Homelessness Grants Annual Report 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS Homeless Coordinating and Financing Council Annual Funding Report February 2021 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents Introduction and Overview .................................................................................................... 1 California Homeless Coordinating and Financing Council ................................ 1 Preface to the Annual Funding Report ................................................................. 1 HEAP Overview and Highlights ............................................................................... 2 HHAP Round 1 Overview and Highlights ............................................................... 3 Chapter Summaries ................................................................................................. 3 Chapter 1: HEAP ...................................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................ 5 Expenditures .............................................................................................................. 5 Performance Metrics ............................................................................................... 6 Qualitative Indicators of Impact ............................................................................ 7 1.2 HEAP Expenditures ............................................................................................................ 9 Spending ................................................................................................................... 9 Obligation ................................................................................................................. 9 Allocations and Expenditures by Budget Category .......................................... 10 Large City and CoC Comparison ........................................................................ 11 Youth Expenditures ................................................................................................. 12 Spending Projections ............................................................................................. 13 HCFC Support and Monitoring Activities ............................................................. 15 1.3 HEAP Performance Metrics ............................................................................................ 16 Performance Metrics Methodology..................................................................... 16 Overview ................................................................................................................. 17 Demographic Characteristics of People Served ............................................... 18 Populations of Interest Served .............................................................................. 20 Outcomes ............................................................................................................... 20 1.4 Qualitative Indicators of HEAP Impact ......................................................................... 24 Strategic Investments ............................................................................................. 24 Racial Equity ........................................................................................................... 25 Partnerships ............................................................................................................. 27 Chapter 2: HHAP Round 1 .................................................................................................... 30 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2.1 Overview .......................................................................................................................... 30 Expenditures ............................................................................................................ 30 Performance Metrics ............................................................................................. 31 Additional Indicators of Impact ........................................................................... 31 2.2 HHAP Round 1 Expenditures .......................................................................................... 33 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 33 Obligated & Expended Funds .............................................................................. 33 Expenditures by Grantee Type ............................................................................. 34 Expenditures Eligible Uses ...................................................................................... 35 Youth Set-Aside Expenditures ............................................................................... 36 HCFC Support and Monitoring Activities ............................................................. 37 2.3 HHAP Performance Metrics ............................................................................................ 38 Performance Metrics Methodology..................................................................... 38 Overview ................................................................................................................. 39 Demographic Characteristics of People Served ............................................... 39 Gender Characteristics of People Served .......................................................... 40 Populations of Interest Served .............................................................................. 41 Outcomes ............................................................................................................... 42 2.4 Qualitative Indicators of HHAP Impact ......................................................................... 46 Racial Equity ........................................................................................................... 46 Partnerships ............................................................................................................. 48 Appendices ........................................................................................................................... 51 Appendix A: HEAP, Enabling Statute and Programmatic Snapshot ............ 59 Appendix B: HEAP Grantees Allocation Chart ............................................... 53 Appendix C: HEAP Supplemental Data- Eligible Uses .................................... 55 Appendix D: HEAP Additional Performance Metrics Charts .......................... 56 Appendix E: Map of Regions ............................................................................ 58 Appendix F: HHAP, Enabling Statute and Programmatic Snapshot ............ 59 Appendix G: HHAP Round 1, Grantees Allocation Chart .............................. 61 Appendix I: HHAP, Supplemental Data – Eligible Uses ................................. 62 Appendix J: HHAP Additional Performance Metrics Charts ......................... 64 3 OVERVIEW Introduction and Overview California Homeless Coordinating and Financing Council In 2017 the Homeless Coordinating and Financing Council (HCFC) was created to oversee the implementation of “Housing First” policies, guidelines, and regulations to reduce the prevalence and duration of homelessness in California. The Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency (BCSH) is responsible for the distribution of more than $1.5 billion in homelessness grants on the Council’s behalf. This annual report (including data from grant program implementation through September 30, 2020) provides an update on two of those grants — the Homeless Emergency Aid Program (HEAP) and Round 1 of the Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention Program (HHAP Round 1). HEAP, authorized in 2018, is a $500 million three-year block grant designed to provide direct assistance to cities and Continuums of Care (CoCs) to address the homelessness crisis throughout California; HHAP Round 1, authorized in 2019, is a $650 million five-year block grant provided to cities, counties, and CoCs to support regional coordination and expand local capacity to address immediate homelessness challenges, informed by best practices that focus on moving people experiencing homelessness into permanent housing. While HEAP and HHAP Round 1 have material distinctions, within the bounds of the Legislature’s intent, HCFC has provided and will continue to provide cross- grant resources, technical assistance, and guidance to support grantees in their efforts to effectively and efficiently serve people experiencing homelessness. This annual funding report reflects HCFC’s continued commitment to alignment and coordination across grant programs. About this 2020 Annual Funding Report This annual funding report serves as a detailed summary of data collected, as required by statute, from all HEAP and HHAP grantees through September 30, 2020. Per their respective enabling statutes, grantees of both programs are required to submit data on expenditures and performance metrics by January 1st annually for the duration of the program. This report provides a synopsis of HEAP and HHAP Round 1 expenditures, performance metrics, and narratives around key initiatives in the areas of racial equity and strategic partnerships. It should not be read as an evaluation of either program, nor does it intend to provide recommendations around best practices or further investments. Explanation of Reported Data The data contained in this report for both programs is cumulative from when the grantee was awarded the funding through September 30, 2020. For HEAP, this is 1 OVERVIEW a period of up to 2 years (September 2018 – September 2020); for HHAP Round 1, this is a period of up to 5 months (May 2020 – September 2020). Data was collected from all 54 HEAP grantees (large cities and CoCs) and all 102 HHAP grantees (cities, CoCs and counties) from an annual report submission form1 that requested expenditures, performance metrics on people served and a summary of their work on racial equity and partnership. Every attempt was made to make the report process easier by aligning the structure of the report across2 with grantees’ local Homeless Management Information System (HMIS). While this joint annual funding report provides rich detail on systems and projects, it does not and cannot convey the structural and interpersonal challenges confronting people experiencing homelessness or the challenges confronting front-line service providers and local administrators, particularly in the midst of a global pandemic. This report is written for these individuals, for our partners in government, and for the public at large. HEAP Overview and Highlights As authorized by Chapter 48, Statutes of 2018, (SB 850), HEAP is a $500 million three-year block grant designed to provide direct assistance to cities and Continuums of Care (CoCs) to address the homelessness crisis throughout California. In total, $499 million3 was allocated to 54 grantees comprised of all 43 CoCs and the state’s 11 largest cities, with CoCs receiving 70% of funding and cities receiving the remaining 30%. As of September 30, 2020: • HEAP grantees have spent 58% ($288 million) of the $499 million allocated. Spending significantly increased year-over-year. Grantees spent a combined total of $69 million from September 2018 to September 2019. However, in the second year (September 2019 - September 2020) grantees quickly accelerated spending to a combined total of $219 million. To spend the full HEAP allocation, 42% of funds will need to be spent between October 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. • HEAP grantees have served approximately 65,524 people4; 76% of people were served in Continuums of Care and 24% of people were served across large cities. 1 See https://bcsh.ca.gov/hcfc/documents/heap_hhap_report_template.pdf 2 HMIS is a local technology information system used to collect client-level data and data on the provision of housing and services to homeless individuals and families and people at risk of homelessness, but do not include information on people served by victim service providers. 3 The remaining $1 million supports grant administration and technical assistance. 4 While HCFC undertook efforts to mitigate duplication, there may be some limited duplication in the number of people served because some HEAP grantees provided estimates of people 2 OVERVIEW HHAP Round 1 Overview and Highlights As authorized by Chapter 159, Statutes of 2019, (AB 101), HHAP Round 1 is a $650 million, five-year block grant program designed to provide jurisdictions with one- time grant funds to support regional coordination and expand or develop local capacity to address their immediate homelessness challenges. In total, $618 million was allocated to 102 grantees5 comprised of all 58 counties, 44 CoCs, and the state’s 13 largest cities. Counties received 27% of the funding, CoCs received 30%, and cities received 43%. As of September 30, 2020: • HHAP grantees have obligated 54% ($334 million) of the allocation and expended 9.8% ($61 million) within the spending period of May - September 20206 . • HHAP grantees served approximately 4,612 people comprising approximately 3,814 households.7 64.3% of people were served in Continuums of Care, 17.8% were served in counties, and 19% were served across large cities. Chapter Summaries Chapter One - HEAP On January 1, 2021 grantees submitted their second annual report which encompassed data from the receipt of funds (between October 2018 and April 2019) through September 2020. Chapter One provides a summary of the data submitted by HEAP’s 54 grantees. The chapter is divided into four sub-sections: 1.1 Overview: Provides a summary of Chapter One including key takeaways from the expenditures, performance metrics, and qualitative indicators of impact sub-sections. 1.2 Expenditures: Provides detailed analysis of HEAP expenditures and obligation including spending comparisons between grantees, expenditures across eligible categories, progress toward statutory milestones, and spending trends. served by projects rather than distinct counts and/or instances where people may have accessed services across grantees. 5 The remaining $32 million supports grant administration and a robust technical assistance (TA) program with externally contracted technical assistance providers who will provide direct training and support to grantees in key focus areas. 6 Note that HSC § 50218(a) designated up to 116 eligible applicants (the state’s largest 13 cities, all 58 counties, and all 44 CoCs), however applicants had the option to apply jointly through a redirection process. This resulted in a lower number of grantees than total eligible applicants. 7 See footnote 2. 