POL 193 Research FINAL

Page ! of !1 25
Kiana Okhovat
kokhovat@ucdavis.edu
University of California, Davis
University of California Center Sacramento
Department of Political Science
POL 192A/B & POL 193
Dr. Erik Engstrom
Teaching Assistant Jordan Kujala
Summer 2015
How to end Homelessness in CA

Page ! of !2 25
1. Introduction
California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris has declared the fight against human sex
trafficking a priority for the California Department of Justice. However, in order to be successful
in the fight against human sex trafficking, we must first eliminate the root of human sex
trafficking: homelessness. (Ryan, 2013). By first combating homelessness, human sex trafficking
will decrease as well. This research paper will address why California hasn’t solved its homeless
catastrophe, when the solution to homelessness is so clear. I will provide a background on
homelessness and its relation to the sex industry, and a history of the actions that lead to
California’s current homeless crisis. I will then discuss key bills in California that attempted to
fight homelessness, and will then turn to Utah as an example of a state that has been extremely
successful in combating homelessness. The goal of this paper is to raise awareness about the
homelessness disaster in California, and demonstrate that it is possible to in fact find and
implement a solution.
As an intern for Senator Benjamin Allen’s office, I’ve been researching this topic in
hopes of assisting the office in drafting public policy regarding this matter, which is an important
item on their agenda. Senator Allen represents California Senate District 26, located in Southern
California. It’s 9.4% of Los Angeles County. The cities in the district include Beverly Hills,
Santa Monica (the Senator’s hometown), West Hollywood, Torrance, Manhattan Beach,
Redondo Beach (where our district office is located), and Hermosa Beach. It also encompasses
the southern part of the Channel Islands. (“California's 26th State Senate District,” 2015).
California’s population estimate in 2014 was 38,802,500 people (“California,” 2015). In that 38
million, California houses 20% of the nation’s homeless. (Henry, Cortes, Shivji, and Buck,

Page ! of !3 25
2014). The majority of them are disproportionately represented in Southern California, which
holds more than half of California’s population. As a representative of a Southern Californian
Senate District, finding a solution to homelessness is even more important for Senator Allen.
2. Background on homelessness
Of California’s total homeless population, 27% are chronically homeless, 20% are in
households with at least one parent and one child, 10% are veterans, and 10% are victims of
domestic violence. (“Bill Analysis,” 2015). On top of that, California has the highest rate of
unsheltered homeless people, at 62.7%. There are 113,952 homeless people in California, and
71,437 of them are unsheltered. (Boden and Selbin, 2015).
The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights lists housing as a human right. (“The
Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” The United Nations). I agree 100% with this statement.
As they had said, without housing, everything, especially your health, is affected. This matter
should be of more importance to California, than to any other state. For the state that houses
more of the nation’s homeless than any other state, (Henry, Cortes, Shivji, and Buck, 2014), it
also has the most laws that criminalize the homeless rather than helping them. (Palta, 2015). The
California state government never got very involved in homelessness, leaving the counties and
cities to fend for themselves with ordinances. (Boden and Selbin, 2015). Researchers from the
Policy Advocacy Clinic at the University of California at Berkeley Law School identified and
analyzed more than 500 municipal laws that criminalize standing, sitting, resting, sleeping, and
sharing of food in public spaces in its report “California’s New Vagrancy Laws: The Growing
Enactment and Enforcement of Anti-Homeless Laws in the Golden State.” However,
criminalizing homelessness won’t make it go away. In fact, criminalizing it is not only incredibly

Page ! of !4 25
expensive, but it is a waste of time, money, and resources. By criminalizing homelessness, we’re
providing funds to sustain homelessness.
Laws enforced against people who have no choice but to live in public should raise some
serious moral, ethical, and constitutional concerns. Most homeless people in California are
unsheltered, meaning they sleep in public out of necessity. It seems unfair to punish them for
something that is out of their control. Many municipal codes have yet to be challenged, most
likely because the citizens our laws target, our homeless population, are among the least likely
members of society to use legal assistance. The number of ordinances targeting the listed
behaviors rose with the increase in homelessness following the sharp decline of federal funding
for affordable housing in the 1980s and again with the Great Recession in 2008. (Fisher, Miller,
and Walter, 2015). More humane and more productive alternatives to criminalization exist, such
as affordable housing.
3. Relationship between homelessness and the sex industry
Homelessness is a stepping stone to unsafe, unhealthy environments. This environment is
especially toxic to our most vulnerable homeless victims — runaway and homeless youth.
Studies show that poverty, homelessness, survival sex, prostitution, and human sex trafficking
are all linked together. Approximately 28% of street youths and 10% of shelter youths reported
having participated in survival sex. Survival sex is the act of giving sex in exchange for food,
money, drugs, etc. Anything that the woman is in need of at the time, to keep on surviving. It’s a
last resort, an act of desperation performed on a survival needs basis. (Greene, Ennett, and
Ringwal, 1999).

