HC Packet 1-9-20CITY OF CUPERTINO
HOUSING COMMISSION
AGENDA
10300 Torre Avenue, City Hall Conference Room C
Thursday, January 9, 2020
9:00 AM
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1.Subject: Draft Minutes of October 10, 2019. Postponed from the December 12, 2019
meeting.
Recommended Action: Approve or modify the Draft Minutes of October 10, 2019
draft Minutes HC 10-10-19.doc
2.Subject: Draft Minutes of November 14, 2019. Postponed from the December 12, 2019
meeting.
Recommended Action: Approve or modify the Draft Minutes of November 14, 2019
draft Minutes HC 11-14-19.doc
3.Subject: Draft Minutes of December 12, 2019
Recommended Action: approve or modify the Draft Minutes of December 12, 2019
Draft Minutes of December 12, 2019
STUDY SESSION
4.Subject: Fiscal Year (FY) 2019-20 Housing Commission Work Program Item: Report on
Homelessness
Recommended Action: Receive report and provide any input to Staff
Staff Report
A - Audit of Services Available in Cupertino
B - FY 2020-21 Notice of Funding Availability / Request for Proposals
C - Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Comprehensive Report 2019
D - Berkeley Home Match Year 1 Report
E - Assembly Bill 302 Text
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the commission on any matter not
on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the
commission from making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed on the agenda
Page 1
Housing Commission Agenda January 9, 2020
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
OLD BUSINESS
5.Subject: Informational presentation regarding proposed changes to Municipal Code
Amendments to Title 19: Zoning, of the Cupertino Municipal Code to further facilitate
the development of Accessory Dwelling Units. Application No(s).: MCA-2018-04;
Applicant(s): City of Cupertino; Location: citywide
Recommended Action: receive the presentation and provide any input to Staff
NEW BUSINESS
6.Subject: Commission Proposals for FY 2020-21 City Work Program. Postponed from the
December 12, 2019 meeting.
Recommended Action: Provide a list of proposed City Work Program items and
identifying the top three proposals.
Staff Report
A - City Work Program Flow Chart
B - Guidance on Commission Proposals for City Work Program
C - FY 2019-20 Housing Commission Work Program
D - Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 2.86
E - Commission Proposals for FY 2020-21 City Work Program
STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), anyone who is planning to attend the
next meeting who is visually or hearing impaired or has any disability that needs special assistance
should call the City Clerk's Office at 408-777-3223, 48 hours in advance of the meeting to arrange for
assistance. Upon request, in advance, by a person with a disability, meeting agendas and writings
distributed for the meeting that are public records will be made available in the appropriate alternative
format. Also upon request, in advance, an assistive listening device can be made available for use
during the meeting.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the members after publication of the agenda will
be made available for public inspection. Please contact the City Clerk’s Office in City Hall located at
10300 Torre Avenue during normal business hours.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please be advised that pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code 2.08.100
written communications sent to the Cupertino City Council, Commissioners or City staff concerning a
matter on the agenda are included as supplemental material to the agendized item. These written
communications are accessible to the public through the City’s website and kept in packet archives. You
Page 2
Housing Commission Agenda January 9, 2020
are hereby admonished not to include any personal or private information in written communications to
the City that you do not wish to make public; doing so shall constitute a waiver of any privacy rights
you may have on the information provided to the City .
Members of the public are entitled to address the members concerning any item that is described in the
notice or agenda for this meeting, before or during consideration of that item. If you wish to address the
members on any other item not on the agenda, you may do so during the public comment .
Page 3
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
ACTION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE HOUSING COMMISSION HELD ON OCTOBER 10, 2019
CALL TO ORDER
Commissioner Cunningham opened the meeting at 9:03am.
Vice Chair Bose joined the meeting at 9:21am.
ROLL CALL
Commission Members present: Sue Bose, Vice Chair
Connie Cunningham, Commissioner
Siva Gandikota, Commissioner
Sanjiv Kapil, Commissioner
Commission Members absent: Nina Daruwalla, Chair
Staff present: Kerri Heusler, Housing Manager
Erika Poveda, Associate Planner
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Minutes of the July 25, 2019 Housing Commission meeting were continued to the next regularly
scheduled meeting due to a lack of quorum.
2. Minutes of the September 26, 2019 Housing Commission meeting were approved as written.
Bose moved and Gandikota seconded.
AYES: 3
NOES: 0
ABSTAIN: Cunningham
ABSENT: Daruwalla
VOTE: 3-0-1-1
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Member of the public Jennifer Griffin spoke on issues regarding public outreach with the recent PG&E
event.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None
OLD BUSINESS
None
NEW BUSINESS
3. Fiscal Year (FY) 2019-20 Housing Commission Work Program Item: Identifying a list of City owned
parcels to be considered for affordable housing (APN, lot size, land use)
2
The Commission accepted a presentation from staff members Kerri Heusler and Erika Poveda. Staff
answered questions from Commissioners. Member of the public Jennifer Griffin spoke on this item.
Bose moved and Kapil seconded.
AYES: 4
NOES: 0
ABSTAIN: 0
ABSENT: Daruwalla
VOTE: 4-0-0-1
STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS:
Staff member Heusler provided information about the following items:
Below Market Rate Application/Waitlist
Vice Chair Bose reported back from the monthly Mayor’s meeting. Commissioner Cunningham
reported attendance at the following meetings: Chamber of Commerce and Cupertino for All.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 10:14am to the next regularly scheduled Housing Commission meeting.
Respectfully submitted:
/s/Kerri Heusler
Kerri Heusler
Housing Manager
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
ACTION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE HOUSING COMMISSION HELD ON NOVEMBER 14, 2019
CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair Bose opened the meeting at 9:00am.
Chair Daruwalla joined the meeting at 9:03am.
ROLL CALL
Commission Members present: Nina Daruwalla, Chair
Sue Bose, Vice Chair
Connie Cunningham, Commissioner
Sanjiv Kapil, Commissioner
Commission Members absent: Siva Gandikota, Commissioner
Staff present: Kerri Heusler, Housing Manager
Lauren Ninkovich, Associate Planner
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Minutes of the July 25, 2019 Housing Commission meeting were approved as written.
Daruwalla moved and Cunningham seconded.
AYES: 3
NOES: 0
ABSTAIN: Kapil
ABSENT: Gandikota
VOTE: 3-0-1-1
STUDY SESSION
2. Presentation from Housing Trust of Silicon Valley
The Commission accepted a presentation from Housing Trust of Silicon Valley. Staff answered
questions from Commissioners. Members of the public Kitty Moore and Jennifer Griffin spoke on this
item.
3. Study Session regarding the proposed policy document for the City of Cupertino Ethics Protocol for
Elected and Appointed Officials.
The Commission accepted a presentation from staff member Heusler. Staff answered questions from
Commissioners. Commissioner Cunningham provided written communications and read them aloud
during the meeting. Written communications also included an email from member of the public Brock
Carpenter. Member of the public Jennifer Griffin spoke on this item.
The Commission recommended the following:
2
Use word “shall” instead of “should” throughout entire document
Review and make recommendations on prior Ethics Documents as part of the record
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Member of the public Jennifer Griffin spoke on difficulties with public hearings.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None
OLD BUSINESS
None
NEW BUSINESS
None
STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS:
Staff member Heusler provided information about the following items:
BMR Waitlist
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 10:57am to the next regularly scheduled Housing Commission meeting.
Respectfully submitted:
/s/Kerri Heusler
Kerri Heusler
Housing Manager
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
ACTION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE HOUSING COMMISSION HELD ON DECEMBER 12, 2019
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Daruwalla opened the meeting at 9:30am.
Commissioner Gandikota joined the meeting at 9:30am.
ROLL CALL
Commission Members present: Nina Daruwalla, Chair
Connie Cunningham, Commissioner
Siva Gandikota, Commissioner
Commission Members absent: Sue Bose, Vice Chair
Sanjiv Kapil, Commissioner
Staff present: Kerri Heusler, Housing Manager
Piu Ghosh, Planning Manager
Erick Serrano, Senior Planner
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Draft minutes of October 10, 2019
This item was postponed due to a lack of quorum.
2. Draft minutes of November 14, 2019
This item was postponed due to a lack of quorum.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Member of the public Jennifer Griffin spoke on homelessness in Salinas and the state housing bills.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None
OLD BUSINESS
3. Commission Proposals for FY 2020-21 City Work Program
The Commission accepted a presentation from staff member Heusler. Staff member Heusler answered
questions from Commissioners. Written communications were received from Neil Park-McClintick.
Members of the public Jennifer Griffin spoke about including senior housing and Janet Van Zoeren
spoke about extremely-low income developmentally disabled housing and a potential project at Mary
Avenue.
Commissioners deliberated on the following proposals for the City Work Program.
2
Project/Task Project Objective
Housing Strategies (Part 2) Develop and implement programs to provide a
variety of products across the affordability levels
including housing for the developmentally
disabled, as well as those with moderate, low, very
low, and extremely low income.
Homelessness (Part 2) 1. Partner with De Anza College and social service
agencies to develop and implement programs for
homeless students.
2. Partner with West Valley Community Services
and social service agencies to develop and
implement programs for the homeless community.
3. Support a Safe Park program.
4. Assist in the development of a cold weather
warming station.
Engage with Philanthropic Organizations to find a
way to build ELI housing units for
Developmentally Disabled and Engage with
Habitat for Humanity (or other nonprofit) to build
ownership housing at 10301 Byrne Avenue
1) Identify ways to build ELI housing units for the
developmentally disabled.
2) Look at possibility of building 6-8 affordable
ownership townhomes.
This item was continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting.
NEW BUSINESS
None
STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS:
Staff member Heusler provided information about the following items:
Commission recruitments- 1/10/20 application deadline
Update on CDBG workshop
Cunningham reported attendance at the CDBG regional forum.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 11:37am to the next regularly scheduled Housing Commission meeting.
Respectfully submitted:
/s/Kerri Heusler
Kerri Heusler
Housing Manager
HOUSING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
January 9, 2020
Subject
Fiscal Year (FY) 2019-20 Housing Commission Work Program Item: Report on
Homelessness
Recommended Action
Receive report and provide any input to staff
Discussion
City Council identified Homelessness as a priority setting item for the FY 2019-20 City
Work Program. The project objectives are to: (1) conduct audit of services available in
Cupertino for the homeless community; (2) confirm estimates of homelessness in
Cupertino; and (3) explore solutions for homeless students. The City collaborated with
service providers including the County of Santa Clara Office of Supportive Housing
(County), West Valley Community Services (WVCS), and De Anza College to identify
strategies and resources to assist the homeless.
Background
On October 16, 2018, City Council conducted a study session on homelessness.
Representatives from the County, WVCS, MidPen Housing, and Charities Housing
reported on the current status of homelessness and available resources in Cupertino. City
Council recommended that Staff: (1) update the City website to include information on
housing for students; (2) explore teacher housing further; and (3) work with the County
on their Board referral to discuss teacher housing with De Anza College. Following the
study session, Staff updated the City website and held meetings with De Anza College to
discuss teacher housing.
In discussions with De Anza College, it is understood that affordable housing is a desired
tool for employee retention. Land and funding need to be identified in order to develop
housing. The City will continue to work with De Anza staff to identify land and explore
funding sources to support teacher housing.
2
In order to understand the current needs of homeless residents in Cupertino and
throughout the County, staff worked with service providers to create a list of services
available, confirm estimates of homeless residents in the City, and explore solutions for
homeless students. Results are as follows.
1. Audit of Services Available in Cupertino for the Homeless Community
Staff conducted research and met with service providers to create a list of existing services
available to homeless residents of Cupertino, see attachment A.
City Housing and Human Services Grant Funding
The City annually releases a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) / Request for
Proposal (RFP) for housing and human service funding, see attachment B. Funding
sources include the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, the City’s
Below Market Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund (AHF), and General Fund Human
Services Grant (HSG). Through these funding sources, the City currently provides
funding to West Valley Community Services for two homeless programs as follows.
Funding
Source
Agency Program Amount
CBDG WVCS Community Access to Resource & Education
(CARE)
$35,000
HSG WVCS Haven to Home $40,000
The City’s FY 2020-21 NOFA/RFP is open through February 7, 2020 and agencies may
apply for funding for additional programs and services for the homeless.
County of Santa Clara Office of Supportive Housing (OSH)
The County OSH leads homelessness initiatives including homelessness prevention,
emergency shelters, transitional housing, rapid rehousing, and permanent supportive
housing. The County OSH currently collaborates with numerous service providers
including WVCS and Destination: Home, a public-private partnership that drives and
aligns resources to create permanent housing and sustainable support systems. Staff met
with representatives from the County and Home Base and discussed the County’s role in
managing homeless grants and their work on the Community Plan to End Homelessness.
Community Plan to End Homelessness
The County, along with Destination: Home and the City of San Jose are leading the effort
for the 2020 Community Plan to End Homelessness (the Plan). The Plan is a five-year
community plan that will focus on increasing the capacity and effectiveness of hous ing
programs, addressing the root cause of homelessness, and improving the quality of life
3
for unsheltered individuals. The Plan will be presented to Cities in Santa Clara County in
early 2020 for adoption.
West Valley Community Services (WVCS)
WVCS’ programs work to address basic human needs through focusing on food, housing
services, family support, and mobile services. Staff met with representatives from WVCS
and the Cupertino Library to discuss the rising rate of homelessness in the City. WVCS
and the Library expressed a need for a drop-in day shelter and a mobile hygiene facility
such as Dignity on Wheels.
Dignity on Wheels
The non-profit organization, Project WeHOPE launched Dignity on Wheels in 2015 to
address the lack of hygiene facilities accessible to homeless individuals. Dignity on
Wheels serves six cities throughout Santa Clara County and San Mateo County and
provides mobile hygiene services such as shower and laundry facilities.
Rotating Safe Car Park
According to the the Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Comprehensive Report
2019 (the Report), 18% of individuals reported staying in a vehicle which is a substantial
increase from previous years. According to census results from this, and past counts, the
number of individuals staying in vehicles (cars, RVs, and vans) has increased 146% since
2015, reaching 3,655 individuals in 2019. Cities throughout the County have amended
ordinances to legalize rotating emergency shelters such as the Rotating Safe Car Park
(RSCP) program. The RSCP program provides homeless individuals and families a safe
environment to park their vehicles and sleep overnight and connects participants with
case management programs. The RSCP pilot program for the City of Saratoga started in
June 2018 and was approved by City Council in February 2019. The program now
includes 11 host locations in the South Bay.
2. Estimates of Homelessness in Cupertino
The Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Comprehensive Report 2019 (the Report)
was released in early 2019, please see attachment C. The Report includes data from the
Point-in-Time Census (Census) of sheltered and unsheltered homeless
individuals/families. The Census indicated the highest number of individuals
experiencing homelessness in over a decade with 9,706 homeless individuals throughout
the County. The total number of homeless individuals increased by 31% compared to the
2017 Census. Additionally, the majority (82%) of individuals are unsheltered, which is a
45% increase from the 2017 Census. Results from the 2019 Census counted 159
individuals experiencing homelessness in the City of Cupertino, a 25% increase
compared to the 127 individuals counted during the 2017 Census.
4
3. Explore Solutions for Homeless Students
Staff met with representatives from De Anza College and discussed housing insecurity
among students. According to a Fall 2018 survey of De Anza College students, 5 out of
10 students are housing insecure and 2 out of 10 students are homeless. Furthermore, the
2019 Census and Survey found that approximately 16% of homeless respondents were
less than 24 years old. Potential programs to address student housing insecurity include
the following:
Student “Home Match”
The “Home Match” program is a potential solution for college students looking for
affordable housing. The Berkeley Home Match program is a pilot housing program that
pairs graduate students with UC Berkeley retirees who have vacant rooms or ADUs.
According to the Year 1 Report (attachment D), students enrolled in the pilot program
paid approximately 45% below the average rent for a room. Homeowners also benefited
by earning almost $1,000 per month on average.
Homeless Student Parking (AB 302)
The proposed Assembly Bill (AB 302) would require community colleges with on-
campus parking facilities to grant overnight vehicle access for the purpose of sleeping to
any homeless student currently enrolled in coursework and in good standing with the
community college. The measure is currently on the inactive file on the Senate Floor.
Additional Strategies and Resources to Assist the Homeless
The State, San Francisco Bay Area local governments, service providers, and private
corporations are exploring creative solutions to address the rising issue of homelessness.
Potential solutions include the following:
State Legislation
In October 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom signed 18 bills into law to combat the
statewide housing crisis. The bills are designed to remove barriers to housing
development, enhance tenant protections, and fund housing initiatives. Included is
Senate Bill (SB) 744, which streamlines the approval process and allocates up to $2 billion
for the development of permanent supportive housing and mental health services.
Private Partnerships
Tech companies including Google, Facebook, and Apple recently pledged to invest a
combined $4 billion to help ease the housing crisis. Apple announced in November 2019
that it would invest a total of $2.5 billion with $2 billion going to the State for affo rdable
housing and first-time homebuyer assistance programs. Furthermore, $300 million worth
of Apple-owned land is slated for affordable housing development, $150 million will be
donated to Housing Trust Silicon Valley to support new affordable housing pr ojects and
5
grants, and $50 million will be donated to Destination: Home’s Supportive Housing and
Innovation Fund to accelerate the construction of deeply affordable housing.
SAFE Navigation Centers
San Francisco has approved eight navigation centers since beginning a pilot program in
March 2015. The newest center, Embarcadero SAFE Navigation Center, opened in
December 2019. The location houses approximately 200 individuals and connects guests
to social services and housing assistance. Between 2015 and 2019, over 5,000 clients have
been served at one of San Francisco’s navigation centers with nearly 46% of clients exiting
to permanent housing or reunifications with family/friends.
Tiny Houses
Many major cities including Oakland, San Jose, Denver, and Seattle are turning to tiny
homes or “cabin communities” to support temporary housing for currently unsheltered
homeless individuals. In December 2018, San Jose’s City Council approved a pilot
program to construct a total of 80 short-term units on land owned by the Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA) and Caltrans. The two tiny home villages are expected
to open early 2020 with the pilot program running until 2022.
Next Steps
The Housing Commission has the opportunity to review the report and provide input for
City Council consideration. It is expected that the Homelessness report will be presented
to City Council at the January 21, 2020 meeting.
Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impact.
Fiscal Impact
No fiscal impact.
Prepared by: Erika Poveda, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Kerri Heusler, Housing Manager
Approved for Submission by: Benjamin Fu, Director of Community Development
Attachments:
A – Audit of Services Available in Cupertino
B – FY 2020-21 Notice of Funding Availability / Request for Proposals
C – Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Comprehensive Report 2019
D – Berkeley Home Match: Year 1 Report
E – Assembly Bill 302 Text
Attachment A: Audit of Services Available in Cupertino
Funding Resources:
Agency/Service Provider Program
City of Cupertino
Community Development Block Grant
Below Market Rate Affordable Housing Fund
Human Services Grant
County of Santa Clara Office
of Supportive Housing
Measure A Housing Bond
Destination: Home Supportive Housing and Innovation Fund
Social Services:
Service Provider Program
West Valley Community
Services
Haven to Home Program
Rapid Rehousing
Permanent Food Pantry & Mobile Food Pantry
Community Access to Resource & Education
(CARE) Program
Destination: Home
Homelessness Prevention System
All the Way Home
Destination: Work
Dignity on Wheels Mobile Hygiene facilities
LifeMoves Opportunity Services Center
City Team
Dining Hall
Medical & Dental Clinic
House of Grace
De Anza College Mobile Food Pantry
Housing/Shelter Opportunities:
Service Provider Program
Rotating Safe Car Park
Program
Safe Overnight Car Parking
LifeMoves Hotel de Zink (rotating shelter)
Safe Parking for Families
City Team Men’s Shelter
Heritage Home
City of San Jose Tiny Home Villages
Page 1 of 4
City of Cupertino
Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA)
and Request for Proposals (RFP)
Issued: November 12, 2019
Deadline: February 7, 2020
The City of Cupertino has issued the fiscal year (FY) 2020-21 Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) and
Requests for Proposals (RFP). The City is requesting proposals for eligible capital housing projects and public
service programs. The City may award and appropriate funds to one or more eligible projects in each funding
category. Funds must be used to serve low-and/or moderate-income households located within the City of
Cupertino jurisdiction limits.
The following funding sources are on a one-year grant funding cycle (FY 20/21):
1. Below Market Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) Capital Housing Projects (up to $6,000,000)
2. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Capital Housing Projects (approx. $245,000)
The following funding sources are on a three-year grant funding cycle (FY 20/21, 21/22, & 22/23):
3. BMR AHF Public Services (up to $50,000)
4. CDBG Public Services (approx. $55,000)
5. General Fund Human Services Grant (HSG) Program (up to $100,000)
The estimated CDBG dollar amounts may change based upon the final federal budget approved by Congress.
BMR AHF, CDBG, and HSG allocations are subject to City Council approval and may change as a result.
CAPITAL HOUSING PROJECT FUNDS:
• Funding Source #1- BMR AHF Capital Housing Projects (FY 20/21):
The City estimates up to $6,000,000.00 will be available to fund eligible BMR AHF capital housing projects on
a competitive basis for FY 20/21. BMR AHF funds must be used for eligible housing projects that will serve
low- and/or moderate-income households located within the City of Cupertino jurisdiction limits.
(Note: One-year funding cycle for FY 20/21 only.)
Project Requirements:
BMR AHF capital housing project funds will not be granted or issued as forgivable loans. The City invites
eligible non-profit and for-profit Development Entities (DEs) to submit proposals for eligible funding activities,
which include, but are not limited to:
Land acquisition
New construction
Acquisition and/or rehabilitation of buildings for permanent affordability
Substantial rehabilitation
Project Affordability Requirements:
BMR AHF affordable rental and/or ownership housing proposals must meet the City’s BMR requirements and
offer 99 years of affordability. An affordable regulatory agreement will be recorded against the property to
ensure affordability.
