You are on page 1of 29

HPRP and the Recovery Act

A team project report
Spring 2012

ARRA Implementation Team Project Ashley Ireson Robin Israel Meghan McDavid Ana Pumarejo Brenda Quintero

Introduction: Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) on February 13, 2009, a direct response to the economic crisis that began in 2008. The overall act initially supplied over $787 billion to achieve the recovery act goals (Appendix A), but that amount was later increased to $840 billion. As part of the goal towards “spurring economic activity and investing in long-term growth” the Recovery Act funds were allocated to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to create a program targeting the homeless and those about to become homeless. The Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (HPRP), therefore was created as a short-term solution to those whom had been hit hardest by the economic crisis. This paper will first discuss HUD and its Recovery Act goals and follow with a description of the HPRP program. Next, we will discuss implementation of HPRP in the states and make comparisons with Arizona in the final section. Each section outlines and analyzes the HPRP in relation to the Recovery Act while using the data supplied by the Recovery Act reports and government documents. Section 1: Parent Agency Description and Goals HUD was created in 1965 as a Cabinet-level agency, following the U.S. Housing Act of 1937. Twentythree offices fall under this agency (See Appendix B for a complete list) including the Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD) which houses the Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program. Through the collaborative efforts of these offices, HUD is able to carry out its ultimate mission of creating “strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality, affordable homes for all” (Mission). In 2009, when the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was signed into law, HUD developed programs to help jump-start the economy. Consistent with its mission, the agency created three Recovery Act goals: 1) to promote energy efficiency and create green jobs, 2) to support shovel-ready projects and assist housing improvements, and 3) to promote stable communities and help families that were most affected by the economic crisis (Recovery.gov). To carry out these goals the agency administers thirteen Recovery Act Programs (See Appendix C for full list). Of these, five are competitive programs; six are formula-driven programs and two others are specific project programs. HUD’s mission targets two of the three Recovery Act goals: creating new jobs and spurring economic activity and long-term growth. HUD’s general goals that align with the Recovery Act goals are 1) strengthening the housing market to bolster the economy, 2) meeting the need for quality affordable rental homes, and 3) utilizing housing as a way of improving the quality of life (Mission). CPD seeks to work on these goals by focusing specifically on creating feasible approaches to community development through the provision of decent housing, creation of adequate living environments and by expanding economic opportunities (Community Planning and Development). Through coordinated efforts with HUD, CPD aids in spurring economic activity and long-term investment by creating job capacity, empowering the community to participate in government, and developing sustainable housing initiatives. HUD received $13.55 billion for projects and programs. Of this amount, approximately 75% has been spent on formula-driven programs, totaling $10,072,200,000 (HUD.gov). From this amount, $189,933,204 has been awarded for 392 contracts, $11,719,688,027 has been awarded for 12,199 grants, and $102,161,695 has been awarded in the form of loans. The remaining 25% of funds has been awarded via competition. Currently $12.39

billion of the Recovery Act funds has been paid out. Section 2: Program Description and Goals The CPD houses the Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (HPRP), which is fully funded by a Recovery Act grant, and is considered in alignment with the goals of the Recovery Act and HUD. The HPRP was developed with the initiation of the Recovery Act with the overall goal that all participants achieve housing stability (“Agency Reporting”). The purpose is specified as: serving people who are suffering from significant losses of income and have lost housing or are in danger of losing housing due to the economic crisis that began in 2008 (Homelessness Resource Exchange). From these purposes it can be inferred that the casual theory is: if the government provides financial assistance to families who are struggling due to the economic crisis, those families will not fall into homelessness or will be able to rise out of it. While the overall goal and purpose are defined, the specific goals to be achieved in fulfilling the purpose of this program are not clearly stated. The administration of the funds, however, identifies definite parameters in which the HPRP must operate. This can pose a problem in the coordination of what the goals can be assumed to be, based on the purpose and the eligible activities. According to HUD’s Homeless Resource Exchange, the HPRP “provides homelessness prevention assistance to households that would otherwise become homeless, and provides rapid rehousing assistance to persons who are homeless as defined by section 103 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act.” The assistance provided by the HPRP is meant to be temporary assistance only to households who will, upon the termination of this assistance, be able to maintain “stable housing” (Homelessness Resource Exchange). Encompassed within its purpose of homelessness prevention, is the intention to assist people in reentering the labor market and keep neighborhoods from “further destabilization” (“Agency Reporting”). Eligible activities, however, match up with only some portions of this purpose. The activities that are allowed are divided into four categories. The first category is “financial assistance”. This includes rental and utility assistance, including deposits, for up to 18 months, though only 7% of all participants use the services beyond six months (Office of Special Needs). Financial assistance may also take the form of moving and storage costs and motel vouchers. “Housing relocation and stabilization services” is the next category and includes case management costs in assisting the participants with housing stability, outreach to locate and engage those in need of services, costs of housing searches and placement, credit repair, and legal services associated with tenant/landlord issues. “Data collection” is the third category that qualifies to receive funds. This category is comprised of the costs required to collect data and report it “through the use of Homeless Management Information Systems (HMIS) or a comparable client-level database. Eligible costs include the purchase of HMIS software and/or user licenses; leasing or purchasing needed computer equipment for providers and the central server; costs associated with data collection, entry, and analysis; and staffing associated with the operation of HMIS, including training” (Homelessness Resource Exchange). The last category, “administrative costs”, is capped at 5% of the total award. There is no activity specified to assist people to “re-enter the labor market more quickly” (Homelessness Resource Exchange) and data collection was not mentioned in either of the items that are designated as “goal” and “purpose”. The identified overall goal and purpose are much too broad to be considered actual goals, and act more characteristically like a mission. It is possible that because this program was developed relatively quickly—it was

