Strategic Planning

Report

Meeting: March 1, 2013

Issued September 10, 2013

2

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 3

Current Conditions – Hollywood’s Homeless Population 3

Key Findings and Concerns 4

Attendance 5

Purpose of the Day 6

Accomplishments to Date 6

Demographics/metrics/accomplishments 6

1. Homeless Count

2. Homeless Youth

3. Hollywood Homeless Outreach Team/Homeless Registry

4. Current Housing Stock in Hollywood

The System in Hollywood: how is a person helped if they are homeless? 9

Forcefield Exercises 10

Breakout Group A: Assisting the most severely mentally ill in Hollywood 11

Breakout Group B: Coordinated outreach and the role of the Registry 13

Breakout Group C: Need for interim housing 14

Appendix A: Hollywood 4WRD timeline of key events and achievements 15

Appendix B: Census tracts counted in 2013 LAHSA Homeless Count 17

Appendix C: Hollywood Homeless Youth Partnership housing inventory 18

For more information about Hollywood 4WRD, consult Facebook at

www.facebook.com/hollywood4wrd. Website for Hollywood 4WRD is

www.hollywood4wrd.org. Contact Kerry Morrison at kerry@hollywoodbid.org or

323-463-6767.

3

Executive Summary

The grass-roots coalition, Hollywood 4WRD, held a planning retreat on Friday, March 1, 2013 at the

Hollywood Bowl. This was the first planning retreat held by the group, originally formed in 2008.

Approximately 35 people attended the retreat, representing 22 different organizations who play some

role in the service delivery system to outreach, case manage and ultimately end homelessness in

Hollywood by 2018. This report summarizes the key systems deficiencies identified by the group that

warrant attention to continue the momentum that has been achieved in housing people off the streets

of Hollywood.

Current Conditions – Hollywood’s Homeless Population

In 2008, before Hollywood 4WRD had a name, the coalition defined a geographic area for which it

accepted responsibility. In March of that year, the coalition conducted a snapshot count of visible

homeless individuals in an area defined by the following boundaries: Franklin on the north, Western on

the east, Santa Monica on the south and LaBrea on the west. (See figure 1 below) The snapshot count

in 2008 revealed approximately 500 unsheltered homeless individuals within this box.

Three bi-annual LAHSA homeless counts have been conducted since this original snapshot: 2009, 2011,

2013. The LAHSA homeless count incorporates an area wider than the original 2008 snapshot. The

LAHSA homeless count encompasses 34 census tracts. (See Appendix B.) In the 2011 LAHSA Homeless

Count, 1,373 individuals were identified in the central Hollywood area. The categories comprising this

4

number include: unsheltered street count – 748; unsheltered youth count – 365; emergency and winter

shelter count – 122; transitional housing count – 138. In the census tracts that comprise East

Hollywood, 101 individuals were counted. Data for the 2013 homeless count, specific to Hollywood,

has not been released yet

Apart from the snapshot and the three counts, in 2010, Hollywood 4WRD conducted a three-night

homeless registry within the same boundaries utilized in the 2008 snapshot count. Over 80 volunteers

fanned out over this territory in the early mornings during the week of April 25-30 and administered the

Vulnerability Index. At this time, over 300 people were encountered, and 257 agreed to be surveyed

and/or photographed for the survey. This initial list populated the original Hollywood Homeless

Registry. Since this time, a small group of service providers have been meeting every two weeks to go

over the names on the Homeless Registry and work toward housing, first the most vulnerable, and

second, those for which housing resources are available.1

Key Findings and Concerns

1. Shelter and/or Bridge Housing. In Hollywood, shelter beds have played an important role as an

interim solution for individuals who are slated for permanent housing. HUD’s SuperNOFA is

moving away from funding emergency shelter, and this shift in funding will create a gap in our

continuum in Hollywood. We rely on the shelter as a place to temporarily stabilize individuals

while we seek their permanent solution. With the loss of the Gilbert Hotel (which was a type of

low barrier “bridge housing” from the streets to a permanent placement) there are few options

at present.2 In fact, there are less shelter resources now as compared to 2010-11, when

Hollywood 4WRD was able to achieve such remarkable results.