3 OVERVIEW 1.3 Performance metrics: Summarizes data about people served through HEAP funds, analyzed across grantee type, region, demographic characteristics, populations of interest, and housing outcomes. 1.4 Qualitative indicators of impact: Summarizes HEAP grant investments that cannot be captured in the performance metrics reported via HMIS data and detailed in the prior section. These additional qualitative indicators include strategic investments in unsheltered outreach, capital improvements, and staffing as well as efforts to address racial equity and build partnerships. Chapter Two - HHAP Round 1 On January 1, 2021 grantees submitted their first annual report which encompassed data from the receipt of funds (between April and May 2020) through September 30, 2020. Chapter Two provides a summary of the data submitted by HHAP’s 102 grantees. The chapter is divided into four sub-sections: 1.1 Overview: Provides a summary of Chapter Two including key takeaways from the expenditure, performance metrics, and qualitative indicators of impact sub-sections. 1.2 Expenditures: Provides detailed analysis into early HHAP expenditure and obligation data, including youth set-aside funds and eligible uses. 1.3 Performance metrics: Summarizes data about people served through HHAP funds, analyzed across grantee type, region, demographic characteristics, populations of interest, and housing outcomes. 1.4 Qualitative indicators of impact: Summarizes HHAP grant investments that cannot be captured in the performance metrics reported via HMIS data and detailed in the prior section. These qualitative indicators include racial equity and grantee partnerships. 4 CHAPTER 1: HEAP Chapter 1: HEAP 1.1 Overview In February 2019, the Homeless Coordinating and Financing Council (HCFC) awarded $499 million8 in Homeless Emergency Aid Program (HEAP) funding to California’s 43 Continuums of Care (CoCs) and 11 largest cities. CoCs received 70% of the total funding and the 11 cities received the remaining 30%. By the January 1, 2021 deadline, all grantees submitted their second annual report. The following is a summary of the data submitted by HEAP’s 54 grantees. It covers expenditures, performance metrics, and qualitative indicators of impact from the disbursement of funds (between October 2018 and April 2019)9 through September 30, 2020. Expenditures As of September 30, 2020, HEAP grantees spent 58% ($288 million) of the $499 million allocated. Grantees spent approximately: • $121 million on capital improvements (42%) • $107 million on services (37%) • $32 million on rental assistance (11%) • $19 million on other projects 6.5%), and • $9 million on administration (3%).10 Spending significantly increased year-over-year. While grantees spent a combined 14% of the HEAP grant from September 2018-September 201911, in the second year (September 2019-September 2020) grantees quickly accelerated spending to a combined 44%. The slow spending in year one is primarily attributed to local Request for Proposal (RFP) processes, subsequent contracting delays, and the time needed to start and track programs. By December 2019, most programs had achieved full operational capacity. 8 See footnote 3. 9 Funds were released on a rolling basis, with the first grantee receiving funds in October 2018 and the final grantee receiving funds in April 2019. 10 Capital Improvements can include new emergency sheltering capacity, new interim or permanent housing capacity, expanding or improving facilities serving people experiencing homelessness; services can include housing navigation, case management, and operations expenses for sheltering facilities; rental assistance can include rental payments (including deposits), flexible subsidies, and landlord incentives; other projects includes projects that do not explicitly fall into one of the other categories; administration can include costs associated with tracking, contracting, and administering the grant locally which is capped at 5% of the grantees total HEAP allocation. 11 Spending was slow in the first year due to planning, coordination, and contracting efforts. 5 CHAPTER 1: HEAP Performance Metrics From Fall 2018 through September 30, 2020, HEAP served approximately 65,524 people12; 75.9% of people were served in CoCs and 24.1% of people were served across large cities. In 2019, the HUD PIT count indicated that in California there were 151,278 individuals experiencing homelessness on a given night. As of September 2020, HEAP served slightly more males (52.4%) than any other gender group. Racial minorities made up 36.6% of people served and an additional 32.7% self-identified as Hispanic or Latinx. Of the people served, 24.6% were chronically homeless, 9.2% were unaccompanied youth under 25 years old13, and 5.3% identified as veterans.14 HEAP assisted approximately 48,882 households15, which were primarily comprised of adult-only households (84.3%). Families with children were 10.2% of the households served, while households of unaccompanied minors (children only) were 0.9%. Unknown household types were 4.6%. A primary outcome of interest for HEAP is whether HEAP services resulted in permanent housing exits. There are approximately 38,965 recorded exits from HEAP-funded projects; 61.7% of people served in CoCs and 52.4% of people served in large cities were reported to have exited HEAP-funded projects. Exits to permanent housing destinations and unknown destinations16 accounted for the greatest number of exits and were roughly equivalent (32.4% and 32.9%, respectively). Permanent housing exits are 32.4%, representing 12,625 people exiting to permanent housing. Exits to unknown locations accounted for 32.9% (12,816 people) of reported exits. The high number of exits to unknown locations 12 See footnote 2. 13 Unaccompanied youth are persons aged 12-24 years old in households where no persons are 25 years or older and include unaccompanied minors, young adults, and youth of parenting age. 14 See Appendix D for additional detail. 15 Households are groups of people, who would dwell together if housed, seeking assistance from the homelessness responses system. An individual seeking assistance alone can be categorized by their own household. Household types include adult only (adults in the company of other adults only), adults and children households (commonly referred to as adults and children in families), and children only household (children under 18 in the company of other children under 18 only). 16 Permanent housing destinations include a permanent tenure with family or friends and renting/owning with or without a subsidy. Exits to unsheltered homelessness include staying in a place not meant for human habitation. Temporary exit destinations include exiting to emergency shelter or transitional housing, and temporary stays with family or friends. Institutional exit destinations include incarceration, medical treatment facilities, or group or assisted living settings. Unknown indicates that data on exit destinations is missing or that the client is deceased. Other exit destinations are not specified in HMIS. 6 CHAPTER 1: HEAP may reflect challenges some HEAP grantees have had collecting exit information from clients, particularly in shelter environments. Unsheltered homelessness accounted for 13.4% (5,235 people), and temporary living situation exits were 15.5% (6,025 people). Fewer people exited to institutional settlings (1.6% or 642 people) and other destinations (4.2% or 1,623 people). For select populations of interest, 28% of people experiencing chronic homelessness, 32.5% of unaccompanied youth under 25, and 24.4% of veterans exited to permanent housing destinations. A more detailed analysis of this data can be found in Performance Metrics section later in this chapter. When comparing the demographic characteristics of all exits from HEAP-funded projects to exits to permanent housing, a greater proportion of females and people of Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity exited to permanent housing than were represented in overall people served. Exits to permanent housing were roughly proportional to overall people served for each racial group.17 Additional trends are identified throughout this chapter, and further detail on data analytics can be found in the appendices. Qualitative Indicators of Impact For this annual funding report, HCFC also collected qualitative data from HEAP grantees focusing on strategic investments, racial equity initiatives, and partnerships that further describe the impact of HEAP funding. Strategic Investments As a one-time block grant, HEAP grantees frequently use HEAP dollars to make strategic investments in outreach and to strengthen their local homelessness response system. In addition to more traditional outreach activities, outreach efforts also served to support health and safety during the pandemic. HCFC expects that grantees’ system-building activities will carry longer term impacts by improving client access and expanding or improving the overall homelessness response system to create a more efficient system. This work is critical as the state continues ramping up its homelessness response. Racial Equity HEAP grantees took numerous steps toward addressing racial equity. The vast majority engaged in quantifying (e.g. collecting and evaluating) racial equity data. Some developed more sophisticated or customized tools to support racial equity work and meet racial equity goals. Many grantees incorporated input from people with lived experience and/or individuals from communities that face disproportionate impact through community engagement, creating 17 See Appendix D. 7 CHAPTER 1: HEAP specific boards and committees, and by establishing decision-making positions for these communities’ members. Through these efforts, many grantees are working to reduce racial disparities, and have thoughtfully changed policies and power structures, continually engaged with service providers, and/or deployed tactical measures to realize immediate impact. Partnerships Partnerships play an important part of HEAP’s impact story. The homelessness response system is often fragmented between services, among organizations, and across geography. In many cases, HEAP dollars made grantees major local funders. This created both an opportunity and a responsibility for grantees to identify and cultivate partnerships to better serve clients and communities. Partnerships took many forms and served many purposes. Strong partnerships were often multifaceted or multimodal. For example, partnerships with local service providers included funding and capacity development to fill gaps and improve services. Partnerships with other government entities included mapping funds and strengthening relationships to enable strategic investments. While not always easy to achieve, HEAP grantees tended to develop and engage in partnerships that cultivated new local providers, bolstered collaboration with other government entities, and resulted in strategic investments. For example, in Oakland, through the development of a business relationship between the City of Oakland (COO) leadership and local Caltrans leadership, a collaborative partnership was created. Interested in an opportunity to partner with COO on a similar initiative, Caltrans leased unused property near a large encampment to COO at an extremely below-market rate. COO was able to develop the Northgate Community Cabins program on this vacant lot. Through State funding the Cabins were able to flourish under this partnership and provide residents of the encampment a dignified shelter to live in while receiving supportive services to obtain permanent housing. It also provided a visual display of a successful partnership between a transportation organization and a homeless initiative. Following this development, COO was able to partner with Bay Area Rapid Transit and Metropolitan Transportation Commission to utilize land and develop an additional Community Cabin neighborhood for homeless individuals living in street encampments. HHAP funding will continue to support and sustain these partnerships, holding together the vital Community Cabins that serve as clean and safe shelter for 232 households who would otherwise reside on the street. 8 CHAPTER 1: HEAP 1.2 HEAP Expenditures The section below provides insight into obligation rates18 and expenditures19, spending comparisons between grantees, expenditures across eligible categories, progress toward statutory milestones, and analysis of spending trends. Spending As of September 30, 2020, grantees have expended $288,091,073 (58%) of the HEAP Grant. • Spending significantly increased year-over-year. Grantees spent a combined total of $69 million (14%) from September 2018-September 2019. Spending was slow in the first year due to planning, coordination, and contracting efforts. In the second year (September 2019-September 2020) grantees accelerated spending to a combined total of $219 million (44%). • Quarterly spending decreased slightly from $64 million (12.5%) between April - June 2020 to $52 million (10.4%) (July - September 2020). Part of this decrease was due to an influx of pandemic related funding with more pressing deadlines and a period of adjustment by service providers who had to evaluate and determine how they could continue to serve people in a prolonged pandemic. Grantees must accelerate their spending to achieve full expenditure by the HEAP grant deadline (see “Spending Projections” for more detail). • A regional expenditure comparison between northern, southern, and central California grantees indicates that the northern region of the state spent 59% of their collective allocation, the southern region has spent 58% of their collective allocation, and the central region has spent 49% of their collective allocation.20 Obligation Grantees have an additional $196,389,576 (39%) of planned expenditures under obligation. • The percentage of obligated funds continued to increase from 92% to 97% between June and September 2020. • All grantees met the statutory requirement to have 50% of funds obligated by January 1, 2020. 18 Obligate is defined as having placed orders, awarded contracts, received services, or entered into similar transactions that require payment using HEAP funding. 19 Expend is defined as funds which have been fully paid and receipted. 