Eligible Development Entities (DEs):
Page 2 of 4
Eligible DEs include non-profit and for-profit organizations licensed to conduct business in the State of
California.
• DEs must demonstrate credit worthiness, financial capacity, relevant experience to undertake
acquisition, rehabilitation, operation of rental housing, or redevelopment of new affordable housing.
• DEs must have no negative financial and project management history within the last five years (i.e.,
DEs has not been in monetary default on a loan and has been current on all financial obligations and
compliance documentation).
Loan Terms and Requirements:
Rental Ownership
Loan Type: Acquisition, predevelopment/construction
converting to permanent, rehabilitation
Acquisition, rehabilitation and/or
construction
Interest Rate: 3.0% simple interest 3.0% simple interest
Loan Term: 30 yrs. 30 yrs.
Affordability
Term:
99 yrs. 99 yrs.
Security: Deed of Trust, Promissory Note and other
regulatory agreements recorded against the
property as required by the City
Deed of Trust, Promissory Note, and
other regulatory agreements recorded
against the property as required by the
City
Security
Position:
Will consider subordinating to a construction or
permanent lender with City approval
Will consider subordinating to a
construction or permanent lender with
City approval
Repayment
Terms:
Interest only. All outstanding interest and
principal will be due in full and payable on or by
the maturity date
Interest only. All outstanding interest and
principal will be due in full and payable on
or by the maturity date
Timeframe: It is expected that projects must proceed
expeditiously to construction
It is expected that projects must proceed
expeditiously to construction
Financial Pro-
Forma:
Submit development financial pro-forma to be
reviewed by City. Subject to review by qualified
third-party consultant/organization to determine
reasonableness
Submit development financial pro-forma
to be reviewed by City. Subject to review
by qualified third-party
consultant/organization to determine
reasonableness
Environmental
Conditions:
All environmental conditions (EX: CEQA) that
are applicable to an eligible project must be
satisfied
All environmental conditions (EX: CEQA)
that are applicable to an eligible project
must be satisfied
Project
Conditions:
Project may be subject to Planning
Commission and/or City Council approval prior
to Deed of Trust, Promissory Note and other
recorded regulatory agreements being
executed and disbursement of funding being
approved
Project may be subject to Planning
Commission and/or City Council approval
prior to Deed of Trust, Promissory Note
and other recorded regulatory
agreements being executed and
disbursement of funding being approved
Underwriting Criteria:
Proposals and DE’s will be underwritten in accordance with City policies which includes, but not limited to,
compliance with the General Plan, BMR Housing Mitigation Program Procedural Manual (Housing Mitigation
Manual), and Policy and Procedures Manual for Administering Deed Restricted Affordable Housing Units (BMR
Manual).
• Funding Source #2: CDBG Capital Housing Projects (FY 20/21):
The City estimates allocating up to $245,000 in funding for eligible CDBG capital housing projects on a
competitive basis for FY 20/21. CDBG capital housing project funds must be used for projects that will serve
Page 3 of 4
low-income households located within the City of Cupertino jurisdiction limits. The CDBG program is directed
toward expanding and maintaining the affordable housing supply; promoting housing opportunities and
choices; maintaining and improving community facilities; increasing economic opportunities, accessibility,
energy efficiency and sustainability; and providing supportive services specifically for persons of very-low
and/or low-income. Targeted groups might include persons who are homeless, seniors, persons with
disabilities, and other special needs groups.
The City estimates receiving approximately $369,000 in CDBG program entitlement funds from the United
States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for FY 20/21. If there are any unused CDBG
funds from the prior FY 19/20, the funds will be added to the eligible CDBG capital housing project category.
CDBG funding is allocated on a competitive basis. A list of eligible CDBG capital housing project activities is
available on the HUD website: https://www.hudexchange.info/cdbg-entitlement/cdbg-entitlement-program-
eligibility-requirements/.
Santa Clara County Measure A- Affordable Housing Bond
The City’s NOFA/RFP is issued in conjunction with the County’s NOFA for the Measure A- Affordable Housing
Bond. Measure A funding is available on a rolling basis for development capital funding, project-based
vouchers, and acquisition funding. Information and applications are available on the County’s website:
https://www.sccgov.org/sites/osh/HousingandCommunityDevelopment/AffordableHousingBond/Pages/home.a
spx
PUBLIC SERVICE FUNDS:
(Note: Three-year funding cycle for 20/21, 21/22, & 22/23.)
• Funding Source #3- BMR AHF Public Services (FY 20/21, 21/22, & 22/23):
The City estimates up to $50,000 will be available to fund eligible BMR AHF public service programs on a
competitive basis for FY 20/21. BMR AHF funds must be used for eligible public service programs that will
serve low- and/or moderate-income households located within the City of Cupertino jurisdiction limits. Eligible
programs include tenant/landlord dispute resolution, fair housing programs, and other programs serving low-
and/or moderate-income households.
• Funding Source #4- CDBG AHF Public Services (FY 20/21, 21/22, & 22/23):
The City estimates allocating up to $55,000 in funding for eligible CDBG public service programs on a
competitive basis for FY 20/21. CDBG public service funds must be used to serve low-income households
within the City of Cupertino jurisdiction limits.
• Funding Source #5- HSG Public Services (FY 20/21, 21/22, & 22/23):
The City estimates allocating up to $100,000 in funding for eligible HSG programs on a competitive basis for
FY 20/21. HSG funds must be used to serve low- and/or moderate-income households within the City of
Cupertino jurisdiction limits.
Eligible HSG programs may include, but not be limited to:
Senior services
Homeless services
Other services that serve low- and/or moderate-income households
RFP Review Process:
Upon receipt of proposals, staff will conduct an initial review to determine program and/or project eligibility and
completeness. The City reserves the right to send a written request to an applicant requesting additional
information.
After the RFP deadline has been completed, all eligible and complete program and/or project applications will
be forwarded to the City’s Housing Commission for initial rating and ranking. The Housing Commission is a
five-member board appointed by the City Council and serves as the recommendation body to the City Council
Page 4 of 4
regarding housing policies and funding recommendations. A Housing Commission public hearing will be held in
which the initial rating and ranking of eligible and complete program and/or project applications will occur. After
the Housing Commission has initially rated and ranked applications, the funding recommendations will be
forwarded to the City Council for final approval. A City Council public hearing will be held in which the final
funding recommendations for FY 20/21 will be made.
Award Notification:
After the City Council has made the final funding recommendations, organizations will be notified with results
funding through this RFP for FY 20/21.
Disclaimer:
This RFP does not commit the City to award any contract or developer agreement, execute any grant or loan
documents, pay and pre-award expenses, or pay any costs incurred in the preparation of a proposal. The City
reserves the right to: 1) accept or reject any or all proposals received; 2) waive a non-substantive deficiency or
irregularity; 3) negotiate with any qualified applicant; 4) execute grant or loan documents in what it believes to
be in the best interest of the City; 5) cancel this request, in part or its entirety, if it is deemed to be in the best
interest of the City; 6) reject the proposal of any applicant who has previously failed to perform properly; 7)
reject the proposal of any applicant who has failed to complete a contract within the specified timeframe; 8)
reject the proposal of any applicant that is not in a position to fulfill a resulting contractual obligation; or 9)
recommend partial funding of a proposal.
Evaluation Criteria:
Proposals will be reviewed and scored relative to the below program and project scoring summary. The
maximum possible score is 100.
Scoring Summary Points
1. Organization Experience and Capacity 50
2. Program/Project Readiness 30
3. Program/Project Leveraged Funds 20
Maximum Possible Score 100
RFP Application Information & Deadlines:
The RFP application period will open at 8:00am on Tuesday, November 12, 2019 and will end at 5:00pm
on Friday, February 7, 2020. Organizations who intend to apply for funds through this RFP must apply online
at www.citydataservices.net. To obtain a temporary login username and password, please visit and request at
www.citydataservices.net. For additional questions, please contact Kerri Heusler, Housing Manager, at
kerrih@cupertino.org or 408.777.3251. Any RFP application that does not meet the deadline will not be
accepted.
Note: Al l proposals are subject to the conditions, instructions and specifications included in this RFP.
Applicants will be notified of upcoming meetings and public hearings to discuss the expenditure of
BMR AHF, CDBG, AND HSG funds.
Santa Clara County
HOMELESS CENSUS & SURVEY
COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
2019
REPORT PRODUCED BY ASR
2 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
ABOUT THE RESEARCHER
Applied Survey Research (ASR) is a social research firm dedicated to helping people build better
communities by collecting meaningful data, facilitating information-based planning, and developing
custom strategies. The firm was founded on the principle that community improvement, initiative
sustainability, and program success are closely tied to assessment of needs, evaluation of community
goals, and development of appropriate responses.
HOUSING INSTABILITY RESEARCH DEPARTMENT (HIRD)
Project Manager: John Connery
Senior Data Analyst: Yoonyoung Kwak, PhD
Graphic Design and Layout: Jenna Gallant & Katherine Lee, MPH
Department Vice President: Peter Connery
Department Director: Samantha Green, MSc
Department Coordinator: Jenna Gallant
Contributing Analyst & Writer: Ken Ithiphol
LOCATIONS
Central Coast:
55 Penny Lane, Suite 101
Watsonville, CA 95076
tel 831-728-1356
Bay Area:
1871 The Alameda, Suite 180
San José, CA 95126
tel 408-247-8319
www.appliedsurveyresearch.org
3 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................................... 4
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 6
Project Overview and Goals ......................................................................................................................... 6
Federal Definition of Homelessness for Point-in-Time Counts ................................................................. 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... 8
POINT-IN-TIME CENSUS ....................................................................................................................... 10
Number and Characteristics of Homeless Persons ................................................................................. 11
HOMELESS SURVEY FINDINGS ............................................................................................................. 15
Demographics of Survey Respondents ..................................................................................................... 16
Living Accommodations ............................................................................................................................. 19
Duration and Recurrence of Homelessness .............................................................................................. 22
Primary Cause of Homelessness............................................................................................................... 23
Services and Assistance ............................................................................................................................ 25
Employment and Income ............................................................................................................................ 27
Health .......................................................................................................................................................... 28
Domestic/Partner Violence or Abuse ........................................................................................................ 29
Criminal Justice System ............................................................................................................................. 30
SUBPOPULATIONS ............................................................................................................................... 31
Chronically Homeless Individuals .............................................................................................................. 32
Veterans Experiencing Homelessness ...................................................................................................... 37
Families with Children Experiencing Homelessness ................................................................................ 42
Youth and Young Adults Experiencing Homelessness ............................................................................ 47
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................ 52
APPENDIX A: METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................. 53
Street Count Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 54
Youth and Young Adult Street Count Methodology .................................................................................. 57
Shelter Count Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 57
Challenges ................................................................................................................................................... 58
Survey Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 58
APPENDIX B: DEFINITIONS & ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................... 61
APPENDIX C: SURVEY QUESTIONS ....................................................................................................... 63
APPENDIX D: TABLE OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... 65
APPENDIX E: FIGURE SOURCES ............................................................................................................ 67
Acknowledgements
4 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
Acknowledgements
The 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey planning team would like to thank the many
individuals and agencies who contributed to this project. The participation of community volunteers and
partner agencies is critical to the success of both the count and survey efforts. Hundreds of community
volunteers, city and county employees, and local community-based organizations assisted with all
aspects of the count, from the initial planning meetings, to the night of the count and to the publication of
this report.
ASR would like to give special thanks to the individuals currently experiencing homelessness who acted
as surveyors and guides during the count. Without their dedication and knowledge, the Homeless Census
and Survey team would not have been able to conduct these efforts. They provided access and
knowledge about the community that would have been unob tainable without their support. These
individuals took time out of their day to participate in this effort and we owe them thanks.
PROJECT PLANNING COMMITTEE
Kathryn Kaminski, Office of Supportive Housing. Leila Qureishi, Office of Supportive Housing. Lorena Diez,
City of San José Housing Department.
POINT-IN-TIME JURISDICTIONAL FUNDERS
City of Campbell City of Morgan Hill
City of Cupertino City of Mountain View
City of Gilroy City of Palo Alto
City of Los Altos City of San José
Town of Los Altos Hills City of Saratoga
Town of Los Gatos City of Santa Clara
City of Milpitas City of Sunnyvale
City of Monte Sereno County of Santa Clara
OTHER ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The following organizations were involved in the planning and data reporting process:
Abode Destination: Home Housing Choice Coalition
Bill Wilson Center Diocese of San José PATH
Bitfocus Gardner Family Health Network Santa Clara University
Sacred Heart
Community Services
County of Santa Clara Office of
Supportive Housing
Santa Clara County Office of
Education
City of San José HACSC St. Joseph’s Family Center
City of Sunnyvale HomeFirst
Acknowledgements
5 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
The following locations acted as deployment centers and we are very thankful for their participation and
support during the count:
Bill Wilson Drop-In Center City Team Ministries
Emmanuel House Mountain View CSA
Salvation Army Opportunity Health Center
Gilroy Compassion Center
Introduction
6 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
Introduction
Every two years, during the last ten days of January, communities across the United States conduct
comprehensive counts of the local population experiencing homelessness. These biennial Point -in-Time
Counts estimate the prevalence of homelessness in each community and collect information on
individuals and families residing in temporary shelters and places not meant for human habitation, and
ultimately help the federal government better understand the nature and extent of homelessness
nationwide.
As required of all jurisdictions receiving federal funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) to provide homeless services, Continuums of Care (CoC) across the country report
the findings of their local Point-in-Time Count in their annual funding application to HUD. Currently, the
Santa Clara County CoC receives approximately $26 million dollars annually in federal funding.
Santa Clara County has partnered with ASR to conduct its Point-in-Time Count since 2007, maintaining a
similar methodology across every count and thus ensuring as much consistency as possible, from one
year to the next. ASR is a social research firm that has over 19 years of experience in homeless
enumeration and needs assessment, having conducted homeless counts and surveys throughout
California and across the nation. Their work is featured as a best practice in the HUD publicati on, A Guide
to Counting Unsheltered Homeless People, as well as in the Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
publication, Conducting a Youth Count: A Toolkit.
PROJECT OVERVIEW AND GOALS
In order for the Homeless Census and Survey to best reflect the experience and expertise of the
community, ASR held planning meetings with local community members. These community members
were drawn from City and County departments, community-based service providers, and other interested
stakeholders. These individuals comprised the 2019 Planning Committee and were instrumental to
ensuring the 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Point -in-Time Count and Survey reflected the needs and
concerns of the community.
Introduction
7 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
The 2019 Planning Committee identified several important project goals:
To preserve current federal funding for homeless services and to enhance the ability to raise new
funds;
To improve the ability of policy makers and service providers to plan and implement services that
meet the needs of the local homeless population;
To measure changes in the numbers and characteristics of the homeless population and track
the community’s progress toward ending homelessness;
To increase public awareness of overall homeless issues and generate support for constructive
solutions; and
To assess the status of specific subpopulations, including veterans, families, youth, young adults,
and those who are chronically homeless.
This report is intended to assist service providers, policy makers, funders, and local, state, and federal
governments in:
Gaining a better understanding of the population currently experiencing homelessness;
Measuring the impact of current policies and programming; and
Making informed decisions around community strategic planning, capacity building, and
advocacy campaigns to prevent and end homelessness.
FEDERAL DEFINITION OF HOMELESSNESS FOR POINT-IN-TIME COUNTS
In this study, the HUD definition of homelessness for the Point-in-Time Count was used. This definition
includes individuals and families:
Living in a supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designated to provide temporary living
arrangement; or
With a primary nighttime residence that is a public or private place not designed for or ordinarily
used as a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings, including a car, park, abandoned
building, bus or train station, airport, or camping ground.
Santa Clara County
Homeless Census & Survey
2019 Executive Summary
Every two years, during the last 10 days of January, communities across the country conduct comprehensive counts of the
local homeless populations in order to measure the prevalence of homelessness in each local Continuum of Care.
The 2019 Santa Clara County Point-in-Time Count was a community-wide effort conducted on January 29th and 30th,
2019. In the weeks following the street count, a survey was administered to 1,335 unsheltered and sheltered individuals
experiencing homelessness in order to profile their experience and characteristics.
2019 Sheltered/ Unsheltered PopulationФ
Residence Prior to Homelessness
81%Santa Clara
County
8%
Under 18
17%
18-24
75%
25+
AgeФ
GenderФ
62%
Male
36%
Female
2%
Transgender
Race
Top Responses∆
44%
White
19%
Black
24%
Multi-racial
8%
American Indian
or Alaskan Native
43%
Latinx/
Hispanic
Length of Time
in Santa Clara County
14%
< 1 Year
17%
1-4 Years
12%
5-9 Years
57%
10 Years+
Foster Care
19%
of survey respondents have been in the foster system.
Subpopulation* DataФ
24%
Unsheltered
76%
Sheltered
Families | 269 Familes with 921 Members
95%
Unsheltered
5%
Sheltered
Unaccompanied Youth & Young Adults | 1,876 Individuals
Current Accomodation
22%
Shelter
34%
Outdoors/Streets/Parks/Encampments
13%
Structure not Meant for Habitation
13%
Other
18%
Vehicle
Census Population: Longitudinal TrendФ42+39+39+45+36+42+546,556
2015
7,202
2007
7,086
2009
7,067
2011
7,394
2017
9,706
2019
7,631
2013
87%
Straight
6%
Bisexual
3%
Lesbian
2%
Gay
2%
Other
Sexual Orientation
Ethnicity Justice System
Involvement
27% of survey respondents spent one or more nights in jail/prison/juvenile hall in the past year.
82%
Unsheltered
n=7,922
18%
Sheltered
n=1,784
85%
Unsheltered
15%
Sheltered
Chronically Homeless | 2,470 Individuals
68%
Unsheltered
32%
Sheltered
Veterans | 653 Individuals
*Subpopulation Definitions
An individual with one or more disabling conditions
or a family with a head of household with a
disabling condition who:
»Has been continuously homeless for 1 year or
more and/or;
»Has experienced 4 or more episodes of
homelessness within the past 3 years.
Chronically Homeless
Persons who have served on active
duty in the Armed Forces of the
United States. This does not include
inactive military reserves or the
National Guard unless the person
was called up to active duty.
Veterans
A household with at
least one adult member
(persons 18 or older) and
at least one child member
(persons under 18).
Families
Youth under the age of 18 and young
adults between the ages of 18 and
24 years old (TAY) who are
experiencing homelessness and
living without a parent or legal
guardian.
Unaccompanied Youth &
Young Adults
The complete comprehensive report includes a more detailed profile of the characteristics of those experiencing homelessness
in Santa Clara County is available here: https://bit.ly/2MmRg3j
Source: Applied Survey Research, 2019, Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey, Watsonville, CA.
42%
Psychiatric/
Emotional
Conditions
Self Reported
Health+
Current health
conditions that may
affect the housing
stability or
employment of
those experiencing
homelessness.
35%
Alcohol &
Drug Use
24%
Chronic
Health
Problems
PTSD
33%
Post-
Traumatic
Stress
Disorder
24%
Physical
Disability
10%
Traumatic
Brain
Injury
2%
HIV/ AIDS
Related
Illness
45% of survey respondents reported having at least one disabling condition.
Disabling
Conditions
A disabling condition is defined by HUD as a developmental disability, HIV/AIDS, or a long-term physical or mental impairment that impacts a person’s ability to live independently, but could be improved with stable housing.
Primary Event or Condition
That Led to Homelessness+
Top 6 Responses∆
30%
Lost Job
22%
Alcohol or Drug Use
15%
Divorce/Seperation/Breakup
14%
Eviction
13%
Argument with Family/Friend
11%
Incarceration
Reasons for Not Receiving Any
Government Assistance+
Top 6 Responses∆
37%
Don’t Want Government Assistance
26%
Don’t Think I’m Eligible
23%
No Permanent Address
22%
No ID
14%
Never Applied
8%
Benefits Were Cut Off
Services Currently Accessing+
Top 6 Responses∆
73%
Meal Services
36%
Bus Passes
25%
Community Drop-In Center
13%
Religious Based Services
12%
Outreach Services
11%
Job/Employment Services
Services and Assistance
70%
of survey respondents reported receiving benefits.
Interest in Permanent
Housing
89% of survey respondents said yes when asked if they would accept affordable permanent housing if it became available soon.
First Episode of Homelessess
Duration of Current Episode of
Homelessness
6%
30 Days or Less
27%
1-11 Months
67%
1 Year or More
66%
Couldn’t
Afford Rent
56%
No Job/
Income
40%
No Housing
Available
35%
No Money for
Moving Costs
Top 4 Responses∆
Obstacles to Permanent Housing+
36% of survey respondents indicated their current episode of homelessness was their first.
+ Multiple response question, results may not add up to 100%.
∆ Only displaying top responses, all response data will be available in full report.
Note: Some percentages have been rounded so total percentage will equal 100%.
Ф Sourced from census data rather than survey data.
Point-In-Time Census
10 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
Point-In-Time Census
The 2019 Santa Clara County Point-in-Time Homeless Census represents a complete enumeration of all
sheltered and unsheltered persons experiencing homelessness. It consisted of the following primary
components:
General Street Count: A morning count of unsheltered homeless individuals and families on
January 29-30, 2019. This included those sleeping outdoors on the street; at bus and train
stations; in parks, tents, and other make-shift shelters; and in vehicles and abandoned properties.
General Shelter Count: A nighttime count of homeless individuals and families staying at publicly
and privately operated shelters on January 29, 2019. This included those who occupied
emergency shelters, transitional housing, and safe havens.
