence” is a relatively new area of domestic violence with an alarming rapid increase in clients.
The County of Riverside is committed through the umbrella network of non-profit agencies to prevent domestic violence. The Supportive Housing Program quarterly statistical reports project gaps in services to domestic violence clients in the following areas.
1. Sheltered needs
a. Medical service
b. Case management
c. Child care
d. Psychological counseling
e. Legal counseling
2. Unsheltered needs
a. Temporary rental subsidy
b. Advocacy
c. Job training and placement
d. Case management
e. Child care
f. Crisis management
Youth
Primarily, homeless youth fall into two categories.
1. Those who are victims of their family’s misfortune; and
2. Those who are classified as runaways and homeless off the street.
At the present time, there is only one agency within Riverside County who provides immediate crisis intervention services for the latter group of this segment of the population.
Operation Safe House provides the core of essential services for the targeted 11 to 21 year old population. The basic problems and needs of this sub-population, as identified by the need assessments, are not generally limited to the true homeless youth alone but are shared by the entire family. These youths have been found to be a part of a family unit; therefore, services need to be provided to the entire family. The immediate needs and services for this sub-group are as follows: Shelter, food and clothing, counseling for a myriad of problems (i.e., dysfunctional family issues, substance abuse, sexual abuse, etc.), medical, transportation, education, and job training.
According to the statistics as reported in the Gaps Analysis for this sub-population, permanent shelters were serving a total of 126 homeless youth in 2003. This figure is 4 % of the total homeless population based on the point-in-time census conducted during the same time period.
It is an accepted fact that not every homeless youth living-on the streets are actually counted. Therefore, the numbers are assumed to be low.
Persons with HIV/AIDS and their Families
According to the California Department of Health Services, Office of Aids, there were a cumulative total of 4,697 AIDS cases reported in Riverside County through year-end 2002. The total number of reported AIDS cases in California at the end of this period was 129,166.
Over 90% of the cases of AIDS reported in the County by the end of 2002 were men. Of the total AIDS population in the County, 59% were White, 18% were Black, 21% were Hispanic (all races), and the remaining 2% were Asian/Pacific Islander or American Indian/Alaskan Native.
National studies have shown that at least 25% of people with disabling AIDS will be in need of supportive housing at some time during their illness. The housing and supportive services needs of people living with AIDS differ widely between the Eastern, Western and Mid regions of Riverside County.
Special needs and issues related to the HIV/AIDS population include the following:
1. Finding and keeping housing is a crisis for many individuals and families living with HIV Disease in the Riverside and San Bernardino area.
2. People living with HIV Disease in Riverside County are at risk of losing their housing at any time because of poverty.
3. People with HIV Disease have complex health care needs and are often unemployed or under employed, under-insured or uninsured, which impacts their need for supportive housing.
4. Many people are struggling with substance abuse and mental illness in addition to AIDS.
5. Women and families with children (where one or more are affected by HIV Disease) have unique social and support service needs, which can negatively impact their ability to maintain housing.
6. Poor rental and criminal histories make it hard for some people living with HIV Disease to find housing.
7. Some people living with HIV Disease report that they face discrimination when looking for and trying to keep housing.
8. Large majorities of people want to remain in their homes and live independently for as long as possible.
There are two sub-populations of Homeless Special Needs within the total of those with HIV/AIDS who need appropriate housing: those referred to as "chronically homeless" (i.e., whose primary living environment has been the streets and shelters), and the "situational homeless" (i.e., who have had a stable home in the past, but have been made homeless by the financial, health, and/or social ravages of this disease).
Among the HIV/AIDS homeless special needs are:
1. A Terminal Illness Preferences for Section 8 vouchers
2. Referrals to housing resources and programs
3. Housing advocacy
4. Case management
5. Set-aside units in local and federally funded affordable housing development
6. Primary medical care
7. Low cost health insurance
8. Medication subsidy and pharmacy services
9. Substance abuse counseling
10. Mental health counseling
The following comprise the Non Homeless Special Needs for persons who require supportive services in order to maintain independent living:
1. Case management
2. Money management
3. Rental subsidy
4. Utility subsidy
5. Fair housing services
6. Primary medical care
7. Food and nutritional counseling
8. Meal-delivery
9. Home-health care
10. Substance abuse counseling
11. Mental health counseling
12. Medication subsidy and pharmacy services
13. Dental care
14. Low cost health insurance
15. Transportation to medical appointment
16. Child care
17. Credit counseling
18. Life skills
The Riverside County Health Services Agency and the Department of Public Health operates the Early Intervention Program, funded through Medi-Cal or private health insurance. This is a comprehensive assessment and monitoring of HIV antibody positive individuals by caring professionals. All services are provided confidentially or anonymously if the patient desires. These services include:
1. Comprehensive physical examination with periodic rechecks
2. Immune System Evaluation
3. Laboratory testing
4. Counseling and support services
5. Health Education
6. Referral to community resources
7. Assistance with problem management
8. Nutritional Counseling
Veterans
It is estimated that there are over 7,000 homeless veterans living in Riverside and San Bernardino County. Of the survey responses received during the 2003 Homeless Census, 75% indicated they had served on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces. In summer of 2003, U.S. Vets opened a 120-bed transitional housing project for homeless veterans in Western Riverside County. This is currently the only project in the County providing beds and services specifically for the homeless veteran (individuals and families with children). A variety of nonprofit agencies in the County provide outreach and assessment, full-time shelter, transitional housing and permanent housing to this sub-group of homeless.
Anyone who is homeless basically shares the same needs, such as shelter, food, clothing, medical assistance, counseling, need of referral services, transportation, education, job training/retraining, and job placement. However, according to the Department of Veterans= Services, there is a difference between the homeless veteran and other homeless persons. Some important local issues of concern to county veterans include unemployment, medical care, homelessness, lack of awareness of veterans’ benefits, and affordable housing.
Due to unique problems resulting from wartime service, such as combat fatigue, stress and related illnesses, it is possible that the need for medical, psychological treatment and other related veteran services may be greater than for similar services in the general population.
Furthermore, whether a veteran is homeless or non-homeless, some possess similar traits. The veteran who seeks an agency out for service may or may not follow-up with the referral provided. VA counselors indicate there is a need for more case management services in order to meet specialized needs.
Migrant Farm Workers
This sub-group population is a huge group of workers and their families who total during the peak season. It is the opinion of several public sector organizations, that this figure falls drastically short from reality. This is due to the fact that this figure is based on Employment Development Department statistics, which only captures those individuals who seek unemployment benefits.
Farm worker housing is often substandard or nonexistent. Over the last decade much housing has been demolished and not replaced. In addition, in many areas, farm workers must move frequently (following the crops) to seek employment. Larger farms might provide labor camp housing, but often this is not the case. As a result, many farm workers must camp in the open or sleep in their vehicles.
Those, who are fortunate to find housing, often find it to be expensive, over crowded, and unsanitary. In addition, the housing often lacks safe drinking water, bathing or laundry facilities, and even adequate sanitation.
Although shelter is a major issue to this sub-group, they also face unique health challenges (occupational hazards, and depression). Generally, the migrant worker does not earn enough to pay for health care, and almost never do they have health insurance. Transportation to a health clinic, or the fear of losing wages or even losing their job due to seeking health care becomes an issue. Consequently, they go without any type of medical treatment resulting in chronic conditions and serious problems.
Farm workers are eligible to participate in assistance programs such as Medicaid, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, and Social Security Insurance, but few can actually obtain benefits. This is because of the mobility of this sub-group and the dramatic fluctuation of their income. Most benefit programs are not designed to accommodate people who move frequently, nor do the farm workers understand they are eligible for benefits.
The circumstance faced by the farm worker does not end with the migrant head of household. This poverty and migration make it difficult for the children within this sub-group to create a different future for them. Constant mobility makes it hard for the farm worker children to complete their education. Statistics show the median educational level for the head of a migrant household to be six years.
In addition, because facilities for childcare are not readily available, children will accompany their parents in the fields until they are old enough to work the fields. When children are in the fields, occupational injury presents an even more significant risk due to immaturity. In addition to the risk the children face from lack of education and over exposure of the elements (i.e., sun, pesticides, equipment endangerment, etc.) society loses a vital resource, the children, to the perpetuation of a low economic sub-group.
Elderly and Frail Elderly
The Riverside County Office on Aging conducts an annual needs assessment to determine the specific needs of the elderly (persons age 60+). Affordable housing has consistently been identified as a priority each year during the needs assessment.
The annual needs assessment indicated the following unmet senior housing needs:
1. Increased affordable housing for seniors through congregate housing, shared housing, senior home repair, rent control, relaxed city zoning and fees for new housing programs
2. Expanded assisted living programs throughout Riverside County that provide a coordinated program of support services of frail seniors in residential settings (board and care and congregate care and foster care settings)
3. Programs to link housing to services where the senior is the decision maker and the program is a partnership between the senior and the provider
The number one goal in senior housing, according to the Office on Aging, is to "Link Services with Housing". The trend nationally in the field of aging, and certainly as indicated in the Older Americans Act is to develop a coordinated system of community-based services that keeps older person in their individual homes or congregate living sites as long as possible.
The Demographic population estimates document that Riverside County has experienced a steady growth in the 60+ populations. The 60+ minority population has shown a dramatic growth countywide and the increase in poverty for seniors has increased accordingly. Riverside County cannot economically afford to lose ground in senior housing opportunities as preliminary projections mirror the rate of increase occurring in the previous ten years.
A variety of affordable housing options must be linked to services for the elderly. The services needed range from personal care services and adult day care facilities to in-home chore service and home repair. The need relates not only to new housing development but also to all existing housing arrangements for seniors.
The second issue, as it pertains to housing, is affordability of the units. The needs assessment completed by the Office on Aging indicated a widespread concern among seniors with regard to the supply of housing at the low-rent end.
A third issue raised at these public forums is a growing need for "Senior Home Repair" due to the trend to "age in place" which allows seniors to remain in their homes. The assessment identified a disparity in the availability of senior home repair services throughout Riverside County, and a demand for financial resources that exceeds the current supply.
Affordable housing options for seniors should include: private homes, mobile homes, apartments, independent senior retirement communities, assisted living developments, "granny flats", shared housing and foster care.
