1

No Place Like Home (NPLH)Overview

MHSA Steering Committee Presentation June 15, 2017

1

Agenda• NPLH Program Basics

• Funding and Purpose

• Timeline

• Program Components

• Local Commitments

• Sacramento Context• Population

• Local Funding for PSH: Capital, Operations, Services

• MHSA Housing in Sacramento County

• Local NPLH Planning • Planning Structure

• Key Work Elements

2

2

NPLH PROGRAM BASICS

3

No Place Like Home (NPLH) Program

• No Place Like Home (NPLH) Program enacted in 2016 through AB1618 and AB 1628 (technical clean-up).

• NPLH provides $2 billion in bond funding for permanent

supportive housing for people who are: • Homeless, chronically homeless, or at risk of becoming chronically

homeless; and • Living with a serious mental illness and in need of mental health and/or

substance use services

• Funding to be repaid through diversion of 7% of Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) revenue which would have otherwise been used by Counties for MHSA services.

4

3

Permanent Supportive Housing • Permanent housing linked to on- or off-site flexible, voluntary

and individualized services to help retain tenant housing, improve health and live and work in community.

• NPLH requires• Low barrier tenant selection practices that prioritize vulnerable

individuals

• Housing First practices (WIC Code, 8255(b)

• Integration: No more than 49% NPLH units 20+ projects

• NPLH provides capital financing and capitalized operating reserves for new/ rehabilitated PSH. Eligible activities include: • Acquisition, Design, Construction, Rehabilitation, Preservation

5

Financing PSH

Capital Operating Services PSH

Potential Funding Sources

6

• State NPLH• Tax Credits • Local “gap”, e.g.,

HOME, Trust Fund, AH Fee.

• Project-basedHousing Choice Vouchers

• State NPLH Capitalized Op Reserve

• Continuum of Care

• County Behavioral Health Services

• Primary Health• Project Operations• Linkages to

Community Based Services

4

NPLH Target Population• Homeless Status

• And mental health status

7

Homeless Per HUD, 24 CFR 578.3, includes 1) Literally homeless; 2) Imminent risk; 3) Homeless under other federal statues; 4) Fleeing domestic violence

Chronically homeless

Per HUD, 24 CFR 578.3 means someone with a disability who has experienced homelessness one year or longer or at least four times in last three years

At risk of chronic homelessness

Unique definition, includes persons exiting institutional settings who were homeless prior to admission and transition age youth with housing instability

Adults with serious mental disorder or youth with serious emotional disturbances, defined in Welfare and Institutions Code, 5600.3

NPLH Funding Components

8

StatewideFunding

State HCD-Administered Programs Sacramento

$6.2M • Technical Assistance grant to county• Variety of eligible uses related to NPLH

planning and implementation

$150k

$200M • Non competitive, over-the-counter • Formula allocates county amount• HCD underwrites and lends

$4.19M

Up to $1.8B

• Competitive program • Large Counties: Sacramento, Orange,

Alameda, Riverside, San Bernardino, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Fresno, Ventura, Kern

• Anticipate two annual rounds

Large Counties $386M to $682M

Up to $929M

• Optional alternative process to competitive program offered to four counties with 5% or more of homeless population

Sacramento not eligible

5

State Implementation TimelineMilestone Date

Release of Framework paperhttp://www.hcd.ca.gov/financial-assistance/docs/draft-nplh-framework-16dec21.pdf

December 2016

Advisory Committee Begins Meeting April 2017

Public Comment Period Ends (Framework Paper) January 31, 2017

Technical Assistance Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) released

May 2017

Program Guidelines Developed Spring 2017

Guidelines and NOFA Completed Summer 2017

Court Validation Process Fall 2017

Release of NOFA (competitive and non competitive funding anticipated to be concurrent)

Winter 2018(subject to validation)

Bi-Annual (anticipated) Competitive NOFAs Several years

9

Non-Competitive Allocation

• Formula considers Point-In-time count (70%) and Extremely Low-Income Renter Cost burden (30%)

• Funding concurrent with first NOFA and available for 18 months

• Same Threshold Requirements as Competitive• Loans to projects, administered and underwritten by HCD• May use on competitive application project• Scattered site or shared housing of five+ units allowed

• Small counties allowed to acquire and administer rental-shared housing with 20-year affordability period

10

6

11

Threshold Criteria

Detail

Eligible Applicant County or County and Developer

Capacity to Develop, Own and Operate PSH

• Applicant has two developments, one of which contains PSH units serving homeless within last 10 years