The Point-in-Time Census also included the following supplemental components:
Targeted Street Count of Youth and Young Adults: An afternoon count of unsheltered
unaccompanied youth and young adults 18-25 years old on January 29, 2019.
Targeted COE Street Count of K-12 Students and Their Families: A count of unsheltered
homeless students and their families reported by the Santa Clara County Office of Education and
their participating school districts for the night of January 29, 2019.
Homeless Survey: An in-person interview of sheltered and unsheltered individuals conducted by
peer surveyors in the weeks following the general street count. Data from the survey were used to
refine the Point-in-Time Census estimates.
This section of the report provides a summary of the results of the Point-in-Time Census. For comparison,
results from prior years are provided in order to better understand the shifting dynamics of homelessness
over time.
For more information regarding the research methodology, please see Appendix A: Methodology.
Point-In-Time Census
11 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
NUMBER AND CHARACTERISTICS OF HOMELESS PERSONS
The Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey found a total of 9,706 persons experiencing
homelessness on January 29-30, 2019, a 31% increase from 2017 and the highest the number that has
been seen in over a decade. There were more homeless individuals who identified as male (62%) than
female (36%), and as White (44%) and Black/African American (19%) than other races. Black/African
American individuals experiencing homelessness were represented in the overall population at a much
greater rate than in the general population in Santa Clara County (19% vs 3%). Nearly half (43%) indicated
that they were of Hispanic/Latinx origin, which was much higher than the general population (26%).
FIGURE 1. PERSONS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY
FIGURE 2. PERSONS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS BY SHELTER STATUS
STATUS 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 ‘17-‘19
% CHANGE
Sheltered 2,103 1,898 1,957 1,929 1,946 1,784 -8%
Unsheltered 4,983 5,169 5,674 4,627 5,448 7,922 45%
Total 7,086 7,067 7,631 6,556 7,394 9,706 31%
7,202 7,086 7,067 7,631
6,556 7,394
9,706
2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019
70%73%74%71%74%82%
30%27%26%29%26%18%
2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019
Unsheltered Sheltered
Point-In-Time Census
12 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
FIGURE 3. HOMELESS POPULATION BY JURISDICTION AND SHELTER STATUS
*Note: Percentage change was not calculated for rows with less than 50 individuals.
FIGURE 4. HOMELESS POPULATION BY COUNTY SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT
Note: The 101 individuals in confidential locations are not displayed on the map of county districts.
JURISDICTION UNSHELTERED SHELTERED TOTAL ‘17-‘19
% CHANGE 2017 2019 2017 2019 2017 2019
Total Incorporated 5,259 7,652 1,775 1,594 7,034 9,246 31%
City of Campbell 94 74 0 0 94 74 -21%
City of Cupertino 127 159 0 0 127 159 25%
City of Gilroy 295 345 427 359 722 704 -2%
City of Los Altos 6 76 0 0 6 76 *
City of Los Altos Hills 0 2 0 0 0 2 *
Town of Los Gatos 52 16 0 0 52 16 *
City of Milpitas 66 125 0 0 66 125 89%
City of Monte Sereno 0 0 0 0 0 0 *
City of Morgan Hill 388 114 0 0 388 114 -71%
City of Mountain View 411 574 5 32 416 606 46%
City of Palo Alto 256 299 20 14 276 313 13%
City of San José 3,231 5,117 1,119 980 4,350 6,097 41%
City of Santa Clara 199 264 73 62 272 326 20%
City of Saratoga 12 10 0 0 12 10 *
City of Sunnyvale 122 477 131 147 253 624 147%
Total Unincorporated 189 270 113 89 302 359 19%
Confidential
Locations NA NA 58 101 58 101 74%
Total 5,448 7,922 1,946 1,784 7,394 9,706 31%
Point-In-Time Census
13 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
FIGURE 5. HOMELESS POPULATION BY GENDER
*Note: Percentage change was not calculated for rows with less than 50 individuals.
FIGURE 6. HOMELESS POPULATION BY HISPANIC OR LATINX ORIGIN
Santa Clara County General Population: 2017 N=1,938,153; PIT Homeless Population: 2017 N=7,394; 2019 N=9,706
33%36%
67%62%
2%
<1%
2017 2019
Female Male Transgender Gender Non-Conforming
26%
44%43%
74%
56%57%
2017 Santa Clara County General
Population
2017 PIT Homeless Population 2019 PIT Homeless Population
Hispanic/Latinx Non-Hispanic/Non-Latinx
UNSHELTERED SHELTERED TOTAL ‘17-‘19
% CHANGE 2017 2019 2017 2019 2017 2019
Female 1,672 2,778 732 705 2,404 3,483 45%
Male 3,763 4,943 1,210 1,065 4,973 6,008 21%
Transgender 13 161 4 11 17 172 *
Gender Non-Conforming
(Don’t Identify as Male,
Female, or Transgender)
0 40 0 3 0 43 *
Total 5,448 7,922 1,946 1,784 7,394 9,706 31%
Point-In-Time Census
14 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
FIGURE 7. HOMELESS POPULATION BY RACE
Santa Clara County General Population: 2017 N=1,938,153; PIT Homeless Population: 2017 N=7,394; 2019 N=9,706
44%
16%
3%<1%
36%
0%
47%
13%14%
3%3%
20%
44%
24%19%
8%3%2%
White Multi-race or Other Black or African
American
American Indian or
Alaska Native
Asian Native Hawaiian or
Pacific Islander
2017 Santa Clara County General Population 2017 PIT Homeless Population 2019 PIT Homeless Population
Homeless Survey Findings
15 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
Homeless Survey Findings
This section provides an overview of the findings generated from the Homeless Survey component. In the
weeks following the Point-in-Time Count, an in-depth survey was administered to collect basic
demographic details as well as information on service needs and utilization. Surveys were administered
between January 29 and February 28, 2019 to a randomized sample of individuals and families currently
experiencing homelessness. A survey quota was developed based on location and shelter status to help
ensure a greater random distribution of survey respondents. A more precise quota representing precise
sampling protocols was beyond the scope of this effort. The sampling plan employed is HUD approved
and consistent with previous County PIT count efforts.
The Homeless Survey effort resulted in 1,359 unique, complete, and valid surveys. Based on a Point-in-
Time Count of 9,706 homeless persons, with a randomized survey sampling process, these surveys
represent a confidence interval of +/-2.5% with a 95% confidence level when generalizing the results of
the survey to the entire Point-in-Time homeless population in Santa Clara County. In other words, if the
survey were conducted again, we can be 95% certain that the results would be within 2.5% points of the
current results.
In order to respect respondent privacy and to ensure the safety and comfort of those who participated,
respondents were not required to complete all survey questions. Therefore, any missing values were
intentionally omitted from the survey results and the total number of respondents for each question will
not always equal the total number of surveys conducted.
For more information regarding the research methodology, please see Appendix A: Methodology.
Homeless Survey Findings
16 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
DEMOGRAPHICS OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS
In order to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the experiences of individuals and families
experiencing homelessness in Santa Clara County, respondents were asked basic demographic
questions including age, gender, sexual orientation, and race/ethnicity.
AGE
Sixteen percent (16%) of survey respondents were under the age of 25 at the time of the 2019 survey.
Twenty-two percent (22%) were between the ages of 25 and 40, and 62% were 41 years or older.
FIGURE 8. RESPONDENTS BY AGE
AGE GROUP 2015 2017 2019
Less than 18 Years 1% <1% 1%
18-24 Years 12% 7% 15%
25-30 Years 7% 7% 6%
31-40 Years 20% 16% 16%
41-50 Years 25% 27% 22%
51-60 Years 26% 34% 28%
61 Years or More 9% 9% 12%
2015 N=952; 2017 N=587; 2019 N=1,359
GENDER
Nearly two-thirds of survey respondents (64%) identified as male, 34% identified as female, and 2%
identified as transgender or gender non-conforming (i.e., didn’t identify as male, female or transgender).
Among female respondents, 3% indicated that they were currently pregnant.
FIGURE 9. RESPONDENTS BY GENDER
2019 N=1,344
64%34%
2%
2019
Male Female Transgender Gender Non-Conforming
Homeless Survey Findings
17 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
LGBTQ+ IDENTITY
While there are limited data available on the number of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer
(LGBTQ+) individuals experiencing homelessness, nationwide data available suggest LGBTQ+ individuals
experience homelessness at higher rates, especially those under the age of 25 . Thirteen percent (13%) of
homeless survey respondents identified as LGBTQ+ in 2019. Of those respondents, nearly half (48%)
identified as bisexual, 19% identified as lesbian, and 17% identified as gay.
FIGURE 10. DETAIL OF RESPONDENTS WITH LGBTQ+ IDENTITY
LGBTQ+ IDENTITY 2017 2019
Gay 7% 17%
Lesbian 9% 19%
Bisexual 76% 48%
Transgender 7% 13%
Queer 1% 3%
Other 5% 14%
2017 N=172 respondents offering 180 responses; 2019 N=175 respondents offering 198 responses
Note: Multiple response question. Percentages may not add up to 100.
RACE/ETHNICITY
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) gathers data on race and ethnicity in two
separate questions, similar to the U.S. Census. When asked if they identified as Hispanic or Latinx, more
than half (59%) of homeless survey respondents reported they did not identify as Hispanic or Latinx in
2019. In comparison to the general population of Santa Clara County, a higher percentage of homeless
survey respondents identified as Hispanic or Latinx (41% compared to 26%).
In regard to racial identity, differences between the general population and those experiencing
homelessness were more pronounced. A much higher proportion of homeless survey respondents
identified as Black or African-American than in the general population (18% compared to 3%), whereas a
relatively small percentage of the homeless survey population identified as Asian (3% compared to 36%).
FIGURE 11. RESPONDENTS BY HISPANIC OR LATINX ORIGIN
Santa Clara County General Population: 2017 N=1,938,153
Homeless Survey Population: 2017 N=577; 2019 N=1,285
26%42%41%
74%58%59%
2017 Santa Clara County
General Population
2017 Homeless Survey
Population
2019 Homeless Survey
Population
Hispanic/Latinx Non-Hispanic/Non-Latinx
Homeless Survey Findings
18 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
FIGURE 12. RESPONDENTS BY RACE
Santa Clara County General Population: 2017 N=1,938,153
Homeless Survey Population: 2017 N=521; 2019 N=1,246
HISTORY OF FOSTER CARE
Nearly one in five (19%) respondents reported a history of foster care, higher than in 2017 (12%).
FIGURE 13. HISTORY OF FOSTER CARE
2017 N= 566; 2019 N=1,314
44%
16%
3%<1%
36%
0%
42%
24%14%13%4%3%
40%
29%
18%8%3%1%
White Multi-race or Other Black or African
American
American Indian or
Alaska Native
Asian Native Hawaiian or
Pacific Islander
2017 Santa Clara County General Population 2017 Homeless Survey Respondents
2019 Homeless Survey Respondents
12%19%
88%81%
2017 2019
Yes No
Homeless Survey Findings
19 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
LIVING ACCOMMODATIONS
Where individuals lived prior to experiencing homelessness and where they have lived since impact the
way they seek services, as well as their ability to access support from friends or family. Previous
circumstances can also point to gaps in the system of care and to opportunities for systemic
improvement and homelessness prevention.
Survey respondents reported many different living accommodations prior to becoming homeless ,
although most lived in or around Santa Clara County with friends or family, or on their own in a home or
apartment.
PLACE OF RESIDENCE
Knowing where individuals were living prior to their housing loss informs discussions regarding how
much of the homeless population is local to the region. This information can also influence changes to
available safety net systems if the Continuum of Care finds increasing numbers of individuals living
locally before experiencing homelessness.
The majority (81%) of respondents reported living in Santa Clara County at the most recent time they
became homeless, similar to 2017 (83%). More than half of survey respondents (57%) had lived in Santa
Clara County for 10 or more years, while 14% had lived in Santa Clara for less than one year.
Fifteen percent (15%) of respondents reported they were living in another county in California, and 4%
reported they were living out of state at the most recent time they became homeless.
FIGURE 14. PLACE OF RESIDENCE AT THE MOST RECENT TIME EXPERIENCING HOMELESS
2019 N=1,326
Homeless Survey Findings
20 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
PRIOR LIVING ARRANGEMENTS
Similar to previous place of residence, the type of living arrangements maintained by individuals and
families before experiencing homelessness can influence what types of homeless prevention services
might be offered to help individuals maintain their housing.
Just over one-third (35%) of survey respondents reported living in a home owned or rented by them or
their partner prior to becoming homeless, lower than reported in 2017 (42%). Thirty-three percent (33%)
reported they were living with friends or relatives, 8% reported they were in jail or prison, and 7% were
staying in subsidized housing or permanent supportive housing.
FIGURE 15. LIVING ARRANGEMENTS IMMEDIATELY BEFORE BECOMING HOMELESS (TOP
RESPONSES IN 2019)
2013 N=811; 2015 N=886; 2017 N=575; 2019 N=1,311
48%
26%
10%3%
39%35%
6%6%
42%35%
6%4%
35%33%
8%7%
A Home Owned or Rented
by You or Your Partner
With Friends/Relatives Jail/Prison Subsidized or Permanent
Supportive Housing
2013 2015 2017 2019
Homeless Survey Findings
21 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
CURRENT LIVING ARRANGEMENTS
While basic information on where individuals were observed during the general street count effort was
collected, survey respondents were still asked about their usual nighttime accommodations.
Understanding the types of places individuals experiencing homelessness are sleeping can help inform
local outreach efforts.
One-third (34%) of survey respondents reported currently living outdoors, either on the streets, in parks, or
in encampment areas. Twenty-two percent (22%) reported currently staying in a shelter or transitional
housing, and 18% reported staying in a vehicle which is a substantial increase from previous years.
According to census results from this, and past counts, the number of individuals staying in vehicles
(cars, RVs, and vans) has increased 146% since 2015, reaching 3,655 individuals in 2019.
FIGURE 16. CURRENT LIVING ARRANGEMENTS
2013 N=850; 2015 N=926; 2017 N=587; 2019 N=1,359
Note: 2013 response option specified that motel/hotel was paid for by an agency.
42%33%
10%9%5%0%
36%34%
8%15%7%0%
35%36%
8%14%8%0%
34%
22%18%14%9%3%
Outdoors/ Streets/
Parks/
Encampments
Emergency,
Transitional, or
Other Shelter
Vehicle
(Car/ Van/ RV/
Camper)
A Structure or
Indoor Area Not
Normally Used for
Sleeping
Motel/Hotel Other
2013 2015 2017 2019
Homeless Survey Findings
22 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
DURATION AND RECURRENCE OF HOMELESSNESS
Unstable living conditions, poverty, housing scarcity, high cost of living, low wages, and many other issues
often lead to individuals cycling in and out of homelessness. For many, the experience of homelessness
is part of a long and recurring history of housing instability. Local data and reporting from outside the
Census and Survey suggest that Santa Clara County sees large numbers of individuals experiencing first
time homelessness. Of those surveyed in 2019, 36% reported that their current episode of homelessness
was their first time experiencing homelessness. Conversely, 64% reported they had experienced
homelessness previously.
Respondents were also asked how old they were when they experienced homelessness for the first time.
In response, 12% of respondents reported that they were under the age of 18, 23% reported they were
between the ages of 18 and 24, and 64% reported they were 25 years or older showing a large increase in
the number of first time youth and young adults experiencing homelessness versus 2017.
FIGURE 17. CURRENT EPISODE IS THE FIRST TIME EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS
2011 N=1,009; 2013 N=855; 2015 N=937; 2017 N=585; 2019 N=1,304
FIGURE 18. AGE WHEN EXPERIENCED HOMELESSNESS FOR THE FIRST TIME
2015 N=913; 2017 N=557; 2019 N=1,325
Note: After a large increase in the youth and young adult population in 2017, there was an increased number of surveys targeted
at the youth and young adult population in 2019. This may have led to the increase in numbers of individuals experiencing
homelessness for the first time before turning 25.
48%46%
33%
41%36%
2011 2013 2015 2017 2019
12%7%12%
24%18%23%
64%75%64%
2015 2017 2019
0-17 Years Old 18-24 Years Old 25 Years or Older
Homeless Survey Findings
23 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
DURATION OF HOMELESSNESS
When asked about the duration of their current episode of homelessness, two-thirds (67%) of survey
respondents reported they had been homeless for a year or more. These findings are similar to 2017,
when 64% of respondents reported they had been homeless for a year or more.
FIGURE 19. LENGTH OF CURRENT EPISODE OF HOMELESSNESS
2013 N=836; 2015 N=911; 2017 N=585; 2019 N=1,335
PRIMARY CAUSE OF HOMELESSNESS
The primary cause of an individual’s inability to obtain or retain housing can be difficult to pinpoint, as it is
often the result of multiple inter-related causes. An inability to secure adequate housing can also lead to
an inability to address other basic needs, such as healthcare and adequate nutrition.
Thirty percent (30%) of survey respondents reported job loss as the primary cause of their homelessness,
while 22% cited alcohol or drug use, 15% cited a divorce/separation, 14% cited eviction, and 13% cited an
argument with—or being asked to leave by—a family member or friend. When asked what might have
prevented their homelessness, survey respondents most commonly reported rent or mortgage assistance
(42% and an increase from 30% in 2017), followed by employment assistance (37%).
FIGURE 20. PRIMARY CAUSE OF HOMELESSNESS (TOP RESPONSES IN 2019)
2013 N=818 respondents offering 1,029 responses; 2015 N=920 respondents offering 1,326 responses; 2017 N=580 respondents
offering 793 responses; 2019 N=1,339 respondents offering 1,910 responses
4%3%7%
14%9%
63%
1%2%6%
14%13%
64%
2%4%6%12%9%
67%
7 Days or Less 8-30 Days 1-3 Months 4-6 Months 7-11 Months 1 Year or More
2015 2017 2019
40%
17%
5%12%9%
31%
20%15%10%13%
37%
20%14%16%13%
30%22%15%14%13%
Lost Job Alcohol or Drug Use Divorce/ Separation/
Breakup
Eviction Argument/ Family or
Friend Asked You to
Leave
2013 2015 2017 2019
Homeless Survey Findings
24 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
FIGURE 21. WHAT MAY HAVE PREVENTED HOMELESSNESS (TOP RESPONSES IN 2019)
2017 N=567 respondents offering 943 responses; 2019 N=1,321 respondents offering 3,003responses
OBSTACLES TO OBTAINING PERMANENT HOUSING
Many individuals experiencing homelessness face significant barriers to obtaining permanent housing.
These barriers can range from housing affordability and availability to accessing the economic and social
supports (e.g., increased income, rental assistance, and case management) needed to secure and
maintain permanent housing.
When asked what prevented them from obtaining housing, the most common response was “can’t afford
rent,” reported by 66% of survey respondents. This was followed by 56% who reported a lack of job or
income, 40% who reported a lack of housing availability (a large increase from 13% in 2017), and 35% who
said that they had no money for moving costs.
FIGURE 22. OBSTACLES TO OBTAINING PERMANENT HOUSING (TOP RESPONSES IN 2019)
2013 N=774 respondents offering 1,831 responses; 2015 N=896 respondents offering 3,012 responses; 2017 N=571 respondents
offering 1,382; 2019 N=1,328 respondents offering 4,186 responses.
Note: Multiple response question. Percentages may not add up to 100.
30%33%34%
14%18%
42%37%28%23%23%
Rent/Mortgage
Assistance
Employment
Assistance
Alcohol/Drug
Counseling
Mental Health
Services
Legal Assistance
2017 2019
65%
54%
18%
30%
17%
68%
57%
38%37%
27%
62%56%
13%
23%
13%
66%
56%
40%35%
24%
Can't Afford Rent No Job/ Income No Housing
Available
No Money for
Moving Costs
No Transportation
2013 2015 2017 2019
Homeless Survey Findings
25 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
SERVICES AND ASSISTANCE
The County of Santa Clara provides services and assistance to those currently experiencing
homelessness through federal, state, and local programs. Government assistance and homeless services
work to enable individuals and families to obtain income and support. However, many individuals and
families do not apply for services, as many believe that they are ineligible for assistance. Connecting
homeless individuals and families to these support services creates a bridge to mainstream support
services and can prevent future housing instability.
GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE
There are various forms of government assistance available to individuals experiencing homelessness.
However, usage of these supports is impacted by knowledge of services available, understandin g of
eligibility requirements, and perceived stigma of receiving governmental assistance.
The majority (70%) of survey respondents reported in 2019 that they were receiving some form of
government assistance, a slight decrease from 76% in 2017. When comparing responses to 2017, there
was a slight increase in persons not receiving any assistance and a smaller percentage of individuals
experiencing homelessness were using food stamps (46%, down from 59%) and General
Assistance/Relief (23%, down from 36% in 2017).
Of those who reported they were not receiving any form of government support, the greatest percentage
reported they did not want government assistance (37%). Twenty-six percent (26%) did not think they
were eligible. Lack of permanent address and ID both saw increases from 2017, rising to nearly a quarter
of respondents, and present an opportunity for support for those experiencing homelessness who would
like to receive government services.
FIGURE 23. RECEIPT OF GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE (TOP RESPONSES IN 2019)
2013 N=811 respondents offering 1,004 responses; 2015 N=883 respondents offering 1,363 responses; 2017 N=557 respondents
offering 1,011 responses; 2019 N=1,274 respondents offering 2,065 responses
Note: Multiple response question. Percentages may not add up to 100.
* Medi-Cal/Medicare was added as a response option in 2015.