20 Regional breakdown used to calculate this data can be found in Appendix E 9 CHAPTER 1: HEAP Figure 1: HEAP Total Fiscal Action, All Grantees as of 9/30/2020 600000000 500000000 400000000 300000000 $499,000,000 $488,281,003 200000000 $8,905,082 $263,785,962 100000000 $15,400,029 0 Allocation Obligated Expended Allocations and Expenditures by Budget Category Capital improvements continues to represent the largest spending category but is growing more modestly compared to services and rental assistance. • Capital improvement expenditures have tapered in recent quarters, while expenditures in services and rental assistance have continued to grow. (see Figure 3). Figure 2: Total HEAP Funds Expended by Type (as of 9/30/2020) Rental Assistance or Subsidies Services $32,406,961 $106,733,645 11% 37% Other Projects $19,140,295 Capital 7% Improvements $120,905,090 42% Admin Costs $8,905,082 3% 10 CHAPTER 1: HEAP Figure 3: HEAP Spending Trends across Categories (as of 9/30/2020) $350,000,000 $300,000,000 $250,000,000 $200,000,000 $150,000,000 $100,000,000 $50,000,000 $- Mar-19 Jun-19 Sep-19 Dec-19 Mar-20 Jun-20 Sep-20 Total Funds Capital Improvements Services Rental Assistance or Subsidies Other Administration Large City and CoC Comparison Collectively, CoCs and cities show comparable obligation rates, but cities show a higher rate of spending. • Large cities received $150 million (30%) and CoCs received $349 million (70%). • As of September 30, 2020: Large cities expended 68% of their funds and obligated 98%, collectively. o CoCs have expended 53% of their funds and obligated 97%, collectively. o • Spending differences largely stem from different spending strategies: Large cities allocated a higher portion of funds toward capital improvement acquisitions which tend to occur in large lump-sum o expenditures. CoCs allocated a higher portion of funds to services and rental assistance which tend to ramp up to a steady state with their o associated programs. 11 CHAPTER 1: HEAP Figure 4: Total Fiscal Actions, By Grantee Type (as of 9/30/2020) $350,000,000 $300,000,000 $250,000,000 $200,000,000 $150,000,000 $100,000,000 CoCs $50,000,000 Large Cities $- Allocation Obligated Expended Large Cities $150,000,000 $146,776,541 $102,094,825 CoCs $349,000,000 $341,504,462 $185,996,249 Youth Expenditures Chapter 48, Statutes of 2018, (SB 850, requires grantees to use at least 5% of their allocation to establish or expand services meeting the needs of youth at risk of or experiencing homelessness. Spending on youth-specific interventions continues to increase, with services being the largest category of spending. • Rental assistance spending doubled between fiscal year 2019-20 Q4 and 2020-21 Q1 (See Figure 5). • Youth-specific capital improvement spending was significant early in the program but has plateaued recently (See Figure 5). • Services spending continues to increase (See Figure 5). • More grantees continue to meet or exceed the required youth set-aside minimum spending level every quarter (See Figure 6). 28% of grantees have already met or exceeded the youth set-aside minimum. o 18% are more than half-way to meeting the milestone. 37% show some youth expenditures. o 17% show no youth expenditures.21 o o 21 HCFC staff has worked with these grantees to ensure adequate spending and mitigation plans are in place. HCFC staff continues to closely track these grantees progress. 12 CHAPTER 1: HEAP Figure 5: HEAP Spending Trends Across Youth Set-Aside Categories $18,000,000 $16,000,000 $14,000,000 $12,000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $- Mar-19 Jun-19 Sep-19 Dec-19 Mar-20 Jun-20 Sep-20 Total Funds Capital Improvements Services Rental Assistance or Subsidies Other Figure 6: Percent of HEAP Grantees Meeting Youth Set-Aside Minimum 30% 28% 25% 22% 20% % of Grantees September 2019 20% 15% % of Grantees December 2019 15% % of Grantees March 2020 9% 10% % of Grantees June 2020 5% % of Grantees September 2020 0% Met or Exceeded Spending Projections Grantees must collectively spend an average of $71 million quarterly to fully expend their allocations by the expenditure deadline. • To reach the $499 million spending goal, total collective spending must accelerate to $71 million quarterly (i.e., accelerate to 14.2% expenditure rate collectively per quarter). • Figure 7 shows projection lines using the most recent quarterly spending rate of 10% compared to the required 14.2% rate to spend down by the grant spending deadline (June 30, 2021). 13 CHAPTER 1: HEAP HCFC projects that quarterly expenditure rates will accelerate in the last three quarters of the grant, reaching complete or near complete spend down. Categorical spending is progressing at variable rates. Figure 8 shows these trends projected out through the expenditure deadline22. Projections are based on current spending rate trends, grantee spending plans, and technical assistance calls with grantees. Additional factors considered in this projection include: 1. Services spending will account for added expenses related to maintaining and expanding services during the ongoing pandemic. 2. Capital improvements will accelerate due to final acquisitions and invoicing for accrued construction costs. 3. Services and rental assistance programs are operating at full capacity. 4. Administrative budgets (which had been delayed because grantees wanted to ensure programs were fully supported) will be drawn down at an accelerated pace. Figure 7: HEAP Total Expenditure Trend Projected through 6/30/2021 600000000 500000000 400000000 300000000 200000000 100000000 0 Mar-19 Jun-19 Sep-19 Dec-19 Mar-20 Jun-20 Sep-20 Dec-20 Mar-21 Jun-21 Funds Expended Total Funds at 10% rate Total Funds at accelerated 14.2% rate 22 Trend lines for each category were developed based on the expenditure quantitative data from the Quarterly Updates and qualitative data from Technical Assistance Calls. 14 CHAPTER 1: HEAP Figure 8: HEAP Categorical Spending Trends Projected through 6/30/2021 $600,000,000 $500,000,000 $400,000,000 $300,000,000 $200,000,000 $100,000,000 $0 Mar-19 Jun-19 Sep-19 Dec-19 Mar-20 Jun-20 Sep-20 Dec-20 Mar-21 Jun-21 Total Funds Capital Improvements Services Rental Assistance or Subsidies Other Administration Projected Total Funds Projected Capital Improvements Projected Services Projected Rental Assistance or Subsidies Projected Other Projected Administration HCFC Support and Monitoring Activities Over the last quarter, HCFC has conducted intensive technical assistance efforts with over 30 of the 54 grantees to ensure those grantees that had concerning spending trends were creating spending and risk mitigation plans. In addition, all 54 grantees provided project narrative updates as part of their HEAP annual report. These updates provide a complete list of HEAP funded projects, including budgets and spending through September 2020. This critical information will support HCFC’s technical assistance efforts in the remaining months of the HEAP program. 15 CHAPTER 1: HEAP 1.3 HEAP Performance Metrics Performance Metrics Methodology HEAP and HHAP grantees submitted aggregated data23 on the required performance metrics data from their local Homelessness Management Information System (HMIS)24 or other local data tracking systems. Aggregated numbers of people served by victim service providers were included in manual reports provided by jurisdictions. This report includes people served by HEAP separated out from any other funding sources. In cases where people were served in projects funded by multiple funding sources, jurisdictions were asked to provide an estimate of the number of people served in proportion to the HEAP funding amount used in that project. As a result, the performance metrics for HEAP represent informed estimates of people served rather than precise counts, and therefore may not represent unduplicated counts of people served by each grant. Both HEAP and HHAP have widely funded capital improvement projects to increase capacity to serve people. Expenditures in these projects may not reflect people served as direct services are not delivered, however, people experiencing homelessness are benefitting from improved quality of physical spaces provided by these advancements. The HEAP performance metrics include information on people enrolled in projects that could be captured in HMIS. Therefore, the performance metrics do not include counts of people who may have benefitted from some outreach initiatives funded by HEAP, such as the provision of immediate health and safety services to unsheltered homeless populations via hygiene stations, handwashing stations or encampment management. HCFC understands that, due to COVID- 19, jurisdictions have increased expenditures related to these types of health and safety initiatives. However, people likely served by such outreach activities are incredibly difficult to accurately estimate, and therefore are excluded from the following analysis. However, the impact of these types of programs is further analyzed below in Section 1.4. HCFC is in the process of building the statewide Homeless Data Integration System (HDIS), which will pull HMIS data from all California CoCs. This system will allow HCFC to access performance data—like those required for HEAP and 23 Counts of people served may be duplicated across grantees, as people may have been served by more than one grantee. 24 HMIS is a local technology information system used to collect client-level data and data on the provision of housing and services to homeless individuals and families and people at risk of homelessness, but do not include information on people served by victim service providers. 16 CHAPTER 1: HEAP HHAP annual reports—more consistently. In future annual grant reports, HDIS will be used to provide greater detail and better-quality data on HCFC-funded projects. Overview From the fall of 2018 through September 30, 2020, HEAP served approximately 65,524 people. Continuums of Care (CoC) served 75.9% of people and 24.1% of people were served across large cities. CoCs had greater expenditures in supportive services, resulting in greater numbers of people served. In contrast, large cities prioritized expenditures in capital improvement projects to increase capacity resulting in fewer people served as of September 30, 2020. In addition, northern and southern California grantees—areas with larger HEAP allocations and metropolitan areas such as the bay area and Los Angeles—served a greater number of people. Figure 9: Distribution of People Served by Jurisdiction Type and Region JURISDICTION REGION N=65,524 N=65,524 CoC 75.9% Northern 38.9% Large City 24.1% Central 8.0% Southern 53.2% Total 100.0% Total 100.0% Note: Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. Approximately 38,966 people served (59.5%) exited HEAP-funded projects. Of those exits, 32.4% (12,625 people) exited to permanent destinations, while 13.4% (5,235 people) exited to unsheltered homelessness. HEAP has been successful in having people exit to permanent destinations. For comparison to overall performance in California, the HUD 2019 System Performance Metrics indicated 25.7% of people exiting from street outreach programs, shelter and housing assistance programs exited to permanent housing destinations. The following analysis includes all people served by HEAP funds from the start of the grant through September 30, 2020. An analysis of people served by project types will be released as a report addendum at a later date. 17 CHAPTER 1: HEAP Demographic Characteristics of People Served People served were analyzed by demographic characteristics (gender, race, and ethnicity), and presence in select populations of interest (unaccompanied youth ages 12-24, veterans, and chronically homeless25). HEAP served 65,524 people in 48,882 household units, mainly composed of adults only households (41,212 households or 84.3%). Households with adults and children were 4,967 or 10.2% of the households served, while households with children only were 458 or 0.9% of households served. Unknown household types were 4.6% (2,246 households). People Served by Gender Slightly more males were served across all grantees — in each jurisdiction type and region. Overall, males accounted for 52.4% of people served, while females accounted for 41.3% Figure 10: Gender Distribution of People Served by HEAP Funded Projects ALL JURISDICTION REGION GENDER CoC Large City Northern Central Southern N=65,524 N=49,724 N=15,800 N=25,463 N=5,234 N=3,4828 Males 52.4% 52.1% 53.5% 49.7% 51.0% 54.6% Females 41.3% 42.4% 37.8% 39.8% 44.3% 41.9% Trans Gender 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.6% 0.2% 0.6% Gender Non- 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% Conforming Unknown 5.6% 4.8% 8.1% 9.7% 4.4% 2.8% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Note: Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. 25 A chronically homeless individual is a person who has resided in a place not meant for future habitation, a safe have, or in an emergency shelter for at least 1 year or on at least four separate occasions in the last 3 years, and who has (or the head of their household has) a disabling condition 18 CHAPTER 1: HEAP People Served by Race and Ethnicity Racial minorities served by HEAP totaled 36.7% of people served. A greater proportion of racial minority populations were served in large cities than CoCs (40.6% compared to 35.5%) and in southern (37.6%) and northern California (36.7%) than in central California (28.8%). Compared to other regions, central California served a greater proportion of Hispanic/Latinx people (44.7%). Figure 11: Racial Distribution of People Served by HEAP Funded Projects ALL JURISDICTION REGION RACE CoC Large City Northern Central Southern N=65,524 N=49,724 N=15,800 N=25,463 N=5,234 N=3,4828 White 54.8% 55.6% 52.2% 54.0% 61.6% 54.3% Black 26.2% 24.8% 30.9% 21.9% 16.8% 30.4% Asian 1.5% 1.4% 2.1% 2.0% 1.5% 1.2% American Indian or Alaskan Native 3.4% 3.6% 2.6% 5.4% 3.4% 2.0% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 1.2% 1.1% 1.4% 1.5% 1.0% 0.9% Multiple Races 4.4% 4.6% 3.6% 6.0% 6.1% 3.1% Unknown 8.5% 8.9% 7.2% 9.1% 9.5% 8.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Note: Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. Figure 12: Ethnic Distribution of People Served by HEAP Funded Projects ALL JURISDICTION REGION ETHNICITY CoC Large City Northern Central Southern N=65,524 N=49,724 N=15,800 N=2,5463 N=5,234 N=3,4828 Non-Hispanic/ Non-Latino 60.9% 60.6% 62.1% 61.8% 46.0% 62.6% Hispanic/Latino 32.7% 32.2% 34.4% 32.5% 44.7% 31.1% Unknown 6.4% 7.2% 3.4% 5.7% 9.3% 6.3% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Note: Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. 