approximately one month from the time the Recovery Act was initiated to the time HPRP was introduced—the specific goals that identify to what extent the program is successful were overlooked. Instead, outputs were added as haphazard measures. The measures identified on the “Agency Reporting” page of the Recovery site include number of participants receiving specific services and percentages of those participants who achieved stable housing upon exit from the program, though not information is entered here (See Appendix D for results). Prior to the Recovery Act, HPRP did not exist. Funding for this three-year program was created by the ARRA, Title XII of Division A (Congress, 107) and dispersed to state and local governments to keep individuals and families in their homes or to help individuals and families who are already homeless find affordable housing. This was a one-time allocation of $1.5 billion intended for short- and medium-term assistance. HPRP funds were allocated in spring 2009 with a three-year grant term. The HPRP will end in 2012, but activities will continue through the Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG) program. There is no definitive transition of services from HPRP to ESG. Only metropolitan cities, urban counties and states (including territories) receiving ESG funding were eligible for HPRP funds. Those eligible can then distribute the funds further to local governments and private nonprofits. The award basis uses the same formula that is authorized by the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act to determine allocation of funding for the ESG. There are two distributions before the funding is allocated to the local and state HPRP programs. First, 0.5 percent ($7.5 million) of the total HPRP funding is put towards administrative costs incurred by HPRP, such as staffing and evaluation activities. Next, the territories received 0.2 percent ($3 million) that is distributed based on the ESG formula. The remainder is allocated to states, metropolitan cities, and urban counties based on the percentage of what was available through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) the prior year. According to the ESG formula, if the portion to a city or county would be less than 0.05 percent ($750,000) of the total, the amount is re-allocated to its respective state so that the state can determine how to use the funds. However, this is one aspect that was adjusted for HPRP. Shawn Donovan, the Secretary of HUD, using authority awarded in the Recovery Act, decided to lower the minimum grant size to $500,000 so that more cities and counties were eligible to directly receive funds (“Notice of Allocations,” 9-10). HUD defines specific initial minimum HPRP eligibility requirements for families, but strongly suggests that local programs develop more requirements based on local needs (HPRP Eligibility Determination, 2). The first minimum eligibility requirement for households to participate in HPRP is an initial consultation with a case manager or other qualified person that can determine the level of assistance needed by the client. This also includes an assessment of the client’s ability to meet the other eligibility requirements (3). The next minimum requirement is that the client’s total household income fall below 50 percent of Area Median Income (AMI). AMI changes according to state and local jurisdictions—depending on the client’s specific location. It also is dependent upon the number of persons living within a household. AMI estimates change annually and are considered “very low income” by HUD standards (5). Income, for the purposes of eligibility requirements, is defined as “any money that goes to, or on behalf of, the head of the household or spouse (even if temporarily absent) or to any other household member” by HUD (5). HPRP assistance requires that eligibility be determined according to gross income—or the income before deductions are made. This includes things like child support, SSI payments, and pension/retirement income

(6). There are sixteen exclusions, however, that do not count as part of gross household income. Some examples include inheritance and insurance income, student financial aid, and armed forces hostile fire pay (See Appendix E for a full list). The last HPRP eligibility requirement is based on the housing status of the prospective client. To be eligible for rapid re-housing assistance the household must be homeless. To receive homelessness prevention assistance, a family must be at risk of losing their housing. In addition to these two requirements—the household must not be able to identify appropriate subsequent housing options, and it must “lack the financial resources to obtain immediate housing or remain in its existing housing” and the household must lack support networks needed to obtain immediate housing or remaining housing (HPRP Eligibility Determination, 1). Ultimately the local program must be the determinant on what factors remain important when defining the eligibility of a client in need. HUD sets these minimum guidelines as a tool for guiding the programs in the right direction--it functions like a categorical grant does. Based on the program description, HPRP most closely aligns with the Recovery Act goal of spurring economic activity and investing in long-term growth (About/HUD). HPRP intends to help families get back on their feet after facing financial woes. Having stable housing and income should, in theory, help to spur economic activity because households will have more money to spend in the market. By helping families to improve their financial and housing situation, HPRP also acts as an investment towards long-term growth within the U.S. economy. However, because this connection is indirect, it is difficult to substantiate. HUD has five main goals as part of their strategic framework for fiscal years 2010 through 2015. These goals fall under the mission to “create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality, affordable homes” (FY 2010–2015 HUD Strategic Plan, 2). The five main broad goals are listed below: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Strengthen the nation’s housing market to bolster the economy and protect consumers Meet the need for quality affordable rental homes Utilize housing as a platform for improving quality of life Build inclusive and sustainable communities free from discrimination Transform the way HUD does business

These HUD main goals also each have 4-5 “sub-goals” that more specifically outline the outcomes that HUD plans to achieve. HPRP’s actions contribute to HUD’s main goals of meeting the needs of quality, affordable, rental homes and utilizing housing as a platform for improving quality of life (FY 2010–2015 HUD Strategic Plan). Under goal number two are the sub goals of A) ending homelessness and reducing the number of people with severe housing needs, B) expanding the amount of rental homes available to areas that need it the most, and C) maintaining affordability while improving the quality of federal and private rental homes (FY 2010–2015 HUD Strategic Plan, 2). These goals all focus on maintaining or improving the current system to best meet the needs of persons who are struggling to live. This is in direct relation to HPRP’s actions of helping the homeless receive housing, and also preventing homelessness for those who are struggling to provide. Also, under goal number three is sub-goal D, which is to provide assistance to produce stability through HUD services for vulnerable populations like

