PART III
HOUSING AND HOMELESS NEEDS ASSESSMENT
This section of the Consolidated Plan projects the estimated housing needs for the next five years in RiversideCounty through 2009. Except where noted, however, the following information continues to be based exclusively on the 2000 U.S. Census, and the assumption is that the level of need evaluated during the previous consolidated planning period will remain consistent through 2009.
A.ESTIMATED HOUSING NEEDS
Population Estimates
According to the U.S. Census, the population of RiversideCounty was 1,545,387 in 2000. The 1990 U.S. Census reported a RiversideCounty population of 1,170,413. This represents an increase of 374,974 persons or a 32.04% increase in population during the period between the 1990 Census and the 2000 Census. Evaluating the aforementioned population growth on an annual basis from 1990 to 2000, it appears that the County population grew by 37,497 persons per year for an annual average growth rate of 2.81%; if the County continues to grow at this rate, its population should increase to 1,983,150by 2009.
Household Income, Estimated Housing Need, Estimated Households by Income Group
As illustrated in Chart 1, below, an examination of 2000 Census data indicates that 38.9% of the County's households had incomes of less than 81% of the County's median family income and are thus considered low income.
CHART 1HOUSEHOLD INCOME
RIVERSIDECOUNTY
% of Median Income / Number of Households / Percent of Households
Extremely Low
Below 30% / 54,289 / 10.7%Very Low
30% to 50% / 56,886 / 11.3%
Low
50% to 80% / 85,536 / 16.9%
Moderate
80% to 120% / 306,816 / 60.9%
All Households / 503,227 / 100%
CHART 2
TENANT VERSUS OWNER OCCUPIED HOUSEHOLDS
RIVERSIDECOUNTY
Occupancy Tenure / Number of Households / Percent of Households
Owner Occupied Households
/ 348,532 / 68.9%Tenant Occupied Households / 157,686 / 31.1%
TOTAL / 506,218 / 100%
Homeowner Vacancy Rate / XXX / 2.5%
Rental Vacancy Rate / XXX / 7.2%
Source: 2000 United States Census
In 2000, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) presented the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for RiversideCounty. The RHNA analyzed the existing unmet housing needs of the County as of 2000. The assessment then projected the number of new housing units that would be required to meet the need of each representative income category from 1998 to 2005. The results of this analyses were used to determine the overall housing need for the aforementioned seven and one-half year period. The Chart 3, below, presents the RHNA projections. Two sub regional councils of governments including the Western Riverside Council of Governments and Coachella Valley Association of Governments represent RiversideCounty. Through delegation agreements with SCAG, both of these sub regions assumed responsibility for administering the RHNA distribution among the individual jurisdictions within their respective sub regions. The chart below presents data for each sub region.
CHART 3ESTIMATED HOUSING NEED
1998 - 2005
Jurisdiction / Very Low
0-50% / Low
51-80% / Moderate
81-120% / Upper
Above 120% / Total Need
WRCOG Region / 6,331 / 3,980 / 4,478 / 9,837 / 24,626
CVAG Region / 1,649 / 1,028 / 1,150 / 2,224 / 6,051
CountyTotal / 7,980 / 5,008 / 5,628 / 12,061 / 30,677
SOURCE: 2000 SCAG Regional Housing Needs Assessment.
B.CATEGORIES OF PERSONS AFFECTED
This section estimates the number and type of families requiring housing assistance by income group, tenure, and special needs. This evaluation is based on 2000 U.S. Census data.
PAGE 1
PART III
HOUSING AND HOMELESS NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Cost Burden
Cost burden is a serious problem for many RiversideCounty residents. Cost burden (also referred to as overpayment of rent), occurs when a household spends more that 30% of its income on housing, including utilities. Incidence of cost burden is of concern for several reasons. A household that is spending 30% or more of its income on housing has less income available for other basic necessities, such as food, clothing, transportation and health care. Cost burdened households potentially experience-increased stress relating to financial matters. Incidence of cost burden is most alarming among lower income households since, by definition, their income is limited to the point that overpayment for housing endangers their ability to pay for the aforementioned basic necessities. Cost burden is a concern among owner-occupied households as well. An owner that is cost-burdened potentially lacks sufficient resources to properly maintain his or her home, thus accelerating the deterioration of the home.