Page ! of !5 25
Research consistently confirms the correlation between running away and becoming
exploited through prostitution. The majority of prostituted women have been runaways. In San
Fransisco, 96% of prostituted women were runaways, 72% in Boston and 56% in
Chicago. (Clawson, Dutch, Solomon, and Grace, 2009). Once on the street, homeless youth are
at risk for being victimized because they lack funds and skills to survive on their own. Often
having come from chaotic families, runaways tend to lack strategies for problem solving and
meeting basic needs such as food, clothing, and shelter. As a result, some minors turn to
substance abuse, crime, and “survival sex” to meet their basic needs. Furthermore, exposure to
the dangers of the street makes them more visible, vulnerable, and at greater risk of being
victimized by human sex traffickers. (Clawson, Dutch, Solomon, and Grace, 2009).
There is evidence showing that survival sex can eventually lead to the individual
becoming a victim of human sex trafficking. (Bigelsen and Vuotto, 2013). A case study explains
— what started out as survival sex with a few men turned into the men eventually capturing her,
and using her in their human sex trafficking activities. Exploiters, such as these men, seek out
desperate, vulnerable individuals already engaging in survival sex. A study found five incidents
of survival sex, including stripping and independent prostitution, which eventually led to
trafficking situations where the victim was forced into continuing these activities for the benefit
of a pimp or violent boss. (Bigelsen and Vuotto, 2013)
Once in the sex industry, it’s hard to get out. Many victims, after a period of trauma when
forced commercial sex activity became a fundamental part of their daily existence, have trouble
reintegrating into mainstream society after their escape. However, even when the victims manage
to escape, what sometimes happens is that the women revert to independent survival sex or to

Page ! of !6 25
another pimp. They feel like commercial sex activity was all they knew. (Bigelsen and Vuotto,
2013). Besides being seduced and kidnapped into sex trafficking, most slaves are also shockingly
recruited by former slaves. The vast majority of international (87%) and US (92%) slaves use
drugs and alcohol to survive the trauma of unwanted sex and their ordeals. There are high levels
of drug and alcohol abuse in this population. (Spector, 2009). This process of numbing leads sex
slaves to believe that the life of a slave is the best life they deserve, and causes them to recruit
other girls. (Kara S, 2009). This cycle can end, if we address homelessness and provide stable,
permanent, affordable housing to our citizens.
Even if homeless women don’t partake in survival sex or prostitution, they’re still
especially vulnerable to being abused sexually by predators, outside on the streets. The condition
of homelessness itself dramatically increases women's risk of being sexually assaulted. Women
on the streets do not enjoy the same degree of safety as women who have homes. The resources
and options to deal with the trauma of a sexual assault are not available to homeless women.
Homeless women lack telephones, making a hotline unavailable. However, even if they had a
telephone, with no internet access they wouldn’t know which hotline to call. (Goodman, Fels,
and Glenn, 2011). Even in shelters, homeless women often lack access to resources needed to
help them cope with their assault, since most shelters are unsafe themselves. Shelters serve a
maximum number of people with limited dollars, and since most communities are often
unwilling to host shelters in their neighborhoods, shelters are forced to often locate near or
within high-crime areas. (Goodman, Fels, and Glenn, 2011).
Furthermore, homeless sexual assault victims are very unlikely to turn to law
enforcement for assistance. In general, sexual assault and rape reporting rates are very low

Page ! of !7 25
among homeless women. This could be for a variety of reasons. Firstly, and most importantly,
they may not see the police as a source of protection and safety, especially if the sexual assault
occurred during illegal activities, such as with drugs or prostitution, or if they already have a
criminal record. This lack of trust for police officers is not unfounded, since most interactions
between the police and the homeless occur for negative reasons, with the police arresting the
homeless for existing in public, whether it be sleeping on the streets, begging in public, or
sleeping in public at night. Also, since homeless women live out in the streets, they may be
reluctant to report their assault for fear of retaliation from their abuser. They most likely also lack
someone to be support them during the reporting process. They might also be reluctant to turn to
yet another agency that they believe will be unresponsive to their concerns, based on past
histories with other systems. In short, it comes as no surprise that homeless women often feel
trapped and helpless. (Goodman, Fels, and Glenn, 2011).
4. President Ronald Reagan’s legacy
What the main cause of the homeless crisis in California was the sharp decline of federal
funding for affordable housing in the 1980s, a result of the two term Reagan presidency. This
decline of federal funding has led California, and the rest of the states in the nation, to choke
financially, they have no more support from the government to fight homelessness. Ronald
Reagan came to office in 1981 with a mandate to reduce federal spending. What he ended up
doing was increasing federal spending, by expanding the military budget, and then cut funds
from domestic programs that assisted working class Americans, especially the poor. The most
dramatic cut in domestic spending during the Reagan years was for low-income housing
subsidies. He then appointed a housing task force to take care of the low-income housing