the elderly, persons with disabilities, the homeless, or those who are at risk of becoming homeless ((FY 2010–2015 HUD Strategic Plan), 2). Again, these goals speak to the persons in need that HPRP is trying to assist. And finally, the HPRP aligns with HUD’s specific Recovery Act goals of promoting stable communities and helping families hit hardest by the economic crisis and supporting shovel-ready projects and assisted housing improvements. The HPRP was created specifically in response to the economic crisis of 2008, so it is directly linked with these goals created by HUD. HUD explains that the HPRP “will help communities and families that have experienced the brunt of the economic downturn” (HUD.gov). HUD intended to use the Recovery Act funds to stabilize and revive failing neighborhoods plagued by foreclosures. They also wanted to support housing projects to increase the number of affordable housing options for those struggling to survive. Ultimately, because the HPRP was created by the Recovery Act, HUD’s ARRA goals were written with HPRP’s purpose in mind—helping to make a clear connection between the agency and program. Section 3: Implementation in the States The HPRP, with the funds from the Recovery Act, has awarded 2,854 grants within United States and its territories. The total amount awarded to the 2,854 grants is $1,524,234,596 (“Advanced Recipient Data Search”). The state that received the highest dollar amount is California. California received $192,559,830. On the other hand, American Samoa received $412,935, the least amount awarded. Comparing the number of grants awarded, California received the most, with 278 grants, and American Samoa and U.S. Virgin Islands the least, with one grant each (Appendix F). Comparing funding received with the homeless population of the states and territories demonstrates how funds were distributed among them. This comparison revealed that some states with higher homeless populations received fewer dollars per homeless capita. Montana has the least amount funding per homeless capita; it received $441.56 for each homeless person. Even though Montana’s homeless population of 8,112 is not the lowest in the U.S., they received the least amount of funding overall. Conversely, Missouri’s homeless population is 1,615 and the total amount awarded was $27,263,384. This gives a per homeless capita of $16,881.35, the highest amount among states and territories. It is important to highlight that the state with the highest homeless population is California, with 132,931. However, California’s calculated fund to homeless person ratio is the one of the lowest at $1,448.57 (Appendix F). Therefore, this comparison has shown that funding is not equally distributed among people in need, increasing the complexity of achieving HPRP’s overall purpose. The HPRP is implemented by both public and non-profit organizations. Consistently, both organizations play an important role in running the program across the U.S., in almost every state and territory with the exception of Idaho, American Samoa, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Northern Mariana Islands. Here, public organizations are responsible for executing the program. Section 4: Arizona Spotlight A total of 31 grants are funded by HPRP in Arizona, equaling $23,316,645 (“Advanced Recipient Data Search”). Grant awards are concentrated primarily in Maricopa County (See Appendix G). These awards vary significantly across the state, ranging from $26,470.67 to $6,996,243. Almost half of them fall within the $100,000

to $500,000 range. However, the grant to the City of Phoenix is substantially larger at $6,996,243. Overall, there is no consistency in the amounts that have been granted. The Arizona recipients of HPRP funding consist of 14 public agencies, 11 non-profit agencies and one agency, Western Arizona Council of Governments, that considers itself a “governmental non-profit”. All recipients are located within Arizona. There are 11 prime recipients who receive funding directly from HPRP; 8 of which allocate funds to 1-15 sub- recipients (local governments and non-profits). There are a total of 20 Arizona subrecipients (See Appendix H for a complete list of prime and sub-recipients). In Arizona, the prime and sub-prime recipients are independent. Individually, each recipient has its own goals and objectives. In the end, the similarity of these goals and objectives is what, in some cases, makes them work together to achieve the HPRP goals (Appendix G). The City of Phoenix, Pima County, and the City of Chandler are prime recipients that did not sub-grant part of their funds. This indicates that they worked independently to accomplish their goals. On the other hand, prime recipients such as Maricopa County, the Arizona Department of Housing (ADOH), and the Cities of Tempe, Tucson, Mesa, and Glendale, distributed their grants among other organizations that were working toward the same objectives. Even though HPRP grantees focus on helping combat homelessness, in the end, depending on their goals and objectives, they all have different approaches. The City of Phoenix and ADOH’s approach is to provide financial assistance and services to prevent individuals and families from becoming homeless and to help those who are experiencing homelessness to be re-housed and stabilized. ADOH reallocated its funds to fifteen sub-grantees responsible for serving rural and urban areas of the state including Mesa, Glendale, and Maricopa County (“Advanced Recipient Data Search”). The City of Tempe received three grants. Its goal is to utilize HPRP funds to rapidly re-house homeless individuals. The City of Tempe’s sub-grantee, Tumbleweed, addresses the issue of homeless youth. Also, they help Veterans who are homeless through case management, clinical services, and Veterans’ Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) vouchers that provide rental assistance (“Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing”). Maricopa County, and the Cities of Mesa, Glendale, and Chandler have the same objective: help by providing housing expense assistance and stabilization services to individuals in need. To achieve this objective, the City of Mesa distributed its funding to the Mesa Community Action Network and to the Save the Family Foundation of Southern Arizona. Likewise, Maricopa County sub-granted to Community Legal Services and Valle del Sol, both financial assistance and case management, in accordance with HPRP federal regulations. The City of Glendale addressed this objective through its Glendale Community Action Program, which provides short-term rental assistance, as well as rapid re-housing. Pima County intends to help people in need through housing search assistance. With the collaboration of the City of Tucson, Pima County provides case management and financial assistance in the form of rent, utilities, moving, storage, and motel vouchers. Additionally, the program provides credit repair counseling and legal aid, and temporary or permanent housing. The City of Tucson hired several local organizations to assist in providing assistance to the homeless. These vendors include: Leslie Carlson, Low-Cost Bearings, Money Management International, Non-Profits Industries, Southern Arizona AIDS Foundation, Southern Arizona Legal Aid, Symmetric