It is the goal of the Office on Aging under the Older Americans Act to target minority and very frail elderly for services so that scarce resources can address the most vulnerable. The Office on Aging offered the following recommendations:
1. Variety of affordable housing options for low-income elderly should be included;
2. Affordable housing for the elderly should include design accommodations for the physical impairments of aging;
3. All affordable housing for the elderly should be linked to community-based support services that help sustain independent living and prevent institutionalization. A coordinated transportation service is a critical component of a successful community-based system of care; and
4. An affordable housing strategy for the elderly should incorporate a "holistic" approach.
In addition to the preceding analysis provided by the Office on Aging, the needs of seniors were a frequent topic during the citizen participation process. The needs identified through that forum included facilities for aging persons, the inability of some seniors to perform home repair/maintenance, problems associated with aging mobile home parks, issues associated with aging in place, and high medical costs which threaten the ability of some seniors to pay for housing. Among the resident surveys, the top need was special needs housing for the frail elderly.
Physically Disabled/Chronically Ill
Among Southern California counties, Riverside County ranks first in population growth with a forecast average annual growth rate of 3.7% from 1996 to 2000. The estimated number of Riverside County residents with disabilities exceeds 190,000 persons.
The Community Access Center, a community resource, advocate and educator for Riverside County residents with disabilities, reported on 955 consumers served during the last program year. Based on the consumer reporting, the distributions of disabilities include 51% individuals with physical disabilities, 24% with mental disabilities, 17% sensory disabilities (visual and hearing impaired), and 8% cognitive disabilities. This includes developmental disabilities, learning disabilities and traumatic brain injuries. The majority of the consumers served reported having multiple disabilities.
The greatest housing need for the developmentally disabled adult is group or board and care homes. Special needs residents are faced with fewer choices for housing, particularly if financial resources are low. Physically handicapped adults, senior Alzheimer sufferers, mentally ill adults and seniors are not accommodated in the non-medical long-term care system. Residents receiving SSI benefits may have to resort to substandard housing and care due to limited choices for suitable, affordable housing.
Persons Threatened with Homelessness
According to 2000 US Census Bureau data, more than one in five households in Riverside county (108,634) have annual incomes below 50% of the County median income. Over 11% of the households (56,043) in Riverside County are classified as very low income with household incomes of less than $12,000 falling below 30% of the median. These low and very low-income households would be considered at-risk for becoming homeless on any given day.
Public Housing Residents
There is a host of individuals who are at-risk of becoming homeless. This threatened group is comprised of very-low income families or individuals who fall into the following categories:
1. Those who recently have had a loss of employment;
2. The lower income family living on the edge;
3. Those who are in transition back into society; and
4. Those with a lack of job skills.
For the at-risk individual, Housing Authority of the County of Riverside reported a total of 7,986 affordable housing units throughout Riverside County. As of February 1996, the Housing Authority reopened the waiting list, which had been closed since June 1992. According to the Resident Service Coordinator there are 14,371 families presently on the list. This indicates only 56% of those individuals waiting can be housed.
In addition, the Resident Service Coordinator identified the following special needs of public housing residents as:
1. Affordable child care
2. Reliable transportation
3. Basic education and English as a second language
4. Access to higher education and job training
5. Mental health counseling services, and
6. Job seeking skills, such as resume writing and interviewing.
Individuals (public housing residents) surveyed elaborated on the above identified needs as follows: security, after-school tutoring for children, playground equipment and organized team sports for children, on-site child care, support services for single parents, and conflict-resolution training for residents. In retrospect, none of these needs have changed over the last 5-years.
Welfare to Work Residents
For individuals receiving welfare assistance, homelessness is a symptom of extreme poverty, not merely a housing issue. It is not surprising then to find that homeless individuals share many of the same attributes of housed individuals living in poverty and receiving public assistance including:
1. Low educational levels
2. Incidences of domestic violence and substance abuse
3. Ill health, and
4. Lack of job skills and work histories.
The "back-to-work" process is a major difficulty facing the homeless. Homeless persons lack the tools needed to make the transition to employment possible. These tools range from the very basic (proper work attire, transportation, a work-ready attitude, child care) to more critical necessities (skills that are essential to compete in today's job market, education, and mental and emotional support.) These tools are generally taken for granted, but for the homeless and the poor, they are major barriers to employment.
Riverside County’s ACCESS (Access to Careers Conducive to Economic Self-Sufficiency) and California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKS) programs focus on assisting families in moving from welfare dependence to self sufficiency through employment. Welfare-to Work Phase I is focused on reducing welfare dependence by assisting homeless individuals in returning to the work force as quickly as possible.
However, the insistence on immediate employment may lead participants into dead-end, low-paying jobs, and of course, back to their previous homeless status. A growing number of recipients do not even meet the minimum requirements necessary to participate in an employment-training program, let alone secure continuous employment. Traditional training programs typically require that participants have a high school diploma, read at the eighth grade level, possess basic work skills, and establish a permanent residency. Lacking even fundamental skills, such as reading, writing and arithmetic, homeless welfare recipients are unable to qualify for, much less succeed in, standard job training programs.
Welfare-to-Work Phase II is focused on reducing poverty by assisting parents with the increase of their self-sufficiency by acquiring a better job and a career. Elements of Riverside County’s CalWORKs Program which will support families in their progress toward self sufficiency would include providing applicants with Up-front services to alleviate the need of welfare assistance, establish a more effective connection to the child support system and create linkages with the business community and economic development organizations to ensure that employment opportunities are made available.
Welfare reform in Riverside County is an evolutionary process. It does not end with the CalWORKs County Plan. Rather, the plan is the beginning of a welfare reform process which is based both on the past significant success achieved by the DPSS Gain program and the ability to create new and innovative collaborative relationships between the many public and private organizations in Riverside County which will be involved in this process.
Homeless Needs Identified by the Citizen Participation Process
Non-profit groups serving the homeless are gravely concerned with the insufficient amount of emergency shelters that operate only during inclement weather. In addition, their concerns mirrored those of the public including the need for transitional housing, rental deposit assistance programs, social service programs, job training, life skill training, childcare, and various programs serving the mentally ill, substance abuser, and individuals coping with catastrophic medical problems.
For the person who is homeless, and trying to correct the problem that lead to their homelessness, there is a myriad of obstacles to overcome. A major problem is that the homeless person has been stereotyped. Not all individuals who find themselves in this situation are dropouts from society by choice.
One final group of concern is the youth in foster care. Once these children reach the age of 18, they can find themselves homeless and in need of a job. These individuals are at-risk of slipping through the cracks and becoming homeless statistics without proper education, life skill training, job training, and employment.
Homeless Needs Identified by the Participating Cities
The availability of soup kitchens, and other facilities providing assistance to the homeless in obtaining shelter, meals or services are varied throughout the county. Many of the churches provide food commodities and a daily meal. Additionally, various church groups deliver meals at local parks where the homeless are known to congregate.
The following agencies should be noted as providers of either emergency food, i.e. "soup kitchens," food, motel vouchers, and rental/mortgage payment assistance:
1. Agape Compassion Center, Anza
2. Arlington SDA Community Services, Riverside
3. Arlington Temporary Services, Riverside
4. Blythe Emergency Food Pantry, Blythe
5. Bread of Life, Cathedral City
6. Carol’s Kitchen, Banning Community Center, Banning
7. Carol’s Kitchen, Beaumont Presbyterian Church, Beaumont
8. Carol’s Kitchen, Cabazon Community Center, Cabazon
9. Carol’s Kitchen, San Gorgonio Catholic Church, Banning
10. Casa Blanca Home of Neighborly Services, Riverside
11. Cathedral of Praise Church, Riverside
12. Catholic Charities-Riverside Office and Palm Springs Office
13. Church of Christ, Moreno Valley
14. Church of the Nazarene, Banning
15. Colorado River Community Action Council, Blythe
16. Community Light and Life, Mira Loma
17. Community Pantry, Hemet
18. Community Settlement Association, Riverside
19. Corona/Norco Settlement House, Corona
20. Fellowship of the Pass, Beaumont
21. F.I.N.D., Cathedral City
22. First Assembly of God, Lake Elsinore
23. First Southern Baptist Church, Banning
24. F.I.S.H. of Lower Coachella Valley
25. Food Now, Desert Hot Springs
26. Fountain of Life Church of God in Christ, Banning
27. God's Helping Hand, Moreno Valley, Highgrove, Perris, Nuevo, Riverside, Sun City
28. H.E.L.P., Beaumont
29. Helping Hands, Banning
30. Helping Our People in Elsinore, Lake Elsinore
31. Hemet Food Center, Hemet
32. Hope Lutheran Church, Temecula
33. Kansas Avenue Seventh Day Adventist Church, Riverside
34. Lutheran Social Services, Riverside
35. Martha's Village and Kitchen, Indio
36. Mead Valley Community Complex, Mead Valley
37. Menifee Valley Community Cupboard, Sun City
38. Moreno Valley Community Assistance, Riverside
39. New Life Praise Chapel, Banning
40. Old Romoland Baptist Church, Romoland
41. Our Lady of Perpetual Help, Riverside
42. Palm Springs Baptist Church, Palm Springs
43. Precious Blood, Banning
44. Queen of Angels Church, Riverside
45. Riverside City Mission, Riverside
46. Sacred Heart Church, Glen Avon
47. Salvation Army: Elsinore, Moreno Valley, Perris, Rancho/Temecula, Riverside and Rubidoux
48. Seventh Day Adventist Church, Banning
49. St. Christopher’s Church, Moreno Valley
50. St. Elizabeth’s Church, Desert Hot Springs
51. St. Martha’s Thrift Store and Food Pantry, Murrieta
52. St. Theresa’s Church, Palm Springs
53. St. Vincent de Paul Society, Hemet
54. Survival Ministries, Perris
55. Survive Food Bank, Riverside
56. Temecula/Murrieta Community Pantry, Temecula
57. Tender Loving Missions, Lake Elsinore
58. The Well in the Desert, Palm Springs
59. Vineyard of the New Wine, Temecula
60. Zion Worship Center, Moreno Valley
By means of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) Program, and Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) Program, the County is able to provide funds to many social service programs that assist the homeless and to engage in services and programs targeted at preventing low-income individuals and families with children from becoming homeless. These services range from free legal services, AIDS testing, family and marriage counseling, and a myriad of other social programs that assist those "at-risk" of becoming homeless.
Special Needs Services
In addition to those facilities listed previously that provide housing and supportive services for special needs populations, the following facilities are located in Riverside County and provide supportive services only.
Care Connexxus, Inc. – Adult Day Care Services – Riverside and Sun City
Provides day care services to mentally and physically impaired adults.
Double Check Retreat-Alcoholic Rehabilitation- Hemet
Provides alcohol rehabilitation to men with chronic alcoholism. The retreat is structured on the "Twelve Step" principles and creates a safe and healthy environment. Duration of stay in this 20 bed facility is normally 30 days.
La Vista Recovery and Wellness Center for Women- San Jacinto
Provides drug and alcohol treatment for women 18 years or older.
Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program- Riverside
Provides services to help maintain and improve the quality of life for residents in long-term care facilities throughout Riverside County. The Program helps patients in nursing homes, board and care homes and residents of adult day health care centers.
Phoenix Programs, Inc.-Hemet
Provides crisis residential treatment for mentally disabled adults. Provides transitional housing with a clean and sober environment
Riverside Recovery Resources, Inc. – Riverside
Provides prevention, intervention, drinking driver treatment programs, non-residential recovery services and residential recovery services for low income or homeless men and women with minor children in Western Riverside County.
Inland Regional Center
Provides advocacy and assistance for the developmentally disabled population of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. To qualify for services, a person must live within either of these two counties and must be diagnosed with a developmental disability.
Additionally, the following senior centers should be noted in that services are provided to non-homeless persons that require supportive housing services:
1. Banning Senior Center, Banning
2. Blythe Senior Center, Blythe
3. Cathedral City Senior Center, Cathedral City
4. Colorado River Sr. Association, Inc., Blythe
5. Corona Senior Center, Corona
6. Desert Hot Springs Senior Center, Desert Hot Springs
7. Indio Senior Center, Indio
8. Jurupa Senior Center, Rubidoux
9. Lake Elsinore Senior Center, Lake Elsinore
10. Mead Valley Senior Center, Mead Valley
11. Moreno Valley Senior Center, Moreno Valley
12. Mt. San Jacinto Senior Center, Idyllwild
13. Norton Younglove Senior Center, Calimesa
14. San Jacinto Senior Center, San Jacinto
15. Beaumont Senior Center, Beaumont
16. Cabazon Community Center, Cabazon
17. Coachella Senior Center, Coachella
18. Dales Senior Center, Riverside
19. Glen Avon Senior Center, Glen Avon
20. Joslyn Senior Center of Cove Communities, Palm Desert
21. Kay Ceniceros Senior Center, Sun City
22. La Quinta Senior Center, La Quinta
23. Misell Senior Center, Palm Springs
24. Morongo Indian Senior Center, Banning
25. Norco Senior Center, Norco
26. Perris Senior Center, Perris
27. Temecula Valley Senior Center, Temecula
E. LEAD BASED PAINT HAZARDS
Estimate of the Extent of Lead-Based Paint and Lead Hazards in Low and Very-Low Income Households
The National Center for Lead-Safe Housing provides local governments with information and potential strategies intended to assist in developing effective programs to reduce childhood lead poisoning and integrate prevention efforts into ongoing low- and moderate-income housing programs across the country. This information as well as internally developed data was used to estimate both the number of older homes (pre-1979) that which have a higher potential to have lead hazards and the number of children living in these homes who are of lower income.
Although lead was banned from residential paint in 1978, the National Center for Lead-Safe Housing estimates that an estimated 57 million older homes contain some lead-based paint. It is further estimated that approximately 20 million housing units nationwide contain lead hazards including flaking or peeling lead-based paint or excessive levels of tiny lead particles in household dust. HUD has estimated that families occupy 3.8 million homes containing such immediate lead hazards with young children who are at immediate risk of poisoning. Half of these families own their homes. Half have incomes above $30,000 per year.
Childhood lead poisoning has been identified as the number one environmental health hazard facing American children. Federal estimates indicate that ten to fifteen percent of all pre-schoolers have blood lead levels high enough to warrant concern for their intellectual development. While lead poisoning affects children of every socioeconomic and demographic stratum, the poor and minorities are disproportionately affected. In many urban and poor rural communities, over a significant number of children suffer from over exposure to lead.
Lead-based paint containing up to fifty percent lead was in common use and available until the mid-1970's. In 1978, the Consumer Product Safety Commission banned the manufacture of paint containing more than 0.06 lead by weight for use of interior and exterior residential surfaces and furniture.
Estimate of Gross Number of Homes With Lead-Based Paint Potential
The following provides information from the 1990 Census data. The relevant year for contaminated homes is 1978. Census data from 1990 has been utilized to identify occupied housing within Riverside County that meets the age criteria established for homes with the potential to have lead-based paint. A study done by HUD, and incorporated into the “Lead-Based Paint Hazards, Technical Assistance Bulletin No. 1’ provide percentages to apply to the raw census data to more accurately reflect the number of homes with lead-based paint. Chart 12 below identifies the “Estimated Number of Occupied Homes in Riverside County With Lead-Based Paint Hazards” Over 160,000 homes are estimated to have some form of lead-based paint hazard in Riverside County.
|CHART 12 |
|ESTIMATE OF OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY |
|WITH LEAD BASED PAINT HAZARDS |
|Owner-occupied Units |
|Age of Unit: Year Built |# of Owner-occupied Units |Percent with Lead-Based |# Estimated with Lead-Based|Margin of error |
| | |Paint |Paint |(10%) |
|Pre-1940 |7,453 |0% |6,708 |671 |
|1940-1959 |37,385 |80% |29,908 |2,991 |
|1960-1979 |111,436 |62% |69,090 |6,909 |
|TOTAL |156,274 |N/A |105,706 |10,571 |
|Total Occupied Units |
|Age of Unit: Year Built |# of Occupied Units |Percent with Lead-Based |# Estimated with Lead-Based|Margin of Error |
| | |Paint |Paint |(10%) |
|Pre-1940 |14,118 |90% |12,706 |1,271 |
|1940-1959 |59,192 |80% |47,354 |4,735 |
|1960-1979 |162,153 |62% |100,535 |10,053 |
|TOTAL |235,463 |N/A |160,595 |16,059 |
|Source: 1990 U.S. Census, CHAS Databook, National Center for Lead-Safe Housing |
As noted in Chart 12, as many as 160,595 housing units in Riverside County may contain lead-based paint hazards.
Estimate of the Number of Children Potentially Exposed to Lead-Based Paint and Lead Hazards
Research has also shown that children below the age of six (6) are most at risk for lead hazards because of their play habits and the vulnerability of their developing bodies and nervous systems. It has been estimated by the State of California, Department of Health that approximately 33,000 Riverside County children under the age of six (6) currently have dangerous elevated levels of lead in the blood. Because of the established link between poverty and exposure to lead hazards in older homes an analysis of 1990 census data (Chart 12) was undertaken to determine the number of children under the age of six (6) that would have a higher potential to be exposed to lead hazards because of their poverty status and the possibility of living in a home built before 1980. Twenty-eight (28) census tracts within Riverside County were found to have thirty percent (30%) of the children under the age of six (6) in poverty with a sixty percent (60%) or greater chance of living in a home built before 1980. Within the twenty-eight (28) high propensity tracts, over 8700 children in poverty and under the age of six (6) were identified.
By identifying these high propensity census tracts efforts to test and abate lead hazards can be better focused. Based on this data, it appears that highest levels of both older housing and children in poverty can be seen as more prevalent in the following geographic areas of the County.
Central and southern Indio Thermal-Coachella Mecca-Salton Sea
Desert Center Blythe-Ripley Banning-Beamount
Desert Hot Springs Riverside City Rubidoux
La Sierra Heights Corona Highgrove
Edgemont Perris Hemet
|CHART 13 |
|Children with Lead-Based Paint Hazard Potential |
|Census Tract |Under 6 Yrs in|Total Under 6 |% Under 6 Yrs |Under 18 Yrs in|Total Under 18 |% Under 18 Yrs |Pre 1980 |Total Occupied |% Pre 1980 Occupied|
| |Poverty |Yrs |in Poverty |Poverty |Yrs |in Poverty |Occupied Housing|Housing Units |Housing Units |
|301 |215 |778 |28% |483 |2,059 |23% |1,649 |1,932 |85% |
|302 |99 |470 |21% |279 |1,185 |24% |1,904 |1,951 |98% |
|303 |280 |601 |47% |434 |1,129 |38% |1,639 |1,818 |90% |
|304 |249 |758 |33% |670 |2,132 |31% |1,404 |1,585 |89% |
|305 |466 |1,443 |32% |1,124 |3,552 |32% |2,434 |2,739 |89% |
|306 |0 |716 |0% |0 |2,697 |0% |2,187 |3,398 |64% |
|307 |39 |545 |7% |115 |1,294 |9% |2,033 |2,141 |95% |
|308 |60 |611 |10% |230 |1,560 |15% |2,109 |2,308 |91% |
|309 |58 |312 |19% |159 |1,012 |16% |711 |825 |86% |
|310 |197 |970 |20% |459 |2,514 |18% |2,889 |3,097 |93% |
|311 |47 |274 |17% |201 |1,047 |19% |1,631 |1,710 |95% |
|312 |25 |514 |5% |71 |1,745 |4% |2,090 |2,145 |97% |
|313 |77 |386 |20% |178 |975 |18% |637 |678 |94% |
|314.01 |84 |513 |16% |122 |1,071 |11% |1,883 |2,035 |93% |
|314.02 |75 |549 |14% |134 |1,471 |9% |1,834 |2,240 |82% |
|315.01 |70 |512 |14% |161 |1,249 |13% |1,569 |2,152 |73% |
|315.02 |36 |702 |5% |141 |1,868 |8% |1,827 |2,324 |79% |
|316 |130 |855 |15% |392 |2,263 |17% |2,506 |2,682 |93% |
|317 |141 |1,343 |10% |625 |4,511 |14% |2,977 |3,793 |78% |
|401 |171 |1,039 |16% |435 |2,438 |18% |1,205 |1,852 |65% |
|402 |463 |1,528 |30% |1,006 |3,938 |26% |2,789 |3,662 |76% |
|403 |174 |1,239 |14% |478 |4,107 |12% |2,949 |3,835 |77% |
|404 |95 |1,508 |6% |216 |4,411 |5% |2,080 |3,714 |56% |
|405 |129 |1,317 |10% |431 |3,417 |13% |3,052 |4,364 |70% |