Page ! of !8 25
subsidies in the nation, (dominated by politically connected developers, landlords and bankers),
who in 1982 released a report that called for “free and deregulated” markets as an alternative to
government assistance. In his first year in office Reagan sliced the budget in half for public
housing and Section 8 to about $17.5 billion. And for the next few years he sought to eliminate
federal housing assistance to the poor altogether. In the 1980s the proportion of the eligible poor
who received federal housing subsidies declined. In 1970 there were 300,000 more low-cost
rental units (6.5 million) than low-income renter households (6.2 million). By 1985 the number
of low-cost units had fallen to 5.6 million, and the number of low-income renter households had
grown to 8.9 million, a disparity of 3.3 million units. It’s not surprising that by the time President
Reagan left office, homelessness had exploded in the nation — by the late 1980s it had swollen
to 600,000 on any given night – and 1.2 million over the course of a year. Many were Vietnam
veterans, children, and laid-off workers. (Dreier, 2004).
5. House the homeless
But the good news is, we’re not alone. Every state in our nation has suffered the cost of
President Reagan’s actions. Some have been better at dealing with it, so we can learn from them.
Based on the data, the obvious solution to homelessness is rapid housing, implementing a
housing first initiative. Housing first means you provide a homeless individual with a place to
live, without requiring any perquisites, such as first passing a series of drug tests. Instead, you
use the provided housing as a platform to address and overcome other barriers that contribute to
their long term homelessness, and help stabilize their lives so that they can be self sufficient
again. A housing first approach makes sense, for if one’s homeless, it’s often hard to address
other problems. It’s easier to address those problems when basic needs, like having a home, are

Page ! of !9 25
met first. After all, it seems unreasonable and counterproductive to ask a homeless individual to
pass certain tests as a prerequisite to housing, when the individual is first in need of the safe
housing to be able to effectively pass the tests. (Day, Pendleton, Smith, Hartvigsen, Frost,
Tolman, Kohler, and Quackenbush, 2014). Rapid rehousing programs are fantastic because
they’re very comprehensive, and flexible as well. This is because they're individually tailored to
the needs of the person or the household being served. Rapid rehousing programs offer case
management services, landlord mediation, housing navigation, rental assistance, utility or
security deposit payments. They also help people leverage additional resources from the state
and federal government. This assistance goes on as long as needed until the individual or family
can self sustain, so that service can be provided to the next homeless individual/household in
need. Of course, the funds the state currently receives to assist on rapid rehousing is gravely
underfunded. Rapid rehousing is made possible through adequate funding, so we will need to
adjust our state budget to accommodate this, as other states have.
Utah has been the most successful state in the country at decreasing the homeless in their
population by aggressively implementing a housing first policy. Providing houses to the
homeless is less expensive than providing shelter to the homeless (in the long run). Why can’t
California, the most homeless-populated state in the nation, follow Utah’s example?
6. Key bills in relation to homelessness
California has attempted to address this issue with several important bills, but to no avail.
As I stated before, the state government in general doesn’t get very involved in this issue, leaving
it up to the cities and counties to fend for themselves. I will describe some important, attempted
bills, nonetheless.

Page ! of !10 25
Senate Bill (SB) 608, authored by Senator Carol Lui, titled “Right to Rest Act” was
introduced in the 2015-2016 regular legislative session, is the most substantial and complex of
the bills. The goal of SB 608 was to allow the homeless to exist in public without being
criminalized. They would be allowed to sleep and eat in public without being punished. The
problem with this bill was that it wasn’t practical. It was going to create a blanket policy for the
whole state that would enforce all parts of the bills, even if some of the parts of the bill weren’t
beneficial to the whole state. The bigger problem was that SB 608 was not going to make
homelessness go away. Rather, it was an attempt at a nondiscrimination law. SB 608 was a very
controversial bill, it took up nearly two hours of the Senate Transportation and Housing
Committee Hearing on April 7, 2015. (“Senate Standing Committee on Transportation and
Housing Hearing of 04-07-2015,” 2015).
With poverty and homelessness reaching record numbers in California, there has been
undocumented increase in laws that target people without homes and impact the poor. These anti-
homeless laws — commonly referred to as ‘vagrancy,’ ‘quality of life,’ or ‘anti-nuisance’ laws’
— deny people the right to exist in public. In a report published by the United States Interagency
Council on Homelessness, shows that the enforcement of laws against resting is ineffective. It
does not increase business revenue or improve public perception of the problem of homelessness.
In fact, these laws make it harder for people to escape homelessness because the resulting
warrants, fines, and criminal records make people ineligible for jobs and housing. According to
the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, California althea largest number of
homeless families, unaccompanied youth, and homeless veterans. A survey of homeless people

