Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 7 on Accountability and Oversight

Buenos dias, and welcome to the Assembly Budget Subcommitee on Accountability and Oversight. Sub seven is unique because Members are selected for the Subcommitee based on the topic. This provides an opportunity for a robust discussion amongst Members with specialized knowledge and diverse perspectives. Homelessness remains a top priority in the Assembly. We know that 181,000 Californians experience homelessness daily and 68% of homeless Californians are in shelter.

Today's hearing will focus on the efficacy of the state's investments in two particular programs, both administered by the California Interagency Homelessness Council and aimed at reducing and preventing homelessness. Those two programs are the Homeless Housing and Assistance Prevention program and the Encampment Resolution Fund program. Through these two programs, the state has invested over $4.7 billion.

Given the need and the current economic climate, the goal of today's hearing is to focus on these two programs, to evaluate our investments and to discuss best practices moving forward, such as what are the barriers to housing for our unsheltered population? Could there be additional improvements to the HAPPA program? Are we collecting the right data on these programs to evaluate them? And where is this data housed? How do we get better transparency on these programs?

And if we have limited resources due to the budget climate this year, where is the best place to put our resources to combat homelessness? I'd like to add that the State Auditor recently released a report on homelessness that reviewed the encampment resolutions grant round program and then also the round one for the HAPP approach.

While the results of the audit are informative and germane to our topic today, as a reminder, the State Auditor is not with us today, so specific questions regarding the audit should be reserved for the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. I would like to add that we do have the chair of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee with us this morning, Mister Greg Hart. So thank you for joining us.

I look forward to today's conversation and now would like to open it up to my colleagues to see if anybody would like to make some brief remarks with Mister Ward.

Great, thank you Mister chair. I want to thank all of our panelists for being here this morning. In my fourth year now in the Assembly as chair of the Housing Committee, this is an issue that is of keen importance to myself and the work that I am building upon down in local government. I was the chair of our COC for three years, so know very strongly both the impact and the value that the collaboration locally can produce.

But importantly, coming from San Diego, we really tried to creep model that would be something we could really scale up statewide and that's part of the experience that I do bring into this job through that model, making sure that we've got data aligned with best practices, measuring our outcomes, and then helping that inform next year's allocations of dollars is exactly what we should be doing with the state budget.

I'm aware that, you know, building up to my time here, and I think as recently as 2021-2022 through many of our budget actions, we've been able to strengthen some of the requirements that are tied to some of this funding, and I think we'll be getting into that as well. I do want to thank the Auditor for the report that I had a chance to review.

And I think while we've been able to more assuredly say that there is some confidence in some of the programs, teasing into Hap and encampment resolution funding is something that was just without, I think, sufficient information to really understand their effectiveness. And so I know we'll be able to dive into that a little bit today as well. At the end of the day, this is about coordination, I think, between all of our agencies and making sure that we're using our dollars.

Even in a good budget year, we should be doing this all along. I know we've got some challenges here, and we're trying to save many of these programs and want to do so in a way that's effective towards helping the most Californians resolve homelessness. But, you know, whether it's a good year or a bad year, any year is a good time for us to being able to try to perfect a system that's really evidence based and really driven towards maximizing our resources.

So I want to thank you in advance for the presentation here today. I'm looking forward to your information and looking forward to Q and A after.

Thank you, Mister Ward. We'll move on to Assembly Member Hart.

Thank you, master chair. I really appreciate the opportunity to be with you today. This is really an important hearing. And as my colleague just mentioned, there's a lot of lessons that we need to learn at the local government level where folks are on the ground providing services to Californians that are experiencing homelessness. We want to take those best practices, turn them into the best state policies that we can. Very, very interested to hear what all the folks are here today to share with us. Wonderful.

Thank you, Mister chair. I just want to, you know, appreciate the opportunity to be a part of this Committee today. I think that I also appreciate the partnership with Senator Dave Cortese and a number of my other colleagues on this bipartisan audit that has been mentioned. Appreciate all the state auditors work. I think today, you know, very appreciate you very much for being here. Look forward to diving into this.

I think my focus obviously today and my questions is going to probably be on this issue of we have spent billions of dollars in taxpayer funding over the last decade. We've seen homelessness increase during that same period of time by 53% according to the Auditor's report. So how can we be using these dollars better? And what policies can we adopt and what transparency measures can we adopt to improve those investments? And so just really appreciate you being here today to help answer those questions.

I think, you know, this Auditor's report, I think if you're a taxpayer, you should be concerned about it, but also if you're a homeless advocate, you should be concerned about it because we also want to make sure people are getting the help that they need. So thank you for being here.

Thank you. Now, Mister Jesse Gabriel.

Yeah, thank you. Thank you very much, Mister chair. And I want to applaud you and thank you for pulling this hearing together. I think it's a really important one and perhaps no more important topic that we could have right now in the State of California. A more important conversation that we could have. Rather, this is something that we know is top of mind for elected officials up and down the state at all levels of government.

I'm very grateful for our incredible chair of the LA County Board of Supervisors and the other folks from departments and agencies that have joined us today. This is a conversation that we need to have, that our constituents are demanding, we have, that has profound moral implications and also tremendous implications for our scarce state resources. And I expect this to be a key issue for this Committee. It's hard to think of a more important area that needs oversight and accountability than our state's homelessness funding.

And we need to really have a much better stance sense of which programs and which interventions are moving the needle on homelessness. That is something that folks are counting on us to do and becomes even more important as we enter a period of scarce state resources where we have limited resources and we're going to have to make some really difficult and uncomfortable decisions about how we target those resources.

And so it is really even more important now that we understand what are the programs that we can Fund that are going to be most effective, what are the solutions that are actually going to help those folks who are experiencing homelessness who are struggling on our streets?

And how do we make a noticeable difference that is going to give Californians confidence that the programs and policies that their state and local governments are funding and the interventions that they are employing are actually moving the needle and making a difference. So I am very grateful. I think this is a massive challenge for our state politics and life, for our team sport. So this requires all of us to be on the same team, to row in the same direction, to get results.

And I hope that this will be the first of many conversations that we're going to have about this as we center oversight and accountability here in our work in the Budget Committee and in the Legislature. So thank you.

Absolutely. Thank you for that, Mister Gabriel. I want to welcome and introduce our witnesses for today's hearing. But before I do so, let me just remind folks the unique format of this Committee. Given the Committee Members were selected for their knowledge on the subject matter. We will not have any formal presentations today by the panelists. All the panelists will briefly introduce themselves, who they represent, and the responsibilities.

And I would appreciate if you keep your comments to about two minutes or less, then we'll jump right into questions from the Committee. Committee Members, please hold off on any questions and let the panelists introduce themselves first. We have panelists in the room and also on Zoom for the panelists in the room, starting from my right. Please introduce yourself, Miss Megan Kirkby.

Thank you, chair. Actually, I'm Meghan Marshall. This is Megan Kirkeby. Two. Megan's under one roof at this point in time, but I'm Megan Marshall. I'm the Executive officer for the California Interagency Council on Homelessness. Happy to be here with you all here today. Thank you.

