Thursday, October 18, 2018 Call to Order: Welcome & Introductions - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Thursday, October 18, 2018

Call to Order: Welcome & Introductions – Roll Call (Sign off) Tammy Marine, BoG Chair

• a. Meeting on September 20, 2018

 Public comment for any item that is on the agenda

• Submit request card for each item:

 List the agenda item number you wish to speak on  List the name of the speaker

• Speakers

 Identify who you are  3 minutes

Note: Members of the public must submit a public comment request card to speak to the Board or ask any questions, etc. Request cards can be submitted up until the agenda item is open for discussion.

Update on California Emergency Solutions & Housing (CESH) Grant Application Submission and Timeline Rowena Concepcion DPSS Manager

 Application submitted: 10/12/18  Eligible activities include:

• Rental assistance, housing relocation, and

stabilization services: $363,559.50

• Flexible Housing Subsidy Funds:

$363,559.50

• Systems Support: $400,000
• Development of a Plan: $150,000

DATE TE ACT CTIV IVIT ITY

10/12/2018 Submit CESH Application 11/1/2018 Release CESH RFP 11/13/18 Bidder’s Conference/Technical Assistance Training 11/19/2018 Q&A posted to the DPSS website 12/21/2018 Deadline to submit application 12/30/2018 Prepare CESH summary of proposals received 12/21/2018 – 1/10/2018 Internal threshold review Application scoring/summary matrix 1/17/19 BOG Meeting – approve application 1/2019 Expected receipt of Standard Agreement for CESH 3/2019 DPSS – CESH contract with Subrecipients AE must issue award letters to subrecipients within 12 months of an award letter from the state.

Overview of Gaps in Homeless Services & Review New Funding Opportunities Natalie Komuro County Deputy Executive Officer

Communitywide Housing First

& Low Barrier Approach

First Responders Training

Program

Homelessness Prevention

System

Coordinated Discharge

Planning System

Homeless Awareness and

Prevention Campaign Countywide Homeless Court Program Funding Analysis Regional Funders’ Collaborative Homelessness Decriminalization Policy Full Implementation of the Coordinated Entry System (CES)

Housing Resources

Shelter Diversion System by

Increasing Rapid Rehousing

Increase Bridge or Temporary

Housing

Increase Permanent Supportive

Housing

Increase Rapid Rehousing

Assistance

Develop Affordable Housing &

Improve Affordability

Outreach & Navigation

Housing Search & Capacity Building Team Street Outreach within the Housing Crisis Response System Housing Navigation within the Housing Crisis Response System

Home-Based Case Managers Supportive Services Community Partnerships to Increase Employment

Opportunities

Access to Healthcare and Mainstream Benefits CalWORKs Subsidized Employment Program for

homeless families with children

$- $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 $4,000,000 $4,500,000 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5

Annual average funding as % of Total

District 1 22% District 2 11% District 3 13% District 4 37% District 5 17%

District 4 consistently receives the largest proportion of funding Districts 1, 2, 3, and 5 saw increases in funding from FY 15/16 – FY 17/18

$- $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 $14,000,000

FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 Housing Shelter/Rental Assistance Homeless Mgmt. System Food Continuum of Care Activities Consultant Services

On average, most funding goes toward Housing (68%) & Shelter/Rental Assistance (22%)

$- $500,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $1,500,000.00 $2,000,000.00 $2,500,000.00 $3,000,000.00 $3,500,000.00 $4,000,000.00 $4,500,000.00 District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5

Housing Shelter/Rental Assistance Comfort Station Facilities Consultant Services Continuum of Care Activities Coordinated Entry System (CES) Food Homeless Mgmt. System

Annually on average each district uses most of their funding toward Housing (69%) and Shelter/Rental Assistance (20%)

Review Data and Survey Results for Homeless Emergency Aid Program (HEAP) to inform funding prioritization. Jennifer Claar DPSS Assistant Director

32 32 % 23 23 % 20 20 % 33 33 % 15 15 %

268 Total Respondents

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Homelessness prevention activities Emergency aid Criminal justice diversion programs for homeless individuals with mental health needs New or expanded emergency services for youth at risk of or who are already homeless

15% 19% 32% 35%

443 Tota tal Resp spon

• nses

es

HEAP Funding Survey

Homeless Prevention Activities: Most Effective 24% 22% 21% 18% 15%

Housing/Affordable Housing/Placement Eviction Prevention/Stabilization Social & Supportive Services/Outreach/Awarness Education/Employment/Training Mental Health/ Substance Abuse Treatment/Counseling

25% 12% 18% 9% 5% 31%

City County Non-Profit Faith- Based Non-Profit Secular Other (please specify) Private/Non-Profit 77 Total Respondents

[CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE]

Both through agency staff and subcontract Directly Other (please specify) Subcontract with another agency Through agency staff 60 Total Responses

