1. Emergency Solutions Grants Program February 2012

2.  Tom Bettencourt, Branch Chief  Sabrina Sassman, Section Chief  Dan Apodaca, ESG Program Manager  Catherine Kungu, ESG Program Representative  Amanda Lockwood, ESG Program Representative  Connie Mallavia, ESG Program Representative  Helene Hiromoto, ESG Program Representative

3. A) To meet with Continuums of Care contact persons and Stakeholders serving the homeless and “at risk” of homelessness populations. B) To review, solicit dialog and receive ideas on major budget components of the new ESG Program. C) To develop a coordinated effort between HCD (Recipient) and the Continuums of Care, service providers, community leaders and eligible subrecipients on ESG funding. Although these workshops will be specific to ESG 2011 Round II funding, the general areas of discussion and input will carry forward into FY 2012 and in subsequent funding years.

4. I.Allocation of Funds II.Performance Standards for Components Funded Under ESG III.HMIS Activities IV.Other Areas to Discuss

5.  Regional Allocation of Funding: New Project—up to 5% Northern CA –33% Southern CA –24% Rural Allocation—19% General Allocation—13% General Adm. for HCD—6%

6.  Proposed Components: Street Outreach Emergency Shelter Homelessness Prevention Rapid Re-housing HMIS Administration * See Eligible Expense Guide for all eligible activities under each Component above.

7.  The total amount of the 2011 Fiscal year grant that can be expended on Emergency and Street Outreach cannot exceed the greater of: 60% of the current fiscal year grant:  $6,469,328 OR Amount of FY 2010 funds spent on “Homeless Assistance” (HA) activities:  $6,357,061  Since 60% of current fiscal year is greater, the expenditure limit is $6,469,328.

8. $6,469,328 (60% of Total Allocation) - $6,115,251 (Round I Funds spent on HA) $354,077 (Remaining funds for ES & SO) Therefore, the maximum amount available for Emergency Shelter and Street Outreach activities for Round II of the 2011 Allocation is: 9.1%

9.  Discussion of Funding Priorities: Emphasis on HP and RR vs. ES Funding Priorities: Rapid Re-Housing (RR) Homelessness Prevention (HP) Emergency Shelter (ES) Street Outreach (SO) HMIS Administration (AD) Funding Limitations:  Refer to Interim Rule dated December 5, 2011.

10.  Funding by Component for Round II allocation: * Street Outreach and Emergency Shelter limited to a total of $354,077 due to Round I allocations already made in Homeless Assistance Activities ($6,558,347). ** Based on 6% to HCD and 1.5% to Subrecipients; Round I Administration allocation was $342,270, therefore Round II is $466,396 to both HCD and Subrecipients. Funding Activity Homelessness Prevention [3] Rapid Re-housing [4] Total Amount Budgeted Rental Assistance [Refer to 3.2 in Eligible Expense Guide] [Refer to 4.2 in Eligible Expense Guide] Housing Relocation and Stabilization Services [Refer to 3.1 in Eligible Expense Guide] [Refer to 4.1 in Eligible Expense Guide] Subtotal Emergency Shelter * [Refer to 2 in Eligible Expense Guide] * Street Outreach * [Refer to 1 in Eligible Expense Guide] * HMIS [Refer to 5 in Eligible Expense Guide] **Administration to Subrecipients Administration to HCD (2.5%) $ 95,488 (9.5%) $370,908 [Refer to 6 in Eligible Expense Guide] Round II ESG Amount Budgeted(100%) $3,881,597

11.  Funding by Component for FY 2012 * Emergency Shelter and Street Outreach activities are limited to a maximum of 60% of the total HUD allocation. Funding Activity Homelessness Prevention [3] Rapid Re-housing [4] Total Amount Budgeted Rental Assistance [Refer to 3.2 in Eligible Expense Guide] [Refer to 4.2 in Eligible Expense Guide] Housing Relocation and Stabilization Services [Refer to 3.1 in Eligible Expense Guide] [Refer to 4.1 in Eligible Expense Guide] Subtotal Emergency Shelter * [Refer to 2 in Eligible Expense Guide] * Street Outreach * [Refer to 1 in Eligible Expense Guide] * HMIS [Refer to 5 in Eligible Expense Guide] Administration 7.5% (6% - HCD; 1.5% - Subrecipients) [Refer to 6 in Eligible Expense Guide] FY 2012 ESG Amount Budgeted 100% ($12 million)

12.  Written standards for provision of ESG Components: HCD vs. Subrecipients. HCD plans to have subrecipients provide standards - Refer to Docket No. FR-5594-N-01, (page xii insert).  HCD performance standards for evaluating ESG activities - Rating Factors (maximum of 1400 points): Applicant Capability - up to 300 points Need for Funds - up to 200 points * Impact and Effectiveness - up to 765 points Cost Efficiency - up to 100 points State Objectives - up to 35 points * To be rated by the Continuum of Care in their Certification of Local Need form.

13. Rating CriteriaFESGESG Applicant Capability 300 pts. Need for Funds100 pts.200 pts. Impact and Effectiveness 250 pts. 205 pts. (Street Outreach and Emergency Shelter) 280 pts. (Homeless Prevention) 280 pts. (Rapid Re-housing) 765 pts. Cost Efficiency100 pts. State Objectives 35 pts. Total785 pts.1,400 pts.  Old FESG/ESG Round I vs. ESG Round II:

14.  Funding, policies, and procedures for the operation and administration of HMIS activities: All subrecipients must participate in an HMIS through a Continuum of Care in their service area. The Department proposes an 11% cap in HMIS activities, as in HPRP.

15.  Match – to be required by the subrecipients and shown on the application.  Indirect Costs – not eligible.  Centralized or Coordinated Assessment System(s) – If the Continuum of Care employs a centralized or coordinated assessment system, this must be described in the ESG Application.

16.  Maintenance of Effort (Supplanting) – applies to Units of General Purpose Local Government only.  HCD Monitoring and Reporting Risk Assessment follow-up by site monitoring visits and/or desk audits. Reports: Quarterly Performance Reports and Annual Performance Reports to be determined by HUD and HCD.  HCD involvement in regional discussions with CoC’s Discussion on collaborations between CoCs and HCD.