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. Twenty-

three 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 re-

housing 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 re-

entering 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 non-

profits. 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. Strengthen the nation’s housing market to bolster the economy and protect consumers

2. Meet the need for quality affordable rental homes

3. Utilize housing as a platform for improving quality of life

4. Build inclusive and sustainable communities free from discrimination

5. 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 sub-

recipients (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 long-

term 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

Source: Recovery.gov: Track the Money.

•Create and save jobs

•Spur economic activity and invest in long-term

•Foster unprecedented levels of accountability and transparency in government spending

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 Recovery Act 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

HUD’s Main Goals

•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

CPD's 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

HPRP Purpose

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

Source: Agency and Program Plans.

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

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

Source: HPRP Eligibility Determination and Documentation Guidance.

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

Appendix F: Recipient Amounts

State/ Territory

Amount Homeless

Population Total

Population

Home-less Rate

Number of Grants

Non-Profit

Public

Population

Per Capita

Per Homeless

Capita

Alabama $21,464,046 6,046 4,779,736 0.13% 20 x x

$4.49 $3,550.1

2

Alaska $1,848,168 1,863 710,231 0.26% 14 x x $2.60 $992.04 American Samoa $412,935 66,432 1 x $6.22

Arizona $23,316,745 13,711 6,392,017 0.21% 31 x x

$3.65 $1,700.5

9

Arkansas $11,212,943 2,762 2,915,918 0.09% 19 x x

$3.85 $4,059.7

2

California $192,559,830 132,931 37,253,956 0.36% 278 x x

$5.17 $1,448.5

7

Colorado $15,491,118 15,482 5,029,196 0.31% 15 x x

$3.08 $1,000.5

9

Connecticut $16,960,432 4,316 3,574,097 0.12% 19 x x

$4.75 $3,929.6

6

Delaware $2,921,322 982 900,877 0.11% 27 x x

$3.24 $2,974.8

7

District of Columbia $7,409,476 6,539 601,723 1.09% 11

x x $12.31

$1,133.12

Florida $69,199,748 57,551 18,801,310 0.31% 120 x x

$3.68 $1,202.4

1

Georgia $33,624,789 19,836 9,687,653 0.20% 77 x x

$3.47 $1,695.1

4

Guam $1,221,922 1,635 178,430 0.61% 3 x x $6.85 $747.35

Hawaii $6,182,962 5,834 1,360,301 0.43% 19 x x

$4.55 $1,059.8

2

Idaho $4,972,218 2,346 1,567,582 0.15% 2 x

$3.17 $2,119.4

5

Illinois $70,865,285 14,395 12,830,632 0.11% 138 x x

$5.52 $4,922.9

1

Indiana $28,383,426 6,452 6,483,802 0.10% 40 x x

$4.38 $4,399.1

7

Iowa $16,732,201 3,014 3,046,355 0.10% 28 x x

$5.49 $5,551.4

9

Kansas $11,349,968 2,024 2,853,118 0.07% 14 X X

$3.98 $5,607.6

9

Kentucky $18,557,372 6,623 4,339,367 0.15% 56 x x

$4.28 $2,801.9

6

Louisiana $26,587,084 12,482 4,533,372 0.28% 43 x x

$5.86 $2,130.0

3

Maine $8,056,972 2,379 1,328,361 0.18% 22 x x

$6.07 $3,386.7

1

Maryland $24,199,087 10,845 5,773,552 0.19% 56 x x

$4.19 $2,231.3

6

Massachusetts $45,817,769 16,646 6,547,629 0.25% 92

x x $7.00

$2,752.48

Michigan $53,779,606 13,058 9,883,640 0.13% 91 x x

$5.44 $4,118.5

2

Minnesota $23,546,196 7,869 5,303,925 0.15% 68 x x

$4.44 $2,992.2

7

Mississippi $14,379,581 2,743 2,967,297 0.09% 6 x x

$4.85 $5,242.2

8

Missouri $27,263,384 1,615 989,415 0.16% 91 x x

$27.56 $16,881.