Page ! of !11 25
revealed that the majority of them do not know of a safe place to sleep at night where they would
not be arrested. (“Bill Analysis,” 2015).
Senator Cathleen Galgiani brought up an interesting point that provided an important
angle of opposition to the bill. She was opposing the bill not only because it wasn’t going to help
solve homelessness, but also because it was going to take valuable authority away from law
enforcement. During the committee hearing, stories were told of the homeless being violently
woken up by the police for sleeping on the street, or being arrested for existing in the public. If in
some parts of the state, law enforcement is used in a heavy-handed way to discriminate against
the homeless, which is really what SB608 is trying to address, then the behavior of law
enforcement in California needs to be addressed, more than anything else. SB608 would lessen
the power of law enforcement all throughout the state, and that wouldn’t be safe since there are
numerous districts who desperately need and rely on their law enforcement. Senator Ted Gaines
furthered this comment, saying that although SB608 attempts to decriminalize homelessness, in
the end homeless individuals in need of services still remains. (“Senate Standing Committee on
Transportation and Housing Hearing of 04-07-2015,” 2015).
Senator Jim Beall, who was one of the final senators to wrap up the discussion regarding
SB 608, was the one to offer the most help in how to provide affordable housing to Californians.
He began by first stating that the answer to homelessness is obviously affordable housing.
Through affordable housing, rapid rehousing, homeless individuals can be placed in a stable
environment, where they can begin to focus on their other problems and effectively address
those, whether it be treatment, or any other needs they have. He affirmed that keeping the
homeless in jail, because they can’t pay the fines they’re charged for existing in public, to be

Page ! of !12 25
incredibly expensive for the state, nearly $100,000 a year. He predicted that at the current rate,
we’re going to end up bankrupting the state government, just relying the homeless in and out of
shelters and crisis centers and prisons and hospitals, without ever addressing the core issue and
finding a permanent, cost-effective solution. (“Senate Standing Committee on Transportation and
Housing Hearing of 04-07-2015,” 2015).
Everyone else in opposition of the bill — lobbyists and senators alike — centered their
arguments around their concern for the lack of affordable housing problem in California, which
is the answer to homelessness. Daniel Carrigg, representing the League of California Cities, said
that cities are struggling to address their homeless population due to the fact that the state and
federal government had withdrawn aid and assistance starting in the 1980s. John Bauters,
representing Housing California, stated “rapid rehousing has been supported by the federal
government and HUD (US Housing & Urban Development Department) promotes it as one of its
prioritized, evidence-based models for ending homeless, employing the housing first principle.”
Senators Connie Levya and Mike McGuire echoed this sentiment, and that in addition to focus
on affordable housing, the government should also focus on keeping unemployment low.
(“Senate Standing Committee on Transportation and Housing Hearing of 04-07-2015,” 2015). I
agree. People are already spending substantial money and time in dealing with the homeless, so
let’s invest that time and money better in a way that would actually solve the problem.
Assembly Bill (AB) 870, authored by Assembly Member Ken Cooley, titled
“Homelessness: rapid rehousing” was introduced in the 2015-2016 regular legislative session.
This bill attempts to address the financial issue that prevents California from adopting a solution
to homelessness. His bill would supply supplemental funds to existing federal Emergency

Page ! of !13 25
Solutions Grants (EGS) programs. EGS provides funding to states for homeless prevention and
rapid rehousing activities. This bill would appropriate $2 million from the General Fund to the
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to administer a two-year program
to provide grants to four counties or private nonprofit organizations with a demonstrated high
funding need for rapid re-housing programs. The bill would require the Department of Housing
and Community Development to give priority to countries with existing programs that have
demonstrated effectiveness in providing rapid rehousing for homeless individuals and veterans.
The bill would require the department to distribute this money equally to each of the selected
counties and private nonprofit organizations, less an amount of up to 5% deducted for
administrative purposes. So, each receiving party would receive 237,500 over the two years. The
bill would have a sunset on on January 1, 2018. (Cooley, 2015).
This bill is inadequate. It’s a good start, but $237,500, for four agencies in the largest
state in the nation, is nothing.
7. California’s economic barriers
California’s homelessness rates have risen due to the state’s lack of affordable housing
and decreased funding from the loss of redevelopment. Rents have risen to levels that make it
difficult for low-wage workers to find affordable rental units. California has one of the nation’s
highest rates of ‘poor renters’ — people that spend more than 50% of their income on rent.
While most homeless people in the US lived in emergency shelters or transitional housing in
2013, most homeless people in California were unsheltered. California’s high housing costs and
shortage of shelters leave many homeless people with no choice but to rest and sleep in public.
(“Bill Analysis,” 2015).