Solutions, and the Primavera Foundation. HPRP’s purpose is to help individuals achieve housing stability through homelessness prevention and rapid re-housing assistance. As stated before, the grantees all aim for the same goal: to assist the homeless population and prevent people from becoming homeless. Each grantee has different accomplishments but they all contribute to the HPRP’s goals. The City of Phoenix, the City of Chandler, and the ADOH assisted more than 10,000 people with homeless prevention services (“Advanced Recipient Data Search”). The City of Tempe has helped over 100 people through re-housing and the Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) vouchers (“Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing”). Also, the City of Tucson and Pima County have been working on providing emergency shelter services to the homeless population. They have helped over 3,000 individuals (“Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing”) by working closely with organizations that provide shelter and transitional housing services to recently released prisoners, families under Child Protective Services, and domestic violence victims in order to ensure that individuals will have a place to stay during difficult situations (Appendix I). It is unclear how the City of Glendale, the City of Mesa, and Maricopa County contribute to HPRP goals since there is no caseload data for them. We can only address prime recipients because the information addressing sub-recipients in the Recovery.gov site either entirely lacks data on the sub-recipients’ outputs, or states identical information to that of the prime recipients. Arizona HPRP recipient activities support CPD goals in two ways. Part of the aim of CPD is to provide "decent housing, [and] a suitable living environment" (Community Planning and Development) for the community, which the majority of the Arizona recipients achieve by helping disadvantaged families and individuals find and afford housing. For example, the City of Phoenix provides “housing counseling” and Maricopa County offers “housing expense assistance.” Another CPD goal is to “expand economic opportunities for low and moderate income persons” (Community Planning and Development). Recipients contribute to this goal through the creation of jobs. As of March 2012, Arizona recipients had created 366.97 jobs (“Advanced Recipient Data Search”), which can be seen in Appendix J. However, not all recipients address “low and moderate income persons.” For example, the City of Chandler and the City of Tucson provide activities that are more geared towards homeless persons (“Advanced Recipient Data Search”). Furthermore, CPD desires sustainable solutions and most of Arizona recipient activities are simply quick fixes, such as utility and rental assistance that will disappear once HPRP has ended. The CPD goals relating to citizen participation in government and streamlining government are not addressed by HPRP recipient activities. Although the program description supports the Recovery Act goal of spurring economic activity and longterm growth, the recipient activities most directly contribute to the goal of creating jobs. Once again, Arizona recipients created a total of 366.97 jobs. However, the non-sustainable nature of the recipient activities, in contrast to the program description, does not support the goal of spurring economic and long-term growth. The recipients, to some extent, do support the Recovery Act's goal to "foster... accountability and transparency in government spending” (Recovery.gov). All recipients are required by Congress and HUD to report how they are spending their Recovery dollars. An initial Performance Report was mandated focusing on the distribution of funds to sub-grantees

and among programs and outputs (i.e. jobs created and persons served) during the period between the grant execution date and September 30, 2009. Then, every January, April, June, and October, a quarterly report is due that provides quarterly and cumulative data on outputs and challenges that were faced. Finally, an annual performance report, focused on outputs, is also necessary within 60 days of the end of the fiscal year (Community Planning and Development). While the initial and quarterly reports are easily found on the Recovery website, the state’s annual report was nowhere to be found. Conclusion: HUD’s conscientious effort to create goals specific to the Recovery Act for its ARRA programs, allows HPRP’s activities to align with ARRA goals through HUD’s Recovery-specific goals, though they do not neatly align with the Recovery Act’s main three goals of creating new and saving existing jobs, spurring economic activity and investing in long term growth, and fostering unprecedented levels of accountability and transparency in government spending. This is partially due to the temporary nature of the program. So, though the program creates jobs, it does so for the short-term. It also is also difficult to say with certainty that there is a true effect on long-term economic growth. Another reason that HPRP does not clearly fit into the three Recovery Act goals is that its effects are indirect when considering how it spurs economic activity. Lastly, though the program purpose and goal do not identify transparency in government spending, the program itself has set up a process of reporting. This reporting, however, is not followed through in all cases, or on the Recovery.gov Track the Money site, where it was intended for the public to easily access this information. The transfer of services to the ESG programs may, conceivably, address the issue of long-term economic growth and permanent job creation. The challenge with this is that the transition of HPRP services is not well defined. In fact, HUD’s most specific advice in closing down HPRP activities is available via a webinar (“Ramping Down HPRP”) which discusses transitioning staff out with reduced hours and finding other jobs. This webinar also states that “staff are not sure what kinds of problems families may experience after the program ends” and that staff should seek ideas from participants themselves on how to best address their needs with other programs when HPRP ends. It also suggests seeking funds from ESG, TANF block grants, Federal HOME grants, and other organizations and agencies. This would indicate that there is no process that is set to continue services, nor is ESG the automatic or sole inheritor of HPRP activities. The development of HPRP rose from a national outcry for solutions to the mortgage and housing crisis. The American public was bewildered and outraged when bailouts to investment banks and car companies were offered, and middle-class demanded to know how they would be helped as they lived in fear of losing their homes and jobs. The hasty creation of HPRP appears as a political response to this public call. Unfortunately, its lack of clear planning from the initiation may have resulted in less than effective outcomes. If only we had a way to measure them.

Appendix A: Complete List of Goals
Recovery Act Goals •Create and save jobs •Spur economic activity and invest in long-term •Foster unprecedented levels of accountability and transparency in government spending HUD’s Recovery Act Goals •Promoting energy efficiency and creating green jobs •Supporting shovel-ready projects and assisted housing improvements •Promoting stable communities and helping families hardest hit by the economic crisis HUD’s Main Goals •Strengthen the nation’s housing market to bolster the economy and protect consumers •Meet the need for quality affordable rental homes •Utilize housing as a platform for improving quality of life •Build inclusive and sustainable communities free from discrimination •Transform the way HUD does business CPD's Purpose •CPD seeks to develop viable communities by promoting: •Integrated approaches that provide decent housing •A suitable living environment •The expansion of economic opportunities for low and moderate income persons HPRP Purpose •For participants to achieve housing stability AND: •1) To provide homelessness prevention assistance to households that would otherwise become homeless •2) To provide rapid re-housing assistance to people who are homeless as define by the McKinney-Vento Act

Source: Recovery.gov: Track the Money.