I am Megan Kirkeby. I am our Deputy Director for Housing Policy Development at HCD. And so we're both here together. Both of these programs are moving from Cal ICH to HCD, and we're working in tandem during this time. So you'll hear from both of us anytime. We're talking about the homelessness portfolio in these programs specifically. Thank you.

Good morning. Lindsey Horvath, Chair of the LA County Board of Supervisors, as well as chair of the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority. Grateful for the opportunity to be in conversation with you. Thanks especially to Assembly Member Schiavo for the invitation, and to Assembly Member Ting for your leadership role in creating HAPP.

We really believe these funds have been essential to the work that we've been doing, and partnership is key in solving these problems, which is why I appointed myself to the Lhasa Commission, along now with our mayor, Mayor Bass, as well as my colleague on the board, supervisor barger, and having all of us at the table to create more accountability on Lhasa and how we are overseeing those funds has been essential.

We have also initiated our own audit at the county and as has the city and others. And so there have been local declarations of emergency. The Los Angeles residents are taxing themselves to make sure that we're investing our own resources in this. So we do have skin in the game locally, and we know that encampment resolution efforts have been incredibly helpful to the effort and to gaining back public trust in terms of seeing a meaningful difference on the streets.

The county's program, Pathway Home, the city's program, inside safe and others have really made a meaningful difference. And one of the ways that we at the county have been able to use the hap $3 has been also to allocate it back to local governments to make sure the money is meeting folks exactly where they are and where it needs to be. And I'm sure I'll have more time to share more later, but thank you for the invitation.

Good morning. My name is Annalee Trujillo and I'm from the Paula Band of Mission Indians, Paula Housing Resource center. And I'm honored to be here representing a tribal aspect for tribal hap and how the program has worked for us on Indian reservations. As you know, there's 110 federally Indian reservations throughout the State of California. And with tribal HAPP, only 20 million has been allocated for two rounds, round one and round two.

I know there's $980 million because there's a $1 million budget for this year, I believe, as proposed, and 980 million will go to cities and local jurisdictions, and 20 million is proposed to be allocated for tribes. And out of that, it's not very much money. So I'm here to talk about the successes and what we've done with our funding, our limited funding, but how great the program has been for us on the tribal side of it. Thank you.

Wonderful. Thank you and happy to have you all join us today. Let's move on to Zoom. Let's start with the honorable mayor, Mister Todd, Gloria.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. It's great to see some old friends and my representative, Assembly Member Ward.

Mister Chairman, I'm here not to as the mayor of San Diego, but also as the Chair of the California Big City Mayors Coalition that is a bipartisan collective of 13 of the largest cities in California, representing 11 million residents of our state.

Our group is united in identifying homelessness as the number one concern, and we are deeply appreciative of the Legislature and the governor's allocation of the funding under HAPP and heap previously, and also shout out to some Member Phil Ting for his leadership in getting those dollars created.

I want to share with the Committee this morning that this issue remains our top priority, that we are urging state leaders to fully Fund Hap ground six at no less than $1 billion, and perhaps even more importantly, to make this an ongoing funding source that can speak to some of the issues about effectiveness. I'm happy to get into that further.

Also, while I have your ear, Mister Chairman, I would ask for the pushing out of the $360 million in bonus funding that was originally approved by many of you several years ago that I think could make a meaningful difference today in cities across California.

And then in exchange for that, we welcome being held accountable not just cities, but also counties and continuums of care for the results that these funds should be creating, not just through additional shelter beds, but housing options and people exiting from homelessness and other key outcomes. I realize that this is focused today on accountability.

I just want to assure you that we, I'm sorry, my office sent you all copies of a recent report from the Big City Mayors Coalition so you can understand what we are utilizing these funds for. But I think specifically I would share with you that there would be a tremendously large amount of more folks on the streets if we did not have the benefit of happen heap funding. And so we asked for continued partnership to make sure that we get these dollars out.

Finally, Mister Chairman, I would say, because I know we'll get into it back and forth. Cities like mine are doing everything we can to put our dollars out there. Our city, I'm proud to say, has 83% of our half round four funding spent and committed already. And we're committed to continue using that. Working with this Committee and with Members of the Legislature, we're happy to make sure that we collectively hold other local governments accountable.

And frankly, if they don't use it, give it to folks who can. And perhaps lastly on that front, I want to make sure legislators are mindful of the fact that cities are also pointing up our own dollars. We are grateful for state funding. We use it to leverage some of our local funds. For example, in my proposed city budget for next year, I'm allocating $55 million in General Fund money from the City of San Diego. Compliment the 30 million that we're receiving in HAPP funding.

So the ongoing partnership is appreciated. We welcome accountability and we look forward to finding ways to get these dollars out faster so we get more people off the streets and look forward to a greater conversation. Thank you Mister Chairman. Thank you Mister Mayor. Let's move on to Cheri Todoroff.

Good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to participate today. I am Cheri Todoroff, I'm the Executive Director of the Los Angeles County Homeless Initiative. I'm here for the question and component today and to partner with Chair Horvath on that.

Welcome. Thank you. And let's lastly move on to Miss Emily Cohen.

Good morning Chairman, and thank you to the Committee for Including me in this conversation. My name is Emily Cohen, I'm the Deputy Director of the San Francisco Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing. And first want to start by thanking Assembly Member Ting for being a tireless advocate for these resources and the support locally to implement programs. Keep Hap and encampment resolution have all been incredibly essential resources for our community. As folks may know, San Francisco is a city, a county and a continuum of care.

And so we have a unique ability to braid resources and bringing in local, state and federal dollars together working in the same direction is incredibly important for reducing homelessness. And the nearly thousand shelter beds we've been able to add to our system by leveraging these state dollars is having a real impact on increasing the number of people experiencing homelessness who are off the street in a supportive, dignified place while they work on their permanent housing solutions.

And really excited to be about a part of the conversation today. As Mart Gloria said, ongoing funding for these programs is a huge priority for the city and County of San Francisco, as is accountability. We hold our social service providers accountable, the community holds us accountable, and we expect nothing less in our partnerships with the state and we are very happy to work with you on that. And again, thank you for including me in the conversation and happy to join the dialogue.

Wonderful. Welcome. And if I can circle back to the panelists, Miss Kirkeby and Miss Marshall, I think you all had brief statements to add if you'd like.

Appreciate that. Apologies for running a little bit late. Appreciate the technical issues. I'm not sure if we have enough in stock with the greater beings to have allowed that, but appreciate the time. So again, my name is Megan Marshall. I'm the Executive officer for Cal ICH. Several comments were made around the audit and I would just like to add a few of my own.

Prior to my March 2023 appointment in this position, I served nearly 20 years in county government, mostly in Sacramento county, but inclusive of Yuba and Placer county, all of whom are recipients of at least one of the current Cal ICH grant programs that we're here today to discuss. And so as this body is read in Calais, each's audit response, we had efforts underway far before the audit was conducted to move forward in the recommendations.

Thankfully, the Auditor co signed for us and so just would appreciate, if you've not read Calic's response, if you could please give us the courtesy. Appreciate that. So with that, I will turn it over to Megan Kirkuby. Thank you.