|406.01 |129 |1,210 |11% |359 |3,787 |9% |2,388 |3,255 |73% |
|406.02 |0 |293 |0% |48 |827 |6% |1,088 |1,255 |87% |
|407 |67 |688 |10% |178 |2,217 |8% |2,082 |2,468 |84% |
|408.02 |97 |2,134 |5% |161 |5,332 |3% |1,686 |5,584 |30% |
|408.03 |51 |555 |9% |102 |1,605 |6% |1,659 |1,929 |86% |
|408.04 |0 |258 |0% |79 |1,037 |8% |894 |1,003 |89% |
|408.05 |0 |0 |?? |0 |0 |?? |0 |0 |?? |
|409 |119 |1,394 |9% |399 |3,645 |11% |2,827 |3,963 |71% |
|410 |153 |1,318 |12% |391 |3,729 |10% |1,964 |3,011 |65% |
|411 |339 |962 |35% |869 |2,642 |33% |1,476 |1,892 |78% |
|412 |94 |1,094 |9% |444 |3,196 |14% |2,127 |2,674 |80% |
|413 |169 |774 |22% |439 |2,152 |20% |1,367 |1,734 |79% |
|414.01 |138 |2,326 |6% |452 |6,004 |8% |3,894 |7,122 |55% |
|414.02 |233 |1,567 |15% |510 |3,864 |13% |1,957 |3,558 |55% |
|415 |45 |218 |21% |90 |577 |16% |430 |596 |72% |
|416 |259 |825 |31% |669 |1,965 |34% |1,332 |1,754 |76% |
|417.01 |237 |1,085 |22% |683 |2,354 |29% |1,417 |2,466 |57% |
|417.02 |12 |446 |3% |75 |1,279 |6% |1,176 |1,264 |93% |
|418.01 |62 |1,954 |3% |181 |5,104 |4% |1,756 |4,957 |35% |
|418.02 |88 |762 |12% |278 |2,249 |12% |1,837 |2,552 |72% |
|419.01 |146 |2,523 |6% |281 |5,633 |5% |3,227 |6,314 |51% |
|419.02 |46 |1,026 |4% |180 |2,749 |7% |1,005 |2,409 |42% |
|420.01 |43 |1,122 |4% |114 |3,267 |3% |1,532 |3,493 |44% |
|420.02 |155 |1,362 |11% |550 |3,962 |14% |2,285 |4,209 |54% |
|421 |103 |696 |15% |193 |1,445 |13% |762 |1,195 |64% |
|422.01 |60 |961 |6% |166 |3,014 |6% |3,249 |5,254 |62% |
|422.02 |41 |183 |22% |74 |332 |22% |337 |361 |93% |
|422.03 |148 |741 |20% |319 |1,645 |19% |2,123 |4,677 |45% |
|422.04 |50 |1,310 |4% |155 |3,676 |4% |1,852 |4,204 |44% |
|423 |201 |632 |32% |409 |1,682 |24% |1,471 |1,873 |79% |
|424 |152 |4,330 |4% |558 |12,238 |5% |2,367 |11,063 |21% |
|425.01 |601 |1,291 |47% |1,214 |3,183 |38% |1,510 |2,513 |60% |
|425.02 |495 |4,459 |11% |1,344 |11,782 |11% |2,039 |9,172 |22% |
|425.03 |400 |2,961 |14% |1,028 |7,736 |13% |1,423 |5,574 |26% |
|426.01 |219 |2,311 |9% |545 |5,953 |9% |1,000 |4,779 |21% |
|426.02 |15 |181 |8% |131 |593 |22% |230 |591 |39% |
|426.03 |175 |1,163 |15% |333 |2,274 |15% |365 |2,245 |16% |
|427.02 |44 |673 |7% |121 |1,535 |8% |4,724 |7,466 |63% |
|427.03 |89 |1,749 |5% |239 |4,709 |5% |2,205 |5,978 |37% |
|427.05 |200 |1,203 |17% |559 |3,349 |17% |2,564 |4,611 |56% |
|427.06 |88 |502 |18% |199 |1,093 |18% |20 |769 |3% |
|427.07 |148 |723 |20% |408 |1,867 |22% |2,118 |3,782 |56% |
|428 |361 |1,058 |34% |765 |2,409 |32% |1,183 |1,776 |67% |
|429 |356 |1,587 |22% |1,347 |4,979 |27% |3,109 |5,107 |61% |
|430 |565 |2,990 |19% |1,094 |7,588 |14% |3,330 |7,675 |43% |
|431.98 |158 |1,610 |10% |498 |4,161 |12% |2,836 |5,362 |53% |
|432.01 |34 |1,708 |2% |152 |4,003 |4% |542 |4,849 |11% |
|432.02 |61 |1,674 |4% |262 |3,653 |7% |922 |4,370 |21% |
|432.03 |29 |425 |7% |132 |1,376 |10% |489 |1,618 |30% |
|432.04 |307 |3,327 |9% |582 |8,555 |7% |1,786 |9,392 |19% |
|432.05 |17 |903 |2% |168 |2,290 |7% |934 |2,785 |34% |
|433.01 |153 |886 |17% |280 |2,246 |12% |3,867 |6,755 |57% |
|433.02 |162 |1,011 |16% |457 |2,677 |17% |2,660 |3,666 |73% |
|433.03 |110 |995 |11% |269 |3,295 |8% |3,092 |3,834 |81% |
|434.01 |304 |715 |43% |729 |1,803 |40% |1,860 |2,158 |86% |
|434.02 |199 |532 |37% |510 |1,280 |40% |4,074 |4,583 |89% |
|435.01 |156 |1,196 |13% |389 |3,156 |12% |5,021 |9,629 |52% |
|435.02 |182 |763 |24% |327 |1,882 |17% |1,585 |3,421 |46% |
|436 |219 |923 |24% |734 |2,539 |29% |1,991 |2,468 |81% |
|437 |84 |534 |16% |258 |1,655 |16% |2,501 |4,214 |59% |
|438.02 |48 |367 |13% |90 |1,093 |8% |1,675 |1,879 |89% |
|438.03 |201 |670 |30% |323 |1,767 |18% |2,275 |3,432 |66% |
|438.05 |75 |185 |41% |231 |687 |34% |784 |1,146 |68% |
|438.06 |114 |336 |34% |262 |923 |28% |850 |2,062 |41% |
|439 |169 |494 |34% |415 |1,471 |28% |1,482 |1,702 |87% |
|440 |114 |211 |54% |275 |579 |47% |533 |737 |72% |
|441 |128 |833 |15% |364 |2,547 |14% |3,342 |4,108 |81% |
|442 |339 |659 |51% |793 |1,939 |41% |1,485 |1,564 |95% |
|443 |164 |418 |39% |360 |1,210 |30% |580 |912 |64% |
|444.01 |13 |210 |6% |40 |804 |5% |1,154 |1,396 |83% |
|444.02 |41 |260 |16% |92 |745 |12% |754 |1,484 |51% |
|444.03 |43 |153 |28% |138 |510 |27% |615 |1,026 |60% |
|445.01 |84 |652 |13% |249 |1,562 |16% |2,593 |4,038 |64% |
|445.02 |560 |1,583 |35% |1,140 |3,924 |29% |3,245 |6,194 |52% |
|446 |367 |1,169 |31% |977 |3,419 |29% |4,902 |6,534 |75% |
|447 |157 |718 |22% |343 |1,751 |20% |3,173 |3,875 |82% |
|448.02 |100 |661 |15% |242 |1,756 |14% |4,607 |5,520 |83% |
|448.03 |39 |145 |27% |97 |393 |25% |2,755 |3,070 |90% |
|449.01 |461 |2,016 |23% |893 |5,024 |18% |2,135 |7,041 |30% |
|449.02 |52 |593 |9% |189 |1,550 |12% |2,906 |4,939 |59% |
|449.03 |24 |630 |4% |146 |1,695 |9% |2,749 |7,216 |38% |
|450 |111 |449 |25% |392 |1,250 |31% |1,756 |1,895 |93% |
|451.02 |171 |1,071 |16% |346 |3,182 |11% |5,266 |7,492 |70% |
|451.03 |0 |62 |0% |51 |316 |16% |1,414 |1,817 |78% |
|451.04 |109 |1,157 |9% |331 |3,425 |10% |2,579 |5,033 |51% |
|452.01 |104 |1,094 |10% |208 |2,801 |7% |1,605 |4,778 |34% |
|452.02 |299 |1,208 |25% |687 |2,969 |23% |1,970 |3,435 |57% |
|453 |308 |1,119 |28% |690 |3,054 |23% |2,089 |2,241 |93% |
|454 |381 |947 |40% |1,118 |2,884 |39% |1,546 |1,662 |93% |
|455 |397 |1,184 |34% |925 |2,944 |31% |1,680 |2,431 |69% |
|456.01 |353 |900 |39% |830 |2,439 |34% |1,258 |1,965 |64% |
|456.02 |626 |1,308 |48% |1,593 |3,438 |46% |1,677 |2,280 |74% |
|457.01 |513 |1,446 |35% |1,408 |4,353 |32% |1,547 |2,344 |66% |
|457.02 |240 |832 |29% |599 |2,271 |26% |668 |1,320 |51% |
|458 |57 |166 |34% |372 |724 |51% |531 |664 |80% |
|459 |103 |185 |56% |219 |629 |35% |459 |565 |81% |
|460 |55 |167 |33% |110 |375 |29% |489 |655 |75% |
|461 |354 |1,123 |32% |899 |3,097 |29% |2,409 |2,984 |81% |
|462 |54 |104 |52% |147 |403 |36% |391 |420 |93% |
|463.98 |0 |0 |?? |0 |0 |?? |0 |0 |?? |
|Total: |20,276 |121,770 |17% |51,608 |326,377 |16% |235,463 |402,067 |59% |
|Source: 1990 Census |
Lead-Based Paint and Lead Hazard Testing, Treatment, and Abatement Efforts
Extension of the HUD Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control Grant and Implementation of New State Lead Hazard Reduction and Compliance Program
On March 30, 1999, the Riverside County Community Health Agency, Office of Industrial Hygiene (OIH) was awarded a three-year HUD Lead Hazard Control Grant Program (Round VI), covering period March 1, 1999 through February 28, 2003. The Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control Program grant that expired February 28, 2003, has been extended for another three (3) years for an additional 2.3 to 2.5 million. In addition, the Riverside County OIH will be receiving $84,000 annually from the State of California to implement the Lead Hazard Reduction Compliance and Enforcement Program. These funds are to assist local jurisdictions with the development of a program to coordinate the elimination of lead-based paint hazards as required by California State Senate Bill 460. Although jurisdictions throughout California, including Riverside County, have been funded to establish and maintain Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Programs (CLPPP) for more than ten years, these programs have focused on lead poisoning investigations and intervention via case management, including medical treatment and health education. Up until now, the State had not given clear guidance on the control of the principal environmental source of lead poisoning that is deteriorating lead-based paint. In October of 2002, the Governor signed into law SB 460 which became effective January 1, 2003. SB 460, entitled “Lead Abatement”, made several changes to the California Civil and Health and Safety Codes that codified lead-based paint hazards as an actionable violation of housing code. It also granted authority to local health departments, environmental health departments and code enforcement authorities to solely or jointly enforce the abatement of lead paint hazards, with emphasis on abating hazards in the home environment of lead poisoned children. It also established penalties for those who create, or refuse to abate, lead paint hazards. As stated above an amount of $84,000 per year will be awarded in three (3) year contracts. More if other jurisdictions decide not to apply for the funding. The funding for this program is in the form of a non-competitive grant from the State. These funds are not general funds. They come from a special assessment against the industries in California that historically have consumed, or produced, lead containing products such as, the petrochemical industry and paint and coating manufacturers. By statute, these funds are dedicated to lead-poisoning prevention and cannot be used for anything else. While SB 460 allows abatement enforcement by several agencies, the California Department of Health Services (DHS)wants coordination of these efforts to be conducted by public or environmental health departments. The primary contact within the program has to be a Registered Environmental Health Specialist and a Certified Industrial Hygienist, who is also a DHS accredited lead consultant. The program must also have a close working relationship with the local CLPPP. The Office of Industrial Hygiene meets all the prerequisite qualifications to apply for funding and will serve as the central coordinator between both the City of Riverside and County of Riverside code enforcement agencies for investigation and abatement of lead paint hazards. In addition, OIH will serve as a technical consultant to these agencies and offer training and education of lead hazard identification, control, and abatement.
