You are on page 1of 3

Internal HRAP Program Review

May 24, 2019

1. Why weren’t all the funds budgeted for the first year of the program expended in that year?

First-year funding was calculated to fully support 100 clients with housing and barrier needs. As a
brand-new program, the idea that the individuals could be enrolled and placed into housing
immediately was an overly optimistic goal. Starting this program from scratch involved enrolling
clients, making vendor connections, and establishing relationships with landlords willing to accept
HRAP clients and their specific needs. During the first year, staff developed and began implementing a
plan for expending budgeted funds on program goals to assist 100 clients. SHA had a slow start
building rapport with local landlords, which meant we weren’t able to reach the goal of housing 100
within the first year. A primary issue was the lack of affordable housing as well as finding landlords
willing to take a chance on this population.

2. How many individuals were housed during the first year of the program with City funds?

The number of participants either housed or in the program receiving barrier assistance while seeking
housing, was 121. Seventy-one individuals were in homes at the close of the first-year grant. Fifty
clients were enrolled in program by July 1 and were receiving barrier assistance while seeking housing
as part of the first-year funding cohort.

3. How much of the first-year funds were carried over to the second year?

$708,870

4. How many first-year participants transitioned from City-funded support to vouchers or other
funding?

We have 49 participants currently in transition to Section 8 vouchers. Six participants have either
leased up with their voucher or were able to move off all housing assistance.

5. How many Year 1 participants are still housed?

49

6. How many first-year participants have left the program (eviction, death, etc.)

Nineteen first-year participants have left the program; two are deceased, two voluntarily withdrew,
and there have been fifteen evictions.

7. How much of the second-year funding is expected to be spent by the end of the second year.

Approximately $1.3 million

8. How many NEW participants are funded in the second year of the program using City funds?
One hundred participants.

9. How many first-year participants are still funded with City funds in the second year and when are
these participants expected to transition to vouchers or other funding?

Forty-nine first year participants are still funded with City funds in year two of the program. These
participants are currently in the transition process to Section 8 vouchers.

10. How much of the second-year and carried over first-year funding is expected to be unused by the
end of the second year of the program?

$791,130.00

11. Given past participation levels and transition to vouchers, what is a realistic projection for the
number of participants that could be housed in Year 3 and how much funding is needed to support
this projection?

We currently have a waiting list of over 150 individuals that have been assessed and are ready to
participate in HRAP starting on July 1, 2019. We will be accepting the first 100 over the course of 6
months and those who do not chose to participate in the program will be replaced by others on the
waiting list. With our current rental availability and landlords willing to interact with the HRAP
population, and average of five participants a month are being placed in housing. The program is
running into limited options, however, as affordable units become more difficult to find. We are
projecting that we will be able to find housing for at least 50 participants in this next fiscal year, and
possible up to 70 if we can increase landlord engagement and affordable housing. Higher numbers of
participants may require another case manager as these services are extremely time intensive. The
best practice ratio is twenty clients per case manager. A budget of $700,000 would continue to
support maintaining the number of participants we can actually house. Additional funding for one
more case manager would be necessary if we are able to find more housing and place more
participants in homes.

12. What is the plan for phasing out City funding to support this program and what funding sources are
being considered to replace City funds?

SHA has sought to increase the staffing of HRAP through Continuum of Care (CoC) funding, however,
such a request is not permitted by HUD unless HRAP also utilizes CoC funds for rental assistance
payments, which we currently cannot do because the COC as a HUD funded program has regulations
that conflict with Housing First model. We are looking into other funding sources such as Medicaid
reimbursement and CCO billing for our case management services. Additional funding sources have
been identified. Successful pursuit of those funding streams will be enhanced by the sustainability
strategy.
A policy change was suggested during the recent appropriation process that would permit agencies
who are doing Housing First Programs to be permitted to seek “supportive services only” funding
requests through the CoC.
Currently, SHA is in the process of acquiring Qualified Mental Health Associate (QMHA) Credentials
through the Oregon Health Authority. Once our staff and agency are credentials we will seek a
contract with the Oregon Health Authority for Medicaid reimbursement for all Housing Stability Case
Managers. This revenue stream would make each staff position “self-sustaining” and carry over
revenue could be utilized for other operational expenses or channeled into affordable housing
development.

Medicaid reimbursement does not address the Rental Assistance portion of our City funding. If HRAP
becomes forced to utilize federal dollars for the rental payment portion of its program it will greatly
impact our capacity to house the chronically homeless. Utilizing CoC or other HUD funds would
require us to adhere strictly to the Fair Market Rent FMR) limits as determined by HUD. Currently,
HRAP is not constrained by strict adherence to the FMR. Instead, they strive to keep rents below the
set Payment Standard for the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program. Without the freedom to be
flexible in our rent limits, HRAP could only house persons in housing units at or below the stated FMR.
Given the tremendous deficit in affordable housing units, it is reasonable to assume that HRAP’s
housing placement rate would plummet dramatically due to that constraint.

SHA is reviewing funding sources and opportunities across a wide range of offerings in hopes of
finding a viable, consistent funding stream that will empower HRAP to continue not only at its current
scope and scale, but to expand in a manner consistent with the Housing First model.

You might also like