Yes, thank you for having us here today. And I really appreciate the comments about the need to have this kind of conversation. Even if we weren't in lean times, it's extremely important to HCD to lead with accountability that does include local flexibility.

We know that there is a diversity of grantees in the state and we're, we're really excited to be inheriting this portfolio and working together closely with calich to really increase the impact of all of these dollars. This is a substantially different setup than most state grant making is done in. This was really about getting dollars out the door so that people could move quickly and with flexibility.

And I think what we've seen is an evolution every single year where the Legislature is given more guidance on, on really emphasizing impact, on really emphasizing outcomes out of these programs. And I think we're ready for that evolution. We are signaling that to our grantees, we are signaling that to the staff that this really needs to be about impactful eligible uses, that this needs to be about more communication, about obligation of funding.

There are unspent and unobligated funds from all, from all of back to Hap one. Not every grantee is the same as you were hearing. And so it's important we're going to be beginning a hyper dedicated technical assistance work with all of our grantees on those Hap one through $4 to really understand where they are at in the use of their grants and to really work with them on increasing impact of their remaining dollars and remaining unabligated dollars.

HAPP 4 and 5 do hold certain funds aside until you have spent percentages of your funding. And so we'll be working to really make sure that this is in partnership. It's not a gotcha exercise. It's really about how do we help all of our grantees choose funding uses that are going to have strong impact and how do we help them obligate and expend those funds that haven't yet been obligated or expended to date.

So that's what I think you'll be seeing a lot and hearing a lot as HCD takes tenure over these programs. But we'll continue that partnership with Talia ach the entire time in terms of really, that HCIS data that you're hearing about in some of your other conversations to really understand and, and get more information out there on the linkage between spending and impact and also just what's going on on the ground.

And then we'll also be working closely with Cal ICH on the latest data backed evidence around that impact. So not just using our own data, but really partnering with the academic community and the policy research arms of Cal ICH to make sure that this is a data informed program going forward. Happy to engage any questions on that. But that's, that's the evolution, continuing under the guidance that we've all seen from the Legislature on this latest evolution of HAPP funding.

Thank you. Let's now jump right into some questions. I'll start by asking a few. Let me start with the HAPP program. It's been communicated that efficiency and results are of a top priority right now for the State Assembly, considering the budget situation that we're in.

And that should always be the intent whenever we're at allocating public resources with what we now know based on some of the audit findings and the data points that were brought up and then the parameters that we put in place moving forward with potential funding, do we think that it's a good base to move forward and actually yield the results intended, or do we think that we need to continue to expand on the parameters knowing what we know now?

It's a great question. Megan Marshall and myself spend quite a bit of time on this question. So we are now in the phase of HAPP five where we are getting in the tribal applications will follow, but we are getting in those base applications and have had the chance to review and provide feedback.

And so all of the grantees have gotten feedback on completeness of their application, but also additional emphasis on some of the A request to all the grantees to take a look at those funding plans that were submitted in line with the guidance that we provided through the NOFA and that was provided in terms of the new statutory changes to really emphasize permanent solutions and sustainability of investments in those categories and to really key in on impact of those intended uses of the funds.

We're asking all of our grantees to take another run at that. We do believe that the statute calls them to do so, and we are asking them to work in partnership with us to make sure that these are strong applications. So we will ensure that those funding plans. And those performance metrics are in good shape before we approve these applications. And so I think that's where we're at on HAPP five right now.

And there is supplemental funding that, that does hold the grantees even to somewhat of an additional bar of making sure they're continuing to spend down and obligate these funds in appropriate manner, as well as reach goals like housing element compliance before they receive that extra supplemental funding. So we do see hamp five as a pretty important evolution in terms of focus on impact, as well as putting in some metrics that click on further tranches of funding.

You know, we're always going to implement the desire of the Legislature on these programs. But in terms of HAPP five, that's a little bit of a clue of kind of what we're seeing and where we're going to be providing additional Ta to our grantees to try and get those funding plans in good shape before awards over the summer.

Thank you. And if I can also continue the conversation at the local level, whether it's the county or the big city mayors, what is the, why is the process taken so long to actually get the resources out right? And how do we now move forward with what we know now?

I'm happy to start. I think part of the issue in La County has been siloing of resources. And so the accountability that we've put into place by bringing, as Mayor Bass would say, by locking arms, but working together between county and city, by making sure that LHASA is accountable, by having all of us at the table.

We recently at the county also created the Executive Committee on regional Housing Alignment to make sure that we are bringing all of these things together and not allowing different sources of funding to go in different directions, but all have it work under a comprehensive plan. But we have also seen that making sure that we have enough resources to address the problems is only part of the issue. We also have to address the pipeline of people falling into homelessness.

And so I think that piece also contributes to why it feels like we're not seeing the significant difference on our streets, when in reality these dollars are making a very meaningful difference. We've been able to house in La County alone over 120,000 people in the past handful of years, and we continue to do so. And we see the numbers that are on our streets because of people who are falling into homelessness. So we have to do both.

Thank you. Would Miss Cohen mind adding to that question, if possible?

Absolutely. Thank you for the opportunity. You know, I think that the interest and the focus on spending down these resources quickly is, can be challenging for the local government, because here in San Francisco, we have worked on implementing a multi year spending plan to ensure that our HAPP grant investments can be sustained as long as possible. So three to four years, and really maximize the program investments of one time resource.

And I do think that as we hold grantees accountable for the spend down, if this funding source was a more predictable source, if we knew it was coming year after year, it would be much easier to ensure a rapid spend down.

But as the program is currently structured, local communities are given a few years to spend each tranche of funding, and we are very intentionally building those funds on top of each other and braiding them with other resources so that the programs we start with, HAPP funding, do not end right away if the source dries up or if the allocation is dramatically reduced during hard budget years.

And so, you know, as we think about maintaining continuity of service for the clients, and here in San Francisco, we've really focused on shelter because of the other resources we have available for permanent housing. And so wanting to spend that in a measured way so we're not shutting doors, has been really important to our strategy.

Thank you, Mister Mayor. Do you have anything to add to that, by any chance?

I do, Mister Chairman. Thank you. I would say that as a former Legislator, I think there's maybe a perception issue. If I were still sitting where you're sitting now, when you all vote to allocate these funds, and when cities and counties actually receive them, there's a significant amount of time in between that.

And so I would understand very much if I voted for something on the floor and then was looking for the outcomes the next day. That's not the case. There are also significant reporting delays with regard to what may be my present. What I would tell you is present day spin, and what you may see probably lags by a couple months. I believe the Governor and HCD are working to address those concerns to give you all a more real time perspective on what's going on.

But I think whatever can be done to push the money out faster would be beneficial. I think whatever we can do for more real time monitoring would also address this perception concern. But let me be clear. There are still challenges. And I would just say from a local perspective, the second I have those dollars in place, maybe some of the Members of the Committee that lived this experience, once you try and establish a shelter, there's usually a process that can be somewhat difficult.

There's usually a minimum community discussion council votes and then importantly, an RFP for a provider. And I think that's one thing that, that ongoing funding becomes very important for.