2. Chronically Homeless and Mentally Ill “Anchors.” Despite three years of effort, at least 10

individuals who suffer from severe mental illness and are chronically homeless, remain on the

streets of Hollywood. They represent the “highest hanging fruit” and are left to languish or die

on the streets given the roadblocks encountered in our county mental and public health

systems, and the inability to secure housing. This number is probably higher, but at the time of

the retreat, 10 individuals were listed.3

3. Recalibration of the Homeless Registry and continued dedication to coordinated outreach.

After three years, the Hollywood Homeless Registry is out of date, and needs to be refreshed to

1 In the Key Findings section of this report, along with the observations shared in Breakout Group A, it is noted

that three years later, the majority of the most vulnerable mentally ill, chronically homeless individuals in 2 Some of our most notable case studies were dependent upon a Gilbert Hotel interim placement while the search

for housing was conducted. One example, Helmut Hermanns. 3 At the time of publication of this report, the list fluctuates between 14 and 17 severely mentally ill, chronically

homeless people in Hollywood.

5

identify the current list of individuals who are Hollywood’s homeless neighbors and in line to be

assisted. The commitment to coordinated outreach remains strong, through the bi-weekly

Hollywood Homeless Outreach Team (HHOT) and all agree that this collaborative approach has

been critical to many successful cases in moving people off the streets.

4. Homeward bound. Because of the prevalence of itinerant homeless individuals arriving in

Hollywood and the closure of the Traveller’s Aid resource in Hollywood two years ago, the

ability to tap some type of fund to quickly move willing people back home would help to take

the pressure off the local homeless population. Hollywood continues to be a magnet for

individuals from throughout the region, the state and from other countries.

5. Need for safe haven. Hollywood would benefit from access to a small facility that would offer

more intensive care – similar to a “safe-haven” concept – for individuals who are too sick to

move into permanent supportive housing, and simply need a refuge from the street. Absent

this type of facility in Hollywood, these individuals are either going to perish in the public right-

of-way, or continue to cycle in and out of local hospitals. It is anticipated that a home that

would serve four to six individuals would be of great advantage to the Hollywood community.

Attendance

The following individuals, representing 22 organizations, attending the planning retreat:

Andrews International Security4: Steve Seyler Broken Hearts Ministry: Holly Pinkham The Center at Blessed Sacrament: Spencer Downing Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles: Arlene Schneir5 City of Los Angeles Housing Department: Nancy Twum-Akwaboah Department of Veteran’s Affairs: Jennifer Dietz First Presbyterian Church of Hollywood: Amie Quigley Family policy Center – representative GettLove: John Ladner, Sonny Duron, Keegan Hornbeck Hollywood Chamber of Commerce: Nicole Shahenian Hollywood Community Housing Corporation: Dorene Toutant Hollywood Property Owners Alliance: Kerry Morrison, Sarah Besley, Joe Mariani Hollywood United Methodist Church: Devin Jones Housing Works: Sieglinde von Deffner, Rudy Salinas Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health: Ed Vidaurri and Chuck Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, Office of Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky: Flora Gil-Krisiloff My Friend’s Place6: Heather Carmichael

4 Represents BID Patrol for Hollywood Entertainment District BID and Sunset & Vine BID

5 Also representing the Hollywood Homeless Youth Partnership

6 Also representing the Hollywood Homeless Youth Partnership

6

Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA): Clementina Verjan Los Angeles Youth Network: Marquita Dorsey People Assisting the Homeless (PATH): Courtney Kanagi, Robert Morrison, Reggie Holmes Shelter Partnership: Sheila Nem Step Up: Tod Lipka

Purpose of the Day

The purpose of the day was to take inventory of all that has been accomplished since the Homeless

Registry was conducted in 2010 and to identify our needs as a coalition to continue to make progress

toward ending homelessness in 2018.

Accomplishments to Date

Since the Registry was created in 2013, approximately 190 individuals have been housed.

A draft timeline was created which outlined milestones in the collaborative quest to start a movement

to end homelessness here in Hollywood. That timeline is attached as Appendix A.

Demographics/metrics/accomplishments

1. Homeless Count. Joe Mariani reported on rough initial results from the 2013 Homeless Count,

which was conducted in Hollywood on the night of Thursday January 31, 2013. Though the

official tally will be released by LAHSA in the summer, Joe was able to create a map which

indicated whether the street count was higher or lower in each census tract as compared to

2011. That map is attached as Appendix B.

This does not provide the complete picture of what is happening in Hollywood, because the

official count will also calculate a number based upon encampments and vehicles, and will also

include a shelter and youth count. The map, however, demonstrated that the core part of

Hollywood had seen a decline in visible street homelessness, while the outer edge census tracts

saw an increase.