Page ! of !14 25
A key economic barrier in California to implement a solution for homelessness, as
they've done in Utah, is inadequate funding. If the federal government has cut funding to its
states, then it’s up to the states to responsibly plan their state budgets to compensate for this loss.
We’ve done the opposite and have even further cut aid to the our homeless population. In the
2011-2012 fiscal year, the redevelopment funds for affordable housing was taken out of the state
budget. (“Should California End Redevelopment Agencies?” 2011).
I will explain what redevelopment funds are, and how they were established in our state.
Every year, Californians pay over $45 billion in property taxes. County auditors then distribute
these revenues to local agencies—schools, community colleges, the counties, cities, and special
districts—as prescribed by state law. Of all the taxes Californians pay, the revenue from property
taxes represent the largest source of local general purpose revenues for said local agencies. Now,
more than 60 years ago, the Legislature established a process win which a city or county can
declare an area to be in need of redevelopment. From that point forth, most property tax revenue
growth that came from this declared ‘project area’ was distributed to the city or county’s
redevelopment agency, instead of the other local agencies serving the project area. In the
beginning that this redevelopment law was established, not many communities established
project areas, and if they did, they were small, generally ten to 100 acres. However, in the past 35
years, they’ve grown substantially, both in number and in size, several project areas are as big as
20,000 acres. As a result, this has contributed to the redevelopment’s share of total statewide
property taxes has from 2 percent to 12 percent. Some local agencies in some counties have
created so many project areas, that more than 25 percent of all property tax revenue collected in
the county are allocated to a redevelopment agency, not the schools, community colleges, or

Page ! of !15 25
other local governments. Now this is problematic, this wasn’t the original goal of the
redevelopment law when it was established more than 60 years ago. California’s expansive use
of redevelopment has cause significant and righteous controversy. Advocates of the program say
that it is a much needed tool to assist underdeveloped areas in a country, and program critics
argue that redevelopment takes away property tax revenues from core government services and
increases state education costs. (“Should California End Redevelopment Agencies?” 2011).
Surprisingly, not all of the property tax revenue that’s given to the redevelopment
agencies is allowed to be used for redevelopment purposes, as I would have hoped. It seems
counter-productive to not do so. Instead, state law requires redevelopment agencies to spend only
20 percent of it for low– and moderate–income housing. Additionally, in order to partially make
up for the loss of growth in property tax revenues for other local agencies (such as the schools,
etc), state law requires redevelopment agencies to “pass through” to other agencies a portion of
their revenues. Statewide, redevelopment agencies pass through an average of about 22 percent
of their property tax increment revenues. (“Should California End Redevelopment Agencies?”
2011).
The California State Legislature has attempted numerous times in the past — specifically
10 times in the past two decades — to require the redevelopment agencies to give funds to
schools, since the more the state gives to redevelopment, the more the education costs increase
for the state. In 2009–10, for example, the Legislature required redevelopment agencies to shift
$2 billion of redevelopment funds to schools over two years. Obviously, however, voters liked
the redeveloped funds and passed Prop 22, opposing the State Legislature’s action. The voter’s
recent approval of Proposition 22 prohibits the Legislature from enacting these types of revenue

Page ! of !16 25
shifts in the future. This limits the Legislature’s options for managing the costs of
redevelopment, the only other option they have would be to dissolve the program, unless of
course voters pass another Proposition against that decision as well. In any case, even though
that’s the only other option, dissolving a program of this magnitude would be very complicated
and disruptive. It’s been in place in California for decades and many citizens rely on it. It would
do more harm than good. Program changes of this magnitude inevitably pose administrative,
policy, and legal difficulties. Instead, it would be in the state’s best interests to draft a better,
improved, more targeted economic development program that’s focused on having 100%
affordable housing availability in each respective county in the state. (“Should California End
Redevelopment Agencies?” 2011).
Until that happens, all we have is the funding from the state budget, which is not enough
to satisfy the needs of our state regarding homelessness. For this year’s budget, 2015-2016, the
General Fund is $115,369,000. (“Summary Charts,” 2015). Of that $115,369 million dollars, $35
million is going to CalWORKs Housing Support Program services, an increase of $15 million,
which provides additional support to CalWORKs families for whom homelessness is a barrier to
self-sufficiency. (“Health and Human Services,” 2015).
8. Costs of homelessness
Money is a big issue in regards to homelessness. Los Angeles itself spends $100 million a
year dealing with homelessness. (Holland, 2015). The majority of that $100 million — $87
million — goes not to affordable housing, but is wasted on arrests, skid row patrols, and mental
health interventions. By providing affordable housing, those arrests, skid row patrols and mental
health interventions will lessen in the future.

Page ! of !17 25
A study from Los Angeles — the most homeless city in the nation and home to 10% of
the nation’s homeless population — found that placing four chronically homeless people into
permanent supportive housing saved the city more than $80,000 per year. That’s just four
individuals, imagine how much many LA would save by placing all their homeless into
permanent housing. (Lewit, 2009).
A tremendous cost of homelessness that’s particular to California is all the criminalizing
homeless municipal laws that exist in our state— they’re incredibly wasteful. In San Fransisco,
for example, even if citations take 10 minutes or less to issue, such enforcement adds up to
significant police time each year, funneling time and money away from more serious matters.
Superior Court processing costs for anti-homeless citations were estimated at $4.10 per case in
2000, resulting in a total cost of $77,900 for anti- homeless citations that year. The San Francisco
District Attorney’s office then spent $317,086 processing anti-homeless infractions and
misdemeanors in the same fiscal year. With inflation and heightened enforcement, these figures
are almost certainly higher today. Cities across California similarly expend resources to process
citations, likely resulting in a financial cost of millions of dollars per year statewide. (Sabatini,
2014).
Even these costs, however, do not fully capture the fiscal impact of criminalization. As
I’ve stated before, citations and arrests and criminalized vulnerable citizens do nothing to solve
the issue of homelessness, it only creates an ongoing cycle. Further costs of homelessness
include hospitalization and medical treatment. According to a report in the New England Journal
of Medicine, homeless people spent an average of four days longer per hospital visit than
comparable non-homeless people. This is an extra cost of approximately $2,414 per