39%
0%
37%
24%
9%
40%
27%26%29%
14%
59%
38%
24%
36%
9%
46%
36%30%23%
14%
Food Stamps Medi-cal/Medicare*Not Receiving Any General
Assistance/Relief
SSI/SSDI/Disability
2013 2015 2017 2019
Homeless Survey Findings
26 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
FIGURE 24. REASONS NOT RECEIVING GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE (TOP RESPONSES IN 2019)
2013 N=289 respondents offering 382 responses; 2015 N=206 respondents offering 335 responses; 2017 N=133 respondents
offering 164; 2019 N=394 respondents offering 655 responses.
Note: Multiple response question. Percentages may not add up to 100.
*In 2013 the response option changed from “do not need” to “do not want,” which was an option in 2011.
SERVICES AND PROGRAMS
In addition to government assistance, there are numerous community-based services and programs
made available to individuals experiencing homelessness. These services range from day shelters and
meal programs to job training and healthcare.
A large majority (87%) of survey respondents in 2019 reported they were accessing other services and
assistance beyond government assistance, a higher percentage than in 2015 and 2017. The most
frequently cited types of assistance respondents reported accessing were meal services (73%), bus
passes (36%), and community drop in centers (25%).
FIGURE 25. RECEIPT OF OTHER SERVICES OR ASSISTANCE (TOP RESPONSES IN 2019)
2015 N=875 respondents offering 1,960 responses; 2017 N=570 respondents offering 1,247 responses; 2019 N=1,310
respondents offering 2,705 responses
Note: Multiple response question. Percentages may not add up to 100.
Note: * Community drop in center response were added in 2017.
19%23%
10%10%15%19%24%25%16%18%
39%
17%9%11%14%
37%
26%23%22%14%
Don't Want
Government
Assistance*
Don't Think I'm Eligible No Permanent
Address
Have No Identification Never Applied
2013 2015 2017 2019
65%
36%
14%17%
80%
41%
28%
14%18%
73%
36%
25%
13%13%
Meal Services Bus Passes Community Drop in
Center*
Not Using Any Religious Based
Services
2015 2017 2019
Homeless Survey Findings
27 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME
The unemployment rate in Santa Clara County in January 2019 was at 2.9%, slightly down from 3.6% in
January 2017.1 It is important to recognize that the unemployment rate represents only those who are
unemployed and actively seeking employment. It does not represent all joblessness, nor does it address
the types of available employment.
The unemployment rate among homeless survey respondents was 82%, a decrease from 92% in 2017.
Forty-seven percent (47%) of unemployed respondents indicated that they were currently looking for
work, 27% indicated they were not, and 26% indicated they were currently unable to work.
While the majority (82%) of survey respondents reported being unemployed, a number reported having
part-time or seasonal/sporadic employment (13%) and even full-time employment (6%). Despite some
income, data suggest that employment and income were not enough to meet basic needs. For example,
of the employed homeless survey respondents, two-thirds (65%) were making less than $1,100 monthly,
and unsurprisingly, even more unemployed survey respondents (91%) were making the same amount
monthly. Typically, income for unemployed homeless individuals comes from government benefits,
recycling, and panhandling.
FIGURE 26. EMPLOYMENT STATUS
2015 N=950; 2017 N=560; 2019 N=1,312
FIGURE 27. UNEMPLOYED BY WORK STATUS
2015 N=950; 2017 N=560; 2019 N=1,312
1State of California Employment Development Department. (2019). Unemployment Rates (Labor Force). Retrieved from
http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov.
19%8%18%
81%92%82%
2015 2017 2019
Employed Unemployed
28%23%26%
52%55%47%
20%22%27%
2015 2017 2019
Unable to Work Looking for Work Not Looking for Work
Homeless Survey Findings
28 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
FIGURE 28. MONTHLY INCOME BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS
EMPLOYED UNEMPLOYED
2017 2019 2017 2019
Less Than $750 61% 40% 85% 75%
$750-$1,099 14% 25% 10% 16%
$1,100-$1,499 14% 14% 4% 7%
$1,500 or More 12% 21% 2% 2%
2017 N=553; 2019 N=1,297
Note: Respondents were challenged by this income question and the low response for employed income is subject to a high
margin of error.
HEALTH
Without regular access to healthcare and without safe and stable housing, individuals experience
preventable illness and often endure longer hospitalizations. It is estimated that those experiencing
homelessness stay four days (or 36%) longer per hospital admission than non-homeless patients.2
The top health conditions survey respondents reported experiencing in 2019 were: a psychiatric or
emotional condition, such as depression and schizophrenia (42%); drug/alcohol abuse (35%), and Post-
Traumatic Stress Disorder or PTSD (33%).
FIGURE 29. HEALTH CONDITIONS
2015 N=880-902; 2017 N=548-570; 2019 N=1,267-1,292.
2 Sharon A. Salit, M. E. (1998). Hospitalization Costs Associated with Homelessness in New York City. New England Journal of
Medicine, 338, 1734-1740.
39%38%
25%30%22%
12%
1%
38%
48%
22%
31%27%
9%2%
42%35%33%
24%24%
10%2%
Psychiatric or
Emotional
Conditions
Drug or Alcohol
Abuse
Post-Traumatic
Stress Disorder
(PTSD)
Physical
Disability
Chronic Health
Problems
Traumatic Brain
Injury (TBI)
AIDS/HIV
Related
2015 2017 2019
Homeless Survey Findings
29 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
DOMESTIC/PARTNER VIOLENCE OR ABUSE
Histories of domestic violence and partner abuse are prevalent among individuals experiencing
homelessness and can be the primary cause of homelessness for many. Survivors often lack the financial
resources required for housing, as their employment history or dependable income may be limited.
Six percent (6%) of all survey respondents reported currently experiencing domestic/partner violence or
abuse. When asked about experiences of ever being physically, emotionally or sexually abused by a
relative or another person they have stayed with (spouse, partner, sibling, parent) in their lifetime, 27%
indicated that they had.
Domestic violence varied by gender, with 10% of female respondents reporting current experiences of
domestic violence, compared to less than 4% of male respondents. Looking at domestic violence across
the lifetime, 46% of female and 17% of male respondents reported previous experiences of being
physically, emotionally or sexually abused by a relative or another person they had stayed with.
FIGURE 30. HISTORY OF BEING PHYSICALLY, EMOTIONALLY OR SEXUALLY ABUSED
2015N=892; 2017 N=575; 2019 N=1,359
27%21%27%
2015 2017 2019
Homeless Survey Findings
30 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
Homelessness and incarceration are often related. Persons without stable housing are at greater risk of
criminal justice system involvement, particularly those with mental health issues, veterans, and youth and
young adults. Individuals with past incarceration face significant barriers to exiting homelessness due to
stigmatization and policies affecting their ability to gain employment and access housing opportunities.3
INCARCERATION
When asked if they had spent a night in jail or prison in the last 12 months, one in four (27%) survey
respondents reported that they had, similar to 2017 findings (26%). Seventeen percent (17%) of
respondents also reported being on probation or parole at the time of the survey. Thirteen percent (13%)
of respondents indicated they had accessed re-entry services.
FIGURE 31. SPENT A NIGHT IN JAIL OR PRISON IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS
2015 N=903; 2017 N=573; 2019 N=1,277
3 Greenberg, GA, Rosenheck, RA. (2008). Jail Incarceration, Homelessness, and Mental Health: A National Study. Psychiatric
Services, 2008 Feb;59(2): 170-7.
30%26%27%
70%74%73%
2015 2017 2019
Yes No
Subpopulations
31 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
Subpopulations
Home, Together: The Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness outlines national objectives
and evaluative measures for ending homelessness among all populations in the United States. In order to
adequately address the diversity within the population experiencing homelessness, the federal
government identifies four subpopulations with particular challenges or needs, including:
Chronically homeless individuals with disabilities;
Veterans experiencing homelessness;
Families with children experiencing homelessness
Youth and young adults.
These subpopulations represent important reportable indicators for measuring local progress toward
ending homelessness. The following sections examine each of these four subpopulations.
FIGURE 32. SUBPOPULATIONS AS A PERCENTAGE OF OVERALL POPULATION
25%
7%15%19%
Persons Experiencing
Chronic Homelessness
Veterans Experiencing
Homelessness
Families Experiencing
Homelessness
Youth and Young Adults
Experiencing
Homelessness
Subpopulations
32 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
CHRONICALLY HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS
HUD defines a chronically homeless individual as someone who has experienced homelessness for a
year or longer—or who has experienced at least four episodes of homelessness totaling 12 months in the
last three years—and also has a disabling condition that prevents them from maintaining work or housing.
This definition applies to individuals as well as heads of household who meet the definition and their
families. Individuals experiencing chronic homelessness were those who self -reported meeting the above
conditions, as well as those who were identified during the shelter count.
The chronically homeless population represents one of the most vulnerable populations on the street; the
mortality rate for those experiencing chronic homelessness is four to nine times higher than that of the
general population.4 Data from communities across the country reveal that public costs incurred by those
experiencing extended periods of homelessness include emergency room visits, interactions with law
enforcement, incarceration, and regular access to social supports and homeless services. These
combined costs are often significantly higher than the cost of providing individuals with p ermanent
housing and supportive services.
In 2017, HUD reported that 86,962 individuals, representing 24% of the overall homeless population, were
experiencing chronic homelessness.5 Chronic homelessness has been on the decline in recent years as
communities across the country increase the capacity of their permanent supportive housing programs
and prioritize those with the greatest barriers to housing stability.
4 United States Interagency Council on Homelessness. (2010). Supplemental Document to the Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and
End Homelessness: June 2010. Retrieved 2017 from
https://www.usich.gov/resources/uploads/asset_library/BkgrdPap_ChronicHomelessness.pdf
5 Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2017). Annual Assessment Report to Congress. Retrieved 2018 from
https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/2017-AHAR-Part-1.pdf
Subpopulations
33 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
ESTIMATES OF CHRONICALLY HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS
The estimate of individuals in Santa Clara County experiencing chronic homelessness had been on a
steady decline since 2011, though there was an increase in 2019. There were a total of 2,470 individuals
experiencing chronic homelessness in 2019, representing 25% of the overall Point-in-Time homeless
population in Santa Clara County. While the overall number of individuals experiencing chronic
homelessness increased in 2019, they decreased as an overall percentage of the population (down from
28% in 2017). The percentage of chronically homeless individuals who were sheltered increased from
14% to 15% between 2017 and 2019.
FIGURE 33. CHRONICALLY HOMELESS SUBPOPULATION WITH TREND
Note: HUD defines a chronically homeless individual as someone who has experienced homelessness for a year or longer—or
who has experienced at least four episodes of homelessness totaling 12 months in the last three years—and also has a disabling
condition that prevents them from maintaining work or housing.
FIGURE 34. CHRONICALLY HOMELESS SUBPOPULATION BY SHELTER STATUS
2013 N=2,518; 2015 N=2,169; 2017 N=2,097; 2019 N=2,470
979
2,520 2,518
2,169 2,097
2,470
2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019
90%92%86%85%
10%8%14%15%
2013 2015 2017 2019
Unsheltered Sheltered
Subpopulations
34 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
DEMOGRAPHICS OF CHRONICALLY HOMELESS SURVEY RESPONDENTS
Over two-thirds (68%) of chronically homeless survey respondents identified as male, slightly higher than
the non-chronically homeless population (63%). A similar percentage of chronically homeless
respondents identified as Hispanic or Latinx compared to non-chronically homeless respondents (36%
and 41%, respectively). Further, 14% of chronically homeless individuals were veterans.
FIGURE 35. CHRONICALLY HOMELESS SUBPOPULATION BY GENDER
2013 N=2,518; 2015 N=2,169; 2017 N=2,097; 2019 N=2,470
Note: Values less than 1% are not shown. Percentages may not add up to 100.
FIGURE 36. CHRONICALLY HOMELESS SURVEY RESPONDENTS BY RACE
Chronic N=336; Non-Chronic N=910
77%61%68%68%
22%38%32%30%
2%
2013 2015 2017 2019
Male Female Transgender Gender Non-Conforming
43%
29%
16%8%3%1%
39%
29%
19%
8%3%2%
White Multi-race or
Other
Black or African
American
American Indian
or Alaska Native
Asian Native Hawaiian
or Pacific
Islander
Chronic Non-Chronic
Subpopulations
35 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
PRIMARY CAUSE OF HOMELESSNESS AMONG CHRONICALLY HOMELESSNESS
RESPONDENTS
Alcohol and drug abuse was the most common cause of homelessness cited by chronically homeless
survey respondents (28%) and was more commonly cited than by survey respondents who were not
chronically homeless (20%). The next most frequently cited responses were job loss (25%) and a
divorce/separation (16%).
FIGURE 37. PRIMARY CAUSE OF HOMELESSNESS (TOP RESPONSES)
Chronic N=347 respondents offering 525 responses; Non-Chronic N=992 respondents offering 1,385 responses
HEALTH CONDITIONS AMONG CHRONICALLY HOMELESS RESPONDENTS
To meet the definition of chronic homelessness, an individual must be experiencing at least one disabling
condition. In general, higher rates of health conditions were reported among those who were ch ronically
homeless compared to their non-chronically homeless counterparts.
Of the chronically homeless survey respondents, nearly two-thirds (64%) reported experiencing a
psychiatric or emotional condition , 53% reported experiencing PTSD, and 51% reported experiencing
drug/alcohol abuse.
FIGURE 38. HEALTH CONDITIONS
Chronic N=348; Non-Chronic N=1,011
28%25%16%13%12%20%
32%
14%
5%13%
Alcohol or Drug Use Lost Job Divorce/ Separation/
Breakup
Illness/Medical
Problem
Argument with a
Family Member
Chronic Non-Chronic
64%
53%51%41%38%
17%
2%
32%24%27%
16%17%7%1%
Psychiatric or
Emotional
Conditions
Post-Traumatic
Stress Disorder
(PTSD)
Drug or Alcohol
Abuse
Physical
Disability
Chronic Health
Problems
Traumatic Brain
Injury (TBI)
AIDS/HIV
Related
Chronic Non-Chronic
Subpopulations
36 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
ACCESS TO SERVICES AMONG CHRONICALLY HOMELESS RESPONDENTS
A lower percentage (9%) of chronically homeless respondents reported they were not using any local
homeless services such as food and shelter services, compared to 15% of those who were not chronically
homeless.
In terms of government assistance, over one-quarter (28%) of chronically homeless respondents reported
they were not receiving any assistance. However, 45% reported receiving food stamps, 40% reported
receiving Medi-Cal/Medicare, and 24% reported receiving social security/disability benefits (SSI/SSDI).
Of chronically homeless respondents who were not receiving any form of government assistance, well
38% reported that they did not want government assistance and 34% reported they didn’t think they were
eligible.
INCARCERATION AMONG CHRONICALLY HOMELESS RESPONDENTS
A higher percentage of chronically homeless respondents reported having spent one or more nights in jail
or prison in the 12 months prior to the survey (33%), compared to those who were not chronically
homeless (25%). On the other hand, similar percentages reported being on probation or parole at the time
of the survey (18% and 17%, respectively).
Subpopulations
37 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
VETERANS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS
Many U.S. veterans experience conditions that place them at increased risk for homelessness.
Nationwide, veterans are at risk for higher rates of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic
Brain Injury (TBI), sexual assault, and substance abuse. Veterans experiencing homelessness are more
likely to live on the street than in shelters, and often remain on the street for extended periods of time.
The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs provides a broad range of benefits and services to veterans of
the U.S. Armed Forces. These benefits can involve different forms of financial assistance, including
monthly cash payments to disabled veterans, health care, education, and housing benefits. In addition to
these supports, the VA and HUD partner to provide additional housing and support services to veterans
currently experiencing homelessness or at risk of experiencing homeless.
Between 2007 and 2018, there has been a 38% decrease in the number of homeless veterans nationwide.
According to data collected during the national 2018 Point-in-Time Count, 37,878 veterans experienced
homelessness across the country on a single night in January 2018.6
ESTIMATES OF VETERANS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS
There were 653 veterans experiencing homelessness identified in Santa Clara County in 2019,
representing 7% of the total Point-in-Time homeless census. Over two-thirds (68%) were unsheltered,
while the remaining third (32%) were sheltered.
FIGURE 39. VETERANS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS
Source: Applied Survey Research. (2009-2019). Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey.
6 Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2018). Annual Assessment Report to Congress. Retrieved 2019 from
https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/2018-AHAR-Part1.pdf
866
667 718 703 660 653
2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019
Subpopulations
38 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
FIGURE 40. VETERANS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS BY SHELTER STATUS
2013 N=718; 2015 N=703; 2017 N=660; 2019 N=653
FIGURE 41. VETERANS EXPERIENCING CHRONIC HOMELESSNESS
2019 N=653
DEMOGRAPHICS OF VETERANS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS
A large majority (92%) of veterans experiencing homelessness identified as male and one-third (33%)
identified as Hispanic or Latinx. In terms of racial identity, more than half (56%) identified as White, while
17% identified as Black/African American and another 17% identified as multi-race or other.
FIGURE 42. VETERANS EXPERIENCING HOMELSSNESS BY GENDER
2015 N=703; 2017 N=660; 2019 N=653
81%
63%68%68%
19%
37%32%32%
2013 2015 2017 2019
Unsheltered Sheltered
14%86%2019
Veterans Experiencing Chronic Homelessness Non-Chronic Veterans
12%11%8%
88%89%92%
<1%
2015 2017 2019
Female Male Transgender Gender Non-Conforming
Subpopulations
39 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
FIGURE 43. VETERANS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS BY RACE
Veterans N=86; Non-Veterans N=1,152
FIGURE 44. VETERANS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS BY ETHNICITY
Veterans N=83; Non-Veterans N=1,152
56%
17%17%8%<1%0%
39%
18%
30%
8%1%3%
White Black or African
American
Multi-race or Other American Indian or
Alaska Native
Native Hawaiian or
Pacific Islander
Asian
Veterans Non-Veterans
33%66%2019
Hispanic/Latinx Non-Hispanic/Latinx
Subpopulations
40 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
PRIMARY CAUSE OF HOMELESSNESS AMONG VETERANS EXPERIENCING
HOMELESSNESS
Job loss was the most frequently cited cause of homelessness among veterans experiencing
homelessness, reported by 29% of respondents. Further, 20% cited alcohol/drug use and 14% cited a
divorce or separation as what led them to experience homelessness. A greater percentage of veterans
cited an increase in rent/foreclosure (12%) than the non-veteran population (5%), and a lower percentage
of veterans cited eviction (9%) as the primary cause of homelessness than the non -veteran population
(14%).
FIGURE 45. PRIMARY CAUSE OF HOMELESSNESS (TOP RESPONSES)
Veterans N=85 respondents offering 106 responses; Non-Veterans N=1,245 respondents offering 1,793 responses
DISABLING CONDITIONS AMONG VETERANS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS
In general, veterans experiencing homelessness reported higher rates of health conditions than their non-
veteran counterparts. Almost half (49%) of homeless veteran survey respondents reported having one or
more disabling conditions. Not surprisingly, the most commonly reported condition for veterans
experiencing homelessness was PTSD (45%). This was followed by a psychiatric or emotional condition
(40%), drug/alcohol abuse (37%), a physical disability (34%), and chronic health problems (34%). When
compared to the non-veteran population, veterans reported higher rates of physical disability, chronic
health problems, and traumatic brain injury.
FIGURE 46. HEALTH CONDITIONS
Veterans N=87; Non-Veterans N=1,263
29%
20%14%12%9%
30%22%15%
5%14%
Lost Job Alcohol or
Drug Use
Divorce/Separation/
Breakup
Landlord Raised
Rent/Foreclosure
Eviction
Veterans Non-Veterans
45%40%37%34%34%
20%
2%
30%40%33%
22%22%
9%1%
Post-Traumatic
Stress Disorder
(PTSD)
Psychiatric or
Emotional
Conditions
Drug or Alcohol
Abuse
Physical
Disability
Chronic Health
Problems
Traumatic Brain
Injury (TBI)
AIDS/HIV
Related
Veterans Non-Veterans
Subpopulations
41 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
ACCESS TO SERVICES AMONG VETERANS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS
The percentage of veterans experiencing homelessness connected to any form of government assistance
was similar to the non-veteran population (68% compared to 70%, respectively). Only one in ten (12%)
homeless veteran respondents reported receiving VA Disability Compensation.
When asked about which non-government services they were accessing, the most frequent responses
were free meals (70%), bus passes (27%), and a community drop-in center (22%).
FIGURE 47. ACCESS TO SERVICES
Veterans N=83 respondents offering 157 responses; Non-Veterans N=1,218 respondents offering 2,529 responses
INCARCERATION AMONG VETERANS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS
Nationally, among those who are incarcerated, veterans are more likely than non-veterans to be first time
offenders, to have committed a violent offense, and to receive longer prison sentences. Veterans who are
incarcerated may also face the loss of various VA benefits during this time.7
Twenty-nine percent (29%) of veteran survey respondents reported having spent a night in jail in the last
12 months, slightly higher than non-veterans (27%).
FIGURE 48. SPENT A NIGHT IN JAIL OR PRISON IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS
Veterans N=77; Non-Veterans N=1,191
7 Military Benefits. (2014). Incarcerated Veterans. Retrieved 2017 from http://www.military.com/benefits/veterans -
benefits/incarcerated-veterans.html.
70%
27%22%
11%10%
73%
36%
25%
11%8%
Free Meals Bus Passes Community Drop In
Center
Job Training/
Employment
Behavioral Health
Services
Veterans Non-Veterans
29%27%
71%73%
Veterans Non-Veterans
Yes No
Subpopulations
42 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS
National data from 2018 suggest that 33% of all people experiencing homelessness are persons in
families.8 Very few families experiencing homelessness are unsheltered, as public shelters serve 90% of
homeless families in the United States; this is a significantly higher proportion of the population
compared to other subpopulations, including youth and young adults. Data on families experiencing
homelessness suggest that they are not much different from other families living in poverty.