When the official numbers are released, it will be the appropriate time to evaluate whether we

have made a dent in the numbers of homeless individuals in Hollywood. However, one

observation was made during the course of this discussion: there appears to be a decrease in

the number of cars and encampments. Conversely, there appears to be an increase in the

number of visibly homeless people walking the streets of Hollywood.

7

2. Homeless Youth. Heather Carmichael and Arlene Schneir provided an overview of current

statistics relative to the youth count, recently conducted in Hollywood. This is the first time

such a comprehensive count of homeless youth had been achieved. The key findings of the

youth count are as follows:

441 youth

228 counted on the October 2012 index night

380 said they were homeless in the last 30 days

Average length of time for homelessness = 2.3 years

Demographics:

64 percent male

34 percent GLBT

21.3 average age

The Hollywood Homeless Youth Partnership (HHYP) statistical summary is attached as Appendix

C.

3. Hollywood Homeless Outreach Team/Hollywood Registry. Robert Morrison reported on the

current state of the Hollywood Homeless Registry, which uses the Vulnerability Index to survey

individuals who are homeless in Hollywood and prioritize their need for housing based upon

their vulnerability score.

The HHOT team has been meeting bi-weekly since April 2010 when the first Hollywood Registry was conducted. The chart below captures the tracking of all individuals who have been added to the registry since the beginning: 716 people.

What is most important for the current planning cycle is the number of people who are active

on the Registy. The HHOT Team uses the labels:

In (currently engaged with the Hollywood provider community)

Fence (client is “on the fence” as to whether they want to engage with a provider)

Out (client is MIA – which could occur because the individual has been reunited with family,

been housed in some capacity, passed away, jailed or moved on to another community)

8

With this in mind, the current statistics are7:

In 300

Fence 30

Out 216

Housed 170

Total 716

4. Current Housing Stock in Hollywood John Ladner presented an overview of our current

housing stock in Hollywood, ranging from emergency shelter to permanent housing. Here is a

summary of what he presented.

Type of Housing Provider Number of Units Status

Emergency shelter PATH 66 Shelter is scheduled to be closed for the purposes of building permanent housing

Winter Refuge Hollywood Church Collaborative (located at FPCH)

30 8 week “winter” program, ended March 3, 2013.

Emergency shelter for minors

HHYP 23 Available at LAYN

Emergency shelter for 18+

HHYP 64 Available at CHC, LAGLC

“bridge” housing GettLove at Gilbert Hotel

25 No longer available

Transitional living program

HHYP 62 Available at CHC, LAGLC, LAYN

Group home (youth)

HHYP 12 Available at LAYN

Permanent Supportive Housing (youth)

HHYP 43 Available through CHC, LAGLC, LAYN

Permanent supportive housing (adult)

Step Up 40 Michael’s Village 30 Tammy 10

Hollywood Community Housing Corp

127 Casa Verde 11 Dunning 3 Harold Way 16 Palomar Apts. 13 Hollywood Bungalows 15 Kenmore 7 Mirada Terrace 10 St. Andrews 15 Wilcox 3

7 Note, in August, while this report was being prepared, the HHOT did a “Registry Reset.” The new numbers are as

follows: In/Fence = 180; Out = 33; Housed = 203.

9

Step up on Vine 34

ACOF 125 Gower St 55 Villas at Gower 70

Independent Senior living

# not available Will be available 3/10/13 for those who are 62+

Scattered site housing

# not available Requires Section 8 or VASH vouchers

With respect to the current housing stock for individuals who are homeless, the following was noted:

Considerable progress has been made in breaking resistance that landlords may have harbored in

the past to accepting subsidized housing residents. According to Keegan Hornbeck at GettLove,

some apartment managers have become quite supportive of this arrangement and have accepted

multiple vouchered residents.

There is a need to scale up this process of identifying scattered site housing. Problems in the future

will relate to locating apartments buildings where this arrangement will be profitable for landlords.

Gettlove will start looking outside of Hollywood for units. A typical one bedroom voucher is $1,100.

There is a looming shortage of vouchers.8

For the most severely mentally ill, there is a need for skilled nursing facilities and conservatorships.