Page ! of !18 25
hospitalization. Another study found that the average cost to California hospitals of treating a
substance abuser is about $8,360 for those in treatment, and $14,740 for those who are not, who
are more often than not homeless. Prisons and jails burden another cost. People who are
homeless spend more time in jail or prison, which is tremendously costly to the state and locality,
especially when they are put in jail for acts of existing in public. According to a University of
Texas two-year survey of homeless individuals, each person cost taxpayers $14,480 per year,
primarily for overnight jail. (“Cost of Homelessness,” 2015).
Homelessness is a financial strain on our citizens. Higher utilization of emergency
services such as emergency rooms, police and ambulance response, and jail stays are more
common among homeless individuals due to their common exposure to outdoor elements,
violence, and other unsafe or unhealthy environments. Since the homeless don’t have the means
to pay for emergency services or other services, these costs are covered by the taxpayer. (Day,
Pendleton, Smith, Hartvigsen, Frost, Tolman, Kohler, and Quackenbush, 2014).
9. Affordable housing
Affordable housing is the solution to homelessness. Affordable housing means that no
more than 30% of your income goes to paying your lease. City officials cited the lack of
affordable housing as the leading cause of homelessness among families with children. This was
followed by poverty, unemployment, eviction, and domestic violence. (“Hunger and
Homelessness Remain Most Pressing Issues for US Cities,” 2012). The lack of housing, apart
from poverty rates and unemployment can significantly contribute to the number of persons who
will experience homelessness. Other causes of homelessness include: lack of income from
employment or public sources relative to cost of living, disabling conditions, domestic violence,

Page ! of !19 25
divorce or the sudden loss of household income, incarceration and having a criminal background,
exhaustion of friend and family resources or support, and lack of health insurance. A
combination of these circumstances makes people more vulnerable to becoming homeless in the
event of a crisis, particularly with a lack of affordable and available housing.
A recent report on housing and rental market trends from the Joint Center for Housing
Studies at Harvard University shows that rents have been rising across the nation while the
supply of affordable housing has been falling. This growing imbalance has forced many low-
income renters at particular risk for homelessness. (Doran, 2015). There is a strong link between
affordable housing and homelessness. Several studies looking at the rate of homelessness across
metropolitan areas found that as the rate of affordable or available housing decreases, the total
number of homeless persons increases. (Day, Pendleton, Smith, Hartvigsen, Frost, Tolman,
Kohler, and Quackenbush, 2014). A state that has been very successful in accomplishing this has
been Utah.
10. Utah
In 2014, Utah had a population estimate of 2,942,902. (“Utah,” 2015). Of that, only 3,081
are homeless. In 2005, Utah implemented a 10-year plan to end both chronic and veteran
homelessness by the end of 2015. In order for Utah to meet its ten-year goal this year, it needs to
provide 539 more chronically homeless persons and 20 homeless veterans housing opportunities
and supportive services. Since 2005, chronic homelessness has declined 72% and chronic
homelessness among veterans has reached zero. Declines are primarily due to the provision of
permanent supportive housing for targeted individuals using a housing first approach.

Page ! of !20 25
I think what makes it difficult for us to muster the energy to combat homelessness in
California is that we don’t care enough and empathize with them. Homelessness can expose
individuals and families to traumatic events, or aggravate their current circumstances making it
more difficult to access needed resources and regain the ability to support themselves. Children
are particularly vulnerable to the effects of homelessness, which can interrupt their schooling,
become an obstacle in development of positive peer and mentoring relationships, or expose
them, naturally, to dangerous or unhealthy environments. Early experience with homelessness
can have long-term effects for children and young adults, including becoming homeless later in
life. (Day, Pendleton, Smith, Hartvigsen, Frost, Tolman, Kohler, and Quackenbush, 2014).
I believe Utah’s sense of empathy for the homeless to be a reason why they’ve been
successful at their implementation of their 10 year plan — Utahans have a heavier sense of faith
and philanthropic responsibility. Of Utah’s 2,942,902, 1,910,504 are Mormon. That’s 65%.
That’s the highest rate in the country. The next highest Mormon rate is in Idaho, at 26%. In
Idaho, their population is 1,634,464 and 409,265 are Mormon. (“2010 - State - Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints,” 2010). Their homeless population is 3,122. That’s 0.2%. (Henry,
Cortes, Shivji, and Buck, 2014). California’s population estimate in 2014 was 38,802,500 people
(“California,” 2015). Of that number 763,818 are Mormon. (“2010 - State - Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints,” 2010).
The decline in numbers of families experiencing homelessness as well as the drop in
Utah’s overall rate of homelessness support the success of permanent housing programs such as
permanent supportive housing an rapid rehousing. In their 2014 Comprehensive Report on
Homelessness, Utah officials listed key steps in which were followed to end chronic