35

Montana $3,586,327 8,122 5,988,927 0.14% 11 x x $0.60 $441.56

Nebraska $7,871,814 3,877 1,826,341 0.21% 14 x x

$4.31 $2,030.3

9

Nevada $8,927,393 14,594 2,700,551 0.54% 19 x x $3.31 $611.72

New Hampshire $5,378,867 1,574 1,316,470 0.12% 16

x x $4.09

$3,417.32

New Jersey $42,523,326 13,737 8,791,894 0.16% 82 x x

$4.84 $3,095.5

3

New Mexico $8,585,909 3,475 2,059,179 0.17% 13 x x

$4.17 $2,470.7

7

New York $142,281,626 65,606 19,378,102 0.34% 131 x x

$7.34 $2,168.7

3

North Carolina $29,978,387 12,191 9,535,483 0.13% 43

x x $3.14

$2,459.06

North Dakota $2,582,637 799 672,591 0.12% 16

x x $3.84

$3,232.34

Northern Mariana Islands $589,165 60,917

x $9.67

Ohio $69,617,490 12,569 11,536,504 0.11% 133 x x

$6.03 $5,538.8

2

Oklahoma $12,297,934 5,229 3,751,351 0.14% 35 x x

$3.28 $2,351.8

7

Oregon $15,091,586 19,492 3,831,074 0.51% 31 x x $3.94 $774.25

Pennsylvania $91,215,055 14,516 12,702,379 0.11% 232

x x $7.18

$6,283.76

Puerto Rico $50,014,272 4,149 3,725,789 0.11% 112 x x

$13.42 $12,054.

54

Rhode Island $6,977,808 1,282 1,052,567 0.12% 23

x x $6.63

$5,442.91

South Carolina $15,788,759 4,473 4,625,364 0.10% 45

x x $3.41

$3,529.79

South Dakota $3,254,060 731 814,180 0.09% 10

x x $4.00

$4,451.52

Tennessee $20,294,861 10,276 6,346,105 0.16% 30 x x

$3.20 $1,974.9

8

Texas $103,956,909 35,121 25,145,561 0.14% 206 x x

$4.13 $2,959.9

6

U.S Virgin Islands $775,978 92 395 487 1

x $1,964.

50 $8,434.5

4

Utah $8,458,345 3,284 2,763,885 0.12% 24 x x

$3.06 $2,575.6

2

Vermont $3,398,824 1,220 2,763,885 0.04% 9 x x

$1.23 $2,785.9

2

Virginia $28,507,819 9,080 8,001,024 0.11% 67 x x

$3.56 $3,139.6

3

Washington $24,503,643 22,878 6,724,540 0.34% 76 x x

$3.64 $1,071.0

6

West Virginia $10,805,048 2,264 1,852,994 0.12% 17

x x $5.83

$4,772.55

Wisconsin $26,935,856 6,333 5,686,986 0.11% 48 x x

$4.74 $4,253.2

5

Wyoming $1,718,313 579 563,626 0.10% 9 x x

$3.05 $2,967.7

3

Source: Advanced Recipient Data Search.