With respect to housing retention, increasingly as progress is made in housing homeless individuals, the

attention shifts to avoiding behaviors or circumstances which will cause these individuals to fall back

into homelessness. Often a key component is the ‘supportive” element in supportive housing. But,

Hollywood providers are learning that there is an isolation or loneliness factor that also kicks in once

someone who has been on the street for a long time – often interacting with a community of people in

various ways – that can be debilitating. This is an area where providers (particularly GettLove at

present) and the local faith community (through the Hollywood church collaborative) are looking at new

models to stay connected with recently housed neighbors in Hollywood.

The System in Hollywood: how is a person helped if they are homeless?

Spencer Downing led the group through an exercise in which a hypothetical 48 year old man was found

lying on the sidewalk in front of the Pantages Theatre. The participants were asked to describe on a

flow chart how this individual would be helped and connected with the system that exists in Hollywood.

The discussion led to queries about the situation faced by this man. Was he suffering from a mental

illness? How long had he been homeless? Did he have a substance abuse issue?

8 Note, since the retreat, as a result of the Federal Government’s sequestration policy, there has been a virtual

shut-down of new Section 8 vouchers for the forseeable future.

10

The net effect of this exercise was that there was no clear roadmap to connect an individual with the

service delivery system. What exists in Hollywood right now is largely relationship driven. Productive

and collegial working relationships exist among the four main providers – PATH, Gettlove, Step Up and

Housing Works. With phone calls and emails, attempts are made to connect an individual with services

– and sometimes with great success. However, the discussion revealed many gaps in this “web” as it

currently exists.

Ironically, the most difficult to find a solution for are the non-chronic homeless. For

example, if there is a need to send someone home, because they have ended up in LA for

whatever reason, there are no resources to purchase bus or train tickets. This would be an

easy and inexpensive “fix” to reduce our homeless population, but with the loss of

Traveler’s Aid, this resource no longer exists. The consensus was that a “rapid response” to

those who are newly arrived or freshly homeless needs to be created.

The severely mentally ill individuals who wander in our neighborhood are also difficult to

help. It was stressed that there are individuals who have been “anchors” in our community

for many years, but because of the legal system that creates a broad definition for “danger

to self and others” and what constitutes a “grave disability” it is almost impossible to engage

the county system to help these individuals.

There is a need for interim housing, sometimes referred to as a “safe haven” for individuals

who are physically quite ill, challenged and in need of a place to stabilize.

Finally, there is a gap in our outreach processes. There is a need to migrate from the

original Registry to something new.

Forcefield Exercise

The group broke up into three breakout groups, in order to focus on a change exercise known as

forcefield analysis. In this exercise, the group identifies the current state of a particular issue or

problem, which needs to change. The “desired state” or outcome is defined, and then the group

identifies the forces that are restraining that change and the forces that are driving the change. The

goal is to determine where to apply the pressure (e.g., increase the driving forces, or try to weaken the

restraining forces) in order to make change and move to a new state of equilibrium.

11

Breakout Group A: Assisting the most severely mentally ill in Hollywood

(a.k.a. “superchronic”)

Driving forces Current state

Restraining forces Desired state

Shame

Mo

st s

ever

ely

men

tally

ill l

ive

on

stre

et f

or

ext

en

ded

per

iod

of

tim

e

Capacity of services

Mo

st s

ever

ely

men

tally

ill l

ive

in

a st

able

, per

man

ent

pla

ce

Health issues (public and private)

Escalating new demand

Expensive (LAPD, hospitals, jail)

** Individual’s choice **

We know it CAN change Bureaucracy (e.g., SSI, DMV, GR, VBA, array of government agencies)

Business and public pressure Hospitals are not our allies yet

Physical reminder Re: our job

refusal

LAPD contact Lack of a crack team focused on them (ACT Team)

The key issue informing this group’s discussion is predicated upon the fact that, since the Hollywood

Homeless Registry in 2010, some of the most severely mentally ill individuals in our neighborhood

remain on the streets. It was determined that there are approximately 10 individuals who are in this

outer ring; remaining on the streets while other, more cooperative clients are moving into housing. 9

They are:

Difficult to engage

“high hanging fruit”

Non-communicative

Able to “present well” when confronted by mental health professionals or doctors

Released from hospitals too quickly (if there is a 5150 hold) and returned to the streets with no

followup care

Any agency which is held accountable for a goal or “quota” to case manage or house individuals will find

it counter-productive to stay engaged with individuals who fall in this category. The 80/20 principle is at

work. It would require 80 percent of an agencies effort to secure 20 percent of a goal for which it is held

accountable. Under this scenario, service goals would be impossible to reach.