Prior Grant Period Performance
The original HUD grant provided the Riverside County Economic Development Agency (EDA) with the funding and resources to establish a Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control Program within the County of Riverside in low-income communities. The goal of the Program was to evaluate and control lead hazards in low income housing units (target areas), eliminating lead hazards and making them lead safe, as part of HUD’s Strategic Plan. The Program activities primarily included inspection and testing of housing constructed prior to 1955 in target areas, hazard control treatments and abatement, blood lead screening, temporary relocation of families, and community outreach and education. Target areas were selected based on census tracts showing density overlays of heavy racial and ethnic concentration with low-income population (at or below HUD’s 80% median income). This information was compared with the age of housing data for the census tracts identified as low income and minority population to develop a list showing the countywide target communities. The City of Riverside, having a dense concentration of target areas and childhood lead poisoning, was selected as the high priority area.
Since the beginning of the program in 1999, OIH has been able to transform 240 pre-1955 constructed housing units in the target areas to a lead safe condition, at an average hazard control cost of $5,101 per unit. This represents an average hazard control cost of $4,415 per unit for multi-family units and $9,517 per unit for single-family units during the initial grant period. These costs will be expected to go up due to increased material, labor, and insurance costs. Our studies and analysis showed that homes built after 1955 have almost a complete absence of lead.
Initially, the program depended on partners for unit enrollment referrals. As the Program progressed, it was discovered that most partners did not generate a significant number of units for enrollment. EDA’s rehabilitation projects were mostly single-family rehabilitation projects, confined to elderly owner-occupied properties. Riverside County’s Housing Section 8 Program was not in the profile of units targeted for hazard reduction. However, RHDC, agency designated as a Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) under the HOME Program provided us with many fruitful referrals. Although the Riverside Housing Development Corporation (RHDC) and the CLPPP Program provided the most unit referrals, public and community outreach and canvassing of target areas by our in-house staff were most fruitful in unit identification and enrollment. Of the 236 units completed under the original grant, 42 units (18%) were joint projects with housing partners including RHDC, DCA, and EDA.
Lead-based paint inspections commenced under the grant in the first quarter of 2000. In the beginning, most of the units inspected were homes with elevated blood lead (EBL) cases, with some random public inquiries and referrals from our partners. The most effective means of enrolling units for inspection, however, were referrals from RHDC, Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program (CLPPP), and canvassing and outreach in target areas. Other sources of referrals included the Fair Housing Council (FHC), Economic Development Agency (EDA), City of Hemet Housing Department, Department of Community Action (DCA) Agency, property management companies, and public response to newspaper articles and health fairs. All housing units were given a preliminary eligibility screening prior to inspection. All prospective addresses were assessed for target area status by using the Geographic Information System (GIS) technology. Income status was verified using HUD’s median Family Income Table.
E. HOUSING NEEDS OF THE CDBG COOPERATING CITIES
State Law required jurisdictions to estimate the maximum number of units that can be constructed within the planning period according to income group. Each city was required to have completed a Housing Element as part of their 2005 General Plan update summarizing a stated set of objectives, policies and programs that included quantified objectives for the 2000-2005 Housing Element cycle. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) in association with the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) established each cooperating cities share of projected housing needs by income level. Many cities did not receive approval by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for approval of their Housing Element as part of the General Plan and cities challenged the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) by SCAG and their obligation in implementation of their Housing Element. The primary goal of each city was to develop programs based on housing needs of each of the cooperating cities.
The sources that were used in this report was based on the most current data available, and includes the 2000 United States Census Population, 2000 CHAS Data based from the 2000 Census, and the 2003 State Department of Finance statistics (DOF). The current figures were compared to the earlier population trends where available to show the growth of each city. The figures for the years 1999 to 2004 have been updated based on data provided from SCAG April 1998–2005 Growth Forecast. The RHNA completed by SCAG projected the number of new units that would be constructed through 2005, cities have been granted an extension for completion of these units until 2006. Table 13, below, examines the SCAG Regional Share Needs for each CDBG cooperating city by income level, household size, and projected population size from 2000 to 2010. Table 14A and 14 B examines the number of households by income group for cost burden and housing problems that includes overcrowding for each of the listed CDBG Cooperating Cities.
|TABLE 13 |
|RIVERSIDE COUNTY COOPERATING CITIES |
|SCAG REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT, 1998-2005 |
|HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH |
|2000 |
|City |Units Required |Household Size |Population 2000 to 2010 |
| |
| |Extremely Low Income |Very Low Income |
|City |
|TABLE 14B |
|RIVERSIDE COUNTY COOPERATING CIITES* |
|INCOME GROUPS, COST BURDEN AND HOUSING PROBLEMS |
|2000 |
|City |Low Income |Total Households |
| |
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Banning
The 2003 DOF determined the population of the City of Banning was 25,504. According to SCAG assessments detailed in Table 13, the population is expected to reach 31,401 by the year 2005 and 34,658 by the year 2010. The population growth from the 1990-2003 increased from 7,364 in 1990 to 25,504, an increase of 18,140 persons. The SCAG RHNA predicted that by the year 2005, the household size will increase to 10,343 households, and will grow to 11,571 in the year 2010. Table 14A portrays overcrowding with other housing problems, at 17.8% of total extremely low income households, and at 11.3% for households paying over 30% of their income for housing and 45% of the extremely low income households are paying over 50% of their household income for housing. Approximately 30% of all lower income households are paying over 50% of their family’s income toward housing. Clearly, this is an indication for the development of affordable housing within the City of Banning. SCAG RHNA predicted that by the year 2005, the household size will increase to 10,343 households, and will grow to 11,571 in the year 2010. The Housing Element adopted in April 24, 2001 is not in compliance with HCD. The City will utilize its CDBG funds to preserve and enhance the housing stock over the next five years, and the RDA is focusing on a Housing Exterior Rehabilitation Program that offers low income homeowners assistance, a $7,500 grant for exterior repairs.
The County Inventory of Public Housing lists 14 units of public housing in Banning. As indicated in Table 13 SCAG’s RHNA by 2005 required the addition of 1,780 units of housing, including 481 very low and 285 low income, 409 moderate income, and 605 above moderate income to accommodate the City’s housing needs. The January 2003 DOF estimates that the total number of Banning housing units at 10,404: 7,499 single-family, 426 multi-family, and 1,156 mobile homes. The City is attempting to develop adequate sites to meet the RHNA allocations for each income level, however, the City is not sure if the RHNA requirements will be met. The City’s position is that residential development under Banning’s Land Use Plan is adequate to meet the City’s share of regional housing needs by 2005. A variety of residential types of construction is being proposed to meet the RHNA requirements, ranging from multifamily at 24 dwelling units per acre with higher densities available through density bonus provisions. No specific data as to quantified objectives was available or provided by the City.
Beaumont
The 1990 U.S. Census counted 9,685 Beaumont residents. A more recent estimate by the DOF as of January 2003 puts the total at 13,783. The 2000 Census data indicated that the population was approximately 13,391. According to the SCAG projections by year 2005 and as indicated in Table 13, the population is estimated to be at 18,115 and by the year 2010 the population size is expected to increase to 26,074. According to the 2003 estimate, Beaumont has a total of 3,518 single-family dwelling units, 347 multi-family units, and 347 mobile homes. Beaumont is estimated to have 1,748 rental households, and 2,078 owner occupied households. The January 2003 Population and Housing Estimate set the Persons Per Household figure at 2.942. As indicated on Table 14A, 36% of the extremely low income residents pay more than 50% of their income for housing indicating a high need for affordable housing. The CHAS Data indicated that 40.6% of the Very Low Income residents are cost burden paying over 30% of their income toward housing and 51.9% of the Very low Income in comparison to 44.6% of the low income households are experiencing housing problems. The 2003 Department of Finance estimated that there were 13,628 households in the City of Beaumont. On Table 13, SCAG projections indicated that by the year 2005 the household population to be 5,927 and by the year 2010 the household population will increase to a projected 9,165.
The Housing Authority listed 12 affordable housing units. The City of Beaumont last revised its Housing Element in June 1994. The City has addressed the requirements of HCD. During the course of preparing the City’s General Plan and the Housing Element, HCD mandated additional elements required by State Law. The City’s planning department reviewed the Housing Element in relationship to the General Plan and found no conflicts between the Housing Element’s policies and programs and those adopted in other General Plan Elements. The Housing Element policies and programs are consistent with the land use designations and densities included in the Land Use Element. It is the policy of the City that any amendments to the General Plan are evaluated for consistency with other elements of the General Plan. The City’s objective over the coming year is approval of a Specific Plan Area that will allow for mixed/use commercial and multifamily housing. The City will continue to develop programs to increase the numbers of substandard housing units to be rehabilitated. The City did not provide any housing data or quantifiable development objectives.
Blythe
The 1990 Census placed the population at 4,013 while the 2003 DOF identified the population at 21,211 with 2.962 persons per household. As indicated in Table 13, the 2001 SCAG Growth Forecast anticipates that by the year 2005 the population will be 22,097, and by year 2010, the population will increase to 22,277. The 2003 Dept of Finance estimates indicate that there are 7,237 households. The 2001 SCAG estimates according to their forecast that by the year 2005 the household size will be at 5,121 and is expected to increase to 5,382 by the year 2010. The State estimates that the number of single family homes at 5,147, the number of multifamily units at 1,453, and the number of mobile homes at 816. Based on RHNA future housing needs assessment, the City of Blythe was required to construct 234 very low, 137 low income, 166 moderate income, and 316 above moderate income units for a total of 853 units as indicated in Table 13.