19 CHAPTER 1: HEAP Populations of Interest Served Overall, 5.4% of people served identified as veterans, with a higher proportion in large cities (9.5% of people served). Nearly one-quarter (24.6%) of all people served by HEAP were chronically homeless. Within jurisdictions, people experiencing chronic homelessness were 26.1% of persons served in large cities and 24.1% of people served in CoCs. Within regions, 26.1% of people served in northern California and 24.4% of people served in southern California were chronically homeless. Unaccompanied youth account for 9.2% of people served by HEAP. Within jurisdictions, unaccompanied youth were 6.3% of persons served in large cities and 10% of people served in CoCs. Figure 13: Populations of Interest Served by Jurisdiction Type and Region Jurisdictions Regions 26.1% 26.1% 24.2% 24.4% 19.0% 9.3% 9.5% 10.0% 9.1% 9.1% 6.3% 6.7% 4.0% 4.1% 2.3% Veterans Chronically Unaccompanied Veterans Chronically Unaccompanied N=3,499 Homeless Youth N=3,499 Homeless Youth N=16,135 N=5,969 N=16,135 N=5,969 CoC Large City Northern Central Southern Outcomes The primary outcome of interest for the HEAP grant is the housing status of people served after exiting HEAP-funded projects. This is determined by assessing individual’s exit destinations. Exit destinations broadly include permanent housing destinations, temporary living situations, unsheltered homelessness, institutional situations, other situations, and unknown exits. Outcomes are analyzed by demographic characteristics (race and ethnicity) and for select populations of interest (unaccompanied youth ages 12-24, veterans, and chronically homeless). There were approximately 38,966 people who were reported as having exited HEAP-funded projects as of September 30, 2020. Of those, 32.4% (12,625 people) exited to permanent housing destinations. 15.5% (6,025 people) exited to temporary living situations, 13.4% (5,235 people) exited to unsheltered homelessness, and 32.9% (12,816 people) exited to unknown locations. Currently, 20 CHAPTER 1: HEAP many jurisdictions are limited in their ability to track and report the exits. However, grantees are working with service providers to improve their data collection procedures and use local HMIS systems more uniformly to decrease the number of unreported exits. Figure 14: Distribution of Exit Destinations for HEAP Funded Projects Note: Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. Exits for Populations of Interest People experiencing chronic homelessness exited mostly to permanent housing destinations (28.0%) and unknown destinations (26.5%). Unaccompanied youth exited mostly to permanent housing destinations (32.5%). Veterans exited mostly to unknown destinations (38.9%). Figure 15: Distribution of Populations of Interest in HEAP Funded Exit Destinations 26.5% 27.9% 38.5% 2.8% 2.8% Unknown 2.7% 2.3% 19.9% 12.4% 3.4% Other 1.9% 15.8% Institutional 22.0% 20.2% Unsheltered 16.0% Homelessness Temporary 32.5% 28.0% 24.4% Chronically Homeless Unaccompanied Youth Veteran N=12,718 N=2,784 N=1,718 Note: Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. 21 CHAPTER 1: HEAP Exits by Jurisdictions and Regions Among jurisdictions, 34.6% of exits from CoC grantees were to permanent housing destinations, while large cities had 24.1% of people exit to permanent housing. Large cities also had 38.1% of persons exiting unknown locations compared to 31.5% for CoCs. Among regions, southern California had the highest percentage of exits to permanent housing (37.1%) compared to northern and central regions (27.1% and 30.2%, respectively). Figure 16: HEAP Funded Exit Destinations by Jurisdiction Type and Region EXIT ALL EXITS JURISDICTION REGION DESTINATIONS CoC Large Northern Central Southern City N=38,966 N=30,680 N=8,286 N=15,583 N=3,867 N=19,516 Permanent 32.4% 34.6% 24.1% 27.1% 30.2% 37.1% Temporary 15.5% 16.6% 11.2% 13.3% 19.5% 16.4% Unsheltered Homelessness 13.4% 13.5% 13.2% 14.3% 17.3% 12.0% Institutional 1.6% 1.7% 1.4% 1.7% 1.8% 1.6% Other 4.2% 2.0% 12.0% 1.3% 0.6% 7.1% Unknown 32.9% 31.5% 38.1% 42.2% 30.7% 25.9% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Note: Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. Exits by Demographic Characteristics Exits to permanent housing for all racial groups are roughly proportional to their distribution across all people served by HEAP projects. However, a greater proportion of people of Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity obtained permanent housing compared to all people who have exited HEAP-funded project (40.9% vs. 32.7%). White people had greater proportions of exits into unsheltered homelessness and institutional settings relative to their distribution in people served overall (69.0% and 65.6% vs. 54.8%). 22 CHAPTER 1: HEAP Figure 17: Distribution of Race in HEAP Funded Exit Destinations RACE ALL EXIT DESTINATIONS PEOPLE SERVED Permanent Temporary Unsheltered Institutional Other Unknown Homelessness N=65,524 N=12,625 N=6,025 N=5,235 N=642 N=1,623 N=1,2816 White 54.8% 57.4% 58.8% 69.0% 65.6% 67.5% 44.9% Black 26.2% 25.7% 26.2% 16.7% 20.6% 18.2% 24.2% Asian 1.5% 1.7% 1.5% 1.7% 1.5% 0.9% 1.3% American Indian or Alaskan Native 3.4% 3.5% 3.3% 3.9% 4.7% 3.2% 3.5% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 1.2% 1.4% 1.4% 1.2% 1.7% 1.3% 1.0% Multiple Races 4.4% 4.6% 5.6% 3.8% 4.3% 5.9% 3.7% Unknown 8.5% 5.8% 3.1% 3.7% 1.6% 3.0% 21.3% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Note: Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. Figure 18: Distribution of Ethnicity in HEAP Funded Exit Destinations ETHNICITY ALL EXIT DESTINATIONS PEOPLE SERVED Permanent Temporary Unsheltered Institutional Other Unknown Homelessness N=65,524 N=12,625 N=6,025 N=5,235 N=642 N=1,623 N=1,2816 Non- Hispanic/ Non- Latino 60.9% 57.3% 66.6% 61.8% 73.3% 78.0% 54.1% Hispanic/ Latino 32.7% 40.9% 31.4% 35.1% 25.8% 20.4% 25.5% Unknown 6.4% 1.8% 2.0% 3.1% 0.9% 1.6% 20.4% total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Note: Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. * In Race and Ethnicity tables, green shading indicates racial or ethnic populations that are overrepresented in the exit destination compared to all persons who were served, and red shading indicates populations who are underrepresented. Percentages are shaded darker for every 5 percentage points of difference from the percent all people served. 23 CHAPTER 1: HEAP 1.4 Qualitative Indicators of HEAP Impact Strategic Investments Introduction Some HEAP grant investments cannot be captured in the performance metrics reported via HMIS data and detailed in the prior section. Many local homelessness response systems used this flexible, one-time funding opportunity to execute discrete system and capacity building projects. While the impacts of capacity-building activities are not always immediately apparent, they often carry longer-term impacts by improving client access and expanding or improving the overall homelessness response system. This work is critical as the state continues ramping up its homelessness response. Detailed below are some examples of local HEAP funding uses that are not captured in earlier data analyses but that are critical to ensuring a strong homelessness response system. Unsheltered Outreach Efforts Unsheltered outreach and sanitation services26 funded through HEAP include expanding the scope and availability of outreach, mobile shower and hygiene facilities, sharps disposal27, water fountains, porta potties, and hand-washing stations. Grantees deployed these facilities in strategic locations throughout their communities, primarily at encampments. While several jurisdictions had implemented outreach and sanitation services prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, many more added these kinds of projects as part of their pandemic response. The flexibility of HEAP funding allowed for such emergency shifts in spending, ensuring that people experiencing homelessness were kept safe and healthy during the pandemic. Capital Projects As discussed in the expenditure portion of this chapter, capital improvement projects account for the largest category of spending. However, the impact of these projects is not readily captured in the reported HMIS data. The scope and type of capital projects varies widely — from building whole navigation centers, to adding substantial interim and permanent housing capacity, to strategic site improvements, or leveraging HEAP funds to support larger projects (e.g. affordable housing projects, Homekey and No Place Like Home). Regardless of 26 Because these projects are predominately available in public places, it is not feasible to capture client data. 27 Sharps disposal provides safe ways to dispose of items such as needles. 24 CHAPTER 1: HEAP their scope or type, they broadly helped local jurisdictions improve their homelessness system’s capacity and/or quality of response. Staffing As important as facilities are, the homelessness response system requires qualified staff to serve clients. Staff serve an integral role in assisting clients on their housing stabilization journey. When new facilities are built, or programs are developed or expanded, homelessness response systems invariably need people on the ground for operations, safety, assistance, and services. Hiring additional staff to serve more clients or staff new facilities is not easy to quantify in HMIS data and is therefore called out specifically here. Grantees most frequently expressed expanding existing hours, hiring additional Coordinated Entry (CE) intake staff, hiring diversion and problem-solving staff, and hiring case managers and other care coordinators. Racial Equity Introduction Racial equity performance metrics were not an explicit requirement of the HEAP grant. However, HCFC sees racial equity as a key component of homelessness services and the homelessness response system. Furthermore, subsequent HCFC grants do include specific requirements around racial equity. Therefore, understanding how grantees are working toward racial equity through their HEAP grant can provide valuable context. Given that there were not specific requirements for the HEAP grant, what follows is an opportunity to highlight trends and promising practices that surfaced in grantee responses. Homelessness and housing instability are not equally distributed across California residents. By and large, subpopulations that face discrimination and systemic racism also experience homelessness at a disproportionate rate. In order to address this disproportionality, many local homelessness response systems are taking several steps toward racial equity, including: (1) examining, identifying, and quantifying disparate impact; (2) engaging with those who are disproportionately impacted and elevating their voices; and (3) actively responding to racial equity challenges and racial disparities. In response to the first step, many grantees shared their use of available data and engagement with analysis tools to identify and quantify disproportionate impact. Some have gone further in developing custom tools and measures to help track their progress toward racial equity goals. In response to the second step, many grantees signaled their engagement by highlighting the intentional inclusion of those with lived experience and/or 25 CHAPTER 1: HEAP individuals from communities that face disproportionate impact in positions of influence and decision-making within their system. Finally, grantees shared a variety of actions their communities are taking to actively respond to racial disparities. This included changing policies and power structures, thoughtful and sustained engagement with service providers, and tactical measures to realize immediate impact. Disparate Impact To address disparate impacts with their local homelessness response system, grantees took steps toward understanding and quantifying those impacts both at a systemwide level and at an increasingly granular program level. Specifically, many grantees have used existing racial equity tools, adapted available tools, developed custom tools, and moved toward data collection and modeling that provides insight at the system, provider, and project levels. This more detailed analysis helps to provide nuance and sharpen grantees’ understanding of the issues at hand. Centering and Amplifying Community Voices As a second step, many grantees listened to and amplified the voices of affected communities. This work took many forms along a continuum of engagement — from creating opportunities to listen, to actively including and cultivating organizations that are run by and/or serve disproportionately impacted groups, to creating formal governance structures to elevate those voices to decision making positions. Systems Building As a third step, several grantees modified or built new tools and systems as part of their plan to address racial equity. These action-oriented system improvements included moving from drafting plans to enacting policies, implementing racial equity expectations in their funding requirements, and engaging in and providing racial equity trainings. Beyond evaluating the system and making plans, these efforts showed the importance of taking action and working comprehensively with service providers to enact racial equity. These system responses began to marry tactical and planning efforts as grantees iteratively evaluated, retooled, and redeployed their racial equity efforts. 26 CHAPTER 1: HEAP Partnerships Introduction Partnership metrics were also not an explicit requirement of the HEAP grants. However, HCFC sees partnerships with diverse local providers as well as across regional and/or overlapping jurisdictions as key components of homelessness services and the homelessness response system. Furthermore, subsequent HCFC grants do include specific requirements around partnerships. Thus, understanding how grantees are engaging with providers and other jurisdictions within the context of the HEAP grants is an opportunity to highlight trends and promising practices that surfaced in grantee responses.28 In many cases HEAP funding made grantees major local funding sources. This created an opportunity and a responsibility for grantees to identify and cultivate partnerships in service of their clients and communities. While not always easy to achieve, HEAP grantees tended to develop and engage in partnerships that cultivated and collaborated with new local providers and other government entities. Partnering with Local Providers In many instances HEAP grantees are not directly providing services or building new facilities. Instead, grantees rely on local entities to serve clients and build services infrastructure. Given this, grantee relationships with local providers are essential to the success of the HEAP program. Many grantees took the opportunity afforded by the HEAP grant to cultivate providers and develop new partnerships to expand service options in their communities. In practice this often took the form of cultivating new or smaller providers, creating a new focus on youth, and/or creating new partnerships with domestic violence service providers. In response to identified service gaps and community needs, many grantees cultivated new or smaller providers. This meant increasing these organizations’ capacity or expanding their service profile which ultimately improved access to culturally appropriate services. The HEAP grant explicitly required grantees to use a minimum of 5% of their funds to serve youth experiencing homelessness. Many grantees expressed that this requirement led to a renewed engagement around what unique services youth 28 Four of HEAP’s 54 Grantees did not provide a response. Two jurisdictions (Alpine, Inyo, Mono Counties CoC and Marin County CoC) stated “N/A” and two jurisdictions (San Francisco CoC and the City of San Francisco) did not submit this portion of the annual report. 