The Homeless Chronicles. Part 13

This is #13 in a multi-part series about homelessness. Previously we noted that

• Homelessness changes depending on your definition, from very narrow to very broad.
• There are three main groups of homeless people – (1) people who chose to be homeless, (2) people whose disabilities create/contribute to homelessness, and (3) people who experience a major negative event which propels them into homelessness.
• The life style homeless basically want to be left alone. The temporary homeless are looking for help to return them to their normal life. The chronic homeless have such disabling conditions they are the most difficult to reach and to help.
• In recent years, a greater percent of the homeless are coming from the temporary group, fueled largely by the high cost of housing in relationship to their income.
• The commonly used federal survey under –estimates the number of homeless. In reality, there are over a million homeless people nationwide, 250,000 in California and between 10,000 and 15,000 in Orange County.
• There is wide diversity among California counties in the percent of the population who are homeless. Orange County at 0.22% (22 homeless people for every 10,000 residents) is mid low range with an average of 0.39% for the State.
• There is wide diversity among California counties in the percent of the homeless population who are unsheltered. Orange County at 58% is mid low range with an average of 65.3% for the State.
• There is wide diversity among California counties in the percent of the homeless who self-report being mentally ill. Orange County at 28% is mid range with an average of 29.5% for the State.
• The percent of homeless in Orange County who self-reported being mentally ill increased by 133% from 2017 to 2019, an increase unparalleled in the County’s history and in any other California county.
• Neither changes in language nor methodology account for the dramatic increase in mental illness among OC’s homeless. In addition, analysis of commonalities among counties experiencing high increases could not be found.
• Two factors were found that might account for the increase – the lack of spending on mental health care and the unorganized way in which homeless people were moved around.
• With regard to the County’s PIT data we found errors/discrepancies in the report on 7 out of 7 areas we explored. Including adults with mental health issues, adults with developmental disabilities, children, veterans, and seniors.

Today we’ll get some perspective on the reality of the numbers by comparing the actual raw data collected by the County with the numbers they reported. Bear in mind, the County has made errors in every case when we looked at the consistency with which they reported the data, sometimes saying that there were 1,657 or 1,547 adults with mental health issues, 1,210 or 980 youths, etc. But lack of consistency is one issue. Today we look at whether there is any validity to the data at all.

On April 30 2019 I submitted a CPRA (California Public Records Act) request to the County asking for records for all homeless people said to be living in Lake Forest, and for all people who responded “yes” to the questions about mental illness and/or developmental disabilities on the County’s January Point-in-Time (PIT) survey. The County responded 2 weeks later to say that they would respond even later. Two months later they sent copies of 103 surveys from the PIT data, only 44 of which were responsive to my request. For the next few months, things went from bad to worse. Each month the County dribbled out some more info, often in different formats and occasionally in code so that the material could not be understood. On Oct 18, 2019 the County concluded that they had complied with the law, having provided all the data requested.

(FWIW – the law requires that the County provide the data within 10 days, not 6 months)

Inspection of the data showed that 1,461 records matched the request, but if their PIT survey was correct, the minimum number of records should have been 1,740. The County was missing 281 records, and in addition, they provided 3 more records than they reported they had based on the PIT survey. Here are the major discrepancies –

• Unsheltered in Lake Forest – According to the County’s PIT survey they had 44 records, but they only supplied 12 records: a discrepancy of 73%.
• Sheltered Mentally Ill - According to the County’s PIT survey they had 670 records, but they only supplied 436 records: a discrepancy of 35%.
• Sheltered in Lake Forest - According to the County’s PIT survey they had 36 records, but they only supplied 33 records: a discrepancy of 8%.
• Sheltered Developmentally Disabled - According to the County’s PIT survey they had 112 records, but they actually supplied 115 records: a discrepancy of 3% more, which was different from all the other discrepancies.

Several times I informed the County that they were short on the data and several times they insisted they provided everything they had.

• If it’s true that the County supplied everything they had, then it’s obvious that the PIT survey results are invalid because the data does not match.
• If the original PIT survey was correct, but the County lost or misplaced the original data on which the survey was based, there should be some serious concerns about the quality of the County’s data system.
• If the County actually has the data but is refusing to supply it, against the law, then it raises some serious questions about the County’s administration.

Having failed to resolve any of the issues with the County’s data staff and the Executive Office staff, I brought my concerns to the Commission to End Homelessness. I spoke at the November meeting and supplied information about the current missing data and about the discrepancies I pointed out in our previous article. You can listen to my remarks here. Following my remarks, Supervisor Do asked the Commission staff whether or not they were aware of these issues. Their response – “No.” Despite the many e-mails and phone conversations, their response was “No” even when Supervisor Do asked the question a second time.

Following the meeting I sent Supervisor Do a copy of the e-mails in which the County Executive Office staff were made aware of all these issues and I sent a copy of the report I prepared for them in August. I have yet not received a response nor even an acknowledgement of receipt of the e-mail and attachments.

About the Author

Dr. Jim Gardner is the former Mayor of Lake Forest. A Clinical Psychologist, he is a former University Professor and Department Head. He authored several reports about homelessness.