9 Since the time of the retreat, the Team has actually created a list called the “Top 14” which has identified those

individuals who are the most difficult to engage and/or assist.

12

An action plan to address this challenge area involves the following:

1. Meet with Department of Mental Health to create a team approach to engage an individual in a

sustainable “net” of support to bring them off the streets either voluntarily or involuntarily (e.g.,

conservatorship). Absent this action, it is feared that these individuals will die on the streets of

Hollywood.

2. Join forces within Hollywood 4WRD to create a seamless web of outreach and engagement,

regardless of the “client responsibility” to stay focused on assistance to the client. This may/will

involve not only service providers and faith organizations, but also LAPD and BID security.

3. Begin working on a collaborative approach ASAP to help the most severely ill of the list, in order

to document where systems frustrate the attempts to assist these individuals.

13

Breakout Group B: Coordinated outreach and

role of the Registry

Driving forces Current state

Restraining forces Desired state

Registry (but need to better define its purpose)

Reg

istr

y is

to

o la

rge;

man

y p

eop

le

hav

e d

isap

pea

red

; m

ost

vu

lner

able

at

to

p a

re n

ot

firs

t to

be

hel

ped

.

Different focus held by different agencies

Co

ord

inat

ed a

nd

eff

icie

nt

ou

reac

h

syst

em

High value: big part of what we do

Privacy issues

History of collaboration; 4WRD, a lot of resources

Funding streams (constantly changing; often rapidly)

Willingness to help Less visibility of population

Help is based upon relationships

Agencies have their own required databases

How do we share?

Who runs a coordinated database source?

Help based upon relationships

This group addressed the fact that the Homeless Registry, which utilized the Vulnerability Index

championed by Community Solutions, has faced a “new reality” in Hollywood after three years of

implementation. Though the Registry initially was very helpful in identifying those who required

immediate attention, over time, as organizations had to calibrate their funding streams to outcomes,

some who were very vulnerable or hard to reach remained un-served.

The concept of the Registry predicated upon a Vulnerability Index works in a perfect world where there

is housing available for all who need it. At this point, the commitment of the group was to “recalibrate”

the Registry and create a meaningful list that all could collaborate around.

The role of the Hollywood Homeless Outreach Team (HHOT), a collaborative “case management” team

that meets every two weeks, continues to be very useful to forging cooperation.

14

Break out group C: Need for interim housing

Driving forces Current state

Restraining forces Desired state

Willingness

Lack

of

inte

rim

or

“bri

dge

” h

ou

sin

g

$$ Funding

Inte

rim

ho

usi

ng

is a

vaila

ble

as

a p

lace

to

sta

bili

ze

an in

div

idu

al in

th

e m

ove

men

t fr

om

str

eet

to

ho

me.

need No space

Strong network (us!) Fear; apathy

Strong case study (Hollywood Pres)

Need for adequate staff (24/7)

Capacity NIMBY’s

Volunteer base Land use regulations

Morale building insurance

Flexible (e.g., totally private; not bureaucratic)

Lack of proper outreach

Small scale; affordable Design of building

Proven successful Design of program

Services provided onsite Communication with clients

Replicable (with good PR???) Lack of participants

Lack of coordination with other providers

Difficult to record/measure outcomes

Unwilling property owners

Though Housing First is a model which has been championed as a key to ending homelessness (as

compared to the old school of thought of the “continuum” that moves a person gradually from the

streets into various types of shelter or transitional housing before they get the key to their apartment)

this is hard to effectuate in a region where housing resources remain scarce. We believe we have the

tools in place to move people off the streets – but it often takes a long time to work out the details to

get the key. Therefore, there is still a critical need for some type of bridge or interim housing.

For approximately two years after the Registry, Gettlove generously provided hotel rooms at the Gilbert

and Mark Twain hotels to place individuals while case managers for various organizations worked out

the details of a permanent placement. This allowed for a process of stabilization and continued human

engagement which was fruitful in this process. This was a low-barrier, privately funded project.