You know, if you're asking for someone to take on the responsibility of running one of these resources funded with HAPP, the understanding, the knowledge that money will be there year after year before you staff up, that you can actually pay payroll well beyond the one year horizon, you can take a lease that goes longer than a year with some certainty. We work to do that now. But ongoing nature of the commitment, which essentially you all have already done that by funding this year after year.

But the commitment would go a long way to, I think, getting a more robust pool of bidders on some of these contracts, hopefully get us a better price point, but importantly, to get these dollars out swifter. So I think there's a multitude of things here, but I do see some movement at state level, and we're going to try and match you at the local level to get these dollars out as fast as possible. I appreciate that. As they say, match energy. Right. Good.

Now let's move on to Assemblymember Sharon Quirk-Silva

Thank you, Mister chair, for convening this hearing. It is one of the most critical conversations of the State of California. As we know, homelessness is at the top of everybody's list. When you talk about polling, when you talk about individuals, people are not only concerned, but they're also frustrated. I now have been working in this space for quite a while and it feels like a long time.

But really, in reality, cities, local municipalities, it's really been just over a decade that they've really had to focus specifically on homelessness. I was on Fullerton City Council 2004 to 2012, and it was not at the top of our list at that point. So over a decade we have seen the change. But one of the things being a Legislator is we have seen many, many bills, pieces of legislation passed in this period.

The word streamlining always comes to the top of the list of almost anybody is why aren't we working faster, why aren't we working with more urgency, why aren't we streamlining? So I know some of the pieces of legislation are actually here on this agenda with having the California Interagency Council, that wasn't always part of what we were doing. In addition, we've had Homeless Czars being presented, we've had Executive committees, we've had the Governor convene.

So what I'm trying to get at is that is a lot of coordinating, it's a lot of meetings, any of us who have sat on these type of collaboratives, coalitions know it can be meeting after meeting. But what I guess I want to get is a snapshot of what does that really look like? How are you convening, how often and how are we actually streamlining? If you can go, just give us a snapshot of maybe what have happened five years ago to what's happening now.

So that's question one and then I'm going to stop there. But I do have idea and I know we don't always come to committees with ideas, but I do want to plant a seed because I do see the supervisor sitting right in front of me and I know that LA Supervisors are looking forward for a solution and that is to look at our California former state hospitals, look at the vast amount of acreage in Norwalk in Los Angeles.

There is 300 acres of former state hospital and they have a plan to house not only care, court, foster care and really reimagining these campuses. So I'm going to put that forward. As I know through our Budget Committee we will be convening a hearing on that. But the question is, what does streamlining look now with Executive Officers, with Housing Czars, with streamlining, if you can give us some specifics on what has been streamlined, appreciate the question.

So Cal ICH will retain three divisions post the transition of our grants programs to HCD. One of those divisions is the division of statewide policy. Included in the work of statewide policy is the work of our greater council, which includes 19 leaders across state departments and agencies, including cabinet secretaries, Department directors. That body meets quarterly and is responsible for 19 statutory requirements, including the implementation of housing first, including the streamlining, to use that term, of budgets, applications, reporting requirements, et cetera.

Out of the what directs the work of the council is a document called the statewide action plan to prevent and end homelessness in full transparency to this body. That document has to date been merely a listing out of programs and offerings that are existing from our Council Member departments and agencies. It has not been a document utilized to inform policy or meant to be forward thinking that will change.

We are undergoing that transformation now with all of our Council Member departments and agencies embedding metrics, which is something that we have not included historically in the action plan to further hold ourselves accountable for the conversations that have been longstanding as an effort to reinvest in the public's trust of what this council is meant to, to do. Yes.

So I think what you heard from Executive Officer Marshall is really how we're trying to hold ourselves accountable for that streamlining so that you don't have a bunch of different departments asking locals to do something different from each other, that we having a coordinated plan to end homelessness from what we control at the state level. And then I think in terms of our grantees, some of what you'll see that's different.

There is, it's going to look different for different grantees is a big part of how we have interacted with local governments at HCD is to understand that locals and regions are in different phases. They do have specific, unique situations. That doesn't mean there isn't knowledge we can transfer across all of those, but we need to work with the grantees from where they're at.

And so I think you heard a lot of comments about the reasons why you might not expend all of your funds right away if you're trying to really stretch these dollars. And that makes a lot of sense. We are trying, but, but all of the grantees also have to report on their obligation of funds. And so that very much does allow for sort of multi year planning with these dollars.

And you can do things like capitalized operating reserves or other strategies that even when you're thinking about one time funding, allow for that sustainable stretching out of dollars over time. And that's in line with the goals of the program. So we'll need to be working, we'll work differently with a grantee that has a substantial amount of their HAPP 1, 2, 3 unobligated.

You know, that's going to be, that's going to be a place for us to intervene and provide a different level of Ta than from some of our grantees you're hearing up from that have obligated their funds, are ready for their next tranche and are hoping our reporting is speeding up and we'll have a different strategy for them, which is, I think the mayor fair has comment on this. We are moving to a real time reporting situation, right?

So that grantees, when they obligate dollars, when they spend dollars, they want to report that to us, that we'll have, that they won't have to wait for the next reporting period. They can just tell us whenever they want to tell us that. And we'll make that information more transparent to grantees, but also to the public, because a big part of the accountability piece is that everybody knows where this money is going and knows where this money is at the current moment.

So that'll be, I think a big part of the streamlining is also just speeding up the amount the distance between activities that are happening and when you all are getting to hear about them. Because in the more than six months that I've been kind of working on this portfolio with Meghan Marshall, I think one of the things I'm seeing is often grantees that are doing extraordinary things with these funds but are not necessarily telling the world about that.

And so some of this is going to be accountability to change behavior, and some of this is going to be accountability that's about transparency and sort of uplifting and good outcomes. And some of this is going to be about saying, hey, you don't really need to spend funds on that. That's something the state's already taken care of. Why don't you go ahead and see if you'd be willing to spend your funds in a way that's going to be more impactful.

And so I think those are just a flavor of some of the ways that we'll be able to actually accomplish that streamlining piece that you're speaking to. So thank you.

As a follow up to that question, what's the timeframe to actually implement that process?

So right now, I would say we are changing our grantee reporting portal right now. So it'll be open all the time so the grantees can, can report as they spend. So I'd say that's probably in the next month or two. They'll have that capability, if not sooner. And then we are, we also hold office hours every two weeks with all of our grantees. I think you'll see a shift in those sort of also beginning of really that's where we'll help relay sort of broader TA.

And then we have often used, we have a lot of contracts that our grantees use to help them with TA. I think we're going to be trying as HCD, we have a lot of admin infrastructure. So some of the program functions you just have to be done at the staff level. We'll have the infrastructure to do and we can really get that team working at a one on one TA level with grantees. And that's starting to happen now. I think that'll roll out fully post July.

And will that information be public?

Yeah, all of that is being communicated and all of that is part of our approach with the transition and related to both the work that you'll hear about in the budget from what we're hoping continues to happen at Cal ICH, as Marshall was talking about that coordinated action planning effort and all the HCIs and data pieces, and then the work of HCD taking on this grantee portfolio.

