Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Social Services Homelessness topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County updates homelessness response; supervisors press for measurable outcomes and enforcement coordination
Summary
Pima County’s director for homeless solutions briefed the Board on the county’s response systems, outreach teams and interagency roles. Supervisors and business owners called for clearer metrics, better coordination with law enforcement on criminal activity in encampments, and operational dashboards to show program success.
Pima County staff updated the Board of Supervisors on county initiatives to address homelessness and public safety, describing the roles of county departments, public‑works crews and contracted outreach partners and noting the county’s continuing work to map services and measure outcomes.
Director Jen Darling (Office of Housing Opportunities and Homeless Solutions) said county responses are layered: the county maintains and remediates county‑owned assets through public‑works departments (parks, flood control, transportation), offers outreach and care coordination through homeless services teams, and uses contracted nonprofit partners for shelter and case management. When encampments are reported, county procedure A.P. 50.02 requires a field assessment, posting of a notice to vacate (within 72 hours), outreach offers of shelter/referrals, and cleanup when appropriate. Staff emphasized they do not expect public‑works personnel to act as law enforcement and that the county coordinates with jurisdictional police when criminal activity is alleged.
Supervisors and commenters pressed staff for more measurable outcomes and clearer public reporting. Supervisor Hines asked for two deliverables at the board’s next regular appearance of the item: (1) a report with performance indicators and metrics that document program results and (2) a separate security report from the private firm patrolling the Loop listing observed and addressed problematic behaviors and locations adjacent to the trail. Several business owners and residents testified that 311 reports and other outreach had not resolved local criminal incidents and asked the county to improve outcomes and accountability.
Staff said the county’s outreach teams work with shelter providers and the city’s teams to identify available beds, and that the Point‑in‑Time count (Jan. 29) had involved some 450 volunteers; preliminary PIT results are expected in late spring for HUD reporting. County staff acknowledged limits: outreach cannot compel people to accept services and many arrests for low‑level offenses are misdemeanors with limited enforcement options. Supervisors and staff agreed to follow up: supervisors requested a written or oral briefing showing metrics tied to stated program goals and to identify gaps in service and funding.
What supervisors asked for: Supervisor Christie submitted a set of written questions from business owners about coordination with law enforcement, use of the county transition center, outcomes for people offered shelter and the county’s ability to hold repeat offenders accountable. Supervisor Grijalva and others urged continued regional coordination with the city and nonprofit partners while acknowledging the complexity of addiction and housing supply issues.
Next steps: Staff agreed to return with additional detail and to respond to supervisors’ written questions; Supervisor Hines requested a report by the next scheduled appearance of this recurring item so the board can review dashboards, enforcement coordination, and performance metrics.