Appendix B: HUD Offices
1. Center of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships 2. Chief Financial Officer 3. Chief Human Capital Officer 4. Chief Information Officer 5. Chief Procurement Officer 6. Community Planning and Development 7. Congressional/Intergovernmental Relations/ Public Engagement 8. Departmental Enforcement Opportunity 9. Equal Employment Opportunity 10. Fair Housing/ Equal Opportunity 11. Field Policy/Management 12. General Counsel 13. Ginnie Mae 14. Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control 15. Housing 16. Labor Relations 17. Office of Hearing and Appeals 18. Office of the Inspector General 19. Policy Development and Research 20. Public Affairs 21. Public Indian Housing 22. Small/ Disadvantaged Business Utilization 23. Sustainable Housing Communities
Source: Program Offices.

Appendix C: HUD Recovery Programs

HUD Recovery Act Programs Competitive Programs Green Retrofit Program for Multifamily Housing Indian Community Development Block Grant Native American Housing Block Grant Program Neighborhood Stabilization Program Public Housing Capital Fund Formula Driven Programs Community Development Block Grant Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program Native American Housing Block Grant Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant Public Housing Capital Fund Tax Credit Assistance Program Other Programs Lead Hazard Reduction/Healthy Homes Project-Based Rental Assistance

Source: Agency and Program Plans.

Appendix D: Participant Outcomes
Change in Monthly Cash Income of Adults from Program Re-Entry to Program Exit:

Destination of Persons Exiting HPRP by Program Type:

Permanent stable housing is identified in the 2010 Homeless Assessment Report to Congress as “a client-owned or rented housing unit (with or without subsidy), permanent supportive housing, or living with family or friends permanently.”

Appendix E: Income Eligibility Exclusions

1. Income of Children 2. Inheritance and Insurance Income 3. Medical Expense Reimbursements 4. Income of Live-In Aides 5. Disabled Persons 6. Student Financial Aid 7. Armed Forces Hostile Fire Pay 8. Self-Sufficiency Program Income 9. Other Income (temporary, non-recurring, sporadic income) 10.Reparations 11.Income from Full-Time Students 12.Adoption Assistance Payments 13.Deferred and Lump Sum Social Security and SSI payments 14.Income Tax and Property Tax Refunds 15.Home Care Assistance 16.Other Federal Exclusions

Source: HPRP Eligibility Determination and Documentation Guidance.

Appendix F: Recipient Amounts

State/ Territory

Amount

Homeless Population

Total Population

Homeless Rate

Number of Grants

NonProfit

Population

Public

Per Capita

Per Homeless Capita

Alabama Alaska American Samoa Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Guam Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa

$21,464,046 $1,848,168 $412,935 $23,316,745 $11,212,943 $192,559,830 $15,491,118 $16,960,432 $2,921,322 $7,409,476 $69,199,748 $33,624,789 $1,221,922 $6,182,962 $4,972,218 $70,865,285 $28,383,426 $16,732,201

6,046 1,863

4,779,736 710,231 66,432

0.13% 0.26%

20 14 1

x x

x x x

$3,550.1 $4.49 2 $2.60 $992.04 $6.22 $3.65 $3.85 $5.17 $3.08 $4.75 $3.24 $12.31 $3.68 $3.47 $6.85 $4.55 $3.17 $5.52 $4.38 $5.49 $1,700.5 9 $4,059.7 2 $1,448.5 7 $1,000.5 9 $3,929.6 6 $2,974.8 7 $1,133.1 2 $1,202.4 1 $1,695.1 4 $747.35 $1,059.8 2 $2,119.4 5 $4,922.9 1 $4,399.1 7 $5,551.4 9

13,711 2,762 132,931 15,482 4,316 982 6,539 57,551 19,836 1,635 5,834 2,346 14,395 6,452 3,014

6,392,017 2,915,918 37,253,956 5,029,196 3,574,097 900,877 601,723 18,801,310 9,687,653 178,430 1,360,301 1,567,582 12,830,632 6,483,802 3,046,355

0.21% 0.09% 0.36% 0.31% 0.12% 0.11% 1.09% 0.31% 0.20% 0.61% 0.43% 0.15% 0.11% 0.10% 0.10%

31 19 278 15 19 27 11 120 77 3 19 2 138 40 28

x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x

x x x

Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachuse tts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Northern Mariana Islands Ohio Oklahoma

$11,349,968 $18,557,372 $26,587,084 $8,056,972 $24,199,087 $45,817,769 $53,779,606 $23,546,196 $14,379,581 $27,263,384 $3,586,327 $7,871,814 $8,927,393 $5,378,867 $42,523,326 $8,585,909 $142,281,626 $29,978,387 $2,582,637 $589,165 $69,617,490 $12,297,934

2,024 6,623 12,482 2,379 10,845 16,646 13,058 7,869 2,743 1,615 8,122 3,877 14,594 1,574 13,737 3,475 65,606 12,191 799

2,853,118 4,339,367 4,533,372 1,328,361 5,773,552 6,547,629 9,883,640 5,303,925 2,967,297 989,415 5,988,927 1,826,341 2,700,551 1,316,470 8,791,894 2,059,179 19,378,102 9,535,483 672,591 60,917

0.07% 0.15% 0.28% 0.18% 0.19% 0.25% 0.13% 0.15% 0.09% 0.16% 0.14% 0.21% 0.54% 0.12% 0.16% 0.17% 0.34% 0.13% 0.12%