Do we know how much has actually gone out and hasn't gone out yet, Fund wise?

Yes, we do. I don't have those numbers in front of me, but I can follow up right after this.

Wonderful. Thank you. Let's move on to Assembly Member Schiavo, if she's ready to go.

Thank you. My apologies for being late, but it's not a reflection of how important this issue is to me, for sure. And I'm very happy to see my own supervisor here today who's doing great work in this space. I actually co founded an organization working on homelessness and have done outreach to encampments in the west San Fernando Valley, where we reached over 500 individuals every Sunday.

And so I'm still in touch with a number of those unhoused folks, and I've been working to get them personally working to get them housed. And one of the frustrations that I've shared with the supervisor, and I know she shared the frustration, is how many touches it takes to get someone inside. There's kind of a narrative out there about people being service resistant, which boggles my mind because that has not been my experience in talking with people experiencing homelessness.

And, you know, for example, when project room key opened during COVID we were out trying to connect people up with those opportunities. Every person that I talked to, of the 40 people on my outreach route wanted to get inside. And only a couple people had questions about whether or not it would work for them, if their partner could go, if their pet could go, if they could bring big tools that they need to make money. Right? Reasonable questions.

And recently, I was working to get folks into housing in permanent, supportive housing that I fought for in my own community of Chatsworth, and specifically, overwhelmingly is for veterans where they were having a hard time filling those spots. And when I was out doing outreach, trying to find veterans in our community who may be eligible, people who are not veterans were asking me, what about them? Where's housing for them?

And so I know one of the challenges is around obviously not having enough housing, but one of the challenges is around getting people inside more quickly. And I wonder, so I'm just going to read a text message from one of the unhoused folks that I've been working with, and he said, we're finally getting him inside. I met him on the streets in 2019, and we're finally getting him into the housing in my community, which brings tears to my eyes. But he said, it wasn't easy.

It took five workers from five different agencies, plus myself plus four government agencies, front desk representatives plus yourself, meaning our, me personally in our office. Who knows how many other agencies and representatives were not seen at my level. And so, you know, I've talked with folks about, you know, having to go in for a background check in the hand and then having to go in for an application and then having to provide documentation.

And then months passed and they don't get housed yet, so then they have to provide more documentation over and over and over. And I know there's been some work in LA, specifically with mayor bass emergency declaration that has helped, I think, with some of this as well. And I know the supervisor has been shared this frustration and really been working to make changes within Lhasa, but I wonder what's being done around really streamlining. Because when we talk about.

I know this is partly a conversation, but more on the local level, because when we're talking about streamlining, it's not only how effectively and quickly we get people into housing, but it's also resources. Right. Every time that he has to go bring some more paperwork, it's taking away from someone else who could be meeting and trying to get housing at that time. It's taking staff time, it's taking staff resources. And so how is this conversation kind of evolving to make sure that there is more streamlining?

You know, different agencies working with the same people aren't kind of stumbling over themselves and asking for the same documentation and really creating, in the end, what are barriers for people to getting housed.

I appreciate the question, if I can start and then turn it over to the rest of the panel for comment, that was exactly the intention of the requirement for a memorandum of understanding in the fifth round of HAPP that MOU commits the COCs, the city, the county, to one another to say, I am responsible for this, I expect you to be responsible for that. And as a community, we will serve the greater need. In addition to that, we have the regionally coordinated homeless action plans.

That has been a staple since, I believe, the third round of HAPP. But the requirement for the MOU really solidifies what it is that we've expected and have seen in these action plans, but perhaps not being lived out in communities. And so the last thing I'll say to your question, Assembly Member, is that a second division that will remain at Cal ICH post the transition of grants is our division of local initiatives.

That team is broken up regionally and is intended to be experts in the unique needs of four regions across California. That team is also deployed upon request and do proactive offerings for in person technical assistance, so much so that I attend these one on ones with my Director of local initiatives. And so it is not, you know, an analyst. This is not, you know, a person with a policy background. These are from the highest level of Cal ICH, rolling our sleeves up to support our local communities in this way.

Part of it is the federal requirements that we have to deal with. And some of what you're talking about actually comes from the Federal Government, which is why we were back there pretty regularly. I know the mayor goes back as well to meet with HUD, to meet with the VA, to meet with all the folks who are involved in these requirements to help them understand exactly what that impact looks like on the ground.

And they all share with me that they know that Los Angeles is a different experience than the rest of the country, but they have to worry about the rest of the country when they're making their guidelines, which we appreciate. And that doesn't help Los Angeles move more quickly. So we also, in the county, after the mayor declared her state of emergency, I was like, well, how can the city be in an emergency without the county?

So we also declared our state of emergency, and that procedurally allowed us to move more quickly in terms of hiring, because a lot of times, to the Chair's previous question, sometimes not having enough staff is part of the reason we're not able to get funding out, because we're not able to effectuate those services most quickly. One of the other things that we did was expedite how funding gets out through contracting.

And so there's been a lot of streamlining procedurally within the county as a result of that declaration of homelessness. We also have established in the county our own homeless encampment resolution program in Cheri Todoroff, who's online, can speak to the details, but Pathway Home makes sure that not only are we working and doing the outreach to identify who's on the streets, identifying housing solutions for them in the interim, but it also plans out the long term housing solution for the people.

So rather than leaving people in limbo for extended periods of time and interim, we have worked to make sure that it's all aligned from the outset and so we know where people are going in the system. I agree with your comment about service resistance. We have certainly seen that part of the issue is that there aren't enough locations throughout the region.

And so I just met with a cog recently where the elected leaders shared that when they experienced, "service resistance," it often was because there weren't services available in the area where somebody was, they were going to be sent to a community far, far away that was separate from the community that they knew, and that. So that's an extraordinary challenge, but also to structural streamlining, because that's important too.

As I mentioned earlier, we created the Executive Committee on Homelessness Regional Alignment, and that is bringing together all elected officials from around the region. So we have that overall insight into how we strategize and work together procedurally. That was a recommendation that came out of the county's Blue Ribbon Commission. And so now it's bringing everyone to the table. Because LAHSA was actually created out of a court decision to coordinate the relationship between the City of Los Angeles and how the county works with it.

It has, by default, sort of become a regional entity. But it wasn't originally intended to bring everyone together in the way that we are now through this Executive Committee. Second thing is creating HI, which Cheri is the leader of, and making sure that homeless, the homeless initiative in the county is sort of the oversight of all of the places within the county departments where homeless services and supports exist. And they get streamlined then through Cheri's leadership.

So structurally, by creating those two entities, we are forcing everyone to work together, get out of their silos, get uncomfortable, and get working together.

I know the mayor has a hard stop at 12:00 or 12:05. Would you like to add something, Mr. Mayor?

I would, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the Assemblymember for her question. And I would just say that you should take pride in what you're helping to accomplish, what the Legislature is doing in terms of that forcing of a shared RFP. My city has responded around five with co-application with our county and with our COC. I think that's an important innovation to force local collaboration. We had plenty before, but this is really helping to bring that to fruition.