27 CHAPTER 1: HEAP experiencing homelessness need. As a result of this engagement, grantees formed new partnerships around providing and expanding youth services. Several grantees took the opportunity afforded by HEAP funds to reach out to and develop partnerships with DV providers. This connection provided much needed funding to DV shelters and hopefully will create a lasting link between the grantees and the DV providers. This sort of work is critical to cut across silos and better integrate the homelessness response system. Partnering with other Government Entities Homelessness is a multi-faceted issue that requires a coordinated approach across different geographic and programmatic entities. The following section highlights where and how grantees partnered with other government entities in addressing homelessness with HEAP dollars. Broadly, grantees used HEAP as an opportunity to strategically coordinate with other levels of government (e.g. counties, smaller cities that did not receive allocations, or other government agencies). This coordination helped grantees fund larger projects, leverage assets and expertise, and create structures that were later activated in the COVID-19 response. Specifically, grantees used HEAP as an opportunity to partner with housing agencies and public health. In the case of local housing agencies, grantees used HEAP dollars to forge new relationships to advance permanent housing projects and goals. In the case of public health, grantees increased coordination to assemble a more complete picture of their local homelessness response. This closer coordination improves the client experience as they navigate across multiple entities to receive care and assistance. Making Strategic Investments through Partnerships As a major local homelessness system funder, many grantees had the benefit of understanding the larger system and network of providers. Many used this knowledge to forge partnerships and enable strategic investments. In practice this took the form of convenings, planning, and investing. These activities proved critical to the functioning and refinement of the homelessness response system. Many grantees also served as a local convener — stepping up to bring service providers together both across the spectrum of services and within service types. These different types of convening each enhanced aspects of the homelessness response system. Convening across the spectrum of services helped to streamline resources and improved collaboration and coordination as clients move between services. Convening within service types gave providers opportunities to share best practices, work through common challenges, and minimize duplication. 28 CHAPTER 1: HEAP Several grantees took the opportunity afforded by the HEAP grant to evaluate the availability of services and make plans to address known gaps. Through HEAP funding, grantees cultivated relationships and service providers in underserved areas. This helped expand the availability and quality of services- particularly in more rural areas. Finally, grantees strategically used HEAP funds to ensure larger projects came to fruition. This was particularly important in capital projects that help to build overall system capacity. In different instances this meant coordinating with other grantees, different jurisdictions, or strategically braiding funding. In the first instance (and as indicated in the comparison of large city and CoC spending described in the expenditures section of this report), grantees in overlapping jurisdictions frequently collaborated on funding projects. For example, a large city grantee may fund the capital portion of the project and the CoC may fund the operation of the new or renovated facility. Grantees also frequently coordinated with other non-recipients like smaller cities, counties, or other government agencies to leverage HEAP resources as part of a larger project. Finally, HEAP grantees used HEAP funding to bridge an identified budget gap in another project. For example, several used HEAP funding toward Homekey or No Place Like Home initiatives. 29 CHAPTER 2: HHAP Chapter 2: HHAP Round 1 2.1 Overview Round 1 of the Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention Program (HHAP-1) is a $650 million, five-year block grant program designed to provide California’s 44 CoCs, 58 counties and 13 largest cities with funds to support regional coordination and expand or develop local capacity to address their immediate homelessness challenges. Spending must be informed by best practices and focused on moving individuals and families experiencing homelessness into permanent housing. This chapter focuses on HHAP Round 1 program expenditures, performance, and racial equity and partnership efforts of all HHAP grantees; it is the first of five annual reports to be submitted by grantees for HHAP Round 1. The reporting period for this data does not cover a full twelve months, but instead ranges from May/June 2020 (upon contract execution) through September 30, 2020 for a total of four to five months.29 During this reporting period, grantees encountered compounding crises, natural disasters, and an unprecedented surge in other state and federal funding for homelessness services. HCFC encouraged grantees to use these other state and federal emergency funding and available HEAP funding prior to utilizing HHAP Round 1 funds because of their respective accelerated spending deadlines.30 Despite these factors, HHAP Round 1’s metrics, reported below, exceeded HCFC’s expectation for a grant at this point in its lifecycle. HCFC believes this may be due to lessons learned from HEAP grants, as grantees are showing growth in understanding the gaps within the community and how to swiftly apply funding to improve homelessness response systems. Expenditures Within this short timeframe, HHAP grantees obligated a collective 54% of their allocations and expended 10% of their funding. Obligated funding indicates that HHAP grantees are moving forward in their local selection processes to implement programs and services for people experiencing homelessness within their communities. Of obligated grant funds, 56% were initiated toward implementing new navigation centers/emergency shelters and delivery of permanent housing, and 92% of funds expended were directed to 29 For supplementary context on HHAP Round 1’s enabling statute, programs, and grantees, see Appendix F-G. 30 See Guide to Strategic Uses of Key State and Federal Funds to Reduce Homelessness During the COVID-19 Pandemic 30 CHAPTER 2: HHAP providing new navigations centers with wraparound services and emergency shelters. Performance Metrics From the spring of 2020 through September, HHAP Round 1 served approximately 4,612 people; 64.3% of people were served in Continuums of Care, 16.8% of people were served in counties, and 19% of people were served across large cities. HHAP is early in its grant cycle, with many jurisdictions currently in the process of securing subcontractors through competitive procurement. A large number of people served by HHAP were chronically homeless (41.2%). Within jurisdictions, people experiencing chronic homelessness were 46.6% of persons served in CoCs, followed by counties (34.4%) and large cities (29%). The main outcome of interest for HHAP is the destination of people served after they exited HHAP-funded projects. There are approximately 2,056 recorded exits from HHAP-funded projects; 42.1% of people served in CoCs, 57.5% of people served in counties, and 41.6% of people served in large cities. Exits to unsheltered homelessness accounted for the greatest proportion of all exit types reported, at 25.8% of all exits (530 people). Exits to permanent housing destinations accounted for 22.2% of all exits (457 people). A large portion of persons served in HHAP-funded projects also exited to unknown destinations31 (17.5%, or 359 people). Fewer people exited to temporary living situations (18.2% or 375 people), institutional settings (4.3% or 88 people), and other destinations (12% or 246 people). HCFC is in the development stages of a robust technical assistance (TA) program that will incorporate a $2.25 million contract focused on permanent housing strategies. Through this TA, HCFC intends to work with grantees to lower the percentage of individuals exiting to unsheltered homelessness and increase the overall percentage of individuals exiting to permanent housing. Additional Indicators of Impact Racial Equity HHAP grantees have shown an increasingly sophisticated and comprehensive approach to analyzing homelessness data through a racial equity lens. Grantees have used these quantitative analyses to inform and enable practices to center and amplify the voices of Black, Latinx, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native and Indigenous communities, and those with lived experience of homelessness. Grantees have also indicated progress in efforts to prioritize underserved and overrepresented populations through promising practices and themes including: 31 Unknown indicates that data on exit destinations is missing or that the client was deceased. 31 CHAPTER 2: HHAP incorporating racial equity into the contracting funding process; relying upon advisory boards for funding; utilizing geography to target services; engaging previously omitted providers; aligning with external guidance; relying upon prior data analyses; and partnering with local, community-based organizations. Partnership HHAP grantees are increasingly collaborating in a regional manner despite the real challenges facing their communities and impediments to partnerships. However, these partnerships look different in each locality. The analysis in this Partnership section below organizes these new and different partnerships into themes and promising practices. Some of these themes include public health, funding, and data-sharing. Challenges to these partnerships and how some communities have overcome these barriers are also examined. 32 CHAPTER 2: HHAP 2.2 HHAP Round 1 Expenditures Introduction The section below provides insight into how HHAP grant funding has been obligated and expended within the reporting period. It also highlights spending comparisons between grantees’ expenditures across statutorily mandated eligible uses. In total, $618 million32 was allocated to 102 grantees: 14 large cities, 49 counties, and 39 Continuums of Care (CoCs). From the total amount of $618 million, large cities were allocated $271,250,000, counties $178,589,843, and CoCs $168,160,157. Obligated & Expended Funds33 Figure 19 provides a representation of the total amount of HHAP funding allocated, and the amounts obligated and expended within the first four to five months of the program. Figure 19: Total Fiscal Action, All Grantees (as of 9/30/2020) $700,000,000 Total Allocation $618,000,000 $600,000,000 $500,000,000 Total Obligated $400,000,000 $333,904,630 $300,000,000 $200,000,000 Total Expended $100,000,000 $60,704,312 $0 Total Allocation Total Obligated Total Expended 32 The remaining $32 million supports grant administration and a robust technical assistance (TA) program with externally contracted technical assistance providers who will provide direct training and support to grantees in key focus areas. 33 Grantee actions throughout the expenditure report are defined as obligated and expended. Obligated means that a grantee has placed orders, awarded contracts, or entered into similar transactions that require payment using HHAP. Expended means that a grantee has fully paid for and has been receipted for services rendered. 33 CHAPTER 2: HHAP 54% ($334 million) of the $618 million allocated in HHAP Round 1 have been obligated and 10% ($61 million) have been expended. HHAP’s rate of expenditure appears more rapid than HEAP’s initial rate of expenditure. Whereas HHAP grantees have expended 10% in just two fiscal quarters, HEAP grantees spent 14% total over the first full fiscal year.34 HHAP grantees’ swift implementation of funding indicates an informed understanding of their community needs and where funding should be prioritized within their homelessness response system. Expenditures by Grantee Type Figure 20 provides representation of the different types of grantees the HHAP program provides funding to and the comparison of where each jurisdiction is in obligating and expending HHAP funding. Figure 20: Total Fiscal Actions, By Grantee Type (as of 9/30/2020) $200,000,000 $150,000,000 $100,000,000 CoCs Counties $50,000,000 Large Cities $0 Total Obligated Total Expended Large Cities $145,545,251 $32,223,662 Counties $100,336,308 $8,250,951 CoCs $88,023,071 $20,229,699 Expenditures: Counties expended less in comparison to large cities and CoCs. Additionally, counties expenditures are at a lower percentage (5%) of their initial allocation than large cities (12%) and CoCs (12%). 34 HEAP did not commence quarterly expenditure reporting until after their first annual report. 