The PATH shelter remains the only place where an individual can be placed for the purposes of interim

housing while an alternative is identified. With plans to transform the shelter into housing, Hollywood

4WRD would be left with precious few options in this area.

It appears that funding priorities, geared toward permanent housing in the current public policy climate,

are ill-advised if shelter or interim housing is slowly squeezed out of existence.

15

Appendix A

Hollywood 4WRD timeline of key events and achievements

Year Event

2003 Steve Lopez columns begin to chronicle story of Nathanael Ayres

Hollywood Community Housing designates 16 units for homeless/special needs

population at Harold Way Apartments

2004 Project YIMBY is formed by PATH to organize willing voices to support housing for

homeless neighbors.

2005 December: “YIMBY” Homeless Connect Day at Hollygrove

Hollywood Community Housing designates 13 units at Palomar Apartments for

homeless individuals/special needs

2006 Arrival of GettLove

April: Town Hall held at FPCH to address proposed permanent supportive housing

development planned for Gower with 400+ in attendance

2007 Project 50 initiated in Skid Row

December: Homeless connect day at Music Box

2008 January: “Revolution” meeting in Mayor’s office

March: Hollywood snapshot count

April: United Way pays to have Phil Mangano come speak with group of business

leaders and key partners in Hollywood; seeds for formation of Hollywood 4WRD

May: Coalition visit to Step Up on Second – business community invited

2009 January: Homeless Count

Hollywood Community Housing designates 15 units for chronically

homeless/special needs at the Hollywood Bungalows

June: Homeless Connect Day at Music Box Theatre

September: Home for Good “Business Leaders Task Force” formed

16

2010 April: Hollywood Homeless Registry

May: First meetings of Hollywood Homeless Outreach Team (HHOT)

Rudy Salinas takes over HHOT; grant awarded by CSH

Supervisor Yaroslavsky pledges funding to support two year program to move

chronically homeless mentally ill people off the Registry

2011 January: Homeless count

HOME program begins with funding from Zev’s office

John Watkins comes down from the Hollywood Bowl hill after 14 years

May: One year “report back” from Hollywood 4WRD held at LA Film School

2012 April: Fundraiser for Hollywood 4WRD tenant assistance fund – movie screening

“Without a Home”

April: Villas at Gower grand opening

Social Services @ Blessed Sacrament ends shower program and renames itself as

“The Center”

2013 January: Homeless Count

Step Up on Vine opens with 34 units for chronically homeless individuals (of which

8 are for TAY)

March: 4WRD planning retreat

17

Ap

pen

dix B

18

Hollywood Homeless Youth Partnership

2012

CHC CHLA LA GLC LAYN MFP SUOS Total

Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity

Emergency Beds - minors 0 23 23

Emergency Bed – 18+ 58 0 Linkage: 36

Group Home 0 12

Transitional Living Program ROP (24) 14 Linkage: 119

Supportive Apartment Program SAP (10) + MFP (12) = 22 3

Linkage to

Permanent

Supportive

Housing: 21

# of youth transitioning to

independent housing

ESG+YRP (37) ROP (17)

SAP/MFP (13) = 67 7

# of total “beds” available 104 52

# of unique individuals served

through: Crisis Shelter: 357

Drop in:

1100

Placement:35

7

Safe Haven

Services: 1592

Ap

pen

dix C

19

# of unique individuals served

through:

Rights of Passage

(congregate

Transitional Housing):

62

Jobs: 90 Outreach:745

Intensive Care

Management

Provided: 378

# of unique individuals served

through:

Supportive Apartment

Program (scattered

site Transitional

Housing): 26

Mobile

Health Team

Med Care:

490

Outreach:

4200 Drop-In:630

Education and

Employment

Services: 301

# of unique individuals served

through:

My First Place

(scattered site

Transition in Place

Housing): 15

Medical Care

– clinic site:

277

Aftercare:

400

Creative & Life

Skills

Programming:

369

# of unique individuals served

through:

Outreach Program

(Street and Day): 1381

Mental

Health

Services:599

# of unique individuals served

through:

Outreach:35

1

20

# of unique individuals served

through:

HIV and

Substance

Abuse

Prevention:1

71

# of unique individuals served

through:

CHC - Covenant House California CHLA - Children’s Hospital Los Angeles

LA GLC - Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center

LAYN - Los Angeles Youth Network

MFP - My Friend’s Place

SFC - Saban Free Clinic

SUOS - Step Up On Second