And then I really want to double down on what Supervisor Horvath was just saying. Because of your HHAP allocation, you all are helping us to create over 15,000, nearly 16,000 beds through the Big City Mayors Coalition. And I hope some of you may have received this report in your office, but this is only possible because of the funding that you're providing. Exactly as was mentioned, service resistant assumes that there's a service to provide.

And because of HHAP, we have nearly 16,000 beds, 150,000 homeless individuals served in the Big City Mayors' area, as well as 42,000 people who have left the street and gone into temporary or permanent housing. This is possible because all of you, and in my own city, when I took over as mayor, we had roughly 1000 beds. Today we have over 2000. And the point is that it's not just additional beds, but it's the kinds of beds. So we have senior only, women only, domestic violence only, LGBTQ youth specific.

We have safe sleeping sites, expanded safe parking lots, and safe storage. And all this is possible because of the state investment. You've really helped us to provide much more services, and that gets us to being able to address that service resistant question. And I'd leave you with sort of two observations. One is, without the state funding, all of that would be undone.

And so in terms of all of our collective frustration that not enough is happening, you cannot overlook what is happening and what would not happen absent the state funding. And the last thing which I do think is a policy question that I know all of you are grappling with, is that one of the metrics that I concern myself with is not just number of beds created and people exiting homelessness, but the number of fatalities that we're seeing on our streets.

And that is largely a result of our behavioral health and substance use disorder crisis. And as you look at that issue, you have to address the issue of fentanyl, recognizing that a lot of the service resistant that you're talking about, really, as you go to addiction and mental health, you all took action on conservatorship reform, but I think there's still considerable work that needs to be done with regard to the very, very different kind of substance that is fentanyl, that is on our streets.

Wonderful. Thank you. And then one more question, Ms. Schiavo. Go ahead, if it's a short one.

Okay. Sorry. So many questions. So thank you for that. And I really appreciate that. And I know that in LA specifically, that there is also people with lived experience who are contributing to this. And I think those voices are really important and also people who are on the front lines of this cause I know a lot of the streamlining is kind of conversations at top levels, but it has to be experienced at the local level or at the service provision level as well.

And then the one other thing I wanted to ask about, because it's been a hot topic in Los Angeles recently, is around encampment resolution funding. And I think it's important to have a discussion about what is effective encampment resolution and what is not. And we've seen through the report that maybe has not officially come out, but has been shared on 41.18 in Los Angeles, is that encampment resolution, without connecting it to housing and services, is not effective.

And they've found that in the 41.18 sweeps or encampment resolutions, 0.1% have gotten permanent housing, 7.7% have got or remained in interim housing, and 81% repopulated the same encampments. So people just came back, and from my outreach in our community, that's my experience, people will go down the street, and then they will just come back in the next week or so.

In the encampment resolution funding, can you talk about how-- What is the focus to make sure that this is effective and actually getting people off the streets and into housing and not shifting people from sidewalk to sidewalk?

Thank you for the question. So I will say encampment resolution is terminology that we're hearing separate from the Encampment Resolution Fund Program, which is a grant, a competitive grant that CAL ICH currently administers. We hear communities calling sweeps from code enforcement, from public works, et cetera, encampment resolution. I just want to be very clear I'm speaking to the Encampment Resolution Fund Program. ERF actually requires a grantee to have a direct connection to housing for the one specific encampment in their community that they are looking to resolve.

That's also very important to note. ERF requires a community to focus their intentions for these funds on one specific encampment. We are aware, particularly in communities like the greater community of Los Angeles, if you resolve a piece of an encampment in Skid Row, using that as an example, there are still many other persons who perhaps are members of another encampment. And so each application, each project, is different and dependent upon the locals encampment of focus.

But there is a requirement for the grantee to have a direct connection to housing, ultimately to permanent housing. We have been aware, CAL ICH is aware, that there are a few communities who have had some publications in the media recently where perhaps funding wasn't used with that intention, and are engaging with those communities actively to determine exactly what has occurred, what funding was used for what specific activities, and more importantly, what has resulted for the persons in the encampment.

I would add, I recently commented also about 41.18 and was told by city leaders that it was never intended as a housing program. And yet, as you rightly note, it is something that, where a lot of dollars are being spent. And so, if we are being mindful of where our dollars are best spent making sure that we are investing them in encampment resolution efforts that result in people getting services and housing is where I want to see the dollar.

So I would agree with you. We're very grateful that LA County was just awarded $50 million from the ERF to expand our Pathway Home program. And this is focused on an encampment area in the historically under-resourced community in South Los Angeles.

And again, our Pathway Home program is different from previous efforts in that it not only identifies who is there, what kind of services they need, and where they will be housed in the short-term, but we already bake in the long-term solution that helps the throughput keep moving.

So we have that availability of interim housing, and we have long term solutions for how we keep people housed so they aren't falling back into the streets if they get released from, you know, or if they run out of time in interim housing. And so that all is incredibly important.

But you raise a very valuable point that if we're not investing in something that actually meaningfully keeps people off the streets, if we're not providing services with the housing, that's part of the reason why the coordinated entry system was created. We understand that there have been challenges from it, and as a result, we've been reforming that and how it's been applied in Los Angeles.

But when we line up people through that system, we know that housing is matched to services from the outset, and that's the best way to keep that coordinated so people get the services they need to stay in the housing long term.

Thank you.

And just to connect that back to the conversation we were having before, I think it's important to note that another iteration that happened in HHAP 5, is that the application for HHAP 5, and the statute requires all of these regions that are applying to talk about that broader funding portfolio so they can say when they are spending funds on services, that they are connected to a permanent housing solution.

And so that part of the reason for describing that broader portfolio is to say, here are all of the federal dollars we have available for this, here are all the state dollars we have available, here are all the regional dollars. So when we're telling you we are spending money on this street outreach program, or we are spending money on this services coordination program, here's how we are making that connection to permanent housing solutions.

And so you may not be using HHAP dollars for that permanent housing piece, but that enables the grantees to be thinking about that broader scape so that we aren't spending money through the HHAP program that isn't making those connections to its grantees. So all of those HHAP dollars need to be making those grantee-- Sorry, all of those funding uses need to be making that connection back exactly like you're talking about of how are you going to turn this services coordination moment into a conversation about permanent housing solutions.

Thank you. Just a quick time reminder, it's 12:10 we have session at 1:00 so would appreciate brief and specific questions. Thank you. Let's move on to Mr. Hart.

I really appreciate all the comments from the folks who are speaking today. It shows the level of commitment and coordination and focus that's happening at the local government level on really technical issues. But it occurs to me that there is a narrative that is being lost in the public's mind because we have had different approaches to this over a very long period of time. I remember going back to 2006, in our community, we had a 10 year plan to end homelessness which looks now--

Like a very naive idea. And the UCSF Benioff Homeless Housing initiative made the connection between the housing crisis and the homelessness crisis. And I know we have to continue and persist and have local, permanent, reliable local funding source to provide the reasonable resources you need, local level to do all the services you're talking about. But I think it's important to connect back to what the public is seeing on the streets, which is more money, more effort, lots of activity, and increasing homelessness.