14 56 43 22 56 92 91 68 6 91 11 14 19 16 82 13 131 43 16

X x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

X x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

$3.98 $4.28 $5.86 $6.07 $4.19 $7.00 $5.44 $4.44 $4.85 $27.56 $0.60 $4.31 $3.31 $4.09 $4.84 $4.17 $7.34 $3.14 $3.84 $9.67

$5,607.6 9 $2,801.9 6 $2,130.0 3 $3,386.7 1 $2,231.3 6 $2,752.4 8 $4,118.5 2 $2,992.2 7 $5,242.2 8 $16,881. 35 $441.56 $2,030.3 9 $611.72 $3,417.3 2 $3,095.5 3 $2,470.7 7 $2,168.7 3 $2,459.0 6 $3,232.3 4

12,569 5,229

11,536,504 3,751,351

0.11% 0.14%

133 35

x x

x x

$5,538.8 $6.03 2 $2,351.8 $3.28 7

Oregon Pennsylvani a Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas U.S Virgin Islands Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

$15,091,586 $91,215,055 $50,014,272 $6,977,808 $15,788,759 $3,254,060 $20,294,861 $103,956,909 $775,978 $8,458,345 $3,398,824 $28,507,819 $24,503,643 $10,805,048 $26,935,856 $1,718,313

19,492 14,516 4,149 1,282 4,473 731 10,276 35,121 92 3,284 1,220 9,080 22,878 2,264 6,333 579

3,831,074 12,702,379 3,725,789 1,052,567 4,625,364 814,180 6,346,105 25,145,561 395 2,763,885 2,763,885 8,001,024 6,724,540 1,852,994 5,686,986 563,626

0.51% 0.11% 0.11% 0.12% 0.10% 0.09% 0.16% 0.14% 487 0.12% 0.04% 0.11% 0.34% 0.12% 0.11% 0.10%

31 232 112 23 45 10 30 206 1 24 9 67 76 17 48 9

x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x

$3.94 $7.18 $13.42 $6.63 $3.41 $4.00 $3.20 $4.13 $1,964. 50 $3.06 $1.23 $3.56 $3.64 $5.83 $4.74 $3.05

x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x

$774.25 $6,283.7 6 $12,054. 54 $5,442.9 1 $3,529.7 9 $4,451.5 2 $1,974.9 8 $2,959.9 6 $8,434.5 4 $2,575.6 2 $2,785.9 2 $3,139.6 3 $1,071.0 6 $4,772.5 5 $4,253.2 5 $2,967.7 3

Source: Advanced Recipient Data Search.

Appendix G: Arizona Fund Distribution
Local Amount
$575,271.00 $461,474.00 $461,474.00 $661,474.00 $60,303.33 $914,122.00 $1,063,430.00 $995,094.00 $2,534,340.00 $6,996,243.00 $226,462.28 $26,470.67 $57,325.66 $100,000.00 $105,000.00 $167,590.00 $200,000.00 $200,000.00 $200,000.00 $210,000.00 $265,212.00 $316,132.00 $361,038.98 $400,924.08 $576,751.00 $650,000.00 $767,095.00 $813,529.00 $836,079.00 $1,042,651.00 $1,071,259.00

Recipient
City of Chandler City of Tempe City of Tempe City of Tempe County of Maricopa City of Glendale Pima County City of Mesa City of Tucson City of Phoenix Arizona Department of Housing Community Legal Services Town of Springerville Good Neighbor Alliance Valle del Sol County of Gila Mesa Community Action Network Tumbleweed Center for Youth Development Tumbleweed Center for Youth Development Save the Family Foundation of Arizona Occac City of Glendale Catholic Charities of Gallup City of Mesa County of Coconino Southeastern Arizona Community Action Program Western Arizona Council of Governments Valle del Sol Catholic Charities Community Services County of Mohave Community Action Human Resources Agency
Source: Advanced Recipient Data Search.

Recipient Role
Prime Prime Prime Prime Prime Prime Prime Prime Prime Prime Prime Sub Sub Sub Sub Sub Sub Sub Sub Sub Sub Sub Sub Sub Sub Sub Sub Sub Sub Sub Sub

Type of Organizations
Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Non-Profit Public Non-Profit Non-Profit Public Non-Profit Non-Profit Non-Profit Non-Profit Non-Profit Public Non-Profit Public Public Non-Profit Non-Profit Non-Profit Non-Profit Public Non-Profit

Appendix H: Sub-Recipients
Recipient
City of Chandler City of Tempe City of Tempe City of Tempe County of Maricopa City of Glendale Pima County City of Mesa City of Tucson City of Phoenix Arizona Department of Housing

Sub-Recipient
Tumbleweed Center for Youth Development Tumbleweed Center for Youth Development Tumbleweed Center for Youth Development Community Legal Services

Sub-Recipient

Valle del Sol

Save the Family Foundation of Arizona

Mesa Community Action Network

Catholic Charities Community Services Catholic Charities of Gallup Community Action Human Resources Agency Good Neighbor Alliance County of Mohave Southern Arizona Community Action Program Town of Springerville Western Arizona Council of Governments

County of Coconino City of Glendale County of Gila City of Mesa OCCAC Symmetrc Solutions Valle del Sol

Source: Advanced Recipient Data Search.