Page ! of !21 25
homelessness. In order to accomplish the goal of ending chronic homelessness and reducing
overall homelessness in Utah: 1. Continue collaboration among local and state government and
community partners. 2. Coordinate services to provide most appropriate services and target most
vulnerable persons experiencing homelessness. 3. Increasing affordable housing for individuals
and families with children. 4. Increase the amount of Permanent Supportive Housing primarily
for chronically homeless persons. 5. Increase funding for case management to amplify success of
existing Permanent Supportive Housing programs and expand supportive housing programs to
serve additional persons. 6. Increase specialized housing for those in Permanent Supportive
Housing who are aging and need nursing care. 7. Further analyst the overlap between persons
accessing homeless services and other mainstream services to determine gaps and streamline
services. (Day, Pendleton, Smith, Hartvigsen, Frost, Tolman, Kohler, and Quackenbush, 2014).
In Utah, there are various systems of care that provide services to those experiencing
homelessness, and assist them in ending their homelessness. Each of these housing and shelter-
based services is combined with a variety of supportive services. Utah is very organized in their
efforts. They have several committees across the State that aid in coordinating funding and
services to address homelessness in Utah. The three most important are: the State Homeless
Coordinating Committee (SHCC) chaired by the Lieutenant Governor, the twelve Local
Homeless Coordinating Committees (LHCC), chaired by local political leaders, and the three
Continua of Care (CoC), which are collaborations of service providers who are mandated by
HUD (US Housing & Urban Development Department) to coordinate homeless housing and
service programs. Each of these levels of coordination (state, local and among providers) in Utah
are also committed to work on the following: “Identifying the need and matching services to that

Page ! of !22 25
need, coordination across service sectors, system-based decision making for programmatic
approaches and funding directions, performance measurement and efforts to share information
across service sectors.” (Day, Pendleton, Smith, Hartvigsen, Frost, Tolman, Kohler, and
Quackenbush, 2014).
As mentioned before, Utah is very systematic in their approach to ending chronic
homelessness, and they’ve obviously been very successful. They have declared areas of focus,
including: Strategic Planning, Housing, Supportive Services, Emergency Services, Discharge
Planning. Strategic planning is the most important step — this step has five subsections, but the
subsection that I found to be the most important was the fourth subsection, which measured
followthrough, progress, and effectiveness of battling homelessness. It develops performance
measures in order to monitor service systems, inform community partners, and determine how
and where to improve system performance. These evaluations are then published onto the Utah
HMIS System (Data Support for Homeless Providers in Utah). This system is created for all
programs serving homeless persons and are shared with funders and community leaders for
consistent reporting to help focus community efforts and minimize reporting requirements for
providers. (Day, Pendleton, Smith, Hartvigsen, Frost, Tolman, Kohler, and Quackenbush, 2014).
A second important part of the follow-through approach Utah has is to provide effective
discharge planning for individuals coming out of incarceration or state sponsored/funded
treatment programs. This would include those coming out of prison, jails, mental health and
substance abuse treatment, foster care and juvenile justice systems. The Prison and Jail
Discharge Planning Committee is also currently working to develop interventions to reduce the
number who become homeless after release. Furthermore, several partners are working to

Page ! of !23 25
establish a reporting system to identify those who might become homeless and create
interventions to keep from becoming homeless. (Day, Pendleton, Smith, Hartvigsen, Frost,
Tolman, Kohler, and Quackenbush, 2014).
However, by being proactive and finding a solution for their homeless citizens, Utah
saves a lot of money. The Utah Housing and Community Development Division found that
homeless people incur an average annual cost of $16,670 in emergency room visits and jail stays
— nearly $6,000 more than the annual cost of an apartment and a social worker. (Fisher, Miller,
and Walter, 2015). Utah avoids these costs by focusing on housing homeless people rather than
criminalizing their presence in public. California can follow Utah’s example. Imagine all the
other ways California could use that money. There is absolutely no reason why any state would
want and prefer to waste money, as California has been doing for decades.
11. Conclusion
The answer to ending homelessness is to provide affordable housing. As representatives
of our people, it is our duty and responsibility to take care of ALL of our people. So far, we have
failed our citizens, but we can act now and make the most of this opportunity.