And if you could speak to that and how we can communicate, you know, what this challenge really is and what we need to do to see a difference on that measurement.

Absolutely. And I think it's another important part of the partnership between Cali, ACH and HCD is that point. So we know that what increases homelessness and what drives homelessness is wonky term, but cost burden, it just means when you're paying too high a percentage of your take home pay, you're going to be in a risky position. That means that you are going to be susceptible to those economic shocks that happen to all of us.

The car breakdown, the job loss, et cetera, can start off a cycle of homelessness unrelated to this hearing. That's also part of what drives our lower home ownership rates in California, our high cost burdens, because when you don't have that buffer, you can't plan for emergencies, but you also can't be saving up for a down payment. And so affordable rental housing is extremely critical. And having a big enough supply of affordable rental housing in California is what's going to bring down those cost burdens for us.

And to your point, it can be really hard to walk and chew gum at the same time. A little bit here is we can know that housing supply is the solution to homelessness, but it can feel really distant from that walk through your town that you're experiencing. And so we really need. We need these to be coordinated efforts. So all 539 local governments in California has to do a eight year housing plan that we call it a housing plan.

It has a lot to do with homelessness, but that's run out of my division. And so we have the commitments, and for the first cycle ever, we track all of those commitments to make sure that every local government is not just making a plan, but living up to what they said they would do in that plan, but within their control. Right. Because we know the housing market also has an impact.

But what that says is every 539 jurisdictions in the state are taking actions to increase their zoning capacity, to remove constraints and barriers to that housing happening, to be setting up streamlined approvals of housing that fit what their plan lays out. And that is going to do the work on our behalf to get up housing supply while we are also addressing these on the ground situations that are happening.

And then obviously HCD puts out a lot of funding that funds the creation of multifamily housing that serves the extremely Low income households and very Low income households. So those are sort of the way those things are all working together is Hap will be part of the solution, the housing planning is going to be another part of the solution. And that supply of deed restricted, subsidized, affordable is really going to come in.

And we're very grateful for the forthcoming home key dollars that will come from proponent and other sources. But a reminder that all 539 of those jurisdictions also have access to the permanent local housing allocation program. And so they, if they have a compliant housing element, if they do that, work with us to do that eight year plan, they can come in and get those permanent dollars every year and apply for them up to three years, up to three years ahead.

And so we're going to be pushing that all those solutions need to be happening together. And because that's the only way is we have to be solving that longer term thing or we're going to keep seeing increases in homelessness if we don't get cost burns down. That's just going to, that's going to be our life. And so we have to work on that, not just have emergency situations, but we got to meet the emergency too. And Marshall, I'm sure, has other things to say, but thank you.

So just to add that that's the longer term solution, right? It is singular. It's housing. We need more housing, and that's a long term investment in the short term. Having served in local government, I understand the unique pressures that our colleagues in the cities, counties and CoCs are feeling from their individual constituents. Inevitably, those folks will find their way to Cal Ich, and the frustration is tremendous for them to find a smaller known entity within the state.

And so something that we offer our jurisdictional partners is an opportunity for the state to come and speak at city councils, at boards of supervisors, for CoC boards, et cetera, so that they have a direct connection and understanding of the, the direction that the state is moving into and in support of local leadership.

Wonderful. Thank you. Let's move on to our budget chair, Mister Jesse Gabriel.

Thank you very much, Mister chair. And I want to build on what Mister Hart said here because I think that there's a lot of wisdom to what he said. One of the things that I worry about a lot is that the public is losing confidence in the ability of government to solve, solve this problem. And that's something that I've discussed with a lot of our partners in local government that I know that are very eager to make progress on it.

But I think about myself and assemblymember Sheva. We have people in our community who have voted twice to tax themselves with a city measure and a county measure. They have literally said to elected officials, take more of my money and please go do something about this terrible problem that I see on the streets. I can no longer drive by the underpass and try to explain to my kids why those people are there. This is breaking my heart. It's impacting our community. It's impacting public safety.

It's impacting the vision that we have for our community. Please, please help us. And yet, as Mister Hart described, resources have been invested. There's been a lot of energy. There's been a lot of public proclamations about this. But we're not seeing the progress. We're not seeing the progress that people expect. And I think, and I want to appreciate the way that you connected homelessness and housing, because I think they are intimately linked.

And I want to also lift up something that supervisor Horva said, which I believe is really, really important part of this. And something we've been talking about for a while, which is homelessness prevention. Right. We can be moving record numbers of people off the streets and into housing. But if more people are becoming homeless at the same time we're doing that, the problem is only going to get worse over time.

So one of the things that I've been wrestling with is that we have local governments in the state that intentionally or otherwise, are creating barriers to building new housing. And some of that is folks that don't want housing in their communities, some of those folks that are just making the process of building housing so burdensome and so time consuming and so expensive, that is adding cost to housing. It's delaying housing.

And so we find ourselves an experience here in the state Legislature where we have locals coming to us and saying, give us more money to address the homelessness we're seeing on our streets. And yet at the same time, they are taking actions which are exacerbating our homelessness crisis. So I think those are things that we need to talk about.

And we have wonderful jurisdictions out there that want to do the right thing and are part of the solution and deserve all of the praise and resources we could give them. We have other jurisdictions out there that, frankly, are part of the problem. And I think that's something that we need to think about. That certainly I'm thinking about, and that fits into some of this accountability that we're talking about. Right. And I appreciate.

I want to appreciate the mayor, who's no longer with us, and the supervisor, their willingness to have that conversation about accountability, which to me is maybe that's not even the right word. It's how do we get maximum results for the dollars that we're putting into this? How do we find the most successful interventions, and how do we expedite all of this? And that's a question I have.

Because I think the people in my community, they wanted to see results years ago, they wanted to see results yesterday, and they're getting very, very frustrated by the lack of progress they see around this. So how do we get this to move more quickly? How do we ensure that we're getting better accountability? As you know, I've been a big proponent of using data to track this.

I think our most sophisticated enterprises in the world today are using data and harnessing the power of data to understand what's moving the needle and what's not. So tell me, talk to me a little bit about how we make this go more quickly.

So, with regards to data, HDIS is our statewide warehouse, which collects information from HMIS at the COC level. So we have 44 entities that are reporting into our statewide system that was created in 2021 and HAP began, as you all are aware, in 2019. So there was a significant gap in our ability to report in a sophisticated, unified manner. HDIS, although still relatively new, it has tremendous power and potential.

We are working now, actually, with our sister agency of Health and Human Services on the first of its kind data sharing agreements, talking about accountability and streamlining and breaking down silos, et cetera. Data is a huge silo in and of itself.

For each one of our Council Member departments, we have an opportunity with HDIs to begin incorporating and sharing data into systems that are data systems that are overseen by public health, by Department of Social Services, who are all investors, as you all are aware, in housing and homelessness solutions. That is something that we are very excited to move Cal ICH into the space of in this next fiscal year.

I'll just say, I think you probably know this, but the Governor signed into law a Bill I wrote three years ago around this, back when we were all still wearing masks. What I want to express is this sense of urgency to really harness the power of that data and let us know how we make that happen, because that's got to happen immediately.