• Lead Service Provide and Property Manager have three years’ experience in serving target population

Integration • No more than 49% NPLH in projects of 20+ units• Units integrated and encourage social interaction

Project Financial Feasibility/Underwriting Standards

• Incomes limited to 15 to 30% Area Median Income • Rents with subsidies generally at 30% of actual income• Can use both 4% and 9% tax credits

20-Year County Services Commitment

• County to provide mental health services & coordinate all services• County approved services plan with minimum services

Low-Barrier Tenant Selection Practices

• Housing First consistent with WIC 8255(b)• Tenants not limited to County MH or MHSA clients

Eligible Housing type • Multi-family rental housing with at least five units• Shared housing or scattered site of at least five units

County Plan to Combat Homelessness

Includes description of countywide homelessness, challenges or barriers to serving target pop, county and community based resources, partners, solutions.

Competitive Rating Criteria (Draft)12

Scoring Factor Detail

Units Restricted to CH or At-Risk CH

% restricted using a coordinated entry system (CES) to provide tenant referrals

Capital Leverage • Non HCD sources (but may use Noncompetitive allocation)• Land donations count

Operating/Rental Subsidy Leverage

• Includes variety of non-State sources• 100% NPLH receives full points

Project Readiness • Site control• Market Study• Environmental clearances• Non-ministerial Land Use approvals

Extent of Services • Number and type of minimum and enhanced services offered onsite

• Transportation to off-site services• Frequency of available services

Use of Evidence-Based Bet Practices

• Project design and safety features• Provision of services

Possible additional • Efforts to streamline entitlements• Collaboration (health, behavioral health, housing)• Use of CES to most vulnerable

7

Key Ingredients to Success

13

• Serve chronically homeless or at risk• Developer/Owner Capacity• Experienced Service Provider

• Use of evidence-based practices• Experience with population

• Local Capital and Operating Leverage• Strong services plan and county

commitment• Project Readiness – entitlements,

funding, market study• Collaboration among housing, health,

behavioral health, homeless system

Primary Local Roles

14

County • Applicant or co-applicant to HCD• Adopts Homelessness Plan• Commits for 20 years to mental health services and to

coordinate access to other services• Project and client-level annual reporting

Development Sponsor/Owner

• Secures site, entitlements, and funding• Co-applicant to HCD • Party to HCD Loan and documents• Ensures ongoing project compliance

Service Provider • Prepares and implements services plan• Coordinates funding services

Locality, SHRA, or Other Funder

• Commits capital “gap” financing• Commits operating subsidies, e.g., HCV

Locality • Facilitates siting and project acceptance• Project entitlements (readiness scoring factor)

Continuum of Care

• Use of Coordinated Entry• HMIS for reporting

8

SACRAMENTO CONTEXT

15

Population Data

• 2015 Point-in-Time Count• 581 of the 2,659 persons reported severe mental illness (25%)

• 382 of these persons living in unsheltered situation

• 2-part question to estimate prevalence: whether the person has the condition and whether condition impacts housing and work

• Consistent with Statewide percentage

• 466 chronically homeless individuals

• National research• According to Office of National Drug Control Policy, approximately

30% have a serious mental illness

• Collaborative Initiative to Help End Chronic Homelessness (VA and HUD) indicates that at program entry, 76% had mental illness

• 2007 National Symposium on Homelessness Research: 60% of chronically homeless persons have lifetime mental health problems

16

9

Local Capital “Gap” Financing

• Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency administer approximately $5 million on behalf of County to finance affordable housing• Similar funding level for City of Sacramento

• High-end, ballpark assumptions show the ability to finance no more than 100 PSH units annually. Assumptions include• Entire $10 million in gap financing allocated to NPLH (Note: this is

likely not feasible)• $100k/cost per unit in local funds• = 100 PSH units supported with local gap financing

• 100 integrated units = 2 to 3 projects

17

Scenario 1~$23,000 Annual Total County Cost per Client

18

Full Service Partnership intensive outpatient mental health treatment services

Medication Assisted Treatment substance use services

7-day inpatient psychiatric treatment

20 hours crisis stabilization services

Residential substance use treatment services

Majority ofNPLH Clients

Behavioral Health Services – 20 year commitment

10

Scenario 2~$10,500 Annual Total County Cost per Client

19

Community-based outpatient mental health treatment services

Residential substance use treatment services

7-day crisis residential services

20 hours crisis stabilization services

Outpatient substance use counseling services

Subset ofNPLH Clients

Behavioral Health Services – 20 year commitment

Existing Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) Sacramento County

20

MHSA PSH Units Other PSH in Sacramento

(Approximate)