Appendix G: Arizona Fund Distribution

Recipient Local

Amount Recipient

Role Type of

Organizations City of Chandler $575,271.00 Prime Public

City of Tempe $461,474.00 Prime Public

City of Tempe $461,474.00 Prime Public

City of Tempe $661,474.00 Prime Public

County of Maricopa $60,303.33 Prime Public

City of Glendale $914,122.00 Prime Public

Pima County $1,063,430.00 Prime Public

City of Mesa $995,094.00 Prime Public

City of Tucson $2,534,340.00 Prime Public

City of Phoenix $6,996,243.00 Prime Public

Arizona Department of Housing $226,462.28 Prime Public

Community Legal Services $26,470.67 Sub Non-Profit

Town of Springerville $57,325.66 Sub Public

Good Neighbor Alliance $100,000.00 Sub Non-Profit

Valle del Sol $105,000.00 Sub Non-Profit

County of Gila $167,590.00 Sub Public

Mesa Community Action Network $200,000.00 Sub Non-Profit

Tumbleweed Center for Youth Development $200,000.00 Sub Non-Profit

Tumbleweed Center for Youth Development $200,000.00 Sub Non-Profit

Save the Family Foundation of Arizona $210,000.00 Sub Non-Profit

Occac $265,212.00 Sub Non-Profit

City of Glendale $316,132.00 Sub Public

Catholic Charities of Gallup $361,038.98 Sub Non-Profit

City of Mesa $400,924.08 Sub Public

County of Coconino $576,751.00 Sub Public

Southeastern Arizona Community Action Program

$650,000.00 Sub Non-Profit

Western Arizona Council of Governments $767,095.00 Sub Non-Profit

Valle del Sol $813,529.00 Sub Non-Profit

Catholic Charities Community Services $836,079.00 Sub Non-Profit

County of Mohave $1,042,651.00 Sub Public

Community Action Human Resources Agency $1,071,259.00 Sub Non-Profit Source: Advanced Recipient Data Search.

Appendix H: Sub-Recipients

Source: Advanced Recipient Data Search.

Recipient Sub-Recipient Sub-Recipient City of Chandler

City of Tempe Tumbleweed Center for Youth Development

City of Tempe Tumbleweed Center for Youth Development

City of Tempe Tumbleweed Center for Youth Development

County of Maricopa Community Legal Services Valle del Sol

City of Glendale

Pima County

City of Mesa Save the Family Foundation of Arizona Mesa Community Action Network

City of Tucson

City of Phoenix

Arizona Department of Housing

Catholic Charities Community Services County of Coconino

Catholic Charities of Gallup City of Glendale

Community Action Human Resources Agency County of Gila

Good Neighbor Alliance City of Mesa

County of Mohave OCCAC

Southern Arizona Community Action Program Symmetrc Solutions

Town of Springerville Valle del Sol

Western Arizona Council of Governments

Appendix I: Cases in Arizona

City of Phoenix Quarter Year Cases

Jan-March 2012 256

Oct-Dec 2011 239

July-Sept 2011 250

April-June 2011 277

Jan-March 2011 307

Oct-Dec 2010 276

July-Sept 2010 268

April-June 2010 220

Jan-March 2010 145

Oct-Dec 2009 0

Feb-Sept 2009 0

2238

City of Tucson Quarter Year Cases

Jan-March 2012 no #'s available

Oct-Dec 2011 no #'s available

July-Sept 2011 no #'s available

April-June 2011 no #'s available

Jan-March 2011 no #'s available

Oct-Dec 2010 no #'s available

July-Sept 2010 no #'s available

April-June 2010 no #'s available

Jan-March 2010 no #'s available

Oct-Dec 2009 no #'s available

Feb-Sept 2009 no #'s available

City of Tempe Quarter Year Cases

April-June 2010 21

July-Sept 2011 37

ADOH Quarter Year Cases

Jan-March 2012 297

Oct-Dec 2011 826

July-Sept 2011 1362

April-June 2011 1382

Jan-March 2011 1162

Oct-Dec 2010 886

July-Sept 2010 229

April-June 2010 220

Jan-March 2010 255

Oct-Dec 2009 166

Feb-Sept 2009 0

6785

City of Mesa Quarter Year Cases

Jan-March 2012 no #'s available

Oct-Dec 2011 no #'s available

July-Sept 2011 no #'s available

April-June 2011 no #'s available

Jan-March 2011 no #'s available

Oct-Dec 2010 no #'s available

July-Sept 2010 no #'s available

April-June 2010 no #'s available

Jan-March 2010 no #'s available

Oct-Dec 2009 no #'s available

Feb-Sept 2009 no #'s available

City of Tempe(Vouchers)