Nationally, the majority of homeless families are households headed by single women and families with
children under the age of six.9 Children in families experiencing homelessness have increased incidence
of illness and are more likely to have emotional and behavioral problems than children with stable living
accommodations.10
ESTIMATES OF FAMILIES EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS
There were a total of 269 families consisting of 921 individual family members experiencing
homelessness in Santa Clara County in 2019. Families experiencing homelessness represented 9% of the
Point-in-Time homeless population , a decrease from 2017 when the represented 15% of the overall
population.11 The majority (74%) of families experiencing homelessness were sheltered, while the
remaining 26% were unsheltered, a slight decrease from 28% in 2017.
FIGURE 49. FAMILIES EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS
8 U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2019). The 2018 Annual Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress. Retrieved
2019 from https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/2017-AHAR-Part-1.pdf
9 U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2007). Characteristics and Dynamics of Homeless Families with Children.
Retrieved 2015 from http://aspe.hhs.gov/
10U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness. (2015). Opening Doors. Retrieved 2015 from http://www.usich.gov/
11 There is a significant population of homeless families in “double-up” situations. These families may or may not fall within the HUD
PIT count definition of homelessness and could not be identified due to their typical location on private property.
349 266 294 269
1,067
908
1,075
921
2013 2015 2017 2019
Families Individual Family Members
Subpopulations
43 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
FIGURE 50. FAMILIES EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS BY SHELTER STATUS
2013 N=1,067; 2015 N=908; 2017 N=1,075; 2019 N=921
DEMOGRAPHICS OF FAMILIES EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS
Female family members accounted for 61% of families experiencing homelessness, while males
accounted for 38%. Further, more than two-thirds (68%) identified as being of Hispanic/Latinx origin, and
70% identified as White, both higher than the non-family homeless population.
FIGURE 51. FAMILIES EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS BY HISPANIC/LATINX ORIGIN
2017 N=1,075; 2019 N=921
5%7%
28%26%
95%93%
72%74%
2013 2015 2017 2019
Unsheltered Sheltered
67%68%
33%32%
2017 2019
Hispanic/Latinx Non-Hispanic/Non-Latinx
Subpopulations
44 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
FIGURE 52. FAMILIES EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS BY HISPANIC/LATINX ORIGIN
Family N=50; Non-Family N=1,259
FIGURE 53. FAMILIES EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS BY RACE
Family N=47; Non-Family N=1,199
44%40%
56%60%
Families Non-Families
Hispanic/Latinx Non-Hispanic/Non-Latinx
43%
19%
32%
4%2%0%
40%
18%
29%
8%1%3%
White Black or African
American
Multi-race or
Other
American Indian
or Alaska Native
Native Hawaiian
or Pacific
Islander
Asian
Families Non-Families
Subpopulations
45 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
EXPERIENCE OF VIOLENCE AMONG FAMILIES EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS
A quarter (25%) of respondents in homeless families reported that, in their lifetime, they had been
physically, emotionally, or sexually abused by a relative or another person they had stayed with (spouse,
partner, sibling, parent). This represents a decrease from 33% in 2017. Eight percent (8%) reported they
were currently experiencing domestic violence, which is a very slight increase from 2017.
FIGURE 54. PAST/CURRENT EXPERIENCE OF VIOLENCE AMONG FAMILIES EXPERIENCING
HOMELESSNESS
2017 N=19; 2019 N=53
Note: Due to the small number of respondents, caution is advised when interpreting this data.
PRIMARY CAUSE OF HOMELESSNESS AMONG FAMILIES EXPERIENCING
HOMELESSNESS
The top three causes of homelessness reported by families experiencing homelessness were job loss
(32%), eviction (25%), and a divorce or separation (19%). Lower percentages of non-families cited these
same causes. Survey respondents in families experiencing homelessness reported alcohol or drug use as
the primary cause of their homelessness less frequently (13%) than not in families with children (23%).
FIGURE 55. PRIMARY CAUSE OF HOMELESSNESS (TOP RESPONSES)
Families N=53 respondents offering 75 responses; Non-Families N=1,286 respondents offering 1,835 responses
33%
25%
6%8%
2017 2019
Past Violence (Physical, Emotional, or Sexual)Current Domestic Violence
32%25%19%13%11%
30%
14%15%23%
11%
Lost Job Eviction Divorce/ Separation/
Breakup
Alcohol or Drug Use Incarceration
Families Non-Families
Subpopulations
46 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
HEALTH CONDITIONS AMONG FAMILIES EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS
Among homeless families, a psychiatric or emotional condition was the most frequently reported health
condition (36%), followed by PTSD (26%) and drug/alcohol abuse (19%). In general, families experiencing
homelessness reported lower rates of health conditions than their non-family counterparts, with the
exception of HIV/AIDS-related conditions.
FIGURE 56. HEALTH CONDITIONS
Families N=53; Non-Families N=1,306
Note: Multiple response question, percentages may not add up to 100%
RECURRENCE AND LENGTH OF HOMELESSNESS AMONG FAMILIES EXPERIENCING
HOMELESSNESS
Half (50%) of family respondents reported experiencing homelessness for the first time, compared to 36%
of non-family survey respondents. Fifty-eight percent (58%) of families had been experiencing
homelessness for one year or longer, compared to 67% of non-family respondents. In terms of where they
were living prior to becoming homeless, over half (55%) reported they were living in a home owned/rented
by them or a partner compared to 25% of the general survey population, and 19% were staying with
friends or family, compared to 33% of the general survey population.
GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE AMONG FAMILIES EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS
Seventy-one percent (71%) of family members indicated they were receiving some form of government
assistance. Well over half (57%) were receiving food stamps, and 37% were receiving Medi-Cal/MediCare.
36%26%19%15%11%8%4%
40%32%34%
23%23%
10%1%
Psychiatric or
Emotional
Conditions
Post-Traumatic
Stress Disorder
(PTSD)
Drug or Alcohol
Abuse
Physical
Disability
Chronic Health
Problems
Traumatic Brain
Injury (TBI)
AIDS/HIV
Related
Families Non-Families
Subpopulations
47 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
YOUTH AND YOUNG ADULTS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS
Due to the challenges of street outreach and access to youth and young adults experiencing
homelessness, available data on them are limited. Although largely considered an undercount, nationwide
estimates from 2018 suggest there are at least 36,361 youth and young adults on the streets and in
public shelters, an increase of 14% over 2016.12 This increase may be due, in part, to the focus on youth
and young adults during the 2017 Point-in-Time Count.
In 2012, the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness amended the federal strategic plan to end
homelessness to include specific strategies and supports to address the needs of youth and young
adults. As part of this effort, HUD placed increased focus on gathering data on youth and young adults
during the Point-in-Time Count. The results of this effort contribute to HUD’s initiative to measure
progress toward ending youth homelessness by 2020.
Young people experiencing homelessness have a harder time accessing services, including shelter,
medical care, and employment. This is due to the stigma of their housing situation, lack of knowledge of
available resources, and a dearth of services targeted to young people.13
ESTIMATES OF YOUTH AND YOUNG ADULTS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS
Homelessness among youth and young adults is a difficult problem to identify. Youth and young adults
are less likely to be found among the adult population experiencing homelessness, preferring locations
and times of day that make traditional efforts at enumeration difficult. Accordingly, a separate youth
count effort was put in place, relying on knowledge gathered from youth currently experiencing
homelessness as well as their participation in the count itself.
In 2019, the general shelter and street count, combined with the targeted youth count, identified 1,876
youth and young adults experiencing homelessness. This represents a 26% decrease since 2017 but is
still the second highest in the past decade. It should also be noted an alternative method of calculation
was used in 2019 that contributes to this percentage decrease (see methodology section for more
discussion.)
The majority (95%) of these youth and young adults were unsheltered. In 2019, the youth and young adult
subpopulation represented nearly one-fifth (19%) of the overall homeless population in Santa Clara
County.
12 U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2017). The 2018 Annual Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress.
Retrieved 2019 from https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/2018-AHAR-Part-1.pdf
13 National Coalition for the Homeless. (2011). Homeless Youth Fact Sheet. Retrieved 2011 from http://www.nationalhomeless.org.
Subpopulations
48 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
FIGURE 57. YOUTH AND YOUNG ADULTS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS
Note: In 2019, methodology in calculating the numbers of youth and young adults experiencing homelessness changed. For
comparative purposes, the 2017 data was recalculated and displayed in this chart. For further information regarding the
methodology change, please see Appendix A.
FIGURE 58. YOUTH AND YOUNG ADULTS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS BY SHELTER STATUS
2013 N=1,266; 2015 N=883; 2017 N=2,530; 2019 N=1,876
762
203 59
649
276
552
1,063 824
1,599 1,600
2011 2013 2015 2017 2019
Youth Young Adults
84%85%96%95%
16%15%4%5%
2013 2015 2017 2019
Unsheltered Sheltered
Subpopulations
49 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
DEMOGRAPHICS OF YOUTH AND YOUNG ADULTS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS
Over half (54%) of youth and young adults identified as male. Nearly half (49%) identified as being of
Hispanic/Latinx origin, an increase from 38% in 2017, and larger than the adult population (38%). Thirty
percent identified as White and 25% identified as Black/African American.
Gathering data on gender identity and sexual orientation on hard to find populations like youth and young
adults can pose difficulties. Past years have made every effort to be as representative as possible, but
caution should still be used when interpreting past data around gender identity and sexual orientation. In
2019, 30% of youth survey respondents identified as LGBTQ+, greater than the 10% of adult respondents
who did so.
FIGURE 59. YOUTH AND YOUNG ADULTS BY GENDER
Youth and Young Adult N=210; Adults 25+ N=1,134
FIGURE 60. YOUTH AND YOUNG ADULTS BY RACE
Youth and Young Adult N=194; Adults 25+ N=1,052
38%33%
54%66%
8%1%1%
Youth and Young Adults Adults 25+
Female Male Transgender Gender Non-Conforming
30%25%26%
12%4%3%
42%
17%
30%
7%3%1%
White Black or African
American
Multi-race or Other American Indian
or Alaska Native
Asian Native Hawaiian or
Pacific Islander
Youth and Young Adults Adults 25+
Subpopulations
50 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
PRIMARY CAUSE OF HOMELESSNESS AMONG YOUTH AND YOUNG ADULTS
Youth and young adult respondents cited similar causes of homelessness compared to adult
respondents. The most commonly reported causes among children and youth were job loss (23%),
alcohol/drug use (19%), and an argument with family/friend (14%).
FIGURE 61. PRIMARY CAUSE OF HOMELESSNESS (TOP RESPONSES)
Unaccompanied Children/Youth N=211 respondents offering 243 responses; Adults N=1,128 respondents offering 1,667
responses
HEALTH CONDITIONS AMONG YOUTH AND YOUNG ADULTS EXPERIENCING
HOMELESSNESS
A substantial number of youth and young adult respondents reported experiencing health issues, and in
some cases at higher rates than their adult counterparts. Forty-three percent (43%) of respondents under
age 25 reported experiencing a psychiatric or emotional condition, 36% reported experiencing PTSD, and
34% reported experiencing drug/alcohol abuse. Youth and young adults had lower rates of chronic health
problems and physical disabilities than adults 25 years of age and older.
FIGURE 62. HEALTH CONDITIONS
Unaccompanied Children/Youth N=211; Adults N=1,306
23%19%14%9%8%
31%23%13%15%5%
Lost Job Alcohol or Drug Use Argument with
Family/Friend
Eviction Family Violence
Youth and Young Adults Adults 25+
43%36%34%
10%9%9%3%
39%31%33%25%25%
10%1%
Psychiatric or
Emotional
Conditions
Post-Traumatic
Stress Disorder
(PTSD)
Drug or Alcohol
Abuse
Chronic Health
Problems
Physical
Disability
Traumatic Brain
Injury (TBI)
AIDS/HIV
Related
Youth and Young Adults Adults 25+
Subpopulations
51 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
SERVICE UTILIZATION AMONG YOUTH AND YOUNG ADULTS EXPERIENCING
HOMELESSNESS
Two-thirds (68%) of youth and young adult respondents reported currently receiving different types
government assistance, similar to the adult population at 70%. The most common benefits received were
food stamps (51%) and Medi-cal/Medicare (27%), each similar to the adult population. Four in five (82%)
youth and young adults also reported accessing other non-government services, including free meals
(68%), bus passes (37%), and the community drop-in center (27%).
FOSTER CARE AMONG YOUTH AND YOUNG ADULTS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS
Nationally, it is estimated that at least one-third of foster youth experience homelessness after exiting
care.14 In the state of California, many foster youth are eligible to receive extended care benefits as they
transition into adulthood, up until their 21st birthday. Implemented since 2012, the aim of extended foster
care is to assist foster youth with the transition to independence and prevent them from experiencing
homelessness.
Forty-two percent (42%) of youth and young adult respondents reported they had been in the foster care
system, and 4% cited aging out of foster care as their primary cause of homelessness.
FIGURE 63. HISTORY OF FOSTER CARE
2015 n= 101, 2017 n=113, 2019 n=209
14 Dworsky, A;, Napolitano, L.; and Courtney, M. (2013). Homelessness During the Transition From Foster Care to Adulthood.
Congressional Research Services, Am J Public Health. 2013 December; 103(Suppl 2): S318–S323. Retrieved 2018 from
10.2105/AJPH.2013.301455.
40%39%42%
60%61%58%
2015 2017 2019
Yes No
Conclusion
52 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
Conclusion
The 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey was performed using HUD-recommended
practices for counting and surveying the homeless population. Data summarized in this report provide
many valuable insights about the unique and diverse experiences of homelessness in Santa Clara County.
A few data highlights include:
The Point-in-Time Homeless Count identified a total of 9,706 persons experiencing homelessness
in Santa Clara County in 2019, an increase of 31% from the count conducted in 2017.
More than four in five (82%) persons experiencing homelessness in Santa Clara County were
unsheltered, living in places not intended for human habitation.
More than one-third (36%) of homeless survey respondents indicated they were experiencing
homelessness for the first time, and 67% had been homeless for one year or longer.
When asked what might have prevented them from becoming homeless, the t op answers among
survey respondents were rent/mortgage assistance (reported by 42% of respondents), followed
by employment assistance (37%), and alcohol/drug counseling (28%).
The biggest obstacles to obtaining permanent housing were the affordability of rent (66%), a lack
of a job/income (56%), and a lack of available housing (40%).
Homeless survey respondents also reported having these health conditions: a psychiatric or
emotional condition (42%); drug/alcohol abuse (35%), and PTSD (33%).
The estimated counts of the four HUD-identified subpopulations in Santa Clara County were:
chronically homeless individuals with one or more disabling condition (2,470 persons), homeless
veterans (653), members of homeless families with children (921), and youth and young adults
(1,876).
In summary, the 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Count and Survey provides valid and useful data that
help create a more comprehensive profile of those experiencing homelessness. Data presented in this
report fulfill federal reporting requirements for the CoC and will continue to inform outreach, service
planning, and policy decision-making by local planning bodies over the year to come.
There are still many challenges to overcome in achieving the goal of eliminating homelessness in Santa
Clara County and helping homeless individuals and families access necessary services and support. The
dissemination and evaluation of this effort will help the CoC and all Santa Clara County stakeholders
continue to produce and refine constructive and innovative solutions to end homelessness and make it a
rare, brief, and one-time occurrence. Through innovative and effective housing programs and services,
Santa Clara County remains committed to moving homeless persons into permanent housing.
Appendix A: Methodology
53 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
Appendix A: Methodology
OVERVIEW
The 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey was performed using HUD-recommended
practices and using HUD’s definition of homelessness. The primary purpose was to produce a point-in-
time estimate of individuals and families experiencing homelessness in Santa Clara County, a region
which covers approximately 1,312 square miles. The results of several components were combined to
produce the total estimated number of persons experiencing homelessness on a given night. A detailed
description of these components follows.
COMPONENTS OF THE HOMELESS CENSUS & SURVEY
The methodology used in the 2019 Point-in-Time Census and Survey had five components:
1) General Street Count: A morning count of unsheltered homeless individuals and families on
January 29-30, 2019. This occurred from approximately 4:30 AM to 10:00 AM and included
those sleeping outdoors on the street; at bus and train stations; in parks, tents, and other
makeshift shelters; and in vehicles and abandoned properties. In order to canvass all areas
within Santa Clara County, the general street count was spread over two days with Interstate
880 serving as the dividing line between day 1 and day 2. The general street count was
designed to take place before shelter occupants were released. In areas with shelters, the
immediate area surrounding the shelter was prioritized to eliminate potential double counting
of individuals.
2) General Shelter Count: A nighttime count of individuals and families experiencing
homelessness staying at publicly and privately-operated shelters on January 29, 2019. This
included those who occupied emergency shelters, transitional housing, and safe havens. All
shelter data were gathered either from Santa Clara County’s Homeless Management
Information System or directly from the shelter.
3) Targeted Street Count of Youth and Young Adults: An afternoon count of unsheltered youth
and young adults on January 29, 2019. This occurred from approximately 2:00 PM to 7:00 PM
and was led by special youth teams who canvassed specific areas where youth and young
adults were known to congregate. Upon completion, data from this targeted count was
carefully reviewed against the results from the general street count to ensure that any
possible duplicate counts were removed.
4) Targeted COE Street Count of Students and Their Families: A count of previously-identified
unsheltered homeless students and their families conducted by the Santa Clara County
Office of Education for the night of January 29, 2019 in conjunction with participating school
districts. Demographic and geographic detail from the COE count was then compared to
census data to check for possible duplication, however, no duplicates were found.
Appendix A: Methodology
54 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
5) Homeless Survey: An in-person interview with 1,359 unique sheltered and unsheltered
individuals experiencing homelessness conducted by peer surveyors between January 29
and February 28, 2019. Data from the survey were used to refine the Point-in-Time Census
estimates and then used to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the demographics
and experiences of homeless individuals.
THE PLANNING PROCESS
To ensure the success and integrity of the count, many county and community agencies collaborated on
community outreach, volunteer recruitment, logistical plans, methodological decisions, and interagency
coordination efforts. ASR provided technical assistance for these aspects of the planning process. ASR
has over 19 years of experience conducting homeless counts and surveys throughout California and
across the nation. Their work is featured as a best practice in the HUD publication, A Guide to Counting
Unsheltered Homeless People, as well as in the Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago publication,
Conducting a Youth Count: A Toolkit.
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
Local homeless and housing service providers and advocates were valued partners in the planning and
implementation of this count. Thanks to local efforts, the count included enumerators with a diverse
range of knowledge, including expertise regarding areas frequented by homeless individuals, individuals
living in vehicles, and persons residing in encampments. Community partners were also key in recruiting
individuals with lived experience of homelessness to participate in the street count and survey efforts.
STREET COUNT METHODOLOGY
DEFINITION
For the purposes of this study, the HUD definition of unsheltered homeless persons was used:
An individual or family with a primary nighttime residence that is a public or private place not
designed for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings, including
a car, park, abandoned building, bus or train stations, airport, or camping ground.
METHODOLOGICAL IMPROVEMENTS
The 2019 street count methodology followed an established, HUD-approved methodology used in counts
since 2007, with the addition of dedicated youth outreach beginning in 2015. The 2019 census also saw a
change in methodology regarding the extrapolation of demographic detail on tents and vehicles.
Challenges were presented in 2019 by a large number of tents and vehicles that were identified as
inhabited, but without demographic detail available, combined with large numbers of identified youth
from the youth count. To prevent overrepresentation of youth when resolving demographic detail on tents
and vehicles, a methodological change in the extrapolation of age and gender was implemented.
VOLUNTEER AND GUIDE RECRUITMENT
Many individuals who live and/or work in Santa Clara County supported the county’s effort to enumerate
the local homeless population. In 2019, over 250 community volunteers and homeless guides
participated in the general street count.
Extensive outreach efforts were conducted, including outreach to local non -profits and volunteer agencies
that serve individuals experiencing homelessness. Local shelters and service providers recruited and
recommended the most knowledgeable and reliable homeless individuals to participate in the count.
Appendix A: Methodology
55 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
Homeless guides were paid $15 for attending an hour-long training as well as $15 per hour worked on the
day of the count.
Volunteers and guides served as enumerators on the morning of the count, canvassing the county in
teams to visually count homeless persons. County of Santa Clara, City of San José, and ASR staff
supported each of the five dispatch centers in San José, Palo Alto, Gilroy, and Mountain View, greeting
volunteers and guides, distributing instructions, maps, and supplies to enumeration teams, and collecting
data sheets from returning teams.
In order to participate in the count, all volunteers and guides were requested to attend an hour-long
training before the count. Trainings were held in multiple locations throughout the county. Training
covered all aspects of the count, including the definition of homelessness, how to identify homeless
individuals, potential locations of homeless individuals, how to safely and respectfully conduct the count,
how to use the tally count sheets and maps to ensure the entirety of the assigned area was covered, as
well as other tips to help ensure an accurate count. If individuals were unable to attend a training in
person, a YouTube training video was also made available.
STREET COUNT TEAMS
Teams were typically comprised of at least two individuals, one volunteer from the community and one
guide who was generally an individual currently experiencing homelessness. Each team was assigned 1-4
census tracts, depending on the size of the tracts. Teams were responsible for covering all areas
accessible to the public, including parks, streets, business fronts, and wherever the guide believed there
might be individuals experiencing homelessness. Teams were encouraged to have their community
volunteer drive their vehicle, while the guide acted as a navigator and enumerator during the process. All
teams were given a brief refresher training before heading out into the field.