Page ! of !24 25
Sources:
1. Ryan, Kevin. “New Study Reveals Vulnerability of Homeless Youth to Trafficking.” Huffington Post.
May 24 2013 Web.
2. “California's 26th State Senate District.” Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia. 4 Aug. 2015. Web.
3. “California.” United States Census Bureau. 28 May 2015. Web.
4. Henry, Meghan, Alvaro Cortes, Azim Shivji, and Katherine Buck. "The 2014 Annual Homeless
Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress." US Department of Housing and Urban Development.
October 2014. Web.
5. “Bill Analysis.” Official California Legislative Information. 2015. Web.
6. Boden, Paul, and Jeffrey Selbin. “California Is Rife with Laws Used to Harass Homeless People.” Los
Angeles Times. 15 Feb. 2015. Web.
7. “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” The United Nations. Web.
8. Palta, Rina. “California Cities Criminalizing the Homeless, Study Says.” Southern California Public
Radio. 19 Feb. 2015. Web.
9. Fisher, Marina, Nathaniel Miller, and Lindsay Walter. “California’s New Vagrancy Laws The
Growing Enactment and Enforcement of Anti-Homeless Laws in the Golden State.” Homeless Lives
Matter Berkeley. Feb. 2015. Web.
10. Greene, Jody, Susan Ennett, and Christopher Ringwalt. “Prevalence and Correlates of Survival Sex
Among Runaway and Homeless Youth.” American Journal of Public Health 89.9 (1999): 1406-1409.
Print.
11. Clawson, Heather, Nicole Dutch, Amy Solomon, and Lisa Grace. “Human Trafficking Into and
Within the United States: A Review of the Literature.” Assistant Secretary for Planning and
Evaluation: Home Page. US Department of Health and Human Services, 1 Aug. 2009. Web.
12. Bigelsen, Jayne, and Stefanie Vuotto. “Homelessness, Survival Sex and Human Trafficking: As
Experienced by the Youth of Covenant House New York.” Covenant House (2013). Print.
13. Kara, Siddharth. “Sex Trafficking: An Overview.” Sex Trafficking: Inside the Business of Modern
Slavery. Columbia UP, 2009. 1-17. Print.
14. Spector, Jessica. “Duet: Prostitution, Racism, and Feminist Discourse.” Prostitution and
Pornography. Stanford UP, 2006. 30. Print.
15. Goodman, Lisa, Katya Fels, and Catherine Glenn. “No Safe Place: Sexual Assault in the Lives of
Homeless Women.” National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women. 2011. Web.
16. Dreier, Peter. “Reagan's Legacy: Homelessness in America.” Shelterforce Online 135 (2004). Web.
17. Day, Jayme, Lloyd Pendleton, Michelle Smith, Alex Hartvigsen, Patricia Frost, Ashley Tolman,
Tamera Kohler, and Karen Quackenbush. "Comprehensive Report on Homelessness.” Utah.gov. 1
Oct. 2014. Web.

Page ! of !25 25
18. “Senate Standing Committee on Transportation and Housing Hearing of 04-07-2015.” Digital
Democracy. 7 Apr. 2015. Web.
19. Cooley, Ken. “Assembly Bill No. 870.” Official California Legislative Information. 26 Feb. 2015.
Web.
20. “Should California End Redevelopment Agencies?” Legislative Analyst's Office. 8 Feb. 2011. Web.
21. “Summary Charts.” California Budget. California Department of Finance, 2015. Web.
22. “Health and Human Services.” California Budget. California Department of Finance, 2015. Web. 15
Aug. 2015.
23. Holland, Gale. “LA Spends $100 Million a Year on Homelessness, City Report Finds.” Los Angeles
Times. 16 Apr. 2015. Web.
24. Lewit, Meghan. “Sheltering Homeless Saves Money, Study Says.” USC News. 19 Nov. 2009. Web.
25. Sabatini, Joshua. "SF Spends $165.7 Million on Homeless but It’s Still Not Enough." San Fransisco
Examiner. 12 Mar. 2014. Web.
26. “Cost of Homelessness.” National Alliance to End Homelessness. 2015. Web.
27. “Hunger and Homelessness Remain Most Pressing Issues for US Cities.” City Mayors. 26 Dec. 2012.
Web.
28. Doran, Liza. “Report: Affordable Housing Increasingly Unavailable to Low-Income Renters.”
National Alliance to End Homelessness. 21 July 2015. Web.
29. “Utah.” United States Census Bureau. 28 May 2015. Web.
30. "2010 - State - Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Religious Congregations & Membership
Study. 2010. Web.
31. “California.” United States Census Bureau. 28 May 2015. Web.
32. “2010 - State - Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” Religious Congregations & Membership
Study. 2010. Web.
33. Fisher, Marina, Nathaniel Miller, and Lindsay Walter. “California’s New Vagrancy Laws The
Growing Enactment and Enforcement of Anti-Homeless Laws in the Golden State.” Berkeley Law.
Feb. 2015. Web.

POL 193 Research FINAL

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

POL 193 Research FINAL