Table 14A indicates that 49% of all the extremely Low Income experienced a cost Burden of 50%, and 34.9% were at a Cost Burden of 30% of the Very Low Income households. Total housing problems including cost burden greater than 30% of income, overcrowding was high at 82.5% for the Extremely Low Income, and 50.6%, for the Very Low Income households. Only 44.6% of the total Lower Income households experienced housing overcrowding.
The City does not have an approved Housing Element in compliance with HCD at this time. The Blythe RDA uses its set aside funds for leveraging funds with the County’s HRP program and has developed area wide housing study to establish special needs housing priorities and inventoried the condition of all housing units in the City and the RDA area. The City continues to propose the development of apartment units restricted as affordable units for low and very low-income residents. The City will be rezoning its land use area and developing sites for single family homes which will be sold to low income families. No data was provided from the City except information from City’s draft housing element and data was not provided for the development of affordable housing.
Housing Objectives for the City of Blythe – from Draft Housing Element- March 2002 include:
1. Provide increased specialized multi-family housing for senior and handicapped persons
2. Provide enhanced affordable homeownership opportunities, particularly for very low income households and the bottom half of the low-income group
3. Upgrade the large stock of substandard housing
4. Upgrade housing options for farm workers, the homeless and seniors
5. Double senior multi-family housing by 2005 and increase the total number of senior multi-family units from the present 39 units to 120 over the next decade
6. Annual Construction of 15 sweat equity homes for low and very low-income households – timeframe: continuous
7. Replace 10 substandard low and very low income mobile homes annually with modern mobile home that meet all code requirements – timeframe: continuous
8. Conserve and rehabilitate 20 homes annually for low-income families – timeframe: continuous
Canyon Lake
Canyon Lake incorporated after the 1990 Census and the 2003 DOF listed the population base of the City at 10,511. The SCAG 2001 Growth Forecast predicts by 2005 the population at 10,668 and by the year 2010 the population will increase to 11,850. The 2003 State Estimate counted 3,349 households. SCAG forecasts that by the year 2005 the household size at 3,707 and 4,100 by the year 2010. According to 2000 CHAS data, 729 households were declared lower income: 131 extremely low income, 228 very low income, 367 low income and 3,003 moderate-income households. The 2000 CHAS Data identified that approximately 51.9% of the Lower Income Households for the Extremely Low, the Very Low and Low Income at over 30% and 50% of their income was committed to housing leading to a need for affordable housing.
The City of Canyon Lake does not have an approved Housing Element that is in compliance with HCD. The City is a master planned community with a homeowner’s association with restrictive Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions and has no component for affordable housing. The City is made up of market place housing. Canyon Lake Planned Community was created in 1996 in which the City set aside medium density and commercial land use designations before the County had specific plans that set aside high density areas. Currently, it is the City’s posture that there is no land available for re-zoning. The City will be amending the housing element to allow second units by right as mandated by State law. The City is also setting up to re-zone for a new community zone and has amended the general plan. The City will be changing the zoning from commercial to parks to be consistent with other zoning within the City. SCAG RHNA determined that the city must construct 7 very low income, 4 low income, 7 moderate income, and 18 above moderate-income units, for a total of 38 units. The RHNA numbers that were established by SCAG for the reporting were very low and with the existing market rate housing the City will meet RHNA requirements. Administratively, the City has no plans over the next reporting period 2004-2009 in any revision to the housing element to include multifamily or affordable housing or the development of any programs.
Cathedral City
Since the 1990 Census the population was at 30,805 persons and according to the 2003 State estimates, the population grew to 47,292. The 2000 Census data revealed that there were 12,187 households. SCAG forecasted that by the year 2005 the household population will be at 13,288, and will increase to 14,211 by 2010. The CHAS 2000 data indicated that there are 14,240 households of which 1,624 are extremely low income, 1,941 are very low income, 2,737 are low income, and 7,938 are moderate-income households. The 2000 CHAS data indicated that 75.5% of the extremely low-income households carried a 30% cost burden and 62% carried a 50% cost burden.
The SCAG RHNA projections from 1988-2005 indicated that the city was required to construct 208 very low, 142 low, 186 moderate income, 329 above moderate income level units for a total of 865 units. The SCAG 1988-2005 Growth Forecast indicates a household population level of 39,465 by the year 2005, and 42,609 households by 2010. Overcrowding was endured by 18-20% of all lower income level households. The August 1997 Public Housing Inventory reflects a total of 14 public housing projects in Cathedral City. The 2000 CHAS Data in Table 14A indicated that 46.9% of the Lower Income, 13.9% of the Very Low Income, and 7.9% of the Low Income Households are experiencing a cost burden of greater than 50% of their income towards housing costs indicating a need for affordable housing at the lower income level.
The City of Cathedral City has a Housing Element that was approved by HCD on January 11, 2001. During 2004, the median home prices in the City were selling for $224,000 for new homes and $185,000 for re-sales, the situation for the City is such that even moderate income families are about to be priced out of the ownership market, therefore, the City is implementing programs to increase assistance to very low, low and moderate income residents in the purchase of new homes. Also, the City is expecting to create some 600 new low-income jobs in the downtown area over the next 5 years with the construction of hotels, restaurants, and entertainment and retail-focused development. This will require additional efforts toward job-housing balance in order to have quality employees available for these businesses. The expectations of the City requires investment in 114 moderate-income rental units in the downtown and is targeting future investment of locally-controlled funds over the next 11 years in this area for low and very low income units in order to comply with AB 637 and SB701. Current projects are in the downtown area includes: Theater Apartments, 61 units; Tri-Millennium Apartments, 53 units; and Mercy Senior HUD 202 Apartments, 75units. Cathedral City is 240 units short from meeting the inclusionary and replacement housing mandates through 2003-04. All the replacement-housing needs are for low-income families or seniors. The first priority for the City is to meet the required 240 units through the development of low, very-low and moderate-income housing. Over the next 5 years the City will need an added 100 inclusionary units per year.
The City’s objective and goals over the next 5 years includes targeting 740 affordable units to meet the inclusionary requirements although the City expects to build 500 affordable units to meet its inclusionary requirements. The City is expecting that a significant portion of these affordable units will be a multi-family unit, condos or town-homes as part of its Downtown Revitalization program. The City expects to provide assistance to 20 first-time homebuyers and 40 existing homeowners with the significant rehabilitation loans over the next 24 months in the Dream Homes Revitilazation Program supplying 60 inclusionary affordable units.
Desert Hot Springs
The 1998 the DOF estimated the population at 15,193, this population increased to 17,181 according to the 2003 estimate. The population according to the 2000 Census was 16,582. The SCAG RHNA forecasts that by the year 2005 the population will increase to 17,566 and to 19,180 by the year 2010. According to the Sate estimate the number of households grew from 4,594 in 1990 to 5,849 in 2000. SCAG RHNA growth forecast predicts that by the year 2005 the household population will grow to 5,755 and is predicted to increase to 6,585 by the year 2010. The SCAG RHNA postulated Desert Hot Springs housing need through 2005 at 233 units; 66 very low income, 37 low income, 47 moderate income, and 84 above moderate income units.
The CHAS data in Table 14A showed estimated lower income households that were paying more than 30% of their income for housing. At the Extremely Low Income group, 49.5% of those households carried a 50% Cost Burden and at the Very Low Income Group, 38.1% indicated that households were experiencing greater than a 30% Cost Burden, demonstrating a high need of housing assistance at the lowest income level. Only 5.5% of the Lower Income residents carried a 50% Cost Burden. Of the total 5,849 households, 3,712 lower income households were paying more than 30% of their income for rent.
The Housing Authority has 42 affordable units in the City of Desert Hot Springs. The City of Desert Hot Springs has an approved Housing Element that was adopted September 5, 2000. The 1998-2005 Regional Housing Needs Allocation prepared by SCAG required 66 units of Very Low Income, 37 units of Low Income, and 47 moderate income units is target that can be easily met by the City.
The State estimate indicated in 2003 that there were 1,313 households in the City of Desert Hot Springs with 5 or more members. It was estimated from the 2000 CHAS data that there are 3,712 lower income households: 1,308 are extremely low income, 1,067, are very low income, and 1,337 are lower income households. There are also 579 mobile homes according to State estimates. Since mobile home parks provide affordable housing opportunities, particularly for senior citizens, the City is working on programs to preserving its existing housing stock in a safe and good condition. The City is maintaining existing mobile home parks and correcting health and safety concerns and allocating set-aside funds. The City will continue to allocate set aside funds for first time homebuyers, large families, female head of households, single parent households, senior citizens, and handicapped and homeless individuals. A goal of the city was to develop a variety of housing types including multifamily units for new construction and rehabilitation. The RDA shall continue to participate in grant and loan assistance programs for homeowners. The City has an active Home Improvement Program, sewer connection program, and Home Repair Program allowing for grants for very low and low-income households. The City has a growing elderly population, with special housing needs. Desert Hot Springs has approximately 1,254 households over the age of 65, 456 of which were renting housing, and 798 owned their housing unit. In 2000, of those who rented, 69% were very low-income households, 23% were low-income households, and 7% were moderate or high-income households.
The City allows a bonus density of 25% over the underlying zoning designation. The City uses its CDBG funds for street maintenance, and improvement projects and for a Sewer Hook-Up program. The City works with the County on the Senior Home Repair and HRP program. The city provides assistance to developers of senior housing projects with 20% set-aside funds. The City has granted density bonuses for both the Waldorf and Linda Vista Residences projects, which includes 94 very low and low-income seniors. The City will be working on a program for the preservation of mobile homes.
Indio
As of April 2000 the City had an estimated population of 49,116. As indicated in Table 13, the population according to the 2003 State estimate was 54,450. SCAG forecasted that by 2005 the population would reach 52,140 and by the year 2010 grow to 56,330. In January 2000, there were 13,696 households in the City. The SCAG growth forecast indicated by the year 2005 that there would be 13,527 households, and 14,814 households by 2010. The 2000 Census data indicated that there were 1,940 extremely low income, 2,206 very low income, and 3,003 lower income households. According to the 1990 Census, the median value of a housing unit in Indio was $83,600. Data from the Inland Empire Quarterly indicated that median for existing homes in the 1st Quarter was $107,380 and the median for new homes in the same quarter was almost double at $201,000.