34 CHAPTER 2: HHAP Obligations: There are consistent obligation percentages across grantee types (i.e., large cities at 54%, counties at 56%, and CoCs at 52%). Regional Expenditures and Obligations: A regional expenditure comparison between northern, central and southern California grantees indicates that the northern region of the state expended 6% and obligated 29% of their collective allocation, the central region expended 0.3% and obligated 43% of their collective allocation, and the southern region expended 13% and obligated 68% of their collective allocation.35 Expenditures Eligible Uses The HHAP program is guided by statutorily mandated eligible uses. These eligible uses guide grantees on the various ways funding can be spent within the homelessness response systems in their communities. The eligible uses are broken into categories that include direct shelter and services that support people experiencing homelessness as well as administration and systems improvement support for grantees. Figure 21 and Figure 22 below provide a representation of the eligible uses that HHAP funding has been expended on during the reporting period and a breakdown of funding spent and obligated on services vs. non- services.36 Figure 21: Total Expended Eligible Uses for All Grantees (as of 9/30/2020)37 New Navigation Centers/Emergency Shelters Operating Subsidies $55,956,587 92% $1,836,484 3% Jurisdiction's Administrative Costs $1,703,776 3% Outreach and Coordination $494,646 1% Prevention and Diversion $403,238 1% 35 Regional breakdown used to calculate this data can be found in Appendix E 36 Services include rental assistance and rapid rehousing; operating subsidies; landlord incentives; outreach and coordination; systems support; permanent housing; prevention and diversion, and new navigation centers/emergency shelters. Non-services include strategic homelessness planning; infrastructure development; and administrative costs. 37 Figure 21 omits expended eligible uses that, when rounded, are <1% of the initial allocation. See Appendix H. 35 CHAPTER 2: HHAP Figure 22: Project and Non-Project Fiscal Actions (as of 9/30/2020) LARGE CITIES COUNTIES COC’S TOTAL SERVICES Obligated $137,027,911 $98,312,742 $78,659,173 $313,999,826 SERVICES Expended $31,521,461 $8,109,576 $19,252,923 $58,883,959 NON-SERVICES $8,517,340 $2,023,566 $9,363,897 $19,904,804 Obligated NON-SERVICES $702,200 $141,376 $976,777 $1,820,353 Expended During this reporting period, grantees have been focused on quickly providing housing and services for people experiencing homelessness, taking priority over grantee administrative and system performance related needs. Services related eligible uses account for 94% obligated, and 97% total funds to date. For administrative costs, counties have obligated and expended at a significantly lower percentage of their initial allocation than large cities or CoCs. Youth Set-Aside Expenditures AB 101 requires program recipients to use at least 8%, of their grant funds for services for homeless youth populations. Here, in accordance with permissible eligible uses, grantees must report whether and how their funds are benefiting homeless youth populations. For youth set-aside funds, CoCs have obligated significantly more than large cities and counties. More specifically, CoCs have already obligated at 114% of the minimum youth set-aside. In contrast, for these same data points, large cities are at 51%; counties are at 16%. Figure 23 below shows how youth set-aside funds have been expended across the HHAP eligible uses. Low spending within this set-aside in the beginning stages of grant programing was a trend within the HEAP program and HCFC will continue to monitor spending activity to ensure that set-aside mandates are met, but spending is expected to increase quickly. 36 CHAPTER 2: HHAP Figure 23: Youth, Total Expended Eligible Uses for All Grantees (as of 9/30/2020) New Navigation Permanent Housing Centers/Emergency Shelters $7,363 10% $65,460 87% Outreach and Coordination $2,620 3% HCFC Support and Monitoring Activities HCFC will continue to partner with grantees through various avenues of providing thoughtful communication and resources, including regular check-in meetings with grantees to ensure that strategic planning surrounding the prioritization of funding and projects is thoughtful and in line with statutory requirements. The HHAP program will also support grantees through a robust $6 million technical assistance program aimed to support systems change that will ultimately improve homelessness response systems across the state. Finally, HCFC will continue to evaluate annual and quarterly report data to inform community support and monitoring, and to conduct longitudinal analyses and spending projections. Those efforts will improve HCFC’s ability to support grantees so they can expend their dollars in the most strategic manner. 37 CHAPTER 2: HHAP 2.3 HHAP Performance Metrics Performance Metrics Methodology HEAP and HHAP grantees submitted aggregated data38 on the required performance metrics data from their local HMIS39 and other local data tracking systems. Aggregated numbers of people served by victim service providers were included in manual reports provided by jurisdictions due to limitations of HMIS. This report includes people served by HHAP separated out from any other funding sources. In cases where people were served in projects funded by multiple funding sources, jurisdictions were asked to provide an estimate of the number of people served in proportion to the HHAP funding amount used in that project. As a result, the performance metrics for HHAP represent estimates of people served rather than distinct counts, and therefore may not represent unduplicated counts of people served by each grant. Additionally, both HEAP and HHAP have widely funded capital improvement projects to increase physical and technological capacity to serve people. Although people are likely benefitting from these advancements, expenditures in these projects may not reflect people served. The following HHAP performance metrics include information on people enrolled in projects that could be captured in HMIS. Therefore, the performance metrics do not include counts of people who may have benefitted from some outreach initiatives funded by HHAP, such as the provision of immediate health and safety services to unsheltered homeless populations via hygiene stations/handwashing stations or encampment clean up. Due to COVID-19, jurisdictions have increased expenditures related to these types of health and safety initiatives. These people are excluded from the following analysis unless they were enrolled in another project in HMIS. However, the impact of these types of programs is further discussed below in Section 2.4. HCFC is in the process of building the Homeless Data Integration System (HDIS), which will pull HMIS data from all California CoCs. This system will allow HCFC to access performance data—like those required for HEAP and HHAP annual reports. In future annual grant reports, HDIS will be used to provide greater detail and better-quality data on HCFC-funded projects. 38 Counts of people served may be duplicated across grantees, as people may have been served by more than one grantee. 39 HMIS is a local technology information system used to collect client-level data and data on the provision of housing and services to homeless individuals and families and people at risk of homelessness, but do not include information on people served by victim service providers. 38 CHAPTER 2: HHAP Overview In its first 5 months, HHAP funding served approximately 4,612 people. HHAP is in early stages of the grant cycle, with many jurisdictions currently in the process of securing subcontractors through competitive procurement. Although few jurisdictions (19 of 102 total grantees) reported serving persons as of September 2020, about 54% of total allocations have been obligated for future projects. Figure 24: Distribution of People Served by Jurisdiction Type and Region40 JURISDICTION REGION N=4,612 N=4,612 CoC 64.3% Northern 26.8% County 16.8% Central 4.8% Large City 19.0% Southern 68.4% Total 100.0% Total 100.0% Note: Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. Approximately 2,056 people served (or 45%) exited HHAP-funded projects. Of those exits, 22.2% (457 people) exited to permanent housing destinations, 25.8% (or 530 people) exited to unsheltered homelessness, 18.2% (375 people) exited to temporary living situations, 4.3% (88 people) exited to institutional situations, 12% (246 people) exited to other destinations, and 17.5% (359 people) exited to unknown locations41. The following analysis is for all people served by HHAP funds from the start of the grant through September 30, 2020. Demographic Characteristics of People Served People were served across various jurisdictions types/regions and project types. People served were analyzed by demographic characteristics (gender, race, and ethnicity), and presence in select populations of interest (unaccompanied youth, veteran, and chronically homeless). HHAP funding provided assistance to 4,612 people in 3,814 household units42, largely adult only households (94.5% or 3,604 households). Households with adults and children were 2.8% (108 households) and households with only children, or unaccompanied minors, were 0.2% (7 households). Unknown household types were 2.5% (94 households) of those served. 40 See Appendix E for a map displaying regions. 41 Unknown indicates that data on exit destinations is missing or that the client was deceased. 42 Households are groups of people, who would dwell together if housed, seeking assistance from the homelessness responses system. An individual seeking assistance alone is categorized by their own household. 39 CHAPTER 2: HHAP Gender Characteristics of People Served People served were predominately male across all grantees and in each jurisdiction type and region. Overall, males account for 58.2% of people served, while females account for 40.8% of people served. Figure 25: Gender Distribution of People Served by HHAP Funded Projects ALL JURISDICTION REGION GENDER CoC County Large Northern Central Southern City N=4,612 N=2,964 N=773 N=875 N=1,237 N=220 N=3,155 Males 58.2% 57.4% 57.9% 61.3% 55.2% 59.5% 58.2% Females 40.8% 41.6% 41.3% 37.5% 43.3% 39.7% 40.8% Trans Gender 0.5% 0.6% 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% Gender Non- Conforming 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.6% 0.1% 0.2% Unknown 0.3% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.4% 0.2% 0.3% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Note: Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. Race and Ethnicity of People Served Racial minorities served by HHAP totaled 29.5% of people served. Greater racial minority populations were served in large cities (34.6%) and northern California (32.5%). The majority of people served in central California identified as Hispanic/Latinx (79.3%). Northern California grantees also served a significant number of American Indian or Alaskan Native people (8.4%). Figure 26: Racial Distribution of People Served by HHAP Funded Projects ALL JURISDICTION REGION RACE CoC County Large Northern Central Southern City N=4,612 N=2,964 N=773 N=875 N=1,237 N=220 N=3,155 White 65.0% 64.9% 68.7% 61.9% 56.4% 92.3% 66.4% Black 19.3% 21.0% 6.6% 24.6% 14.5% 3.4% 22.2% Asian 1.6% 1.3% 1.2% 2.9% 1.4% 0.0% 1.8% American Indian or Alaskan Native 3.6% 4.6% 2.2% 1.7% 8.4% 1.1% 2.0% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 0.8% 0.6% 0.9% 1.7% 0.9% 0.9% 0.8% Multiple Races 4.2% 4.6% 3.1% 3.7% 7.3% 0.9% 3.2% Unknown 5.5% 3.1% 17.3% 3.4% 11.1% 1.4% 3.6% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Note: Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. 40 CHAPTER 2: HHAP Figure 27: Ethnic Distribution of People Served by HHAP Funded Projects ALL JURISDICTION REGION ETHNICITY CoC County Large Northern Central Southern City N=4,612 N=2,964 N=773 N=875 N=1,237 N=220 N=3,155 Non- 65.5% 67.1% 50.3% 73.8% 68.4% 20.5% 67.6% Hispanic/Non- Latino Hispanic/Latino 31.0% 31.5% 37.2% 23.8% 22.6% 79.3% 30.9% Unknown 3.5% 1.5% 12.5% 2.5% 9.0% 0.2% 1.6% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Note: Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. Populations of Interest Served Overall, veterans accounted for 4.1% of people served. A large number of people served by HHAP where chronically homeless (41.2%). Within jurisdictions, people experiencing chronic homelessness were 46.6% of persons served in CoCs, followed by counties (34.4%) and large cities (29%). Within regions, 45.2% of the people served in southern California and 36.3% of the people served in northern California were chronically homeless. Unaccompanied youth account for 6.8% of the people served by HHAP. In central California, 23.5% of the people served were unaccompanied youth. Figure 28: Populations of Interest Served by Jurisdiction Type and Region Jurisdictions Regions 46.6% 45.2% 36.3% 34.4% 29.0% 23.5% 12.8% 10.2% 10.6% 7.5% 5.7% 4.6% 2 .2% 4 .2% 3.1% 4.1% 4.1% 0.5% Veterans Chronically Unaccompanied Veterans Chronically Unaccompanied N=189 Homeless Youth N=189 Homeless Youth N=1,902 N=349 N=1,902 N=349 CoC County Large City Northern Central Southern 41 CHAPTER 2: HHAP Outcomes Outcomes are determined by exit destinations, which include permanent housing destinations, temporary living situations, unsheltered homelessness, institutional settings, and other situations. Outcomes are analyzed by demographic characteristics (race and ethnicity) and for select populations of interest (unaccompanied youth, veteran, and chronically homeless). There were approximately 2,056 people who were reported as exited from HHAP-funded projects. Of those, 22.2% exited to permanent housing destinations, while 18.2% exited to temporary living situations. And, 25.8% of exits were to unsheltered homelessness, to places not meant for human habitation. Figure 29: Distribution of Exit Destinations for HHAP Funded Projects Note: Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. Exits for Populations of Interest Among chronically homeless persons, most exited to unsheltered homelessness (30.5%), while only 10.6% exited to permanent housing destinations. Unaccompanied youth under 25 and veterans exited mostly to temporary living situations (38.0% and 24.5%). Additionally, 22.1% of unaccompanied youth and 17.6% of veterans exited to permanent destinations. 42 CHAPTER 2: HHAP Figure 30: Distribution of Populations of Interest in HHAP Funded Exit Destinations 11.6% Unknown 23.7% 1.4% 19.8% 4.8% Other 6.7% 13.0% 22.1% 5.9% 5.0% Institutional 20.2% 30.5% 38.0% Unsheltered Homelessness 24.5% Temporary 22.6% 22.1% 17.6% Permanent 10.6% Chronically Homeless Unaccompanied Youth Veteran N=759 N=145 N=80 Note: Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. Exits by Jurisdictions and Regions Among jurisdictions, counties had the largest proportion of people exiting into permanent housing destinations (42.6%), followed by large cities (19.5%) and CoCs (15.8%). Large cities also had the largest proportion of persons exiting to unknown locations (39.7%). Among regions, central California had the highest percentage of exits to permanent housing (72.8%) compared to the northern and southern regions (22.2% and 14.7%, respectively). More information about exits based on intervention type will be forthcoming, however, in central California, exits to permanent housing are likely heavily skewed by Madera County’s homelessness prevention projects which allowed people to remain housed. Figure 31: Distribution of HHAP Funded Exit Destinations by Jurisdiction Type and Region EXIT ALL JURISDICTION REGION DESTINATIONS EXITS CoC County Large Northern Central Southern City N=2,056 N=1,248 N=444 N=364 N=429 N=212 N=1,416 Permanent 22.2% 15.8% 42.6% 19.5% 22.2% 72.8% 14.7% Temporary 18.2% 23.2% 9.1% 12.5% 13.5% 8.5% 21.1% Unsheltered Homelessness 25.8% 25.7% 33.7% 16.4% 28.9% 17.3% 26.1% Institutional 4.3% 5.3% 3.0% 2.2% 3.4% 0.7% 5.1% Other 12.0% 15.7% 3.5% 9.7% 15.7% 0.7% 12.5% Unknown 17.5% 14.3% 8.1% 39.7% 16.2% 0.0% 20.4% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Note: Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. 