Appendix I: Cases in Arizona
City of Phoenix Quarter Jan-March Oct-Dec July-Sept April-June Jan-March Oct-Dec July-Sept April-June Jan-March Oct-Dec Feb-Sept City of Tucson Quarter Jan-March Oct-Dec July-Sept April-June Jan-March Oct-Dec July-Sept April-June Jan-March Oct-Dec Feb-Sept City of Tempe Quarter April-June July-Sept ADOH Quarter Jan-March Oct-Dec July-Sept April-June Year 2012 2011 2011 2011 2011 2010 2010 2010 2010 2009 2009 Cases 256 239 250 277 307 276 268 220 145 0 0 2238 Cases no #'s available no #'s available no #'s available no #'s available no #'s available no #'s available no #'s available no #'s available no #'s available no #'s available no #'s available Cases 21 37 Cases 2012 2011 2011 2011 297 826 1362 1382

Year 2012 2011 2011 2011 2011 2010 2010 2010 2010 2009 2009 Year 2010 2011 Year

Jan-March Oct-Dec July-Sept April-June Jan-March Oct-Dec Feb-Sept City of Mesa Quarter Jan-March Oct-Dec July-Sept April-June Jan-March Oct-Dec July-Sept April-June Jan-March Oct-Dec Feb-Sept City of Tempe(Vouchers) Quarter Jan-March Oct-Dec July-Sept April-June Jan-March Oct-Dec July-Sept April-June Jan-March Oct-Dec Feb-Sept City of Chandler Quarter Jan-March Oct-Dec

2011 2010 2010 2010 2010 2009 2009

1162 886 229 220 255 166 0 6785 Cases no #'s available no #'s available no #'s available no #'s available no #'s available no #'s available no #'s available no #'s available no #'s available no #'s available no #'s available

Year 2012 2011 2011 2011 2011 2010 2010 2010 2010 2009 2009

Year 2012 2011 2011 2011 2011 2010 2010 2010 2010 2009 2009

Cases 27 18 7 no #'s available no #'s available 36 29 no #'s available no #'s available no #'s available no #'s available 65 Cases 728 742

Year 2012 2011

July-Sept April-June Jan-March Oct-Dec July-Sept April-June Jan-March Oct-Dec Feb-Sept

2011 2011 2011 2010 2010 2010 2010 2009 2009

736 101 62 73 284 293 150 121 0 3290

City of Glendale Quarter Year Cases Jan-March 2012 Oct-Dec 2011 July-Sept 2011 April-June 2011 Jan-March 2011 Oct-Dec 2010 July-Sept 2010 April-June 2010 Jan-March 2010 Oct-Dec 2009 Feb-Sept 2009 Maricopa County Quarter Year Jan-March 2012 Oct-Dec 2011 July-Sept 2011 April-June 2011 Jan-March 2011 Oct-Dec 2010 July-Sept 2010 April-June 2010 Jan-March 2010 Oct-Dec 2009 Feb-Sept 2009

no #'s available no #'s available no #'s available no #'s available no #'s available no #'s available no #'s available no #'s available no #'s available no #'s available no #'s available Cases no #'s available no #'s available no #'s available no #'s available no #'s available no #'s available no #'s available 3 no #'s available no #'s available no #'s available

Pima County Quarter Jan-March Oct-Dec July-Sept April-June Jan-March Oct-Dec July-Sept April-June Jan-March Oct-Dec Feb-Sept

Year 2012 2011 2011 2011 2011 2010 2010 2010 2010 2009 2009

Cases 187 no #'s available 70 873 537 532 532 no #'s available no #'s available no #'s available no #'s available 2544

Source: Advanced Recipient Data Search.

Appendix J: Jobs Created

Initial Phoenix Tempe Tempe Tempe Pima Chandler Tucson Mesa AZ DH Maricopa Glendale
2.00

From Quarterly Reports Oct '09 Jan '10 Apr '10 Jun '10 Oct '10 Jan '11 Apr '11 Jun '11 Oct '11 Jan '12 Totals
5.00 5.00 9.00 1.00 9.00 9.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 1.00 8.00 79.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 7.00 1.48 15.85 0.00 3.50 4.20 57.15 2.50 25.25 17.99 159.54 1.00 13.83 0.00 3.85 366.97 8.00

0.00 1.50 2.00 5.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 1.33 0.75 3.22 0.75 2.63 0.27 0.71

1.00 1.33 0.75 3.22 2.50 7.77 0.78 1.50

1.33 0.00 3.38 2.50 15.78 2.25 1.24

1.00 1.48 0.00 3.67 2.50 15.62 1.70 0.00

1.00 1.48 0.00 5.66 2.50 18.27 3.89 0.40

1.00 1.48 0.00 9.20 2.50 17.69 2.02 0.00

1.00 1.48 0.00 9.20 2.50 21.82 1.24 0.00

1.48 0.00 6.20 2.50 21.14 0.22 0.00

1.00 1.48 0.00 4.20 2.50 20.83 0.46 0.00

Source: Advanced Recipient Data Search.

Appendix K: Comparison of ESG and HPRP
Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG) Program • $160 million in FY 2009 • States (51, including Puerto Rico) • Metropolitan cities (203 in FY 2009) and urban counties (102 in FY 2009) • Total number of grantees (including 4 territories): 360 • Territories and local government grantees may provide ESG funds for projects operated by their own agencies and private non-profit organizations. • State grantees must provide all funds to local governments or private non-profit organizations acting as sub-recipients. Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (HPRP) • $1.5 billion one-time appropriation • States (51, including Puerto Rico) • Metropolitan cities (337) and urban counties (148) • Total number of grantees (including 4 territories): 540 • Territories and local government grantees may provide HPRP funds for projects operated by their own agencies, other local governments, and private nonprofit organizations. • State grantees must provide all funds to local governments or private non-profit organizations, except for a reasonable portion of funds for administrative costs. • Financial assistance, including short-term rental assistance (up to 3 months) and medium-term rental assistance (up to 18 months), security deposits, utility deposits, utility payments, moving costs, and hotel/motel vouchers. • Housing relocation and stabilization services, including case management, outreach, housing search and placement, legal services, and credit repair. • Data collection and evaluation, including HMIS costs. • Administration (limited to 5

Amount Available

Eligible Grantees

Eligible Sub-Recipients

Eligible Activities

• Renovation, major rehabilitation, or conversion of a building to a shelter. • Essential Services (limited to 30 percent of grant, can be waived). • Operations of homeless shelters (staff salaries for operations management limited to 10 percent of grant). • Homelessness Prevention, including short-term mortgage/rent, short-term utilities, security deposits, first month's rent, landlord-tenant mediation, tenant legal services (limited by law to 30 percent of

grant). • Administration (limited to 5 percent of grant). Eligible Program Participants • Homeless persons • Persons at risk of becoming homeless who must meet four homelessness prevention assistance: -The inability of the family to make the required payments is due to a sudden reduction in income; -The assistance is necessary to avoid the eviction or termination of services; -There is a reasonable prospect that the family will be able to resume payments within a reasonable period of time; and -The assistance will not supplant funding for preexisting homelessness prevention activities from other sources.

percent of grant).