Quarter Year Cases

Jan-March 2012 27

Oct-Dec 2011 18

July-Sept 2011 7

April-June 2011 no #'s available

Jan-March 2011 no #'s available

Oct-Dec 2010 36

July-Sept 2010 29

April-June 2010 no #'s available

Jan-March 2010 no #'s available

Oct-Dec 2009 no #'s available

Feb-Sept 2009 no #'s available

65

City of Chandler Quarter Year Cases

Jan-March 2012 728

Oct-Dec 2011 742

July-Sept 2011 736

April-June 2011 101

Jan-March 2011 62

Oct-Dec 2010 73

July-Sept 2010 284

April-June 2010 293

Jan-March 2010 150

Oct-Dec 2009 121

Feb-Sept 2009 0

3290

City of Glendale Quarter Year Cases

Jan-March 2012 no #'s available

Oct-Dec 2011 no #'s available

July-Sept 2011 no #'s available

April-June 2011 no #'s available

Jan-March 2011 no #'s available

Oct-Dec 2010 no #'s available

July-Sept 2010 no #'s available

April-June 2010 no #'s available

Jan-March 2010 no #'s available

Oct-Dec 2009 no #'s available

Feb-Sept 2009 no #'s available

Maricopa County Quarter Year Cases

Jan-March 2012 no #'s available

Oct-Dec 2011 no #'s available

July-Sept 2011 no #'s available

April-June 2011 no #'s available

Jan-March 2011 no #'s available

Oct-Dec 2010 no #'s available

July-Sept 2010 no #'s available

April-June 2010 3

Jan-March 2010 no #'s available

Oct-Dec 2009 no #'s available

Feb-Sept 2009 no #'s available

Pima County Quarter Year Cases

Jan-March 2012 187

Oct-Dec 2011 no #'s available

July-Sept 2011 70

April-June 2011 873

Jan-March 2011 537

Oct-Dec 2010 532

July-Sept 2010 532

April-June 2010 no #'s available

Jan-March 2010 no #'s available

Oct-Dec 2009 no #'s available

Feb-Sept 2009 no #'s available

2544

Source: Advanced Recipient Data Search.

Appendix J: Jobs Created

Oct '09 Jan '10 Apr '10 Jun '10 Oct '10 Jan '11 Apr '11 Jun '11 Oct '11 Jan '12

Phoenix 2.00 5.00 5.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 79.00

Tempe 1.00 1.00

Tempe 1.00 1.00

Tempe 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 7.00

Pima 1.50 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48 15.85

Chandler 2.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.50

Tucson 5.00 3.22 3.22 3.38 3.67 5.66 9.20 9.20 6.20 4.20 4.20 57.15

Mesa 2.00 0.75 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 25.25

AZ DH 0.00 2.63 7.77 15.78 15.62 18.27 17.69 21.82 21.14 20.83 17.99 159.54

Maricopa 0.00 0.27 0.78 2.25 1.70 3.89 2.02 1.24 0.22 0.46 1.00 13.83

Glendale 0.00 0.71 1.50 1.24 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.85

366.97

From Quarterly ReportsInitial

Totals

Source: Advanced Recipient Data Search.

Appendix K: Comparison of ESG and HPRP

Emergency Shelter Grants

(ESG) Program

Homelessness Prevention and

Rapid Re-Housing Program

(HPRP)

Amount Available

• $160 million in FY 2009

• $1.5 billion one-time

appropriation

Eligible Grantees • 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

• States (51, including Puerto

Rico)

• Metropolitan cities (337) and

urban counties (148)

• Total number of grantees

(including 4 territories): 540

Eligible Sub-Recipients

• 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.

• Territories and local

government grantees may

provide HPRP funds for

projects operated by their own

agencies, other local

governments, and private non-

profit 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.

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

• 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

grant).

• Administration (limited to 5

percent of grant).

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 pre-

existing homelessness

prevention activities from other

sources.

• 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.

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.

Based on FY2008 CDBG

formula; minimum grant

allocation set by HUD

Secretary at $500,000.

Match

• 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.

• 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 sub-

recipients 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.

• 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

• Integrated Disbursement and

Information System (IDIS):

Request ESG payments and

report accomplishments

• HMIS: Collect beneficiary

data

• Consolidated Annual

Performance and Evaluation

Reporting (CAPER)

• 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/BILLS-

111hr1enr/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>.