43 CHAPTER 2: HHAP Exits by Demographic Characteristics Exits to permanent housing for all racial groups and ethnicities vary widely. White populations were overrepresented in exits to permanent housing (73.6% vs. 65.0%), institutional settings (81.3% vs. 65.0%) and other exit destinations (76.6% vs. 65.0%) compared to their proportion of all people served. Black people, people of multiple races, and American Indian or Alaskan Native people were overrepresented in exits to unsheltered homelessness (24.0% vs. 19.3%, 8.4% vs 4.2%, and 6.9% vs. 3.6%, respectively). Black people are also overrepresented in exits to unknown destinations, which is typically indicative of a loss of contact with the client. A greater proportion of people of Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity obtained permanent housing compared to their proportion of the overall population (50.7% vs. 31.0%). 44 CHAPTER 2: HHAP Figure 32: Distribution of Race in HHAP Funded Exit Destinations RACE ALL EXIT DESTINATIONS PEOPLE SERVED Permanent Temporary Unsheltered Institutional Other Unknown Homelessness N=4,612 N=457 N=375 N=530 N=88 N=246 N=359 White 65.0% 73.6% 64.2% 53.4% 81.3% 76.6% 51.0% Black 19.3% 17.1% 22.2% 24.0% 10.4% 13.9% 26.1% Asian 1.6% 0.5% 1.6% 1.6% 1.4% 2.4% 1.6% American Indian or Alaskan Native 3.6% 4.2% 3.6% 6.9% 1.1% 2.2% 2.8% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 0.8% 0.2% 0.8% 1.5% 1.4% 0.0% 0.5% Multiple Races 4.2% 2.8% 4.6% 8.4% 2.9% 3.2% 5.3% Unknown 5.5% 1.6% 3.0% 4.2% 1.4% 1.7% 12.6% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Note: Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. Figure 33: Distribution of Ethnicity in HHAP Funded Exit Destinations ETHNICITY ALL PEOPLE EXIT DESTINATIONS SERVED Permanent Temporary Unsheltered Institutional Other Unknown Homelessness N=4,612 N=457 N=375 N=530 N=88 N=246 N=359 Non- 65.5% 48.4% 68.0% 66.9% 72.9% 70.6% 71.2% Hispanic/ Non-Latino Hispanic/ 31.0% 50.7% 30.8% 31.6% 25.9% 28.2% 26.7% Latino Unknown 3.5% 0.9% 1.2% 1.5% 1.2% 1.2% 2.1% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Note: Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. * In Race and Ethnicity tables, green shading indicates racial or ethnic populations that are overrepresented in the exit destination compared to all persons who were served, and red shading indicates populations who are underrepresented. Percentages are shaded darker for every 5 percentage points of difference from the percent of all people served 45 CHAPTER 2: HHAP 2.4 Qualitative Indicators of HHAP Impact Racial Equity Introduction Beginning in 2021, recipients of HHAP Round 1 must report data on racial equity, as defined by the council in consultation with representatives of state and local agencies, service providers, the Legislature, and other stakeholders.43 In their pursuit of racial equity, HHAP grantees focused on three areas. First, grantees employed sophisticated approaches to analyzing homelessness data to reveal disparate impacts. Second, grantees used these quantitative analyses to inform practices to center and amplify the voices of Black, Latinx, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native and Indigenous communities, and those with lived experience of homelessness. Finally, during the local HHAP funding process, grantees prioritized these disparately impacted communities through changes to policies and power. Disparate Impact To quantify the disparate impact of homelessness upon communities of color, grantees relied upon a variety of practices across a range of tools and datasets. Some of these practices included analyzing data from the Point-in-Time Count (PIT), Homeless Management Information System (HMIS), American Community Survey (ACS), Coordinated Entry System (CES), System Performance Measures (SPM), Housing Inventory County (HIC), or Longitudinal System Analysis (LSA) as visualized through Stella Performance (Stella P). Promising trends or practices are identified below: • Regular and frequent data analysis guided program development, coordination, and responses. In some communities, these disparate impact analyses occurred bi-monthly. • Grantees are working across local departments and agencies to better understand and quantify disparate impact in their communities. • Grantees are comparing COVID-19 specific data against homelessness data in several areas, including rehousing. • Some grantees are beginning to analyze local funding sources and their reporting requirements for previously untapped datasets. • Where possible, grantees relied upon longitudinal and cross-sectional datasets. • These analyses are often done in partnership with subject matter experts or organizations. 43 See HSC § 50222(a)(B). 46 CHAPTER 2: HHAP • These quantitative disparate impact analyses are being supplemented with qualitative data sourced from interviews, focus groups, and input from advisory boards. Centering and Amplifying Community Voices To center and amplify the voices of Black, Latinx, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native and Indigenous communities, and those with lived experience of homelessness, grantees relied upon a range of approaches detailed below. • Most grantees reported on inclusive and equitable participation. These grantee responses cited representation from individuals on existing boards or committees, transparent and open meetings, or conducting general racial equity data analyses. • Many grantees reported affirmatively incorporating a racial equity lens. These grantees cited pursuing community input through various forums such as focus groups, creating a representative, subject-matter or sub- population specific advisory board that has substantive power including decision-making or funding authority, relying upon narrow racial equity data analyses to adjust process, undertaking trainings, or representative staffing at all ranges of responsibility. Additionally, these grantees have built system capacity by engaging and contracting with new or representative community-based organizations. • Some grantees reported an anti-racist, accountability framework in the pursuit of racial equity. Generally, these grantees are distinguished by the level of their reliance on disparate impact analyses and heeding disparately impacted voices. Prioritizing Disparately Impacted Communities Specific to the local HHAP funding process, grantees reported a range of approaches to prioritize programs that address disproportionately impacted communities. • Most grantees showed general awareness of disparate impacts and generalized attempts to serve disparately impacted communities through HHAP funding. These grantees cited matching intervention types to disparately impacted sub-populations within their communities. • Many grantees have an informed awareness of disparate impacts and strategic, initial steps planned to serve disparately impacted communities through HHAP funding. Promising trends or practices are identified below: • Several communities identified contracting areas where they could prioritize HHAP funding for those disparately impacted. Identified areas 47 CHAPTER 2: HHAP included: the RFP panel selection; RFP scoring; RFP program selection; contract scope and services; and assessment of grantees for future funding. • While many communities stated the establishment of Lived Experience Advisory Boards, fewer relied upon these bodies to inform funding decisions. • Some grantees considered geography to target disparately impacted communities. For example, one community focused on a project type in a certain geographic area that has a higher representation of people of color who are disproportionately represented in homelessness systems of care. Another community has expanded coordinated entry access points in neighborhoods with high numbers of disproportionately impacted communities. Lastly, several communities articulated areas for continued improvement and contemplated next steps, including requesting technical support from HCFC and working with community partners to ensure there is widespread understanding of disproportionalities. Partnerships It was the intent of the Legislature that HHAP continue to build regional collaboration between CoCs, counties, and cities in a given region, and ultimately be used to develop a unified regional response to homelessness.44 This section discusses those necessary partnerships that enable regional collaboration. Generally, HHAP grantees are collaborating in a regional manner despite the challenges that impede partnerships. These new or different partnerships look different in each locality. Some of these partnerships center upon funding, public health, or data-sharing. Some of the grantees overcame barriers to partnership. Consistently reported challenges include capacity, communication, or dissimilar communities. New or Different Partnerships Grantees continue to partner with neighboring cities, CoCs, counties, and other local level entities. Some of these partnerships are longstanding whereas others are new or different, in part, because of HHAP funding. Promising trends or practices include: • Project Roomkey, the state’s homelessness emergency non-congregate sheltering response to the COVID-19 pandemic, has been reported by 44 HSC § 50218.5(a)(B). 48 CHAPTER 2: HHAP many communities as a critical opportunity for new partnerships, including with local hotels and motels in the private sector. HHAP funding has been used in many communities to fund the operations of these sites. • Grantees are also collaborating on various public health initiatives. For example, one grantee created a partnership with local service providers and a medical school to expand shelter bed capacity and create a new medical clinic. Another grantee created a partnership with a healthcare provider to offer on-site services at a day respite center. • Some grantees are relying upon partnerships to strategically fund projects in and across their jurisdictions. Projects include establishing flexible housing pools and braiding housing vouchers with HHAP-funded case management services to create supportive housing opportunities. • Several grantees are aligning or using shared Notice of Available Funding (NOFA) processes, materials, or priorities to ensure funds are complementary. • For many regional partnerships, grantees braided funding on capital projects such as navigation centers or permanent supportive housing. • Grantees are reaching across otherwise siloed departments to incorporate technology and data sharing into their partnerships. One grantee reported the increased prominence and reliance on mobile outreach tools, survey tools, and wellness questionnaires to identify where services are most needed. • Grantees are continuing to create new partnerships and strengthen existing partnerships that focus on youth, particularly with universities and community colleges. In one community, HHAP is funding outreach teams based out of a local community college. Overcoming Barriers to Partnership Grantees reported many barriers to partnering. These reported challenges often preceded HHAP allocations and were further complicated by the global pandemic. Prevalent barriers and some identified solutions to partnership that grantees shared are discussed below. • Grantees reported a wide range of COVID-19 challenges that hindered partnerships across and within grantee’s jurisdictions. Some of these included strained capacity, limited staff time, administrative burden, paused projects, stalled implementation of prior plans, slowed processes, redirected fiscal resources, competing and/or prioritized needs, and diminished political support. Identified solutions to these challenges included the increased use o of technology to communicate, working across previously “siloed” entities, increasing political capital, coordinating with new partners 49 CHAPTER 2: HHAP on emergency response, and coordinating with new partners to establish innovative services and housing opportunities like Project Roomkey and Homekey. • Grantees reported funding challenges that impacted partnerships. These responses included working across budgetary “bureaucracies”, competing visions of prioritized needs for geographically unique areas, and inconsistent local government processes across jurisdictions that delayed decision-making or approval processes. Identified solutions to these challenges included intentional o procedural timing and delegation of decision-making authority from local government, and robust communication about needs, gaps, strategies, and buy-in from each partner to meet those needs. • Grantees reported several challenges facing rural communities. These included a lack of capacity among partners or would-be-partners, difficulty recruiting and retaining qualified staff, opposition from some factions of the general public to implementing programs for people experiencing homelessness, and communication that often requires face- to-face interactions over long distances. Reported solutions include sub-contracting staffing out to an o externally located non-profit provider, utilizing technology solutions to enable stronger communication, and relying upon trusted community agents to establish and assist in partnership building. • Grantees reported many data specific challenges that impede or challenge partnership. Cited examples included securing full community participation from service providers and the presence or absence of key partners such as public housing authorities. Some grantees did note, however, that the opportunity to be o funded through HHAP has helped incentivize the use of a single data system (HMIS) across organizations and jurisdictions. 