According to the CHAS data in Table 14A, 10,693 of the total of 13,696 households in Indio were low-income households. Over 38%, of the lower income households pay greater than 30 percent of their income for housing costs. According to 2000 data, 6,102 out of 13,888, or 44% are renters and 2,429 or 17% are experiencing housing problems. A need for affordable housing has existed. SCAG’s RHNA anticipates for the planning period has been extended from 1988 up to 2006 in which the City is expected to need a total of 1,098 housing units: Very low income (26%) 288 units, low income, moderate income (16%) 220 units, and (37%) 409 above moderate units for a total of 1,098 units. The Housing Element that is proposed by the City has been submitted to the State covering the period from 1998 to 2006 is not in compliance. The State commented on the report and the City has not responded. The City will be able to meet RHNA requirements for the low and very low-income requirements by the end of 2004. The Council is committed to affordable housing and the end of 2006 plans 17,000 single-family units.
The City will continue to develop the First Time Home Buyer Program. Indio has provided housing sites for all economic segments of the population. Multi-family rental and single-family homes are identified through the zoning ordinance. As previously mentioned, Indio has a regional housing growth need (RHNA) of 1,098 units by 2005. Since the City can accommodate a residential growth rate of 67,000 units it will accommodate 1,098 units during this period. The City has adequate sites for the provision of units for the very low, low and moderate-income households. Prominent in the development of affordable housing in the City is the Coachella Valley Housing Coalition, a non-profit CHDO, and the Palm Desert Development Company. These developers are assisting in satisfying RHNA requirements by the development of single and multifamily units. SCAG RHNA had required that between 1988 and 2005, the City of Indio provide 469 low-income units per year: 288 Very Low income, and 181 Low Income units.
The City has been successful and encourages the development of affordable housing and has a stringent code enforcement program to remove blight. The City encourages homeownership for low and moderate-income households. Agency is structuring a rehabilitation program for existing homes using a 20 percent housing set aside funds. The City is in the process of amending the zoning ordinances to allow for multi-family development in the old downtown of the city. The city is proposing mixed-use housing with retail. The City has provided a density bonus program.
In 1990, 51% of Indio’s housing was renter-occupied and 49% was owner-occupied. Cost Burden was harshest for extremely low and Very Low Income renters and homeowners experiencing housing problems at 76.2% and 66.2%, respectively. Based on the CHAS data, the City of Indio reflects a high incidence of overcrowding at all levels of lower income and a high percentage of overcrowding, and residents paying over 30% of their income toward housing costs. The 2003 DOF estimates a total of 9,224 existing family homes, 1,419 multi-family units, and 3,170 mobile homes.
The Housing Authority of Riverside County’s housing inventory listed 20 public housing complexes in Indio. In addition, there were a total of 582 units of Section 8 housing in the City of Indio. As of April 1997, and, according to the 1998 Second and Third Revision of the Indio Housing Element, 1989-2003, 1,068 new market rate units had been constructed for low and very low income families: 526 low income single-family units, and 88 single-family, 447 multi-family, and 99 mobile homes provided for very low income residents.
Lake Elsinore
Lake Elsinore is the oldest city out of 24 cities located in Riverside County. Elsinore’s population grew from 18,285 in 1990 to 33, 035 in 2003 according to DOF. SCAG Growth Forecast in table 13 projects a population of 40,549 by the year 2005, and 48,694 for the year 2010. The 2003 estimate indicated 9,907, utilizing persons per household figure of 3,327. Based on CHAS Data 744 extremely low, 843 very low, and 1,031 low-income households, for a total of 2,618 households were identified. The 2003 DOF identified 7,379 existing single-family units 735 multi-family units, and 761 mobile homes in the City of Lake Elsinore. In Table 15 household growth is listed. Between 1990-1999, the total number of households grew approximately 46%. The average size per household was 2.9 persons per household increasing to 3.1 persons per household by 2000, and 3.327 persons per household in 2003 (2003 DOF).
|CHART 15 |
|Household size by owner and renter |
|HOUSEHOLD SIZE BY TENURE 2000 CHAS Data |
|City of Lake Elsinore |
|Households |Number |Percent |Number |Percent |
|Very Low Income |1,251 |59% |847 |40% |
|Low Income |667 |45% |828 |55% |
|Moderate Income |1,135 |22% | 4,063 |78% |
|Total |3,053 |34% |5,738 |65% |
The cost of home ownership and renting can be compared based on the family’s ability to pay 30% of their income for housing. As indicted in Table 14 A, resident’s paying over 30% of their gross income for rent or mortgage include housing problems in which residents cannot properly maintain their units because of financial problems related to taking care of necessities such as food, clothing, medical care, and utilities. Fixed and elderly households are particularly affected by overpayment. Very low-income renters are particularly affected the most severely. Both at the 30% Cost Burden and greater than 50% Cost Burden portray high percentages for the extremely low and low income households at 70.9% of the extremely low and 78.3% of the very low income households in which lower income residents are experiencing housing problems.
There are 44 Public Housing units in the City. As displayed in Table 13, SCAG RHNA requirements required the addition of 3,763 dwelling units; 978 of which were to be very low income, and 639 low-income units. The City of Lake Elsinore has an adopted and approved Housing Element and is working on a draft update. The 2003 DOF indicated that 4,126 housing units have been added since 1990. As of 2000, the City had 8,791 households, and a vacancy rate of 7.24% percent. According to CHAS data, there are 2,273 resident lower income households paying 30% or more of their income on housing costs. This number is approximately 15% of Lake Elsinore’s resident households. An estimated 15% of all the City’s households were overcrowded in 2000.
The housing needs assessment is determined by the population, employment trends, projected housing needs for all income levels, analysis of ability to pay, including overcrowding, and housing stock condition. As of January 1990, Lake Elsinore had a housing stock comprising of 6,644 dwelling units and a population of 15,791 by the year 2000, the composition of the housing stock increased by 4,126 dwelling units. This increase was in the development of the following:
Number Percent
Single Family Units 2,337 56.6%
2 to 4 Units 647 15.7%
5+ Units 1,061 25.7%
Mobile Homes 81 2.0%
4,126 100.0%
The projected housing needs takes in account the following factors for the City to reach its five-year goal:
1. Market demand
2. Employment opportunities
3. Availability of suitable sites
4. Availability of public facilities
5. Type and tenure of housing need and housing needs of farm workers and special needs groups.
SCAG has defined existing need as number of lower income households currently overpaying for housing if they are expending 30% or more for housing costs. The future needs that have been identified by RHNA for the 1988-2005 data indicated that an addition of 978 very low, 639 low income, 829 moderate income, and 1,317 above moderate income for a total of 3,763 units are necessary to satisfy the very low, low and moderate income groups housing needs.
The City is updating its Housing Element to include a financially assisted density program. The City has been successful in setting aside land suitable for residential development, in which there is a potential for construction of 46,516 housing units. Of the total supply of land available, over 12,000 housing units were planned in the medium to high-density range. The City’s programs include repair grant programs and rehabilitation programs funded through CDBG. In order to accommodate regional housing needs the city achieved one of its goals that were for conservation of existing rental stocks and achieve the rehabilitation of 50 dwelling units during the planning period 1989-1996. In addition, the city proposed to develop 30 units to provide the City’s fair share of low and moderate-income households. The City for first time homebuyer will develop a program for the acquisition of new homes.
It is the City’s contention that the City cannot meet the RHNA requirements because of constraints regarding the availability of land. The City has proposed the development of 20 units per year using the County’s HIP, Emergency Grant, Senior Home Repair and First Time Homebuyer programs.
La Quinta
According to the 1990 Census, the City of La Quinta had a population of 11,215. In Table 13, SCAG forecasted that by 2005 the population will be at 24,369 and will grow to 29,697 by 2010. The 2003 DOF figures indicated 30,412 households at 2.848 persons per household. SCAG Forecasts estimated household growth to reach 7,723 by the year 2005, and 9,256 by the year 2010. The 2000 Census indicated that there were 1,127 at the Extremely Low income, 720 at Very Low Income, 1,085 Low Income, and 1,085 were at Moderate Income levels. Cost Burden affected 1,341 households in the lower income categories; 50.8% of them are renters. Overcrowding was highest in the Low Income category at 17.7%. The City of La Quinta 1995 Housing Element cites the high levels of cost burden as reflective of the City’s need for affordable homes for purchase by Low and Very Low Income households.
As indicated in Table 13, by 2005 SCAG RHNA required the City of La Quinta to construct 912 units or 122 annually through the planning period:
1. 178 Very Low Income Units;
2. 103 Low Income Units;
3. 196 Moderate Income Units;
4. 436 Above Moderate Income Units
|CHART 16 |
|City of La Quinta |
|Quantified Objectives Summary |
|Quantified Objective |New Construction |Preservation/ Assistance |Rehabilitation |Total |RHNA |
|Very Low Income |200 |362 |127 |689 |178 |
|Low Income |135 |389 |19 |543 |103 |
|Moderate Income |997 |168 |9 |1,174 |196 |
|Above Moderate Income |7,872 |- |- |7,872 |436 |
|Total |9,204 |919 |155 |10,278 |913 |
Table 16 displays quantified objectives for La Quinta by income classification. The City’s objectives exceeded the RHNA requirements in each income classification, seeking new construction of 200 Very Low Income units, and 135 low income units, 997 Moderate Income Units, and 7,872 Above Moderate Income Units, along with 919 units for housing and preservation and 155 for rehabilitation for a total of 10,278 units. The City has submitted a draft Housing Element to HCD. The City will be preserving its existing units targeted for Very Low and Low-Income households. The plan is for the rehabilitation and infrastructure improvements to assist the Very Low, Low and Moderate Income units.
The 2003 Official State Estimate counts 12,368 single-family units, 1,358 multi-family, and 259 mobile homes in the City of La Quinta. An assessment of current housing needs indicates that the majority of La Quinta’s population is adequately housed; it also indicates that a certain of segment of La Quinta households are currently experiencing housing quality problems. As indicted in Table 14 A, at the Very Low Income Level over 62% of these households are paying over 50% of their gross income for rent or mortgage.
Based on the 2000 Census, approximately 350 households within La Quinta, in addition to 176 mobile home residents, are currently living in housing that needs correction of deferred maintenance or physical repair. The majority of the units cited in the housing inventory do not entail structural repair or rehabilitation. Approximately 70 % of the non-mobile home units in need of attention fall under the “deferred maintenance” classification, which consists of three or less superficial maintenance items.
The City’s past performance included programs for very low and low, and moderate-income households through the Assessment Sewer Connection Program, construction of single family homes for non-profits. The Agency provides second trust deeds so eligible income households may purchase single-family homes that were originally rented to Section 8 households. Under the La Quinta Housing Program (LQHP), the Agency’s loan program provides its funds between the maximum first loan the buyer obtains and the purchase price less a required 3% down payment. Households up to 50% of the median could receive up to $75,000 toward the purchase of their home. The City will provide priority processing of permits for affordable housing projects for the development of affordable housing.