Chart 4, below, presents the incidence of cost burden among RiversideCounty's renter households:
CHART 4INCIDENCE OF COST BURDEN
RENTER HOUSEHOLDS - 2000 CENSUS
Selected Monthly Renter Costs as a Percentage of Household Income / Number of Households / Percentage
Less that 15% / 21662 / 13.8%
15% to 19% / 19400 / 12.4%
20% to 24% / 20449 / 13.0%
25% to 29% / 17072 / 10.9%
30% to 34% / 12475 / 8.0%
35% or more / 56463 / 36.0%
Not Available / 9318 / 5.9%
Source: 2000 United States Census
As Chart 4, above, illustrates, 44% of RiversideCounty tenant occupied households are cost burden. The Cost Burden is most prevalent among extremely low income and very low-income renter households. Severe cost burden is projected to continue to affect approximately two-thirds of extremely low-income households. Large families with extremely low incomes experience the most severe incidence of cost burden. Among the total renter population, the elderly still face the highest incidence of cost burden, with 60% of these households spending more than 30% of their income on housing and 31% spending more than half of their incomes on housing. Likewise, among other low income and moderate-income renter households, the highest incidence of cost burden occurs in elderly households. This may be due to the fact that many elderly households have fixed incomes that do not adjust to keep up with inflation. More important, since many elderly households tend to have high health care costs, overpayment for housing may cause these households to eliminate needed medications and medical visits. The costs involved with an illness or hospitalization may put elderly households at risk of losing their housing.
PAGE 1
PART III
HOUSING AND HOMELESS NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Chart 5, below, evaluates the incidence of cost burden for owner occupied households:
CHART 5INCIDENCE OF COST BURDEN
Owner Households - 1990 Census
Selected Monthly Owner Costs as a Percentage of Household Income / Number of Households / Percentage
Less that 15% / 68364 / 24.3%
15% to 19% / 44495 / 15.8%
20% to 24% / 42083 / 15.0%
25% to 29% / 33694 / 12.0%
30% to 34% / 24520 / 8.7%
35% or more / 65518 / 23.3%
Not Available / 2312 /
0.8%
Source: 2000 United States Census
While it remains a problem, cost burden among owner occupied households appears to not be as severe as that of renter households. Approximately 32% of all owner households experience a cost burden. Foreclosure rates in the County are declining. However, the incidence of cost burden is expected to remain unchanged.
Among owner households in every income group, the highest incidence of cost burden is among "all other" households or those that are non-senior. The cost burden rate for elderly homeowners is expected to remain lower than that for all homeowners. This may result from the fact that many elderly households who purchased their homes many years ago own those homes free and clear or have a very low mortgage payment. Not surprisingly, cost burden has been and is expected to continue to be most severe among extremely low-income households, with 60% cost burdened and 44% severely cost burdened.
Overcrowding
Overcrowding is defined as a condition where a dwelling unit has more than 1.01 persons per room (excluding bathrooms, halls, foyers, porches and half-rooms). Overcrowding is generally indicative of a failure in the housing market that prevents some households from finding housing that is both affordable and of adequate size. Overcrowding can result in rapid wear of the housing, as all systems receive heavier use than that for which they were designed, and potentially impacts public health and safety. Chart 6, below, documents the incidence of overcrowding in RiversideCounty.
PAGE 1
PART III
HOUSING AND HOMELESS NEEDS ASSESSMENT
CHART 6OVERCROWDED HOUSEHOLDS AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS
Income Group / Renters / Owners
All Renters / Large Related / All Owners / Non-elderly households
Extremely Low Income / 20.4% / 75.6% / 5.1% / 12.6%
Very Low Income / 25.7% / 74.4% / 7.8% / 19.8%
Low Income / 21.3% / 64.7% / 10.6% / 19.4%
All Households / 17.6% / 62.1% / 5.6% / 8.0%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census
The statistics, demonstrate that overcrowding is much more prevalent among renter households than owner households. Large related renter households (those with five or more members of which at least two are related) experience severe overcrowding in every income category. Approximately 62% of all large related households are overcrowded, including 75.6% of those with very low and 74.4% with extremely low incomes, respectively.
Overcrowding among owner non-elderly households affects 8% of those households. Almost 20% of low and very low-income non-elderly homeowners are overcrowded. Among owner households, overcrowding can often be alleviated by a room addition to the home. However, many lower income households may lack the resources for a room addition, and some owners may not be able to expand the size of their homes due to lot configurations or other types of site constraints.
Substandard Housing Conditions
A housing unit is considered substandard if any of the following exists to an extent that it endangers the life, health, property, safety or welfare of the public or the occupants of the housing unit: inadequate sanitation, structural hazards, nuisances, faulty weather protection, fire hazards, inadequate maintenance, overcrowding, or hazardous wiring, plumbing or mechanical equipment. The County estimates that ten percent of the housing stock is in need of rehabilitation or replacement. Substandard housing units were either not constructed properly, were constructed to a building code that is now outdated, or have been allowed to deteriorate as the unit aged. While the U.S. Census did not tabulate the total number of substandard units, data is available for certain conditions which would indicate that the unit was substandard or in need of rehabilitation.
