Piecing Together the $500 Million California Homeless Emergency Aid Program
-$500 Million Will Be Allocated to Cities and Counties throughout the State-
1. Purpose
The purpose of the Homeless Emergency Aid Program (HEAP), as noted in the proposed trailer bill language, is to provide Continuums of Care (CoCs) with one-time funds “to address their immediate homelessness challenges.” Senate Bill 850 established HEAP as a flexible block grant program to allow CoCs more discretion to determine how to use the funds.
2. Eligible Uses
HEAP proposed trailer bill language states that
“(a) Program funds shall be expended on uses that address homelessness, including, but not limited to, prevention and emergency aid.
(b) No more than five percent (5%) of program funds may be used for administrative costs related to the execution of eligible activities. This does not include staff costs directly related to carrying out eligible activities in paragraph (a). No program funds shall be used for overhead or planning activities.”
Senate Bill 850, section 50214 expands upon the language noted in the proposed trailer bill:
“(a) Program funds shall be expended on one-time uses that address homelessness, including, but not limited to, prevention, criminal justice diversion programs to homeless individuals with mental health needs, and emergency aid.
(b) No more than five percent of programs funds may be used for administrative costs related to the execution of eligible activities. For purposes of this subdivision, ‘administrative costs’ does not include staff costs directly related to carrying out the eligible activities pursuant to subdivision (a). Program funds shall not be used for overhead or planning activities.
(c) An administrative entity shall use no less than five percent of its total allocation to establish or expand services meeting the needs of homeless youth or youth at risk of homelessness.”
3. Administrator
The administrator of the funds is an “Administrative Entity,” which
“means a unit of general purpose local government, a nonprofit organization that has previously administered Department of Housing and Urban Development Continuum of Care funds as the collaborative applicant pursuant to Section 578.3 of Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations that has been designated by the Continuum of Care to administer program funds.”
Threshold Requirements
In order to be eligible for program funds, as noted in the proposed trailer language, an Administrative Entity must demonstrate:
“(1) The jurisdictions that the Administrative Entity represents for which funding is requested has, at the time of award, declared an emergency shelter crisis pursuant to Section 8698 of the Government Code.
(2) The Administrative Entity has collaborated in its application, and has committed to future collaboration, with other city, county, or nonprofit partners.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), Administrative Entities representing cities and counties included in the three groupings with the lowest three homeless point-in-time thresholds pursuant to Section XXXXX.3 may submit a waiver to the requirement for a declaration of an emergency shelter crisis in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a). Upon approval by the Agency during a given round of awards, these cities and counties will be eligible to receive program funds through the Administrative Entity.”
NOTE: Section 8698 d. states that a
‘Declaration of a shelter crisis’ means the duly proclaimed existence of a situation in which a significant number of persons are without the ability to obtain shelter, resulting in a threat to their health and safety.”
4. Funding
A total of $500 million will be allocated to administrative entities as follows:
• $250 million will be allocated according to the following groupings based on the 2017 Point-in-Time Count of homeless persons:
(1) Forty million dollars ($40,000,000) to the Administrative Entities with a homeless point-in-time count of over 20,000 persons.
(2) Sixty million dollars ($60,000,000) to Administrative Entities with a homeless point-in-time count between 4,000 and 19,999 persons.
(3) Thirty million dollars ($30,000,000) to Administrative Entities with a homeless point-in-time count of between 2,500 and 3,999 persons.
(4) Forty-eight million dollars ($48,000,000) to Administrative Entities with a homeless point-in-time count of between 1,800 and 2,499 persons.
(5) Eighteen million dollars ($18,000,000) to Administrative entities with a homeless point-in-time count of between 1,500 and 1,799 persons.
(6) Thirty-two million dollars ($32,000,000) to Administrative entities with a homeless point-in-time count of between 1,000 and 1,499 persons.
(7) Twelve million dollars ($12,000,000) to Administrative entities with a homeless point-in-time count of between 750 and 999 persons.
(8) Seven million dollars ($7,000,000) to Administrative entities with a homeless point-in-time count of between 250 and 749 persons.
(9) Two million dollars ($2,000,000) to Administrative entities with a homeless point-in-time count of less than 250 persons.
• $100 million will be allocated based on the administrative entity’s proportionate share of the total 2017 Point-in-Time Count homeless population.
• $150 million allocated to cities or cities that are also counties that meet specified requirements. Cities with more than 330,000 residents based on 2018 Department of Finance estimates is a requirement. This includes the following 11 cities: Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, San Jose, Oakland, Long Beach, Sacramento, Fresno, Santa Ana and/or Anaheim, and Bakersfield.
5. Timeline
Senate Bill 850 requires the Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency to make
• a first round of awards by January 31, 2019;
• a second round of awards by May 31, 2019;
• “and if any funds remain unallocated following the first round, and to work with the Department of Finance to identify an appropriate allocation methodology for a 3rd round of awards, or to determine if any unallocated funds should revert to the General Fund, if any funds remain unallocated following the 2nd round.”