50 APPENDICES Appendices Appendix A: HEAP Enabling Statute and Programmatic Snapshot Appendix B: HEAP Grantees Allocation Chart Appendix C: HEAP Supplemental Data – Eligible Uses Appendix D: HEAP Additional Performance Metrics Charts Appendix E: Map of Regions Appendix F: HHAP Enabling Statute and Programmatic Snapshot Appendix G: HHAP Round 1, Grantees Allocation Chart Appendix H: HHAP Supplemental Data - Eligible Uses Appendix I: HHAP Additional Performance Metrics Charts 51 APPENDICES Appendix A: HEAP Enabling Statute and Programmatic Snapshot As authorized by Chapter 48, Statutes of 2018, (SB 850), which was signed into law by Governor Brown in June 2018, the Homeless Emergency Aid Program (HEAP) is a $500 million block grant program designed to provide direct assistance to cities and counties to address the homelessness crisis throughout California. HEAP funds are intended to provide funding to Continuums of Care (CoCs) and large cities with populations over 330,000, so they may provide immediate emergency assistance to people experiencing homelessness or those at imminent risk of homelessness. Eligible uses include, but are not limited to the following: (1) Homelessness prevention activities, (2) Criminal justice diversion programs for homeless individuals with mental health needs, (3) Establishing or expanding services meeting the needs of homeless youth or youth at risk of homelessness, and (4) Emergency aid. The parameters of the program are intentionally broad to allow local communities to be creative and craft programs that meet the specific needs they have identified. All activities must directly benefit the target population. There are additional constraints upon these monies. For example: • Grantees were required to contractually obligate 50 percent of the awarded funds by January 1, 2020. • Grantees are required to expend 100 percent of the awarded funds by June 30, 2021. • Grantees are required to return any unexpended funds to the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency (BCSH) to be reverted to the General Fund. • Grantees shall not use more that 5 percent of the awarded funds for administrative costs, but this does not include staff costs directly related to carrying out program activities. • Grantees are required to use a minimum of five percent of awarded funds for homeless youth. • The shelter crisis declaration is required for all cities and counties within a CoC that wish to receive HEAP funds, except for CoCs with fewer than 1,000 homeless people, based on the 2017 Point in Time count. • Grantees were required to demonstrate that a local collaborative effort was conducted prior to application submission. 52 APPENDICES Appendix B: HEAP Grantees Allocation Chart City Allocation Los Angeles $85,013,607.00 San Diego $14,110,397.95 San Jose $11,389,987.16 San Francisco $10,564,313.22 Oakland $8,671,116.82 Santa Ana $3,690,885.84 Anaheim $3,690,885.84 Sacramento $5,645,699.61 Fresno $3,105,519.90 Long Beach $2,869,833.12 Bakersfield $1,247,753.53 Continuum of Care Allocation Los Angeles City & County $ 81,099,807.86 San Diego City & County $ 18,821,668.48 San Jose/Santa Clara City & County $ 17,506,486.54 San Francisco $ 17,107,314.68 Oakland, Berkeley/Alameda County $ 16,192,049.33 Santa Ana, Anaheim/Orange County $ 15,568,715.65 Sacramento City & County $ 12,729,412.12 Salinas/Monterey, San Benito Counties $ 12,505,250.30 Santa Rosa, Petaluma/Sonoma County $ 12,111,291.50 Riverside City & County $ 9,791,805.06 Watsonville/Santa Cruz City & County $ 9,674,883.45 Fresno City & County/Madera County $ 9,501,362.84 San Bernardino City & County $ 9,389,654.30 Long Beach $ 9,387,420.13 Santa Maria/Santa Barbara County $ 9,385,185.96 Turlock, Modesto/Stanislaus County $ 7,236,985.95 Richmond/Contra Costa County $ 7,196,770.88 Stockton/San Joaquin County $ 7,148,363.84 Daly City/San Mateo County $ 4,933,138.71 Mendocino County $ 4,921,967.86 53 APPENDICES Vallejo/Solano County $ 4,917,499.52 Chico, Paradise/Butte County $ 4,889,944.74 Imperial County $ 4,859,411.07 Oxnard, San Buenaventura/Ventura County $ 4,857,921.63 San Luis Obispo County $ 4,837,814.09 Marin County $ 4,831,856.30 Roseville, Rocklin/Placer, Nevada Counties $ 2,729,084.44 Redding/Shasta, Siskiyou, Lassen, Plumas, Del Norte, $ 2,695,571.87 Modoc, Sierra Counties Visalia/Kings, Tulare Counties $ 2,635,249.26 Bakersfield/Kern County $ 2,603,226.14 Yuba City & County/Sutter County $ 2,565,989.96 Humboldt County $ 2,565,245.24 El Dorado County $ 1,448,323.63 Pasadena $ 1,428,216.09 Davis, Woodland/Yolo County $ 1,341,828.15 Merced City & County $ 1,338,104.53 Lake County $ 1,298,634.18 Tuolumne, Amador, Calaveras, Mariposa Counties $ 1,273,313.57 Napa City & County $ 1,234,587.94 Colusa, Glen, Trinity Counties $ 631,071.36 Glendale $ 625,113.57 Tehama County $ 592,345.73 Alpine, Inyo, Mono Counties $ 590,111.56 54 APPENDICES Appendix C: HEAP Supplemental Data- Eligible Uses Total Eligible Uses for all Grantees (as of 9/30/2020) Expended Tot al Project Eligible Uses $ 217092,,108954,,989214..3652 Capital Improvements $ 120,905,089.97 Large Cities $ 54,898,055.86 CoCs $ 66,007,034.11 Services $ 106,733,645.39 Large Cities $ 20,867,949.30 CoCs $ 85,865,696.09 Rental Assistance and/or Subsidies $ 32,406,961.37 Large Cities $ 11,194,640.75 CoCs $ 21,212,320.62 Other $ 19,140,294.62 Large Cities $ 13,062,046.71 CoCs $ 6,078,247.91 Tot al Non-Project Eligible Uses $ 8,905,082.10 Administration $ 8,905,082.10 Large Cities $ 2,072,132.00 CoCs $ 6,832,950.10 Total $ 288,091,073.45 Youth Eligible Uses for all Grantees (as of 9/30/2020) Expended Tot al Yout h Eligible Uses $ 15,400,028.96 Capital Improvements $ 4,445,171.62 Large Cities $ 2,280,672.56 CoCs $ 2,164,499.06 Services $ 6,931,870.52 Large Cities $ 1,162,824.94 CoCs $ 5,769,045.58 Rental Assistance and/or Subsidies $ 3,820,529.52 Large Cities $ 837,785.66 CoCs $ 2,982,743.86 Other $ 202,457.30 Large Cities $ - CoCs $ 202,457.30 55 APPENDICES Appendix D: HEAP Additional Performance Metrics Charts HEAP Percent People Served by Jurisdiction Type Note: Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. PEOPLE SERVED BY CHARACTERISTICS N =65,524 POPULATIONS OF INTEREST Chronically Homeless 24.6% Unaccompanied Youth (under 25) 9.1% Veterans 5.3% GENDER Males 52.4% Females 41.3% Trans Gender 0.6% Gender Non-Conforming 0.1% Unknown 5.6% RACE White 54.8% Black 26.2% Asian 1.5% American Indian or Alaskan Native 3.4% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 1.2% Multiple Races 4.4% Unknown 8.5% ETHNICITY Non-Hispanic/Non-Latino 60.9% Hispanic/Latino 32.7% Unknown 6.4% Note: Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. 56 APPENDICES HEAP Distribution of Gender, Race, and Ethnicity in Permanent Housing Destinations DEMOGRAPHICS ALL PEOPLE SERVED PERMANENT DESTINATIONS EXITS N =65,524 N =12,625 GENDER Males 52.4% 44.9% Females 41.3% 54.1% Trans Gender 0.6% 0.4% Gender Non-Conforming 0.1% 0.1% Unknown 5.6% 0.5% RACE White 54.8% 57.4% Black 26.2% 25.7% Asian 1.5% 1.7% American Indian or Alaskan Native 3.4% 3.5% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 1.2% 1.4% Multiple Races 4.4% 4.6% Unknown 8.5% 5.8% ETHNICITY Non-Hispanic/Non-Latino 60.9% 57.3% Hispanic/Latino 32.7% 40.9% Unknown 6.4% 1.8% Note: Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. 57 APPENDICES Appendix E: Map of regions 58 APPENDICES Appendix F: HHAP, Enabling Statute and Programmatic Snapshot As authorized by Chapter 159, Statutes of 2019, (AB 101), and signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom on July 31, 2019, the Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention Program (“HHAP Round 1”) is a $650 million, 5-year block grant program designed to provide jurisdictions with one-time grant funds to support regional coordination and expand or develop local capacity to address their immediate homelessness challenges. Spending must be informed by a best- practices framework focused on moving homeless individuals and families into permanent housing and supporting the efforts of those individuals and families to maintain their permanent housing. The California Homeless Coordinating and Financing Council (“HCFC”) administers HHAP Round 1. HHAP allocations were awarded to three categories for distribution, generally: large cities, counties, and Continuums of Care (“CoCs”). See Health and Safety Code (HSC) § 50218. Eligible Uses for HHAP monies are limited to: (1) Rental assistance and rapid rehousing; (2) Operating subsidies in new and existing affordable or supportive housing units, emergency shelters, and navigation centers. Operating subsidies may include operating reserves; (3) Incentives to landlords, including, but not limited to, security deposits and holding fees); (4) Outreach and coordination, which may include access to job programs, to assist vulnerable populations in accessing permanent housing and to promote housing stability in supportive housing; (5) Systems support for activities necessary to create regional partnerships and maintain a homelessness services and housing delivery system particularly for vulnerable populations including families and homeless youth; (6) Delivery of permanent housing and innovative housing solutions such as hotel and motel conversions; (7) Prevention and shelter diversion to permanent housing; and (8) New navigation centers and emergency shelters based on demonstrated need. HSC § 50219(c)(1-8). There are additional constraints upon these monies. See HSC § 50219(d)-(e). For example: 59 APPENDICES • Grantees are required to use at least 8 percent of the program allocation for services that meet the specific needs for homeless youth populations. • Grantees may use up to 5 percent of their program allocation on a strategic homelessness plan and/or for infrastructure development to support coordinated entry systems and Homeless Management Information Systems (HMIS). • Grantees shall not use more than 7 percent of their program allocation for administrative costs incurred by the city, county, or CoC to administer its program allocation. • Grantees shall not use HHAP program funding to supplant existing local funds for homeless housing, assistance, or prevention. By May 31, 2023, a grantee shall contractually obligate not less than 50 percent of program allocations. By June 30, 2025, HHAP program funds must be fully expended. HSC § 50220(e). 60 APPENDICES Appendix G: HHAP Round 1, Grantees Received redirected allocation No allocation Allocations based on each jurisdiction's proportionate share of the total number of individuals experiencing homelessness in the region per HSC § 50218 and HSC § 50216 (j). * Palm Springs - Large City received a pre-determined, direct allocation. 61 APPENDICES Appendix H: HHAP, Supplemental Data – Eligible Uses Total Eligible Uses for all Grantees (as of 9/30/2020) Obligated Expended Tot al Project Eligible Uses $ 313,999,826.44 $ 58,883,958.76 Rental Assistance and Rapid Rehousing $ 45,741,614.46 $ 139,658.49 Large Cities $ 7,923,170.86 $ 36,486.94 Counties $ 10,823,913.83 $ 87,352.10 CoCs $ 26,994,529.77 $ 15,819.45 Operating Subsidies $ 31,422,222.18 $ 1,836,483.93 Large Cities $ 7,058,445.13 $ 124,017.39 Counties $ 21,609,183.67 $ 1,499,818.41 CoCs $ 2,754,593.38 $ 212,648.13 Landlord Incentives $ 1,089,959.50 $ 9,323.31 Large Cities $ 581,424.00 $ - Counties $ 80,399.50 $ - CoCs $ 428,136.00 $ 9,323.31 Outreach and Coordination $ 21,280,431.76 $ 494,645.55 Large Cities $ 7,762,495.66 $ 122,793.35 Counties $ 11,202,038.22 $ 357,972.13 CoCs $ 2,315,897.88 $ 13,880.07 Systems Support $ 6,125,778.10 $ 36,660.00 Large Cities $ 64,603.00 $ - Counties $ 882,070.26 $ 36,660.00 CoCs $ 5,179,104.84 $ - Permanent Housing $ 48,153,346.50 $ 7,362.57 Large Cities $ 4,297,441.68 $ - Counties $ 40,339,129.40 $ - CoCs $ 3,516,775.42 $ 7,362.57 Prevention and Diversion $ 18,684,851.88 $ 403,238.00 Large Cities $ 693,808.00 $ 152,000.00 Counties $ 3,711,413.93 $ - CoCs $ 14,279,629.95 $ 251,238.00 New Navigation Centers/Emergency Shelters $ 141,501,622.06 $ 55,956,586.91 Large Cities $ 108,646,522.61 $ 31,086,163.81 Counties $ 9,664,593.27 $ 6,127,773.10 CoCs $ 23,190,506.18 $ 18,742,650.00 Tot al Non-Project Eligible Uses $ 19,904,803.51 $ 1,820,353.49 Strategic Planning $ 734,990.88 $ 31,503.75 Large Cities $ 129,205.00 $ - Counties $ 3,060.00 $ - CoCs $ 602,725.88 $ 31,503.75 Infrastrucure Development $ 1,838,224.44 $ 85,073.96 Large Cities $ 193,808.00 $ - Counties $ 330,105.76 $ 72,573.96 CoCs $ 1,314,310.68 $ 12,500.00 Jurisdiction's Administrative Costs $ 17,331,588.19 $ 1,703,775.78 Large Cities $ 8,194,327.44 $ 702,200.49 Counties $ 1,690,399.93 $ 68,801.68 CoCs $ 7,446,860.82 $ 932,773.61 TOTAL $ 333,904,629.95 $ 60,704,312.25 62 APPENDICES Youth, Total Eligible Uses for all Grantees (as of 9/30/2020) Obligated Expended Youth Project Eligible Uses Rental Assistance and Rapid Rehousing $ 13,885,868.75 $ - Large Cities $ 2,778,079.93 $ - Counties $ 5,456,812.33 $ - CoCs $ 5,650,976.49 $ - Operating Subsidies $ 318,765.53 $ - Large Cities $ - $ - Counties $ 172,941.64 $ - CoCs $ 145,823.89 $ - Landlord Incentives $ - $ - Large Cities $ - $ - Counties $ - $ - CoCs $ - $ - Outreach and Coordination $ 6,016,526.45 $ 2,619.98 Large Cities $ - $ - Counties $ 5,364,645.43 $ - CoCs $ 651,881.02 $ 2,619.98 Systems Support $ 91,579.20 $ - Large Cities $ - $ - Counties $ 90,000.00 $ - CoCs $ 1,579.20 $ - Permanent Housing $ 542,150.40 $ 7,362.57 Large Cities $ - $ - Counties $ 107,282.79 $ - CoCs $ 434,867.61 $ 7,362.57 Prevention and Diversion $ 3,429,358.00 $ - Large Cities $ - $ - Counties $ 3,344,903.00 $ - CoCs $ 84,455.00 $ - New Navigation Centers/Emergency Shelters $ 1,863,518.39 $ 65,460.49 Large Cities $ 1,195,980.79 $ - Counties $ 340,316.97 $ 65,460.49 CoCs $ 327,220.63 $ - 63 APPENDICES Appendix I: HHAP Additional Performance Metrics Charts HHAP Percent People Served by Jurisdiction Type Note: Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. PEOPLE SERVED BY CHARACTERISTICS N=4,612 POPULATIONS OF INTEREST Chronically Homeless 41.2% Unaccompanied Youth (under 25) 7.6% Veterans 4.1% GENDER Males 58.2% Females 40.8% Trans Gender 0.5% Gender Non-Conforming 0.2% Unknown 0.2% RACE White 65.0% Black 19.3% Asian 1.6% American Indian or Alaskan Native 3.6% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 0.8% Multiple Races 4.2% Unknown 5.5% ETHNICITY Non-Hispanic/Non-Latino 65.5% Hispanic/Latino 31.0% Unknown 3.5% Note: Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. 64 APPENDICES HHAP Distribution of Gender, Race, and Ethnicity in Permanent Housing Destinations DEMOGRAPHICS ALL PEOPLE SERVED PERMANENT DESTINATIONS N=4,612 EXITS N =457 GENDER Males 58.2% 53.0% Females 40.8% 45.4% Trans Gender 0.5% 0.6% Gender Non-Conforming 0.2% 0.4% Unknown 0.2% 0.5% RACE White 65.0% 73.6% Black 19.3% 17.1% Asian 1.6% 0.5% American Indian or Alaskan Native 3.6% 4.2% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 0.8% 0.2% Multiple Races 4.2% 2.8% Unknown 5.5% 1.6% ETHNICITY Non-Hispanic/Non-Latino 65.5% 48.4% Hispanic/Latino 31.0% 50.7% Unknown 3.5% 0.9% Note: Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. 65