Murrieta
City of Murrieta has an adopted Housing Element approved by HCD on 26 December 2001. The City has an estimated population in 2000 of 44,282 persons. Nearly 85 % of Murrieta’s housing stock has been built since 1981, with a vast majority of single-family units. According to SCAG estimates and forecasts in Table 13, the number of households in Murrieta has grown at a steady rate of approximately 5.3 percent per year since 1990. At the same rate of growth over the next 10 years, the city will achieve a population of 59,812 by 2005, and 68,071 by the year 2010. The 2000 Census data determined there were 4,296 households, which includes 1,543 extremely low income, 909 very low income, and 1,564 low-income households. At 2003 DOF estimates there were 15,344, single-family housing units, and 554 mobile homes. SCAG Growth Forecasts predict by the year 2005, the household population will increase to 19,005 and by the year 2010, the number of households’ size will increase to 22,050.
SCAG has projected in association with Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), Murrieta’s share of projected housing needs.
Very Low Income 1,942 19%
Low Income 1,370 13%
Moderate Income 2,139 20%
Above Moderate Income 4,933 48%
10,384 100%
There are approximately 4,281 acres of vacant and underdeveloped residential land available. Based on the Land Use Element, it is estimated that the City Plan Area will support approximately 11,384 new dwelling units. In addition, in the Specific Plan area has the ability to support approximately another 8,848 units. A total of 20,152 units can be built.
There are no assisted multifamily rental units at the risk of conversion. The objectives of the City during the 2000 to 2005 reporting period is to produce 10,384 new housing units. The income level and affordability category are, as the end of the 2005 will complete follows and are:
Very Low Income 1,942 units
Low Income 1,370 units
Moderate Income 2,139 units
Upper Income 4,933 units
The second objective is to Conserve 2000 housing units in the following income categories:
Very Low Income 374 units
Low Income 264 units
Moderate Income 412 units
Upper Income 950 units
The third objective includes the rehabilitation of 200 existing units in the following income categories:
Very Low Income 37 units
Low Income 27 units
Moderate Income 41 units
Upper Income 95 units
To implement these goals, the City has implemented a variety of housing programs.
Although there is a discrepancy between the number of housing units within the City, based on SCAG’s regional allocation, the City would need to be able to accommodate a total of 19,651 units by 2005. Based on the State DOF and the city’s estimates the total would be 18,997 units by 2005. As displayed in Table 13, SCAG RHNA has determined those 1,942 very low-income units, 1,370 low incomes, and 2,139 moderate incomes, and 4,933 above moderate income for a total of 10,384 units are required by 2006. The City encourages development of affordable housing. The City will increase the percentage of land available; remove target densities relieving projects to having to provide for additional amenities in order to achieve maximum densities. The removal of target densities will allow multifamily development to occur in Murrieta at 18 du/ac. It is the objective of the City to ensure that land use designations and zoning development standards will enable the city to meet all the future housing needs as stipulated by SCAG. There is a potential to create an additional 35,514 units within the City. The City has implemented programs for housing rehabilitation; rental rehabilitation, senior home repair and promoting the HOME first time homebuyer assistance programs. For lower income families the City has identified land and affordable housing incentives and density bonus provisions to facilitate the development of very low, low, and moderate-income households.
Norco
The 1990 Census figure for the City of Norco indicated the population was 23,302. The 2003 Official State Estimate determined the population at 25,245. The SCAG RHNA Growth Forecast in Table 13 indicated that the City is expected to grow to a population of 29,311 by 2005 and 29,894 by 2010. The 2000 Census sets the figure at 5,921 households. The SCAG Growth Forecast predicted that the household population would grow to 7,003 in the year 2005, and 7,334 in 2010. The 2000 Census data showed an overall lower-income population of 1,220 households; 280 extremely low income, 366 very low income, and 574 lower income households. The City does not have approved Housing Element and lacks the available land to commit to the State’s requirements.
The 1988-2005 RHNA estimates established that 197 very low income, 132 low income, 231 moderate income, and 537 above moderate-income units for a total of 1,096 units are required by 2006. In 1999, the City of Norco assessed Low-Income Housing Needs as high priority for 40 units of additional elderly rental housing, and medium priority for 2 units of owner-occupied housing at the 31-50% level, and 40 units at the 51-80% level. The City contains 2 assisted senior housing complexes: 86 units of senior housing for under 80% income levels, and 40 units of 100% affordable HUD 202. The City is concentrating development of a first time homebuyer program providing a larger amount of down payment assistance to assist its residents. The City is proposing to build 2 units for residents of 80% to 100% of median income range. The City would also like to construct an additional 40 to 120 units 100% affordable to seniors. The City is proposing to purchase an existing 9 unit multi family rental property in which the management and maintenance agreement is with the Housing Authority.
Perris
The 1990 Census determined a population of 21,460 for the City of Perris, this population increased to 38,200 in 2003 according to DOF estimates. Population estimates by SCAG in Table 13 indicated that the population would increase from 37,593 in 2005, to 51,897 persons in 2010. The 2000 CHAS Data indicates 5,011 lower-income households: 1,360 extremely low, 1,397 very low, and 2,254 low-income households. Within this overall group, 2,903 households suffer Cost Burden ranging from 60-70% among extremely low and very low income, to 50.6% at the 30% Cost Burden level of low income. Overcrowding occurs in 531 households. The 2003 Official State Estimate cites 10,447 single-family dwellings, 2,546, multi-family units, and 554 mobile homes. There are 40 public housing units in the city of Perris. The 2000 Census determined new growth rate to include 9,446 households. SCAG RHNA Revised Future Housing Needs by Income Category projected by 2005 the household size will increase to 10,115 by 2005, and by 2010, the household size is estimated to increase to 15,127.
The Perris Housing element was updated in February 13, 2001 in which time it was found to be in compliance with State law.
The SCAG Regional Housing Allocation Model indicated a new construction need in Perris from 2005 to 2010 of 7,509 units, of which 1,306 units were very low income households, 1,813 for low income households, 1,771 for moderate income households, and 2,617 units for above moderate income households. SCAG RHNA requirements by 2006 included the construction of 1,263 units; 354 very low income, 215 low income, 290 moderate income, and 1,795 above moderate-income units.
Examples of CDBG funded programs in Perris include housing cost reduction programs, code enforcement, mobile home rehabilitation, and participation in Riverside Fair Housing Council. The City of Perris has two projects underway and one permit which will add to the City’s housing stock. These projects will be added during the 2000-2005 housing element. A variety of federal, state, and local programs are available to create or maintain affordable housing.
According to the City, its five-year goal was met. These goals include the following: conserving & improving existing affordable housing, provision of adequate housing sites, assisting in the development of affordable housing and removing governmental constraints. In addition the city set aside provision of adequate sites that provide a range of residential development opportunities through appropriate zoning designations. It is the City’s goal to participate with the County in the Home Improvement Program in the development of 100 units within the next 5 years, rehabilitation of 13 single-family units and assist 187 in the County’s Senior Home Repair program seniors, and rehabilitation of 14 multi-family units. No data was provided regarding future developments and specific objectives.
The City made progress in meeting new construction objectives. A total of 2,620 were constructed during the housing element period, which did not meet the established RHNA of 7,509 units for the period. Meeting the RHNA goal would entail a doubling of units in a 5-year period. This was an unrealistic high goal for the City to achieve. Although the City has large amounts of available land, the employment for new housing to support was not existent.
San Jacinto
The 1990 Census cited a population of 16,210. The 2003 DOF Official State Estimate reported growth to a population of 26,041. The 2000 Census estimates determined household population of 23,779 with 4,427 households deemed lower-income: 1,353 extremely low, 1,448 very low, and 1,626 at low income households. Cost Burden is highest at the 30% extremely low and low-income levels. Overcrowding occurs most heavily at the same 30% level of low income, in 50.6% of households. The SCAG Growth Forecasts in Table 13 displayed a population of 41,536 by the year 2005, and 47,787 by the year 2010. SCAG forecasts 13,425 households to increase to 15,587 households by the year 2010. The 2003 State Estimate has calculated 5,782 existing single-family units, 1,814 multi-family units, and 2,619 mobile homes as the housing stock for the City of San Jacinto. As indicated in Table 13, SCAG RHNA requested a total of 5,339 units to be built: 1,379 very low income, 898 low income, 1,267 moderate income, and 1,795 above moderate income units to be constructed. At this time the Housing Element for the City is out of compliance with HCD. The City is short of staff and has not responded to requests for further information. The City provided no housing data regarding five-year objectives.
Temecula
The 1990 Census cited 27,099 as the population figure for the City of Temecula. The 2003 State Estimate indicated that the population has grown to 75,014. The SCAG 1998-2005 Growth Forecast estimated in Table 13 the household population at 74,189 by the year 2005 and 77,581 in 2010. The 2000 Census determined that the household size was 18,179 and the total number of lower income households in the City was 3,997 households, of which 1,022 were extremely low income, 1,057 were very low income, and 1,918 were low income. Severe Cost Burden was borne by 1449 families of both extremely low and very low-income households. There was no overcrowding at the extremely low-income level, only 6.9 percent at the very low-income level, and 11.3 percent at the low-income level, for a total of 168 overcrowded households. The 2003 Official State Population and Housing Estimate enumerated existing housing stock at 19,048 single-family dwellings, 4,460 multi-family units, and 321 mobile homes. SCAG RHNA determined that the 1,370 very low-income, 990 low Income, 1,676 moderate incomes, and 3,579 above moderate income for a total of 7,616 units are required.
The City’s 5-Year Plan includes the design and construction of 38 affordable housing units and the rehabilitation of 38 existing units.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) 1988-2005 Forecast: CDBG Cooperating Cities
The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) by SCAG indicate on Table 13 the number of new units that would be needed from 1988 through 2005 based on four income categories. The data indicates that a total of 37,413 additional units would be needed in the cooperating cities to meet housing needs during the period evaluated. The Cities of Blythe, La Quinta, and Norco, submitted their draft housing elements and are pending review by HCD and jurisdiction adoption.
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- income limits
- income eligibility chard
- washington state department of social and health services
- approval table for the disposition hud u s
- statement of current monthly income form b22
- percentage of area median income hud
- the official web site for the state of new jersey
- housing and homeless needs assessment
Related searches
- immediate housing for homeless disabled
- crm needs assessment questions
- immediate housing for homeless families
- technology needs assessment for school
- needs assessment in education
- client needs assessment examples
- free housing for homeless families
- emergency housing for homeless veterans
- learners needs assessment continuing education for
- nursing learning needs assessment survey
- 3 learning needs assessment template for nurses in pdf
- training needs assessment survey questions