This data include lack of complete kitchens or plumbing and housing units built prior to 1960 (thirty years or older). 81,627 dwelling units in the County were built prior to 1960. 3,407 units lacked complete kitchens and 2,360 units lacked complete plumbing. It is anticipated that lower income households occupy the majority of these units, as this type of housing tends to be less expansive.
PAGE 1
PART III
HOUSING AND HOMELESS NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Racial Distribution
A special concern in analyzing housing needs is whether or not any racial or ethnic group has a disproportionately greater need in comparison to the needs of the category as a whole. For the purposes of this analysis, a disproportionate need is defined as a disparity in need within the racial or ethnic group that is at least ten (10) percentage points higher than the category that includes all households. Chart 7, below, documents the percentage of cost burden by minority status:
CHART 7PERCENT OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH ANY HOUSING PROBLEMS BY MINORITY STATUS
Household Type / Extremely Low Income / Very Low Income / Low Income / Total
Renter Households
All minority households / 87.1% / 86.7% / 72.8% / 69.3%
Black households / 87.0% / 83.4% / 66.6% / 60.6%
Hispanic households / 88.1% / 89.9% / 74.0% / 72.8%
All Renter households / 83.3% / 87.9% / 70.1% / 57.2%
Owner Households
All minority households / 68.7% / 71.0% / 69.2% / 51.8%
Black households / 62.9% / 58.7% / 63.7% / 40.8%
Hispanic households / 71.3% / 73.7% / 70.5% / 55.0%
All Owner households / 62.1% / 52.0% / 47.9% / 35.3%
Source: 2000 U. S. Census
As illustrated in Chart 7, above, a disproportionate need exists for most minority renter households in comparison to the total needs of all renter households. However, within each of the lower income renter categories, a disproportionate need does not appear to exist. This data does show that, as compared to owner households, minority renters face a disproportionate housing need. Furthermore, in terms of ethnicity, the data suggests that Hispanic renter and owner households are affected the most by housing problems.
PAGE 1
PART III
HOUSING AND HOMELESS NEEDS ASSESSMENT
C. HOMELESS NEEDS
Nature and Extent of Homelessness
The Department of Public Social Services contracted with a consultant to conduct a point-in time census of the homeless population of RiversideCounty during March 11-14, 2003. Based on the point-in time census results there are 2,931 unsheltered and sheltered homeless persons in RiversideCounty on a given day.
Based on homeless population data collected in previous years, along with service provider data and general County demographic data, it is believed that the point-in-time count represents a significant undercount of the actual homeless population on any given day in the County, and that there were an additional number of homeless persons who were not known and therefore were not counted. According to an in-depth analysis of the homeless census data by the consultant hired to conduct the census, an annualized population of 8,954 homeless persons was calculated from the point-in-time data gathered. Based on this analysis and annualization of census data there were 8,954 persons in RiversideCounty who were homeless during part or all of that year.
In Chart 8 below, the distribution of homeless is shown based on the 2003 homeless census. There are no duplications or estimates shown in these figures.
CHART 8DISTRIBUTION OF HOMELESS POPULATION
Location / Unincorporated Areas / Within Cities / Unable to Determine
REGION A, WESTERN: Total Homeless -1,257 (49%)
Glen Avon/Pedley / 35 / - / -
MeadValley / 9 / - / -
MorenoValley* / 40 / 145 / -
Perris / 6 / 82 / -
Riverside (City)* / - / 902
Rubidoux / 38 / - / -
a)Subtotal
/ 128 / 1129 / -REGION B, SOUTH CENTRAL I-15/215 CORRIDOR: Total Homeless – 431 (17%)
Corona* / - / 79 / -
HomeGardens / 13 / - / -
LakeElsinore / 17 / 164 / -
LakeMatthews / 2 / - / -
LakelandVillage / 13 / - / -
Mira Loma / 36 / - / -
Murrieta / - / 35 / -
Norco (across river) / 20 / - / -
Temecula / 6 / 36 / 4
Wildomar / 6 / - / -
Subtotal / 113 / 314 / 4
REGION C, NORTH CENTRAL: Total Homeless – 254 (10%)
Banning / 2 / 3 / -
Beaumont / - / 10 / -
Calimesa / - / 2 / -
CherryValley
/ 2 / - / -Hemet* / - / 152 / -
Homeland / 53 / - / -
Romoland / 1 / - / -
San Jacinto / - / 15 / -
Sun City / 12 / - / -
Valley Vista / 2 / - / -
Subtotal / 72 / 182 / -
REGION D, EASTERN: Total Homeless – 632 (24%)
Anza / 34 / - / -
Blythe / 4 / 112 / -
CathedralCity / - / 12 / -
Coachella / 6 / 31 / -
Desert Hot Springs / - / 88 / 5
Indio / - / 256 / -
PalmDesert / - / 2 / -
Palm Springs* / - / 79 / 3
Subtotal / 44 / 580 / 8
TOTAL / 357 / 2205 / 12
Source: RiversideCountyCA, Dept. of Public Social Services Homeless Census, May, 2003 * Indicates EntitlementCity
Characteristics of the Homeless
Based on the results of the homeless census and interviews conducted with 644 homeless persons during the census period, the general homeless population in RiversideCounty consists of families, single men, single women and unaccompanied youth having the following characteristics:
1.The homeless account for approximately 0.55% (approximately 8,954) of the total population of the County.