• Homeless persons and persons at risk of becoming homeless, who meet the following three criteria: -Any individual or family receiving rental assistance must have at least an initial consultation with a case manager to determine need. -Household must be at or below 50 percent of Area Median Income (AMI) -Household must meet both of the following circumstances: (1) no appropriate subsequent housing options have been identified; AND (2) the household lacks the financial resources and support networks needed to obtain immediate housing or remain in its existing housing. Based on FY2008 CDBG formula; minimum grant allocation set by HUD Secretary at $500,000.

Allocation Formula

Based on the previous year's Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) formula, with minimum grant allocation at 0.05 percent of the total. Territories receive 0.2 percent of the total ESG allocation. • Match grant funds with an equal amount of funds from cash or in-kind sources, with states exempt from matching the first $100,000 of their awards.

Match

• No match is required for HPRP.

Expenditure Deadline

• Local government: spend all ESG grant funds within 24 months of grant award. • State grantees: make grant funds available to subrecipients within 65 days of the grant award by HUD with obligation by 180 days of availability from the state, and spent within 2 years of grant award. • State prevention funds should be available within 180 days, and obligated and spent within 30 days, and 180 days respectively. • Integrated Disbursement and Information System (IDIS): Request ESG payments and report accomplishments • HMIS: Collect beneficiary data • Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Reporting (CAPER)

• All grantees must spend at least 60 percent of funds within 2 years of the date that HUD signs the grant agreement, and 100 percent of funds within 3 years of this date. • HUD may recapture unexpended funds in violation of the 2-year expenditure requirement and reallocate such funds to grantees in compliance with that requirement.

Reporting and Access of Program Funding

• IDIS: Request HPRP payments and report accomplishments • HMIS: Collect data on use of funds and persons served • Quarterly reporting required by Recovery Act: HUD will establish requirements pursuant to direction by OMB payments and report accomplishments

From: Notice of Allocations

Works Cited U.S. Government. Congress. “H.R. 1, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009”. 111th Cong., 1st sess. Washington D.C.: GPO, 6 Jan. 2009. Web. 4 May 2012. <http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS111hr1enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr1enr.pdf>. ----. Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs, Office of Community Planning and Development, and Department of Housing and Urban Development. Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program: Year 1 Summary. June 2011. Web. 28 Apr. 2012. <http://www.hudhre.info/documents/ HPRP_Year1Summary.pdf>. ----. Department of Housing and Urban Development and Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs. “Ramping Down HPRP”. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Washington D.C. July 2011. Web. 30 Apr. 2012. <http://www.hudhre.info/documents/HPRP_RampingDownWebinar_Slides.pdf>. ----. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Community Planning and Development. Washington D.C. Web. 07 Apr. 2012. <http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/ comm_planning>. ----. ----. About/HUD Information Related to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. “301 Moved Permanently”. Web. 04 May 2012. <http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/recovery/about>. ----. ----. FY 2010-2015 HUD Strategic Plan. Washington: GPO. Web. 12 Apr. 2012. ----. ----. Homelessness Resource Exchange. “Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program”. Web. 30 Mar. 2012. < http://www.hudhre. info/hprp/index.cfm?do=viewHPRPIssuances>. ----. ----. HPRP Eligibility Determination and Documentation Guidance. Washington: GPO, Revised 2011. Web. 12 Apr. 2012. ----. ----. HUD.gov: Recovery. “HUD Implementation of the Recovery Act”. Washington D.C. Web. 17 Apr. 2012. <http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/recovery/about>. ----. ----. ----."Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) - PIH - HUD." Web. 25 Apr. 2012. <http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/public_indian_housing/programs/hcv/vash>.

----. ----. Mission. Washington D.C. Web. 07 Apr. 2012. <http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/about/ mission>. ----. ----. Notice of Allocations, Application Procedures, and Requirements for Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program Grantees under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. [Docket No. FR-5307-N-01] 19 Mar. 2009. Web. 25 Apr. 2012. http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/ huddoc?id=hrp-notice.pdf>. ----. ----. Office of Community Planning and Development. The 2010 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress. Web. 05 Apr. 2012. <http://www.hudhre.info/documents/2010HomelessAssessmentReport.pdf>. ----. ----. Program Offices.Washington D.C. Web. 07 Apr. 2012. <http://www.recovery.gov/transparency/agency/ reporting/agency_reporting5.aspx? agency_code=86>. ----. ----. Recovery.gov: Track the Money. “Advanced Recipient Data Search”. Washington D.C. Web. 20 Apr. 2012. < http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/TextViewProjSummary.aspx?data=recipientAwardsList>. ----. ----. ----. “Agency and Program Plans”. Washington D.C. Web. 1 May 2012. <http://www.recovery.gov/transparency/ agency/reporting/agency_reporting5.aspx?agency_code=86>.

----. ----. ----. “Agency Reporting: Program Plan”. Washington D.C. Web. 30 Mar. 2012. <http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/agency/reporting/agency_reporting5program.aspx? agency_code=12&progplanid=7545 ----. ----. ----. “Summary”. Washington D.C. Web. 28 Apr. 2012. <http://www.recovery.gov/transparency/agency/reporting/agency_reporting1.˗˗aspx?agency_code=86>.