STREET COUNT DISPATCH CENTERS
To achieve complete coverage of the county within the morning timeframe, the planning team identified
five areas for the placement of dispatch centers on the morning of the count: the Opportunity Center in
Palo Alto, Compassion Center in Gilroy, Salvation Army in San José, City Team in San José, and the CSA
in Mountain View. Volunteers selected their dispatch center at the time of registration based on their
familiarity with the area or their convenience. The planning team determined the enumeration routes and
assigned them to the dispatch center closest or most central to the coverage area to facilitate the timely
deployment of enumeration teams into the field.
SAFETY PRECAUTIONS
Every effort was made to minimize potentially hazardous situations. Law enforcement agencies were
notified of pending street count activity in their jurisdictions. In census tracts with a high concentration of
homeless encampments, specialized teams with knowledge of those encampments were identified and
assigned to those areas. Enumeration teams were advised to take every safety precaution possible,
including bringing flashlights and maintaining a respectful distance from those they were counting.
LOGISTICS OF ENUMERATION
All accessible streets, roads, parks, and highways in the enumerated tracts were traversed by foot or car.
Homeless enumerators were instructed to include themselves on their tally sheets for the street count if
they were not going to be counted by the shelter count. Dispatch center volunteers provided each team
with tally sheets to record the number of homeless persons observed in addition to basic demographic
and location information. Dispatch center volunteers also verified that at least one person on each team
had a cell phone available for their use during the count and recorded the number on the volunteer
deployment log sheet. Teams were asked to cover the entirety of their assigned areas.
Appendix A: Methodology
56 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
To ensure that the privacy of individuals experiencing homelessness was respected and that safety
concerns were kept as a priority for enumeration teams, teams were asked to conduct observation-only
counts and to not have any contact with individuals experiencing homelessness. When they encountered
a structure or vehicle that they believed to be inhabited, they had the option to indicate that it was
inhabited but that they didn’t know the number or the demographic detail (age and gender) of its
residents if this could be determined by the team. In order to determine the number of residents of these
dwelling types, ASR uses the survey data from over 450 survey respondents who indicated they stayed in
the named dwelling type. Demographic detail for those inhabitants is gathered from count data.
"Individuals identified” are those whom enumeration teams were able to clearly identify as persons
experiencing homelessness. “Structures identified” indicates structures (tent, vehicle, abandoned
building, makeshift shelter, etc.) enumeration teams saw that they believed to be inhabited. Data suggest
that some structures have more than one person staying inside and survey data is used to determine a
multiplier for each structure type. Individuals that are added to the count as a result of that multiplier are
referred to as extrapolated individuals in the chart above.
SANTA CLARA COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION COUNT
In the days following the street count, representatives from seven school districts called households
known to have recently experienced homelessness to ascertain where they stayed on the night of count.
This is a significant effort, as many school districts have hundreds of calls to make to ensure that
families counted fit the HUD definition of homelessness and were, in fact, experiencing homelessness on
the night(s) of the count.
Participation from school districts was not as extensive in 2019 when compared to 2017 and may have
had an impact on the number of unsheltered families that were identified in this year’s count. In 2017, 12
districts participated in the COE count, while only 7 participated in the 2019 COE count. Once data were
gathered, they were then compared to count data to check for duplication. Using demographic and
geographic detail, families were cross-checked for duplication and any duplicates are removed.
74%26%
Individuals/Structures Identified Extrapolated Individuals
Appendix A: Methodology
57 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
YOUTH AND YOUNG ADULT STREET COUNT METHODOLOGY
GOAL
The goal of the 2019 youth and young adult count was to include accurate representation of youth and
young adults under the age of 25 in the Point-in-Time Count. Many youth and young adults experiencing
homelessness do not use homeless services, are unrecognizable to adult street count volunteers, and
may be in unsheltered locations that are difficult to find. Therefore, traditional street count efforts are not
as effective in reaching youth.
RESEARCH DESIGN
As in all years, planning for the 2019 youth and young adult count included homeless youth service
providers and youth and young adults with lived experience of homelessness. Local service providers
identified locations where youth and young adults experiencing homelessness were known to congregate
and recruited youth and young adults currently experiencing homelessness with knowledge of where to
locate homeless youth to serve as guides for the count. Late afternoon and early evening were the ideal
times recommended by advocates to conduct the youth count.
A focus group was held with currently and previously homeless youth to identify areas to canvass for the
supplemental youth count. The Bill Wilson Center took the lead on recruiting 26 youth to work as peer
enumerators in addition to 10 youth service provider staff members who accompanied and transported
the youth around the county.
Youth workers were paid $15 per hour for their time, including time spent in training prior to the count.
Youth and service provider staff members were trained on where and how to identify homeless youth as
well as how to record the data.
DATA COLLECTION
It was determined that homeless youth would be more prominent on the street during daylight hours
rather than in the early morning dawn timeframe when the general count was conducted. Youth worked in
teams of two to four, with teams coordinated and supervised by street outreach workers.
HUD and the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness recognize that youth do not commonly
comingle with homeless adults and are not easily identified by non-youth. For this reason, these agencies
accept and recommend that communities count youth at times when they can be seen rather than during
traditional enumeration times.
STREET COUNT DE-DUPLICATION
Data from the supplemental youth count and general street count were compared and de -duplicated by
assessing location, gender, and age. In total, 24 persons under the age of 25 were identified as duplicates
and removed from the data set.
SHELTER COUNT METHODOLOGY
GOAL
The goal of the shelter count is to gain an accurate count of persons temporarily housed in shelters
across Santa Clara County. These data are vital to gaining an accurate overall count of the homeles s
population and understanding where persons experiencing homelessness receive shelter.
Appendix A: Methodology
58 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
DEFINITION
For the purposes of this study, the HUD definition of sheltered homelessness for Point-in-Time Counts
was used. This definition includes individuals and families living in a supervised publicly or privately
operated shelter designated to provide temporary living arrangement.
RESEARCH DESIGN
All shelter data were gathered either directly from the shelter or from Santa Clara County’s Homeless
Management Information System.
DATA COLLECTION
To collect data on individuals staying in shelters, ASR worked with BitFocus, the HMIS system
administrators for Santa Clara County. BitFocus collected data on all emergency shelters, transitional
housing programs, and Safe Havens operating in the county. Data was collected on household status,
age, gender, race and ethnicity, veteran status, chronic status, and whether individuals had certain health
conditions. There were a small, limited number of shelters that do not participa te in the HMIS system. To
gather their data, ASR collected the same data using a web -based system of reporting.
CHALLENGES
There are many challenges in any homeless enumeration, especially when implemented in a community
as large and diverse as Santa Clara County. Point-in-Time Counts are “snapshots” that quantify the size of
the homeless population at a given point during the year. Hence, the count may not be representative of
fluctuations and compositional changes in the homeless population seasonally or over time.
For a variety of reasons, some homeless persons do not wish to be seen and make concerted efforts to
avoid detection. Regardless of how successful outreach efforts are, an undercount of the homeless
population will likely result, especially of hard-to-reach subpopulations such as families and youth.
The methods employed in a non-intrusive visual homeless enumeration, while academically sound, have
inherent biases and shortcomings. Even with the assistance of dedicated homeless service provide rs, the
methodology cannot guarantee 100% accuracy. Many factors may contribute to missed opportunities, for
example:
It is difficult to identify homeless persons who may be sleeping in vans, cars, recreational vehicles,
abandoned buildings, or structures unfit for human habitation.
Homeless families with children often seek opportunities to stay on private property, rather than sleep on
the streets, in vehicles, or in makeshift shelters.
Even though the Point-in-Time Count is most likely to be an undercount of the homeless population, the
methodology employed—coupled with the homeless survey—is the most comprehensive approach
available.
SURVEY METHODOLOGY
PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION
The data collected through the survey are used for the McKinney-Vento Continuum of Care Homeless
Assistance funding application and are important for future program development and planning. The
survey elicited information such as gender, family status, military service, duration and recurrence of
homelessness, nighttime accommodations, causes of homelessness, and access to services through
Appendix A: Methodology
59 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
open-ended, closed-ended, and multiple response questions. The survey data bring greater perspective to
current issues of homelessness and to the provision and delivery of services.
Surveys were conducted by peer survey workers with lived homeless experience. Training sessions were
facilitated by ASR, Santa Clara County staff, and community partners. Potential interviewers were led
through a comprehensive orientation that included project background information as well as detailed
instruction on respondent eligibility, interviewing protocol, and confidentiality. Peer survey workers were
compensated at a rate of $7 per completed survey.
It was determined that survey data would be more easily obtained if an incentive gift was offered to
respondents in appreciation for their time and participation. Socks were provided as an incentive for
participating in the 2019 homeless survey. The socks were easy to distribute, had wide appeal, and could
be provided within the project budget. The incentives proved to be widely accepted among survey
respondents.
SURVEY SAMPLING
Based on a Point-in-Time Count estimate of 9,706 homeless persons, with a randomized survey sampling
process, the 1,359 valid surveys represented a confidence interval of +/-2.5% with a 95% confidence level
when generalizing the results of the survey to the estimated population of individuals experiencing
homelessness in Santa Clara County.
The 2019 survey was administered in shelters, transitional housing facilities, and on the street. In order to
ensure the representation of transitional housing residents, who can be underrepresented in a street-
based survey, survey quotas were created to reach individuals and heads of family households living in
these programs.
Strategic attempts were also made to reach individuals in various geographic locations and of various
subset groups such as homeless youth, minority ethnic groups, military veterans, domestic violence
survivors, and families. Quotas used for geographic locations, youth and young adults, as well as shelter
status. For other subpopulations (veterans, ethnic groups, and domestic violence survivors) peer-to-peer
surveyors from those groups were recruited and asked to survey their peers. Empirical data that can be
used as the basis for sampling is limited to narrow age categories, geography, and shelter type and
status. Further details that would enable better profiling of subpopulation characteristics, such as gender
identity and sexual orientation, race and ethnicity, veteran status, and various health conditions are not
available for sample planning and are broadly informed by previous PIT count results.
During the survey administrator training process and during surveyor trainings, every attempt was made
to recruit a diverse group of capable surveyors who represented a broad range of experiences and
backgrounds in order to reduce implicit bias, though full elimination of bias is beyond the scope of this
effort. Since 2009, the ASR survey methodology has prioritized a peer-to-peer approach to data collection
by increasing the number of currently homeless surveyors.
In order to increase randomization of sample respondents, survey workers were trained to employ an
“every third encounter” survey approach. Survey workers were instructed to approach every third person
they considered to be an eligible survey respondent. If the person declined to take the survey, the survey
worker could approach the next eligible person they encountered. After completing a survey, the
randomized approach was resumed.
DATA COLLECTION
Care was taken by interviewers to ensure that respondents felt comfortable regardless of the street or
shelter location where the survey occurred. During the interviews, respondents were encouraged to be
Appendix A: Methodology
60 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
candid in their responses and were informed that these responses would be framed as general findings,
would be kept confidential, and would not be traceable to any single individual to ensure privacy.
DATA ANALYSIS
The survey requested respondents’ initials and date of birth so that duplication could be avoided without
compromising the respondents’ anonymity. Upon completion of the survey effort, an extensive
verification process was conducted to eliminate potential duplicates. This process examined
respondents’ date of birth, initials, gender, ethnicity, length of homelessness, and consistencies in
patterns of responses to other survey questions. Outlier surveys were further examined and eliminated if
they were thought to be inauthentic.
SURVEY CHALLENGES AND LIMITATIONS
The 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Survey did not include an equal representation of all homeless
experiences. The smaller the subpopulation is, the harder it can be to ensure that it receives full exposure
during the survey process. For example, finding families experiencing homelessness presents a challenge
and can lead to underrepresentation in the survey results. The same applies to youth and young adults,
though care is taken to ensure that youth surveyors are involved, to increase the response rate of youth
survey respondents. Locating and surveying individuals who identify as transgender, who have a sexual
orientation other than straight, who are experiencing specific health conditions such as AIDS and TB I, and
others can pose difficulties and their experiences may not be fully represented in this process.
There may be some variance in the data that individuals experiencing homelessness self -reported.
However, using a peer interviewing methodology is believed to allow the respondents to be more candid
with their answers and may help reduce the uneasiness of revealing personal information. Further, service
providers and county staff members recommended individuals who would be the best suited to
conducting interviews and these individuals received comprehensive training about how to conduct
interviews. Service providers and county staff also reviewed the surveys to ensure quality responses.
Surveys that were considered incomplete or containing false responses were not accepted.
Appendix B: Definitions & Abbreviations
61 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
Appendix B: Definitions &
Abbreviations
COE – The County Office of Education
Chronic homelessness – Defined by HUD as an unaccompanied individual or head of a family household
with a disabling condition who has either continuously experienced homelessness for a year or more or
has experienced at least four episodes of homelessness totaling 12 months in the past three years.
Disabling condition – Defined by HUD as a physical, mental, or emotional impairment, including an
impairment caused by alcohol or drug abuse, Post-traumatic stress disorder, or brain injury that is
expected to be long-term and impacts the individual’s ability to live independently; a developmental
disability; or HIV/AIDS.
Emergency shelter – The provision of a safe alternative to the streets, either in a shelter facility or
through the use of stabilization rooms. Emergency shelter is short-term, usually for 180 days or fewer.
Domestic violence shelters are typically considered a type of emergency shelter, as they pr ovide safe,
immediate housing for survivors and their children.
Family – A household with at least one adult and one child under the age of 18.
Homeless – Under the Category 1 definition of homelessness in the HEARTH Act, includes individuals
and families living in a supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designated to provide temporary
living arrangements, or with a primary nighttime residence that is a public or private place not designed
for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings, including a car, park,
abandoned building, bus or train station, airport, or camping ground.
HUD – Abbreviation for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Sheltered homeless individuals – Individuals who are living in emergency shelters or transitional housing
programs.
Single individual – An unaccompanied adult over the age of 18.
62 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
Transitional housing – Housing in which homeless individuals may live up to 24 months and receive
supportive services that enable them to live more independently. Supportive services – which help
promote residential stability, increased skill level or income, and greater self-determination –may be
provided by the organization managing the housing, or coordinated by that organization and provi ded by
other public or private agencies. Transitional housing can be provided in one structure or several
structures at one site, or in multiple structures at scattered sites.
Unaccompanied youth – Children under the age of 18 who are not accompanied by a parent or guardian
and are not a parent presenting with or sleeping in the same place as their own child(ren).
Unsheltered homeless individuals – Individuals who are living on the streets, in abandoned buildings,
storage structures, vehicles, encampments, or any other place unfit for human habitation.
Youth and Young Adults – Young people between the ages of 0-17 (youth) and 18-24 years old (young
adults) who are not accompanied by a parent or guardian and are not a parent presenting with or sleeping
in the same place as their own child(ren).
Appendix C: Survey Questions
63 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
Appendix C: Survey Questions
Appendix C: Survey Questions
64 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
Appendix D: Table of Figures
65 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
Appendix D: Table of Figures
FIGURE 1. Persons Experiencing Homelessness in Santa Clara County .................................................... 11
FIGURE 2. Persons Experiencing Homelessness by Shelter Status ............................................................ 11
FIGURE 3. Homeless Population by Jurisdiction and Shelter Status .......................................................... 12
FIGURE 4. Homeless Population by County Supervisorial District .............................................................. 12
FIGURE 5. Homeless Population by Gender .................................................................................................. 13
FIGURE 6. Homeless Population by Hispanic or Latinx Origin ..................................................................... 13
FIGURE 7. Homeless Population by Race ..................................................................................................... 14
FIGURE 8. Respondents by Age ..................................................................................................................... 16
FIGURE 9. Respondents by Gender ................................................................................................................ 16
FIGURE 10. Detail of Respondents with LGBTQ+ Identity .............................................................................. 17
FIGURE 11. Respondents by Hispanic or Latinx Origin ................................................................................... 17
FIGURE 12. Respondents by Race.................................................................................................................... 18
FIGURE 13. History of Foster Care ................................................................................................................... 18
FIGURE 14. Place of Residence at The Most Recent Time Experiencing Homeless .................................... 19
FIGURE 15. Living Arrangements Immediately Before Becoming Homeless (Top Responses in 2019) .... 20
FIGURE 16. Current Living Arrangements ........................................................................................................ 21
FIGURE 17. Current Episode Is the First TIme Experiencing Homelessness ................................................ 22
FIGURE 18. Age When Experienced Homelessness for the First Time ......................................................... 22
FIGURE 19. Length of Current Episode of Homelessness .............................................................................. 23
FIGURE 20. Primary Cause of Homelessness (Top Responses in 2019) ...................................................... 23
FIGURE 21. What May Have Prevented Homelessness (Top Responses in 2019) ...................................... 24
FIGURE 22. Obstacles to Obtaining Permanent Housing (Top Responses in 2019) .................................... 24
FIGURE 23. Receipt of Government Assistance (Top Responses in 2019) ................................................... 25
FIGURE 24. Reasons Not Receiving Government Assistance (Top Responses in 2019) ............................. 26
FIGURE 25. Receipt of Other Services or Assistance (Top Responses in 2019) .......................................... 26
FIGURE 26. Employment Status ....................................................................................................................... 27
FIGURE 27. Unemployed by Work status ......................................................................................................... 27
FIGURE 28. Monthly Income by Employment Status ...................................................................................... 28
FIGURE 29. Health Conditions .......................................................................................................................... 28
FIGURE 30. History of Being Physically, Emotionally or Sexually Abused ..................................................... 29
FIGURE 31. Spent a Night in Jail or Prison in the Last 12 Months ................................................................. 30
FIGURE 32. Subpopulations as a Percentage of Overall Population ............................................................. 31
FIGURE 33. Chronically Homeless SubPopulation with Trend ....................................................................... 33
FIGURE 34. Chronically Homeless SubPopulation by Shelter Status ............................................................ 33
FIGURE 35. Chronically Homeless SubPopulation by Gender ........................................................................ 34
FIGURE 36. Chronically Homeless Survey Respondents by Race .................................................................. 34
FIGURE 37. Primary Cause of Homelessness (Top Responses) ................................................................... 35
FIGURE 38. Health Conditions .......................................................................................................................... 35
Appendix D: Table of Figures
66 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
FIGURE 39. Veterans Experiencing Homelessness ........................................................................................ 37
FIGURE 40. Veterans Experiencing Homelessness by Shelter Status ........................................................... 38
FIGURE 41. Veterans Experiencing Chronic Homelessness .......................................................................... 38
FIGURE 42. Veterans Experiencing Homelssness by Gender ........................................................................ 38
FIGURE 43. Veterans Experiencing Homelessness by Race .......................................................................... 39
FIGURE 44. Veterans Experiencing Homelessness by Ethnicity .................................................................... 39
FIGURE 45. Primary Cause of Homelessness (Top Responses) ................................................................... 40
FIGURE 46. Health Conditions .......................................................................................................................... 40
FIGURE 47. Access to Services ........................................................................................................................ 41
FIGURE 48. Spent a Night in Jail or Prison in the Last 12 Months ................................................................. 41
FIGURE 49. Families Experiencing Homelessness ......................................................................................... 42
FIGURE 50. Families Experiencing Homelessness by Shelter Status ............................................................ 43
FIGURE 51. Families experiencing Homelessness by Hispanic/Latinx Origin .............................................. 43
FIGURE 52. Families Experiencing Homelessness by Hispanic/Latinx Origin .............................................. 44
FIGURE 53. Families Experiencing Homelessness by Race ........................................................................... 44
FIGURE 54. Past/Current Experience of Violence Among Families Experiencing Homelessness .............. 45
FIGURE 55. Primary Cause of Homelessness (Top Responses) ................................................................... 45
FIGURE 56. Health Conditions .......................................................................................................................... 46
FIGURE 57. Youth and Young Adults Experiencing Homelessness ............................................................... 48
FIGURE 58. Youth and Young Adults Experiencing Homelessness by Shelter Status ................................. 48
FIGURE 59. Youth and Young Adults by Gender ............................................................................................. 49
FIGURE 60. Youth and Young Adults by Race ................................................................................................. 49
FIGURE 61. Primary Cause of Homelessness (Top Responses) ................................................................... 50
FIGURE 62. Health Conditions .......................................................................................................................... 50
FIGURE 63. History of Foster Care ................................................................................................................... 51
Appendix E: Figure Sources
67 | 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey
Appendix E: Figure Sources
All Point in Time Count Data: The figure source is ASR, Santa Clara County Homeless Count and Survey,
for the years varying from 2005 to 2019.
All Homeless Survey Findings: The figure source is ASR, Santa Clara County Homeless Count and Survey,
for the years varying from 2005 to 2019.
All Subpopulation Data: The figure source is ASR, Santa Clara County Homeless Count and Survey, for
the years varying from 2005 to 2019.
All Census Data: U.S. Census Bureau. (January 2017). American Community Survey 2015 1-Year
Estimates, Table DP05: ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates. Retrieved from
http://factfinder2.census.gov
Santa Clara County
HOMELESS CENSUS & SURVEY
COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
2019
Berkeley Home Match
Year 1 Report
Retirement Center 510-643-8720
homematch@berkeley.edu
homematch.berkeley.edu
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
The Challenge
Berkeley Home Match Program Outline
How We Got Here
Pilot Findings
What Makes Berkeley Home Match Unique
Next Steps: Pilot to Full Scale Program
Acknowledgements
2
4
6
8
9
12
13
14
November 8, 2019
Executive Summary
The high cost of living in Berkeley is a crisis for the whole community – from UC
students struggling to find affordable housing to campus departments hoping to recruit
top scholars to local retirees hoping in age in place. Berkeley Home Match helps
address these challenges by connecting UC Berkeley students with local UC retirees
with spare room in their homes. Our goal is to create a community where students and
retirees thrive together in affordable housing and generations work together to solve
pressing challenges.
With a small seed investment, Berkeley Home Match, in seven months, has created
10 affordable home matches between students and retirees. Students paid about
45% below the average for a room in a Berkeley home, while homeowners passively
earned almost $1,000 per month on average.