62% for service expansions 53% part of a regional collaborative

[CELLR LRANG ANGE] E] [CELLR LRANG ANGE] E] [CELLR LRANG ANGE] E] [CELLR LRANG ANGE] E] [CELLR LRANG ANGE] E] [CELLR LRANG ANGE] E] [CELLR LRANG ANGE] E] [CELLR LRANGE] ANGE] [CELLR LRANG ANGE] E] [CELLR LRANG ANGE] E] [CELLR LRANG ANGE] E]

Outreach Supportive Services Case Management Emergency Aid Prevention Activities Navigation Mental Health Services Training and Employment Services Substance Abuse Treatment Criminal justice diversion Other 184 Total Responses* *Note: multiple services may be proposed by a single project

Outreach, Supportive Services, and Case Management are the most frequently proposed services

[CELLRAN GE] [CELLRAN GE] [CELLRAN GE] [CELLRAN GE] [CELLRAN GE] [CELLRAN GE]

Transitional Age Youth Families with Children Other (please specify) Single Adults Seniors All 69 Total Responses

Nearly half of all proposed projects intend to serve multiple target populations.

18 19 18 28 16

5 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30

District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5

*Note: One project may serve multiple supervisorial districts

 91% can be implemented within 90-120 days  98% adopt Housing First principles  100% adopt harm reduction principles  36% require additional funding in addition to HEAP  95% plan to continue after initial HEAP funding is exhausted

 Growing rate of unsheltered, chronically homeless, and young adults

(ages 18-24)

 Inadequate income and unemployment are the main reasons for

homelessness

 Underserved groups include single men, 40 and older, people with

disabilities

 Highest concentration of homeless population in Districts 2 and 4;

consider special geographic needs

 Aging homeless population, with 1 in 3 being 50 years old or older

 Increased outreach and navigation efforts result in increased housing

placement, but has limited capacity

 Nearly 1 in 5 homeless persons were living in permanent housing

before becoming homeless—can diversion efforts prevent their entry into CoC/CES?

 Return to homelessness (recidivism) outpacing placement in permanent

housing

 First 6-months of permanent housing, the most vulnerable period for

recidivism and may require increased support. Identify successful programs with high retention rates

Establish Priorities for Allocating Homeless Emergency Aid Program Funds (HEAP Allocation: $9,791,805) Application is due on December 31, 2018) Tammy Marine Chair

 Geographic Distribution (e.g. history of funding distribution)  Capital Improvements with Long Term Benefits (small and big) Coordination Immediate impact on already homeless “Ready to go” or near ready Target low resource communities Low investment, big bang Diversion (e.g., exits from jail) Leverage other funds Self sufficiency New money for new activities (added value, expansion)

 Motion: Approve funding priorities for

HEAP

 Public comment for this item only.

• a. Policy on Unspent Funds
• b. BoG Retreat

HUD - UNSPENT FUNDS

Year Award Amount Amt Expended Amt Recaptured % Expended % Recaptured 2012 $8,145,280 $7,511,986 $633,293 92% 8% 2013 $8,130,022 $7,634,364 $495,657 94% 6% 2014 $9,857,934 $9,031,344 $826,589 92% 8% 2015 $9,289,429 $8,586,043 $703,385 92% 8% 2016* $9,912,027 $8,976,598 $935,428 91% 9% 2017 $9,978,890 TBD TBD N/A N/A *Projected

The next regularly scheduled BoG

meeting: November 15, 2018 9:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. 901 E. Ramsey Street Banning CA 92220

10 20 30 40 50 60 2016 2017 2018

Emergency Shelter Permanent Supportive Housing Rapid Re-Housing Transitional Housing

16% (9) 29% (17) 21% (12) 34% (20) 26% (15) 35% (20) 29% (17)

10% (6)

24% (14) 38% (22) 29% (17)

9% (5)

n = 58 n = 58

Source: HMIS - Annual HIC PIT Count 2016- 2018

Transitional housing and emergency shelter inventory decreased.

n = 58

Housing Inventory is made of 58 total projects each year

Rapid Re-Housing and Permanent Supportive Housing are the most utilized

84% average total utilization

rate (2016-2018)

100% utilization rate for Rapid

Re-Housing (based on client move- in date per HUD)

Source: PIT Count 2016- 2018

756 756 1538 1538 292 292 334 334 699 699 1617 1617 277 277 220 220 787 787 1766 1766 181 181 180 180 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 Em Emerg rgenc ency Shelte lter Pe Perm rman anent t Supp pportiv

• rtive

Ho Housin ing Rapid apid R Re-Hou

• Housin

ing Tran ransit ition ional H al Hou

• usin

ing 2016 2017 2018

Total Beds by Year: 2016 = 2,920 2017 = 2,813 2018 = 2,914

The majority of bed inventory are in Permanent Supportive Housing units.

Source: HMIS – Annual HIC PIT Count 2016- 2018

33 33 37 37 37 37 2 1 6 6 4 13 13 11 11 11 11 3 3 5

10 20 30 40 50 60

2016 2016 2017 2017 2018 2018

Youth Males and Females Single Males & Females Single Males Single Females

Most housing units target single individuals and households with children.

1 in 10

housing units for transitional-aged youth