Senate Bill 850 requires
• “award recipients to expend program funds on one-time uses that address homelessness, including, but not limited to, prevention, criminal justice diversion programs to homeless individuals with mental health needs, and emergency aid, and to submit a report to the agency by January 1, 2020, pertaining to contract expenditures, the number of homeless individuals served by program funds, and progress toward state and local homelessness goals.”
• The bill requires “that at least 50% of program funds be contractually obligated by January 1, 2020, and 100% of program funds contractually obligated by June 30, 2021, and further require that any unexpended funds as of the latter date be returned to the agency and revert to the General Fund.”
• The bill also “authorizes the agency to request a repayment of funds from an administrative entity, or to pursue any other remedies available by law for failure to comply with program requirements.”
The proposed trailer bill provides the following information:
“(c) Applications for the first round of awards shall be due to the Agency on or before December 31, 2018. The Agency shall verify whether funding requests meet the minimum criteria established by this chapter and make awards on a continuous basis but no later than January 31, 2018.
(d) If, after the first round of awards, not all funds have been claimed by all Administrative Entities within a grouping, the Agency shall set aside any remaining funds equally across Administrative Entities in that grouping for a second round of awards.
(e) Applications for the second round of awards shall be due to the Agency on or before April 30, 2019. The Agency shall verify whether funding requests meet the minimum criteria established by this chapter and make awards on a continuous basis but no later than May 31, 2019.
(f) If, after the second round of awards, not all funds have been claimed by all Administrative Entities within a grouping, the Agency shall work with the Department of Finance to identify an appropriate allocation methodology for a third round of awards or determine if any unallocated funds shall revert to the General Fund. The allocation methodology shall be approved by the Department of Finance with notification to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee.”
Lastly, the California Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency is in the process of hiring an Executive Officer who will be “responsible for managing staff resources in support of the directions from the Homeless Coordinating and Financing Council comprised of 17 appointees.” The Executive Officer “will lead the strategy, planning and resourcing efforts and will ultimately be responsible for achieving various statutory goals,” according to the job posting.
One statutory responsibility will be developing, implementing and closing down the one-time Homeless Emergency Aid Program.
Am I the only one who finds the definition of “Administrative Entity” for the Homeless Emergency Aid Program confusing? It seems like there is an “or” missing, to begin with, but I also find their reference to the collaborative applicant confusing. As a collaborative applicant, our non-profit does not administer HUD CoC Program funds (aside from planning funds) to grantees. We handle the application process, but awarded providers contract directly with HUD to drawdown funds. Collaborative applicants who are UFAs administer funds, but not all of us function as UFAs. Does this mean that collaborative applicants who are not UFAs are not eligible to act as Administrative Entities for their CoC coverage areas for the purposes of this program? If not, can we designate a unit of local government to act as the AE? Any clarification anyone has on this would be much appreciated.
It seems to me that you should be able to designate a unit of local government to act as the AE if your agency, Alternatives to Violence, cannot receive the funds. You may know that the California Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency (BCSH) will be administering the HEAP block grant funds. See http://www.bcsh.ca.gov/hcfc/aid_program.html, which doesn’t say much, so you may have to call.
AE cap seams at first hand a good provision to funds allocations. Interested to hear what present per cent of funding is used for this purpose.
Proposed Trailer Bill Language states “No more than five percent (5%) of program funds may be used for administrative costs related to the execution of eligible activities.”
I love this new funding, but there is an urgent need for state – local communication about how and what these funds can be used for. And for some good examples of how the funds might be used. Given how how quickly the funds are supposed to be released and spent, and how time consuming it can be to design and implement programs to spend millions of dollars (definitely needed!), communities will be in danger of not being ready. One example – building a new navigation center. Some communities have planning underway, but others do not. For the latter, will it even be possible to plan, design, engender neighborhood acceptance, get local approvals, etc. within the state timeframe? So I do this the state should release some information about how they will be defining eligible activities – hopefully as broadly as possible – any they should indicate how urgently they think local communities should be planning.
Tony – I couldn’t agree more about what you noted about communities not being ready. Even those communities that have begun planning for these funds are in the initial planning stage. I do know that some counties are looking closely at focusing the funds on the immediate housing needs of people living in encampments. The intent behind the HEAP funds is to use it to focus on immediate emergency needs and not to be used for new construction and/or acq and rehab. Other pots of funds such as No Place Like Home and Homes for a Healthy California are targeted for supportive housing. So, Riverside County just focused on an encampment that had 40 persons living in it. Ten persons left but 30 agreed to going into a motel and to work immediately with housing navigators. Twenty-two persons were moved into permanent housing. The other eight were not. No household stayed in the motel for more than 90 days. During the webinar the other day that focused on HEAP, one question was about HEAP funds and new construction and/or acq and rehab. The response was that new construction and/or acq and rehab was an eligible activity but not the intent behind this pot of money. Another question was asked about portable toilets. The response was that it is an eligible activity but not necessarily the intent behind the funds.