Berkeley Home Match’s goal, with more robust funding, is to provide 100 affordable
housing units annually to UC Berkeley graduate students, postdoctoral scholars, and
visiting scholars while supporting UC retirees who want to age in place. The program’s
efficient use of resources to meet a critical campus need warrants this additional funding
consideration. With additional investment, we would be able to:
•Bolster the educational components of the program with
additional workshops and a peer-support network
•Streamline program administration with an efficient database
•Expand our partner network
•Increase our capacity to facilitate the home sharing process
•Generate a replicable model for other UC campuses to follow
The following report summarizes the need for Berkeley Home Match, shares findings
from the one-year pilot, and recommends next steps for scaling up the program.
2
“I remember how it was when I was in
school – money was tight – and I feel
so good being able to share what I
have with a very deserving student.”
- Homeowner
3
The Challenge
Ten percent of UC Berkeley undergraduate students, graduate students and postdoctoral
scholars who were surveyed (2017) reported that they have experienced homelessness
while attending the university1. Graduate students report higher rates (15%), as do
postdoctoral scholars (20%). Students report couch surfing, using short-term rentals
like motels or AirBnB, sleeping in their vehicle and even, in rare cases, on the street or
in a park.
A key challenge is the cost of housing. PBS NewsHour recently reported that between
1989 and 2017, the cost of rooms on and off campus rose by more than 82 percent
at four-year universities across the country2. UC Berkeley provides fewer beds per
student than any other UC campus and charges more than any other public university
in California: $17,549 a year for room and board, on average. Meanwhile, average
costs in the off-campus rental market range from $2,300 a month for a one-bedroom
apartment to $1,240 for a room in a shared apartment4. Of the 11,655 graduate
students enrolled, 10,000 are left searching for housing off campus due to long waiting
lists for University-provided housing.
At the same time there is a rapidly growing aging population in Berkeley. Most adults
age 60+ desire to age in their home and community. But, a recent community survey
in Berkeley revealed concerns about housing affordability, the ability to stay in their
home, home maintenance, and having enough income5. Financial stability is a key
factor in older people’s ability to continue living at home.
Initial results from our pilot reveal promising evidence that connecting students with
retirees rapidly opens affordable housing units while also meaningfully increasing
retirees’ income. Students paid about 45% below the average cost for a room in a
Berkeley home, while homeowners passively earned almost $1,000 per month on
average. Additionally, the program’s built-in reciprocity fostered the development of
intergenerational relationships. Participants in the pilot indicated a strong interest in
supporting each other. When asked what influenced them to apply, participants rated
wanting to “help” at the same rate, or nearly the same rate, as “income” and “rent
prices.”
For homeowners, Berkeley Home Match can transform an extra bedroom into a
financial asset and offer a valuable way for retirees to give back to their UC Berkeley
community. For students, especially those new to the area, living with a retiree can be
an excellent opportunity to learn about and become more deeply connected with the
City of Berkeley community.
4
Berkeley Home Match Program Outline
The goal of the Berkeley Home Match program is
to provide 100 affordable housing units annually to
UCB graduate students, postdoctoral scholars, and
visiting scholars while supporting UC retirees who
are planning to age in place. Key components of the
Berkeley Home Match model include an education
program with group and one-on-one information
sessions, background checks, a resource packet,
and regular check-ins.
Education Program
Our group and one-on-one information sessions
help homeowners learn about home sharing and
the matching process. Resources include interview
tips, tools to explore lifestyle compatibility, a lease
template, and more. Participants are provided
with resources for addressing conflicts and with a
referral to SEEDS Community Resolution Center, if
necessary.
Facilitated Process
As facilitators, the Berkeley Home Match team
connects homeowners and home seekers with
potential matches while encouraging affordable
rent. We make this process as easy as possible for
applicants by coordinating background checks,
creating and sharing profiles of UC Berkeley
students and retirees with relevant information such
as the home location, photos, and participant bios.
Additionally, students are provided with renter’s
insurance.
Support Network
A Berkeley Home Match team member meets
one-on-one with homeowners and checks in with
matched participants regularly to make sure the
arrangement is working out. Potential and current
participants attend info sessions to share best
practices.
“[I]t’s been a pleasure getting the
chance to know each other as well
as a real benefit to me in having
an incredibly knowledgeable
first-hand resource when it comes
to exploring and getting to know
Berkeley and the Bay Area.”
- Home Seeker
“The most important thing in the
home share program is to really
understand the type of person
you want to have in your home.
[He] picked us out, but we picked
him as well. It is a perfect match.”
- Homeowner
5
How We Got Here
Funding
In July 2018, the UCB Retirement Center and Ashby Village received a small seed
grant from the Chancellor’s Community Partnership Fund with matching funds from
Covia.
Timeline
Partnerships
Community partners provided consultation related to their expertise:
•Covia provided their home sharing program documentation
•Ashby Village serves as fiscal sponsor and opened the
program to their members
•Age-Friendly Berkeley Initiatives provided connections to
their network
•SEEDS Community Resolution Center developed an interview
and conflict resolution guide
•The Transition Network (TTN) HOME designed and led
workshops for homeowners
•The City of Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board and Rental
Housing Safety Department staff explained local rental laws
•UC Berkeley Campus Counsel and Office of Risk Management
provided guidance and consultation on the agreements, along
with templates to assess risk
•The Cal Housing Assignment Office shared housing data
•Legal Assistance for Seniors reviewed processes and
documents to assess risk
•See page 14 for a full list of partners.
6
“Just getting to know [him] was such a
good experience. I looked at him as
I would one of my grandsons. He was
as diligent, hard-working, earnest,
and straight-forward a person as I
could imagine.”
- Homeowner
7
Pilot Findings
As the first home matching program of its kind on campus, we started with a small
goal of six matches, but we exceeded this by making 10. Matched homes tended to be
close to campus with the average just over two miles away. Home seekers are paying
an average of $990 per month, which is approximately 45% below market rate for
a room in a shared home in Berkeley4. With that average rental price, homeowners
have the potential to earn an average of $11,880 per year, which supports their effort
to age in place.
During the first-year pilot, we received 135 applications and hundreds of inquiries.
Graduate students, postdoctoral scholars, and visiting scholars applied from 30
different departments, indicating the wide appeal of the program.
Applicants of the pilot were asked to rate several factors that influenced their decision
to participate using a 7-point scale (1=“Not Influential”, 7=“Very Influential”).
On average, homeowners rated “helping a student” 5.2, “income” 5.2, and
“companionship” 3.6, while home seekers rated “helping an older adult” 5.03, “rent
price” 6.1, and “companionship” 4.76. Additionally, when homeowners who attended
an orientation event were asked to list their hopes for participating, the most common
category identified was “Companionship/Friendship.” These results indicate that there
is not only interest in home sharing among Berkeley students and retirees, but this
interest is motivated by more than financial need alone.
Further research is needed to understand how this program can support the development
of intergenerational relationships. However, the data above and anecdotal feedback
from several matches indicates there is some potential. Matches who were interested
in spending time with one another from the beginning have reported eating meals
together regularly, attending neighborhood events or religious services, watching
sports, and discussing shared professional interests.
Managing this home sharing program was an extremely efficient use of resources
when compared to other means of adding affordable housing units to the market.
We provided affordable housing for 23 participants (homeowners, home seekers,
and their partners), while it can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to build one
affordable apartment unit.
8
Pilot Findings
A large pool of interested participants is needed to make successful matches,
demonstrating the importance of the Retirement Center’s pre-existing network and
the need for investment in marketing.
Graduate students, postdocs, and visiting scholars from 30 departments applied
to the program during the pilot, showing the wide appeal and need for home
sharing.
9
Pilot Findings
Program applicants are looking for more than financial gain, but both parties do
gain financially from home sharing. This mutually beneficial exchange can be the
basis for the development of meaningful intergenerational relationships.
Location turned out to be a critical factor for home seekers and homes that were
further away from campus of ten were not selected because of concerns for
commuting convenience.
10
“Everything is going really well. We
did a good job of going through
the [Compatibility Discussion Guide]
which gave us a chance to ask each
other lots of questions and imagine
what it would be like to live with
someone that isn’t a family member.”
- Home Seeker
11
Why Berkeley Home Match Is Unique
The strengths of Berkeley Home Match is the program’s ability to:
•Open affordable housing units very quickly and efficiently while
supporting university retirees’ incomes
•Connect to a pre-existing network of local homeowners through
the UC Berkeley Retirement Center
•Provide an outlet for UC Berkeley retirees who want to help
students or do something about the housing shortage
•Educate, support, and create a community for retirees interested
in renting space in their home
Berkeley Home Match brings generations together to support one another with a
mutually beneficial housing solution that has the additional benefit of fostering
intergenerational relationships.
While it is critical that the City of Berkeley and the university expand their affordable
housing options, that process will take a significant amount of time and money. However,
with a tiny fraction of the funding and time needed to build new housing, Berkeley
Home Match can open affordable housing units by simply educating homeowners and
facilitating matches.
While it is possible to find a home share using Cal Rentals or Craigslist, it requires
homeowners to do their own background check, develop their own lease, and learn
about rental best practices on their own. Additionally, students would need to pay for
their own renter’s insurance, navigate interviews on their own, and likely struggle to
find anything that is below market rate.
Berkeley Home Match lowers the barriers to home sharing and increases the likelihood
that participants will have a positive experience.
12
Next Steps: Pilot To Full Scale Program
Bolstering educational components
Our information sessions are key to recruiting new homeowners. We currently offer
one homeowner information session each year, but we would like to have these more
frequently. We would also like to recruit more retiree volunteer coaches to explain the
process and act as a resource for homeowners throughout the application process.
Ideally, some of these volunteers could be past program participants. For students,
we want to create a more robust guide on rental housing safety and best practices so
students are informed as they navigate all of their options. Even if they don’t choose to
participate in our program, we hope to be a resource for students during their housing
search.
Streamlining administration
As our program grows, it will become more difficult and more important to manage
participant data efficiently. We hope to find funding that will help us build better
infrastructure for tracking participants. The Retirement Center uses a Salesforce
database to manage events and operations, so building on that system makes the
most sense.
Expanding our partnership network
The development of this program was only possible because of our many organizational
partners. As we move forward, we would like to strengthen these partnerships and
find other organizations on campus or in the community that we can work with to
continue to improve our program. For example, there are several other organizations
running or developing home sharing programs around the Bay Area.
Adding affordable housing units in Berkeley
We aim to provide 100 affordable housing units in Berkeley annually. This will mean
educating more retirees about the benefits of home sharing, including how it can fit
into the continuum of long-term care planning options, cultivating new relationships
with homeowners, and demonstrating the value of our program. This goal will also
require additional marketing and work with the media.
Expanding to the rest of the UC system
After another year of piloting, we plan to fine tune our home sharing model so it can
be expanded to the entire UC system. Other UC campuses have Retirement Centers,
so there is a ready network for expansion. Some UC campuses, such as UCLA, UCSF,
and UC Santa Cruz have expensive housing markets like Berkeley that could benefit
from a home sharing option.
13
Acknowledgements
A special thanks to the Chancellor’s Community Partnership Fund and Covia for
funding this pilot, Ashby Village for serving as our primary community partner and
fiscal sponsor, and to our partners for their support:
•Age-Friendly Berkeley Initiatives
•At Home With Growing Older
•Berkeley Student Cooperative
•Cal Housing Assignment Office
•City of Berkeley Health, Housing & Community Services
Department
•Legal Assistance for Seniors
•The Berkeley Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Task Force
•The Transition Network (TTN) HOME
•UC Berkeley Division of Student Affairs
•SEEDS Community Resolution Center
•The City of Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board
•The City of Berkeley Rental Housing Safety Department
•UC Berkeley Campus Counsel
•UC Berkeley Office of Risk Management
References
1.UC Berkeley Housing Master Plan Task Force Report, January 2017, https://drive.google.com/open?id=0ByfOaD-
ECgppNWXQ0RzA1MnB1RVE
2. PBS Newshour (October 15, 2019, 6:30 PM EDT), “Soaring housing costs stretch already-strapped college stu-
dents,” URL downloaded on 10/17/19,
3. Emily DeRuy. (June 4, 2017 Sunday). UC Merced pricier than UCLA? The surprising cost to live on campus. The
East Bay Times (California). Retrieved from: https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=news&id=urn:conten-
tItem:5NPN-YHP1-JCX4-64MW-00000-00&context=1516831.
4. UC Berkeley Housing Office, “2017 Typical Rent Averages,” URL downloaded on 10/17/19: https://housing.berke-
ley.edu/sites/default/files/images/Typical%20Average%20Rents%202017.pdf
5. Alameda County Plan for Older Adults 2016-2017, Appendix D, https://www.alamedasocialservices.org/public/
services/elders_and_disabled_adults/docs/planning_committee/Alameda_County_Area_Plan_Final.pdf
6. Danigelis, N. L., & Fengler, A. P. (1990). Homesharing: How social exchange helps elders live at home. The Geron-
tologist, 30(2), 162-170.
14
Berkeley Home Match pilot team:
Cary Sweeney, UC Berkeley Retirement Center, Director
Andy Gaines, Ashby Village, Executive Director
Rachel Bell, UC Berkeley Retirement Center, Program Manager
Melissa Beidler, UC Berkeley Retirement Center & Ashby Village, Volunteer
Report designed by Rachel Bell
UC Berkeley Retirement Center
101 University Hall
Berkeley, CA 94720
510-643-8720
homematch@berkeley.edu
homematch.berkeley.edu
AMENDED IN SENATE AUGUST 30, 2019
AMENDED IN SENATE JULY 11, 2019
AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 26, 2019
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 25, 2019
california legislature—2019–20 regular session
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 302
Introduced by Assembly Member Berman
(Coauthor: Assembly Member Gonzalez)
January 29, 2019
An act to add and repeal Sections 76012 and 76012.5 of the Education
Code, relating to community colleges.
legislative counsel’s digest
AB 302, as amended, Berman. Parking: homeless students.
Existing law establishes the California Community Colleges, under
the administration of the Board of Governors of the California
Community Colleges, and authorizes the governing board of a
community college district to grant the use of college facilities or
grounds for specified purposes. Existing law requires a community
college campus that has shower facilities for student use to grant access,
as specified, to those facilities to any homeless student who is enrolled
in coursework, has paid enrollment fees, and is in good standing with
the community college district, and requires the community college to
determine a plan of action to implement this requirement.
This bill, until December 31, 2022, 2023, would require a community
college campus that has parking facilities on campus to grant overnight
access to those facilities, commencing on or before April July 1, 2020,
95
2021, to any homeless student who is enrolled in coursework, has paid
any enrollment fees that have not been waived, and is in good standing
with the community college, for the purpose of sleeping in the student’s
vehicle overnight. The bill would require the governing board of the
community college district, commencing on or before April July 1,
2020, 2021, and with the participation of student representatives, to
determine a plan of action to implement this requirement, as specified.
The bill would require a community college district to develop a
document that clearly and concisely describes the rules and procedures
established pursuant to the bill’s overnight parking requirements, provide
the document to participating students, and make the document available
at an overnight parking facility in paper form or post the document
conspicuously on the internet website of the community college campus
in which the facility is located. The bill would also grant a community
college district immunity from civil liability for a district employee’s
good faith act or omission that fails to prevent an injury to a participating
student that occurs in, or in close proximity to, and during the hours of
operation of, overnight parking. The bill would limit this immunity by
making the immunity inapplicable to gross negligence, intentional
misconduct, or violations of other provisions of law.
On or before January 31, 2022, 2023, the bill would require the
chancellor’s office to submit to the Legislature and the Governor a
report based on data and information pertaining to the overnight parking
facilities requirements and other housing services offered to homeless
students, concerning which the bill would require the governing boards
to report to the chancellor on or before October 1, 2021. 2022. The
bill’s overnight parking facilities requirements would not apply to a
community college parking facility located within 250 feet of an
elementary school. The bill’s overnight parking facilities requirements
would not apply to a community college campus providing one or more
of 3 specified types of homeless student housing services. On or before
April 30, 2021, 2022, the bill would require the chancellor’s office to
submit to the Legislature and the Governor a report based on data and
information pertaining to the provision of these specified housing
services commencing on or before April July 1, 2020, 2021, and other
housing services offered to homeless students, concerning which the
bill would require community college campuses to report to the
chancellor on or before January 1, 2021. 2022. By imposing additional
duties on community college districts, this bill would impose a
state-mandated local program.
95
— 2 — AB 302
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.
Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates
determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state,
reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory
provisions noted above.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. (a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the
line 2 following:
line 3 (1) The state is experiencing a moral failure in that community
line 4 college students are being forced to live in their vehicles as a result
line 5 of the state’s homelessness and housing crises.
line 6 (2) A recent report released by the Office of the Chancellor of
line 7 the California Community Colleges and the Hope Center for
line 8 College, Community, and Justice, which surveyed nearly 40,000
line 9 students at 57 community colleges, found that 19 percent of the
line 10 survey’s respondents experienced homelessness in the previous
line 11 year.
line 12 (3) Short-term approaches to address the state’s homelessness
line 13 and housing crises are not intended to supplant planning, financing,
line 14 and facilitating long-term solutions to preventing and ending
line 15 homelessness.
line 16 (b) It is the intent of the Legislature that until sufficient housing
line 17 is constructed to address the state’s homelessness and housing
line 18 crises, safe parking programs should be considered as one of many
line 19 short-term approaches to creating a safe space for unsheltered
line 20 homeless persons, including homeless community college students.
line 21 SEC. 2. Section 76012 is added to the Education Code, to read:
line 22 76012. (a) If a community college campus has parking
line 23 facilities on campus, the governing board of the community college
line 24 district shall grant overnight access to those facilities to any
line 25 homeless student for the purpose of sleeping in the student’s
line 26 vehicle overnight, provided that the student is enrolled in
line 27 coursework, has paid enrollment fees if not waived, and is in good
95
AB 302 — 3 —
line 1 standing with the community college district without requiring the
line 2 student to enroll in additional courses.
line 3 (b) The governing board of the community college district shall,
line 4 with the participation of student representatives, determine a plan
line 5 of action to implement subdivision (a) that includes, but is not
line 6 limited to, all of the following:
line 7 (1) A definition of homeless student that is based on the
line 8 definition of homeless youth specified in the federal
line 9 McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. Sec.
line 10 11434a(2)), and reflects the age of the homeless student population
line 11 at the community college campus.
line 12 (2) Overnight parking facilities monitoring and a procedure for
line 13 reporting and responding to threats to the safety of a student
line 14 participating in overnight parking.
line 15 (3) An overnight parking form that must be completed by any
line 16 homeless student seeking to access the overnight parking facilities.
line 17 The community college district shall clearly and conspicuously
line 18 indicate on the form that the district cannot ensure the safety of a
line 19 student who participates in overnight parking.
line 20 (4) Designation of a specific parking area or areas for overnight
line 21 parking.
line 22 (5) Accessible bathroom facilities that are in reasonable
line 23 proximity to the parking area or areas designated pursuant to
line 24 paragraph (4).
line 25 (6) A waiver of parking assessment fees for the overnight
line 26 parking facilities.
line 27 (7) Overnight parking rules that a participating student shall
line 28 follow when using the overnight parking facilities, including a
line 29 zero tolerance policy for the use of drugs or alcohol.
line 30 (8) Hours of operation for the overnight parking facilities.
line 31 (9) A requirement that a participating student be enrolled in, at
line 32 minimum, six units per semester, or the quarterly equivalent, to
line 33 use the overnight parking facilities.
line 34 (10) A procedure for registering and verifying the identity of
line 35 an eligible student and the student’s vehicle. This information shall
line 36 be used exclusively for the purpose of implementing overnight
line 37 parking, and shall not be disclosed for any other purpose, except
line 38 pursuant to a particularized court-issued warrant.
line 39 (11) A procedure for identifying a participating student who
line 40 has engaged in behavior that poses a substantial threat to the
95
— 4 — AB 302
line 1 physical safety of other participating students and, as necessary,
line 2 warning the student to correct the student’s behavior or revoking
line 3 the student’s eligibility to participate in overnight parking on a
line 4 temporary or permanent basis.
line 5 (c) Upon establishing a plan of action pursuant to subdivision
line 6 (b), the community college district shall develop a document that
line 7 clearly and concisely describes the rules and procedures established
line 8 pursuant to subdivision (b). This document shall be provided to
line 9 participating students. This document shall be available at the
line 10 overnight parking facility in paper form, or posted conspicuously
line 11 on the internet website of the community college campus in which
line 12 the facility is located.
line 13 (d) A community college district that implements overnight
line 14 parking that complies with the requirements of subdivisions (b)
line 15 and (c) is not civilly liable for a district employee’s good faith act
line 16 or omission that fails to prevent an injury to a participating student
line 17 that occurs in, or in close proximity to, and during the hours of
line 18 operation of, overnight parking. This immunity does not apply to
line 19 gross negligence, intentional misconduct, or violations of other
line 20 provisions of law.
line 21 (e) It is the intent of the Legislature that homeless students who
line 22 use the overnight parking facilities shall be connected to available
line 23 state, county, community college district, and community-based
line 24 housing, food, and financial assistance resources.
line 25 (f) Commencing on or before April July 1, 2020, 2021, the
line 26 governing board of the community college district shall implement
line 27 subdivisions (a) and (b).
line 28 (g) (1) On or before October 1, 2021, 2022, the governing board
line 29 of the community college district shall report to the Office of the
line 30 Chancellor of the California Community Colleges on the use of
line 31 the overnight parking facilities by its homeless students, the number
line 32 of homeless students served by the overnight parking facilities,
line 33 the socioeconomic and demographic backgrounds of these students,
line 34 other housing services offered to its homeless students, challenges
line 35 and best practices in the operation of the overnight parking
line 36 facilities, and whether students who used the overnight parking
line 37 facilities remained enrolled or graduated from a campus maintained
line 38 by the district.