Total Units(Approximate)

Built Units 161 2,970 Beds in HIC/ 2,268 in

HMIS

Rental Subsidies 40 1,360 1,400

MHSA Investments*

# of MHSA Units Investment in Non-MHSA PSH

in MHSA Properties*

# of Non-MHSAPSH at MHSA

Properties

$14.8 million 161 Units $144.5 million 192

*Capital Financing Only

11

PSH in Sacramento CountyInvestments by Behavioral Health Services

1. Financed Housing Units:

Since 2008, $14.8 million invested in developing PSH units for homeless persons with serious mental illness

• California Housing Finance Agency MHSA Housing Program ($11 Million)

• Building Hope – Local MHSA One-Time fund established at SHRA in 2006 ($3.6 Million, forgivable and repayable loans)

• Leveraged over $130 million of federal, state, and local housing dollars to finance hundreds of apartments• Low Income Housing Tax Credits – state and federal

• California’s Multifamily Housing Program

• Federal Housing & Urban Development Continuum of Care grants, 811 program

• Various other affordable housing sources

• Developed 161 units, dedicated to homeless persons with serious mental illness (Mental Health Services Act funded tenants).

21

22

Property Name Total Units MHSA Units

Ardenaire Apartments 53 19

Boulevard Court 75 25

MLK Village 80 30

Mutual Housing at the Highlands 90 33

Folsom Oaks 18 5

Studios at Hotel Berry 105 10

YMCA 32 11

7th & H Street* 150 28

Total Served 603 161

Housing Units with MHSA FinancingRestricted Use for 55 Years;

Financed in 15-20 year Increments

12

Property Performance

• In 2015, the 8 MHSA properties performed well:

• Overall high tenant acceptance rates

• Stable tenant base; 67% of clients resided in a property for more than a year (a 50% increase from 2014)

• For those who moved out; most left voluntarily (rather than asked to leave)

23

Highlight: Housing Retention

24

111, or 73%, of all MHSA tenants have remained in place for more than 1 year.

78%

16%4% 6% 11%

20%11% 18%

11%

12%19%

22% 10% 9%

11%

72%

96%

74%

100%

67% 70%

89%73%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

AA(n=18)

Blvd Ct(n=25)

MLK(n=27)

MH@TH(n=31)

Folsom(n=5)

Berry(n=9)

YWCA(n=10)

7th & H(n=27)

Avg., allprops(n=152)

End of 2015 Length of Tenancy, MHSA Residents

MHSA residency < 6 months MSHA residency 6 months ‐ 1 year MHSA residency 1 year +

13

Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH)Investments by Behavioral Health Services (con’d)

2. Leveraged CoC and Other Housing Funds

• 760 persons, 660 households housed through various partnerships at any given time

• Approximately 500 rental subsidies, including:• MHSA rent subsidies

• Continuum of Care rent subsidies

• Tenant-based rental assistance

• Shelter Plus Care partnership with SHRA & SSF- deep partnership with SSF providing local oversight to CoC grant process, SHRA administers rental assistance, FSPs provide support services

• These partnerships are crucial to provide the needed mix of housing and services; no one source can provide all needed resources.

3. Fund and Oversee Provision of Mental Health Services

MHSA contracts for appropriate services to enrolled clients

25

Ardenaire Apartments

26

14

Boulevard Court

27

Mutual Housing at the Highlands

28

15

Folsom Oaks

29

7th and H

30

16

The Studios at Hotel Berry

31

Martin Luther King Jr., Village

32

17

YWCA

33

NPLH LOCAL PLANNING

34

18

NPLH Local Planning

AdvisoryCommittee

Program Development Work Group

SteeringCommittee

County Executive/ Board of

Supervisors

MHSA SteeringCommittee

City Councils/JPAs

36

• Sacramento County’s NPLH Steering Committee is designed to:

• Help guide policy formulation;• Ensure consistency and coordination with existing local

programs, policies, and budgets;• Finalize applications and forward to County

Executive/Board of Supervisors; and• Finalize related policy, program, fiscal, and other

recommendations to County CEO/BOS.

NPLH Steering Committee

19

Major Work Items

37

Element

Comment on HCD Framing Paper and Guidelines

Develop/Adopt County Homeless Plan

Scope County Services Commitment

Size and facilitate PSH Pipeline

Align Funding Sources

Project Selection Process

Member Questions / Discussion

38