2.The homeless can be found in virtually any part of RiversideCounty, with 86% found within cities and 14% in unincorporated areas.
3.One third of homeless adults suffer from one or more types of mental illness, mainly depression.
4.Over one-third (38%) of the homeless have been homeless for more than a year.
5.Chronic (over 1 year) homeless adults are more likely to suffer substance abuse.
6.Of the homeless persons interviewed, 39% use alcohol or harder drugs.
7.Women make up 33% of the homeless population.
8.Of the homeless persons interviewed, 13% had children under the age of 18 with them.
9.The average number of children in a homeless household is 2.2, and of school age children, 78% attend school.
10.Homeless persons under age 20 represent 19% of the homeless population and 4% percent of the homeless are over the age of 60.
11.Over half (53%) of the homeless women and 16% of homeless men said they had been victims of domestic violence or abuse.
The large numbers of homeless persons, the high cost of housing and the number of people living in poverty combine to create a serious situation. This combination of circumstances exacerbates the problem of finding suitable and affordable housing for homeless and at-risk families. Without comprehensive intervention the majority of the homeless will remain while more families will fall into the at-risk and actual category of homelessness.
A survey of homeless persons during the March 2003 homeless census reveals the following characteristics of homeless persons as shown in Chart 9:
CHART 9CHARACTERISTICS OF HOMELESS PERSONS
Characteristic / Riverside CountyHomeless / RiversideCounty Total Population
RACE:
Asian / 1.1% / 5%
Black / 20.8% / 8%
Pacific Islander / 1.7% / .3%
Native American / 5.6% / 1.6%
White / 74.5% / 84.9%
HISPANIC ORIGIN:
Hispanic / 21.7% / 37.3%
Non-Hispanic / 79.1% / 62.7%
AGE:
Children (0-9) / 10.0% / 16.6%Teen (10-19) / 8.6% / 16.4%
Adult (20-59) / 74.8% / 63.7%
Elderly ( 60+) / 3.5% / 16.3%
Source: RiversideCounty Dept. of Public Social Services Homeless Census, May, 2003
Race and Ethnicity
Based on the above characteristics of the homeless population, there is a higher percentage (20.8%) of African Americans represented in the homeless population than for RiversideCounty, which has an 8% African American representation. Native Americans and Pacific Islanders are also over-represented in the homeless population with 5.6% and 1.7% respectively, as compared to 1.6% and 0.3 % for entire RiversideCounty.
Priority Homeless Needs
In response to the growing needs of the homeless population in Riverside County, a Continuum of Care process (COC) began in 1994 in order to provide a seamless delivery of facilities and services for homeless persons at each step of the transition from living on the street, to permanent and sustained, independent living. The continuum consists of four components:
1.Outreach and Assessment
2.Emergency Shelters with Supportive Services;
3.Transitional Housing with Supportive Services; and
4.Permanent and Affordable Housing.
The COC approach established a comprehensive foundation for a service delivery system that provides a balance of the four components of the Continuum of Care System to move homeless persons and families into the mainstream of society.
In consideration of the unique demographic needs of the homeless within the County, four regions have been established:
1.Region A consists of MorenoValley, Perris, City of Riverside, Rubidoux, Jurupa, Woodcrest and surrounding communities
2.Region B consists of Corona, LakeElsinore, Murrieta, Norco, Temecula and surrounding communities
3.Region C consists of Banning, Beaumont, Hemet, Idyllwild, San Jacinto and surrounding communities; and
4.Region D consists of the Desert communities from Palm Springs east to the City of Blythe.
In June of 2003 the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) undertook the vast task of developing the Gaps Analysis for the 2003 HUD Continuum of Care Consolidated Application. The results of the Homeless Census completed by DPSS in May 2003 provided the point-in-time data of the homeless population and county population from which the estimated need of homeless beds/units was determined. A listing of Countywide homeless facilities and bed capacity was compiled by DPSS, and the estimated number of homeless beds/units was subtracted from the number of available homeless bed/units to determine the unmet need.