95
AB 302 — 5 —
line 1 (2) The data and information reported pursuant to paragraph
line 2 (1) shall be disaggregated by campus if the district maintains
line 3 multiple campuses offering overnight parking facilities.
line 4 (h) On or before January 31, 2022, 2023, the chancellor’s office
line 5 shall develop and submit to the Governor and the Legislature,
line 6 pursuant to Section 9795 of the Government Code, a systemwide
line 7 report based on the data and information reported by districts
line 8 pursuant to subdivision (g).
line 9 (i) The chancellor’s office shall conduct a student homelessness
line 10 survey and shall release the results of the survey on or before April
line 11 1, 2022. 2023.
line 12 (j) This section shall not apply to a community college campus
line 13 described in Section 76012.5.
line 14 (k) This section shall remain in effect only until December 31,
line 15 2022, 2023, and as of that date is repealed.
line 16 SEC. 3. Section 76012.5 is added to the Education Code, to
line 17 read:
line 18 76012.5. (a) (1) Section 76012 shall not apply to a community
line 19 college campus providing all of at least one of the following
line 20 services to its homeless students commencing on or before April
line 21 July 1, 2020: 2021:
line 22 (A) Emergency grants that are necessary to secure, or prevent
line 23 the imminent loss of, housing.
line 24 (B) Hotel vouchers through a public agency or community
line 25 organization.
line 26 (C) Rapid rehousing referral services.
line 27 (2) A community college campus described in paragraph (1)
line 28 shall do all of the following:
line 29 (A) Send a stand-alone email to every student enrolled at the
line 30 campus at the beginning of each semester or quarter describing
line 31 available student housing services, and provide a description of
line 32 these services at every student orientation at the campus.
line 33 (B) Provide a housing assistance tab that is clearly visible and
line 34 easily accessible from a drop-down menu on the home page of the
line 35 campus’s internet website.
line 36 (C) (i) On or before January 1, 2021, 2022, report to the Office
line 37 of the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges on the
line 38 implementation of the services described in paragraph (1). The
line 39 report shall include, but not be limited to, all of the following:
line 40 (I) The number of homeless students served by the services.
95
— 6 — AB 302
line 1 (II) The socioeconomic and demographic backgrounds of these
line 2 students.
line 3 (III) Challenges and best practices in the implementation of the
line 4 services.
line 5 (IV) Whether students who used the services remained enrolled
line 6 or graduated from a campus maintained by the district.
line 7 (V) Other housing services offered to the campus’s homeless
line 8 students.
line 9 (ii) The data and information reported pursuant to subclauses
line 10 (I) to (IV), inclusive, of clause (i) shall be disaggregated by each
line 11 service specified in subparagraphs (A) to (C), inclusive, of
line 12 paragraph (1).
line 13 (b) Section 76012 shall not apply to community college parking
line 14 facilities located within 250 feet of an elementary school.
line 15 (b)
line 16 (c) On or before April 30, 2021, 2022, the chancellor’s office
line 17 shall develop and submit to the Governor and the Legislature,
line 18 pursuant to Section 9795 of the Government Code, a report based
line 19 on the data and information reported by colleges pursuant to
line 20 subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a).
line 21 (c)
line 22 (d) This section shall remain in effect only until December 31,
line 23 2022, 2023, and as of that date is repealed.
line 24 SEC. 4. If the Commission on State Mandates determines that
line 25 this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to
line 26 local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made
line 27 pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division
line 28 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
O
95
AB 302 — 7 —
HOUSING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
January 9, 2020
Subject
Commission Proposals for FY 2020-21 City Work Program
Recommended Action
Conduct Public meeting; and
1. Provide a list of proposed City Work Program items and identifying the top
three proposals.
Background
In the December/January timeframe, each Commission will submit proposed ideas for
the City Work Program for the upcoming fiscal year (FY). These proposals will be taken
into consideration by Department Heads and the City Manager when developing the
proposed City Work Program for City Council’s consideration. Commissions should
identify their top 3 proposals and limit proposals to no more than 10.
It is expected that Commission proposals will be evaluated by the Department Head and
City Manager in February and brought to City Council in March for approval. When the
proposed City Work Program is brought to Council in March, the proposals submitted
by the Commissions will be provided as attachments with indications as to which
proposals are reflected in the proposed City Work Program.
Discussion
This item is continued from the December 12, 2019 Housing Commission meeting.
Commissioners deliberated on the following proposals for the City Work Program.
Project/Task Project Objective
Housing Strategies (Part 2) Develop and implement programs to
provide a variety of products across the
affordability levels including housing for
the developmentally disabled, as well as
those with moderate, low, very low, and
extremely low income.
Homelessness (Part 2) 1. Partner with De Anza College and
social service agencies to develop and
implement programs for homeless
students.
2. Partner with West Valley Community
Services and social service agencies to
develop and implement programs for the
homeless community.
3. Support a Safe Park program.
4. Assist in the development of a cold
weather warming station.
Engage with Philanthropic Organizations
to find a way to build ELI housing units for
Developmentally Disabled and Engage
with Habitat for Humanity (or other
nonprofit) to build ownership housing at
10301 Byrne Avenue
1. Identify ways to build ELI housing units
for the developmentally disabled.
2. Look at possibility of building 6-8
affordable ownership townhomes.
Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impact.
Fiscal Impact
Community Development Department resources will be evaluated to identify impact to
staffing and scheduling.
Prepared by: Kerri Heusler, Housing Manager
Reviewed and Approved for Submission by: Benjamin Fu, Director of Community
Development
Attachments:
A - City Work Program Flow Chart
B - Guidance on Commission Proposals for City Work Program
C - FY 2019-20 Housing Commission Work Program
D - Commission Proposals for FY 2020-21 City Work Program
E - Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 2.86
City Work Program Flow Chart
• Note:
o If ideas for work program items come up throughout the year, they should be suggested in the following year’s WP
process in Dec/Jan. If the idea/item requires earlier consideration, Council approval would be required.
o Smaller items that do not require staff time or budget may be added to the Commission Work Program even if they are
not part of the larger City WP.
July (Beginning of Fiscal Year)
•Begin implementation of approved
City Work Program (WP) and
commission WPs for the current
fiscal year (FY).
December-January
•Ideas from staff and commissions
for upcoming FY's City WP
due to Departments (Depts.).
•Depts. update Council on
current City WP.
February
•Council prioritizes City goals at
Priority Setting Session.
•With City goals in mind, Depts.
evaluate City WP ideas and develop
a proposed City WP for the Council's
consideration.
March
•Depts. present proposed City WP to
Council at a study session.
•Feedback from the study session is
incorporated and the final City WP is
brought for Council approval.
April -June
•Commissions develop their WPs
based on approved City WP items.
•Commission WPs brought for
Council's approval as consent
items.
Any additional ideas that come
up throughout the year should
be accumulated for submission
in the following Dec/Jan.
GUIDANCE ON COMMISSION PROPOSALS FOR CITY WORK PROGRAM
Overview of the Process
In the December/January timeframe, each Commission will submit proposed ideas for the
City Work Program for the upcoming fiscal year. These proposals will be taken into consideration
by Department Heads and the City Manager when developing the proposed City Work Program
for Council’s consideration. When the proposed City Work Program is brought to Council in
March, the proposals submitted by Commissions will be provided as attachments with
indications as to which proposals are reflected in the proposed City Work Program. Once the City
Work Program is adopted by Council, Commissions will then develop their Commission Work
Programs based upon the items relevant to them in the approved City Work Program. Smaller
items that do not require staff time or budget may be added to the Commission Work Program
at this point in the process. Final Commission Work Programs should be brought for Council’s
approval as consent items before July. For a flow chart of this process, see the City Work Program
Flow Chart.
Guidance on Commission Proposals for the City Work Program
Commission proposals for the City Work Program should be within the purview of the
Commission, have timelines of 12 months or less, and identify projects or deliverables the
Commission would be interested in addressing over the course of the next fiscal year. When
developing proposals, consider constraints related to:
• Staff resources,
• Budget, and
• Demands from routine business of the Commission.
If there are existing City Work Program items that the Commission would like to propose
continuing into the upcoming year, the Commission should include these items in their list of
proposals. Please identify:
• The Commission’s top three proposals to aid in the prioritization process and
• No more than 10 proposals total for submission. There is no minimum number of
proposals required. Please note that not all proposals will be included in the proposed
City Work Program. When the proposed City Work Program is brought to Council, the
proposals submitted by Commissions will be provided as attachments with indications as
to which proposals are reflected in the proposed City Work Program.
Dec/Jan
•Commission
submits
proposals for
City Work
Program
Feb
•Proposals
evaluated by
Dept Head
and City
Manager
March
•City Council
approves City
Work
Program
April
•Commissions
develop their
Commission
Work Programs
based on City
Work Program
GUIDANCE ON COMMISSION PROPOSALS FOR CITY WORK PROGRAM
Suggested steps to develop Commission proposals for the City Work Program:
1. Review the purpose of the Commission as defined by the Cupertino Municipal Code in
Chapter 2.
2. Discuss and outline any priorities established by Council such as from prior City Work
Programs.
3. Brainstorm proposals relating to the Commission and determine the following:
a. Identify potential projects and deliverables relevant to the Commission.
b. Determine the benefit if the project or deliverable is completed.
c. Is it mandated by State or local law or by Council direction/priority?
d. Would the task or item require a policy change at the Council level?
e. Identify resources needed for completion such as staff time, creation of
Commission subcommittees, coordination with other Commissions etc.
f. What is the timeline to completion? (1 year, 2 year, or longer term?)
i. Proposals should be completable within the upcoming fiscal year (within
12 months). If a project or deliverable will take more than a year, it should
be broken up into phases and the proposal submission should only
include what can be accomplished in the upcoming fiscal year.
g. Determine measurement and evaluation criteria. How will you know you are on
track? How will you determine success?
4. Prioritize projects from urgent to low priority.
5. Identify the top three proposals from the Commission that can reasonably be
accomplished or worked on in the coming year.
6. Submit the Commission Proposals for City Work Program Form.
Project/Task Project ObjectiveDriven by mandate, law, or Council priority/direction? (If yes, please specify)Resources Needed(e.g. funding and # of staff hours)Estimated Completion DateMeasurement Criteria(How will we know how we are doing?)Housing StrategiesExplore the development of strategies that provides a variety of products across the affordability levels including housing for the developmentally disabled, as well as those with moderate, low, very low, and extremely low income.City Work Program FY 2019-20 $20,000 / 50 hours Spring 2020 Draft of effective strategies and tools presented to Housing Commission, Planning Commission, and City Council.HomelessnessConduct audit of services available in Cupertino for the homeless community; confirm estimates of homelessness in Cupertino; explore solutions for homeless students.City Work Program FY 2019-20 $10,000 / 25 hours Spring 2020 Report on status of homelessness presented to Housing Commission and City Council.Engage with Philanthropic Organizations to find a way to build ELI housing units for Developmentally Disabled and Engage with Habitat for Humanity (or other nonprofit) to build ownership housing at 10301 Byrne Avenue1) Identify ways to build ELI housing units for developmentally disabled.2) Look at possibility of building 6-8 affordable ownership townhomes.City Work Program FY 2019-20 $150,000 plus additional development costs to be determined after feasibility study / 150 hoursSpring 2020 / Summer 2020Assist developers/nonprofits, completion of feasiblity study.BMR Linkage Fees UpdateConsider increasing linkage fees for residential and non- residential projects to provide funding for BMR affordable units.City Work Program FY 2019-20 $175,000, 100 hours Summer 2019 Housing Commission study session, Planning Commission study session, City Council study session.Incentives to Build Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)Provide incentives to build ADUs (which provide affordable housing opportunities) by reviewing ordinance and reducing fees.City Work Program FY 2019-20 $0, 40 hours Dec-19 Housing Commission presentation and recommendation, Planning Commission item, City Council item.Short-Term Rentals (STRs)Develop a regulatory program to regulate and collect Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) from STRs.City FY 2019-20 Work Program $17,000, 500 hours Fall 2019 Housing Commission presentation and recommendation.Identifying a list of City owned parcels to be considered for affordable housing (APN, lot size, land use)Identify sites for potential affordable housing developments.N/A $0 / 2 hours Fall 2019 Housing Commission presentation and recommendation.Invite community groups to present affordable housing topicsLearn about organizations that serve Cupertino.N/A $0 / 2 hours Ongoing Housing Commission presentations.Monitor, Participate and Report on regional housing meetings including ABAG, RHNA, and HCD.Commissioners to follow meetings and participate in the process when possible.Council direction $0 / 2 hours Ongoing Commissioner reporting on regional housing meetings including ABAG, RHNA, and HCD.Housing Commission FY 2019-20 Work Program
Cupertino, CA Municipal Code
CHAPT ER 2.86: HOUSING COM M ISSION*
Section
2.86.010 Established-Composition.
2.86.020 Members-Re sidency-Selection.
2.86.030 Terms of office.
2.86.040 Members-Vacancy prior to expiration of a term.
2.86.050 Chairpe rson.
2.86.060 Meetings.
2.86.070 Compensa tion-Expenses.
2.86.080 Majority vote required.
2.86.090 Records.
2.86.100 Duties-P owers-Responsibilities.
2.86.110 City staff assistance.
2.86.120 P rocedural rules.
2.86.130 Effect.
* Editor's note: The title of this chapter was ame nded from Housing Committee by Ord. 1892, and from Afforda ble Housing
Committee by Ord. 1722.
2.8 6 .010 Es tablis he d-Co mpos itio n.
A. The Housing Commission of the City is esta blished. The Housing Commission shall consist of five me mbers as follows:
1. Representative from a Cupertino financial institution,
2. Representative from a Cupertino busine ss,
3. Three community members,
B. The representatives from a financial institution, Cupertino business, and the community members shall not be officials or
employees of the City, nor cohabit with, as defined by law, nor be related by blood or marriage, to a ny member of the Commission, the
City Manager or the staff person(s) assigne d to this Commission.
C. The Direc tor of Community Developme nt, or his or her designee, shall provide technica l assistance to the Commission.
(Ord. 2062, (pa rt), 2010; Ord. 1892, (part), 2002; Ord. 1722, (part), 1996; Ord. 1641, § 1 (part), 1994; Ord. 1576, § 1 (part), 1992)
2.8 6 .020 M e mbe rs -Re s ide ncy-Se le ctio n.
A. Housing Committee me mbers who are representatives of a financial institution or a busine ss are not required to be Cupertino
residents, but the financial institution and the business represe nted must be loca ted in Cupertino. The three community membe rs must
be residents of Cupertino.
B. In selection of community members, the City Council may give priority to:
1. Applicants who represent the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) target areas as described in the city's
Consolidated P la n.
2. Applicants who are fa miliar with the operation of affordable housing;
3. Applicants who represent non-profit community organizations; and
4. Applicants who are knowledgeable about the housing nee ds of groups ta rgeted for affordable housing development which
include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Se niors,
2. Single parent families,
3. Homeless persons,
4. Fa milies of low inc ome,
5. Disabled persons,
6. Renters,
7. First time homebuyers.
(Ord. 2062, (pa rt), 2010; Ord. 1892, (part), 2002; Ord. 1722, (part), 1996; Ord. 1641, § 1 (part), 1994; Ord. 1576, § 1 (part), 1992)
2.8 6 .030 Te rms of Office .
A. Housing c ommissioners serve at the pleasure of the City Council. The term of office of the members of the Housing
Commission shall be for four yea rs commencing on the date of their respective appointments to the Housing Commission or its
predecessor Commission and shall end on January 30th of the year their terms are due to expire. No member shall serve more than
two consecutive terms except that a member may serve more than two consecutive terms if he or she has been appointed to the
Commission to fill an unexpired term of less than two years.
B. The appointment, reappointment and rules governing incumbent members of the Housing Commission are governed by
Resolution No. 8357 of the Cupertino City Counc il.
(Ord. 2062, (pa rt), 2010; Ord. 1974, § 3, 2006; Ord. 1892, (part), 2002; Ord. 1722, (part), 1996; Ord. 1641, § 1 (part), 1994; Ord. 1576,
§ 1 (part), 1992)
2.8 6 .040 M e mbe rs -Vacancy Prio r to Expiratio n of a Te rm.
If a vacancy occurs other tha n by expiration of a term, it sha ll be filled by the City Council's appointment for the unexpired portion of
the term.
(Ord. 2062, (pa rt), 2010; Ord. 1892, (part), 2002; Ord. 1641, § 1 (part), 1994; Ord. 1576, § 1 (part), 1992)
2.8 6 .050 Chairpe rs on.
The Chairperson and Vice Chairperson shall be elected from among Commission members. Terms shall be for one year.
(Ord. 2062, (pa rt), 2010; Ord. 2015, § 4, 2008; Ord. 1892, (part), 2002; Ord. 1641, § 1 (part), 1994; Ord. 1576, § 1 (part), 1992)
2.8 6 .060 M e e tings .
A. The Housing Commission shall establish a regular time and place of meeting and rules of conduct thereof and shall hold a t least
one regular meeting each quarter.
B. A majority of the Housing Commission shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of transacting the business of the Commission.
(Ord. 2062, (pa rt), 2010; Ord. 1892, (part), 2002; Ord. 1722, (part), 1996; Ord. 1697, (part), 1995; Ord. 1641, § 1 (part), 1994; Ord.
1576, § 1 (part), 1992)
2.8 6 .070 Co mpe ns ation-Ex pe ns e s .
Members shall serve on the Housing Commission without c ompe nsation.
(Ord. 2062, (pa rt), 2010; Ord. 1892, (part), 2002; Ord. 1722, (part), 1996; Ord. 1697, (part), 1995; Ord. 1641, § 1 (part), 1994; Ord.
1576, § 1 (part), 1992)
2.8 6 .080 M ajo rity Vote Re quire d.
A majority vote of the quorum is required to a pprove a recommendation on any matter that is presented to the Commission which
requires a vote.
(Ord. 2062, (pa rt), 2010; Ord. 1892, (part), 2002; Ord. 1641, § 1 (part), 1994; Ord. 1576, § 1 (part), 1992)
2.8 6 .090 Re c o rds .
The Commission shall keep an a ccurate record of its proceedings and transactions and shall render such reports to the City Council
and P lanning Commission a s may be required.
(Ord. 2062, (pa rt), 2010; Ord. 1892, (part), 2002; Ord. 1641, § 1 (part), 1994; Ord. 1576, § 1 (part), 1992)
2.8 6 .100 Dutie s -Powe rs -Re s pons ibilitie s .
The powers and functions of the Housing Commission shall be as follows:
A. To a ssist the P lanning Commission and the City Counc il in developing housing policies and strategies for implementation of
general plan housing element goals;
B. To recommend policies for implementation and monitoring of affordable housing projects;
C. To facilitate innovative approaches to affordable housing development and to generate ideas and interest in pursuing a variety of
housing options;
D. When re quested by the Director of Community Deve lopment or the City Council, to make re commendations to the P lanning
Commission a nd the City Council regarding a ffordable housing proposals in connection with applications for development including, but
not limited to, recommendations for possible fe e waivers, other incentives, the number and type of affordable units and the targe t
groups to be served. Any referral to the Housing Commission shall be limited to consideration of affordable housing proposals which
exceed normal housing requirements under the applicable provisions of the City's general plan or ordinances related thereto;
E. To make recommenda tions regarding requests for money from the CDBG and Affordable Housing Funds;
F. To provide information about affordable housing;
G. To meet with neighborhood, community, re gional and business groups a s ne cessary to receive input and assist in generating
affordable housing;
H. To help identify sources of funds to de velop and build affordable housing;
I. To perform any other advisory functions a uthorized by the City Council.
(Ord. 2062, (pa rt), 2010; Ord. 1892, (part), 2002; Ord. 1722, (part), 1996; Ord. 1641, § 1 (part), 1994; Ord. 1576, § 1 (part), 1992)
2.8 6 .110 City Staff As s is tance .
The Housing Commission shall have available to it such assistance of City staff a s may be required to perform its functions, the staff
assignments a nd administrative procedures to be under the general direction a nd supervision of the Director of Community
Development.
(Ord. 2062, (pa rt), 2010; Ord. 1892, (part), 2002; Ord. 1722, (part), 1996; Ord. 1641, § 1 (part), 1994; Ord. 1576, § 1 (part), 1992)
2.8 6 .120 Proce dural Rule s .
The Housing Commission may adopt from time to time such rules of procedure as it may de em necessary to properly exercise its
powers and duties. Such rules shall be kept on file with the chairperson of the Housing Commission, the Mayor, and the City Clerk,
and a copy there of shall be furnished to any person upon request.
(Ord. 2062, (pa rt), 2010; Ord. 1892, (part), 2002; Ord. 1722, (part), 1996; Ord. 1641, § 1 (part), 1994; Ord. 1576, § 1 (part), 1992)
2.8 6 .130 Effe ct.
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed a s restricting or c urtailing any powers of the City Council, P lanning Commission or City
officers.
(Ord. 2062, (pa rt), 2010; Ord. 1892, (part), 2002; Ord. 1641, § 1 (part), 1994; Ord. 1576, § 1 (part), 1992)
Project/Task Project Objective
Driven by mandate, law, or Council
priority/direction?
(If yes, please specify)
Resources Needed
(e.g. funding and # of staff
hours)
May be updated by Dept as
appropriate.
Estimated Completion Date
May be updated by Dept as
appropriate.
Measurement Criteria
(How will we know how we are doing?)
[Commission] Proposals for
FY 2020-21 City Work Program