We're not going to be able to make the kind of interventions we want and deliver the results that we want if we're not doing that. And I understand that it's complicated and there's a lot of technical barriers and otherwise, but I just want you to feel the sense of urgency that we're all feeling.

I appreciate that. If I can just end by saying, before I turn it over to Kirkeby, I was a Director of public health for the entirety of the COVID-19 pandemic. Urgency is my middle name at this point. And so when I assumed this position, my request was that we treat this as our next public health crisis.

Echo all of that. And I would say just emphasizing. Thank you so much for what you said, and please know that you and I are in agreement that something you'll see in the Hap five NOFA that I think was a change was around exactly this, of saying to the grantees, we're going to look at what that broader spending looks like, but know that you have a lot within your control here.

Jurisdictions need to be putting out surplus land through surplus Land act in a way that helps produce affordable housing. That's been a huge. We've only been stewards of that law since 2020, and we're nearing 20,000 homes that have been created through that strategy. That's something that a jurisdiction can do through their control, is put out surplus land. They can work to become a pro housing jurisdiction where they're adopting policies that are going to.

That are backed by evidence to show they're going to lead to extra housing supply. They can be using their PLHA dollars, their permanent local housing allocation dollars, in a way that's going to create more housing. But those are signals right now. But I think part of what the benefit is bringing this all in one shop is all those housing plan commitments, the stuff that I'm talking about. We can. I like to.

I believe that all of our grantees want to do the right thing, of course, but it's sometimes, even though housing and homelessness are inextricably linked, they are siloed as policy areas. And so part of what we are doing here is modeling the way for our locals to say housing is homelessness. We are working together.

We are going to be talking to you about things you put in your housing element before we're giving, as part of the process of giving you homelessness funding like these things are connected and you need to, we're making those connections and you need to be making those connections. So when you say, you know, zero, we're almost out of HAP funds, we know how much you have left in PLHA dollars, right? Like, those are conversations and connections we can be making.

And it's not to be a jerk, it's not to be mean, it's to say, hey, we all need to be swimming in the same direction. So like, okay, you need more funding, look at this other pot that you have access to over here. And zero, to get use that pot, you need to get into housing element compliance. Let's work with you.

Because getting into housing element compliance is also a really important strategy to get your homelessness numbers, to prevent homelessness, and to get your homelessness numbers in a better pace than wherever they are today. So thank you for thinking that way. And the support of the Legislature means an enormous amount in helping us have that conversation with our locals and regions as well.

Yeah, I appreciate that. And there's a lot more that I want to say on a lot of subjects, but I want to defer because I know we have a long list of folks who want to jump in and time is short, but I would just say I think it's a conversation many of us on this dais have had about the real Frank conversations we need to have with some of our local governments. And I think those are important conversations.

And I appreciate that from the Administration that being communicated in a very direct way, and certainly those of us in the Legislature that are having conversations with local jurisdictions that want resources, we need to have those conversations in an equally frank way, because it's not fair to come to us and say we need money to deal with homelessness and then to be taking a bunch of actions locally on issues that are within your control and where you're asking for the state to be hands off, that are exacerbating our homelessness crisis. And I think we need to start connecting those in really powerful ways. So thank you.

Thank you, Mister chair. Absolutely. Speed, efficiency, coordination and responsibility should not be independent of one another when we're tackling this issue, specifically this issue. So I think our expectation as a whole, as an Assembly, is to ensure that we're coordinated in that fashion, moving ahead to get things done. Let's move on to Mister Ting.

Thank you Mister chair. I really appreciate you being here. I appreciate chair Horvath, I know Mayor Gloria had to run. Appreciate Emily Cohen from our great city for spending time with us. This to me is still an incredibly critical, critical program. I know it's not the silver bullet, but it's definitely a piece of the puzzle. I did want to just ask the Administration a couple questions. Just looking at the flowchart you provided us now, HAP is a program that the grant funding is allocated by formula. Is that correct?

That's correct. It's driven by the point in time count numbers.

Great. So I was just looking at your chart regarding HAP three, HAP four in terms of disbursements, but also round 1 and 2. It says that initial disbursements were done in winter, spring 22. Disbursements were done winter, spring 23. Can you give me the amounts and the dates approximate. I don't need the exact date. Give me a month.

Specifically for HAP three.

And four.

And four. Okay. So specifically for HAP three, what was allocated? Of course, the cities, 336 million. Counties, 224 million. COCs, 221.

I know what the formula does. When was the money given to the county?

Apologies for HAP three.

I know what we appropriated.

I don't have the exact amounts. As you indicated that the chart that was included in the materials, it would have been winter, spring of 2022.

And what does initial mean? 20%.

50%.

So where's the other 50%?

It's held until they've met their obligation and expenditure requirements. HAP four is the only, I believe is the only one that we still have 50% remaining. For the majority of applicants, there have only been two requests that have been where the grantee has met their requirements for expenditure and obligation.

So 50%. So all of round three, which was allocated in June of 21, is all spent, but half of round four has not been allocated, which was appropriated in June of 22.

I will say just a quick point of clarification. Hap three has been obligated. There was an obligation deadline. Those obligations have been made. Expenditures is a separate category and a separate requirement.

So. I'm sorry, can you? Say that again? Obligated means we intend to give you the money or we've given them the money.

We've. We've given grantees the money. HAP four has a requirement that has an expenditure requirement and an obligation requirement. Obligation means that the grantee must certify that they have contracts in place, or RFPs in place for a specific eligible use category. Expenditure, of course, is dollars that have actually been spent.

And is it because you're concerned about them not spending the money?

This was part of the evolution of HAP. Initially, all of the money was given up front. We embedded additional metrics, additional expectations over the lifetime of the program.

I guess I'm just going back to chair's points about streamlining. I'm concerned that something that was appropriated in June of 22, half of it hasn't been appropriated.

So all of HAP three is in position.

This is HAP four. HAP four is 22-23.

So I think another way to say it is we share that concern, and I think the Legislature shared that concern in changing the program. So now, anytime a region, a grantee, can show that they have obligated those funds, that they have a plan for those funds, and that they've spent some of what we've given them already, then they can come get more money. But what's happened was we were seeing folks not be spending money. And so now we are saying, show us that you've spent the money and we'll give you more, but you need to show us you've spent the money before you can get more.

Got it. So I understand that there are a number of metrics that were part of HAPs 3, 4 and 5, and annual reports were due for HAP three in, you know, the end of the year in 22-23 as well as HAP four and 23. But I don't see, and I appreciate this nice flow chart you did. What I don't see is any of the results of that met of those metrics in the write up. So what do we have? Because that's what the public wants to know, is what's, what's, what's the money been spent on?

Sure. And so Cal ICH is how long.

Is it taking and how long is it taking for the money to be spent?

Cal ICH is working on finalizing its HAP annual report, which will be for rounds one through four, and hope to have that published in short order, but.

We don't have any. Could you come into a Budget Committee and there's no numbers. There's no, how many people have we helped? How many people off the street? How many people permanently housed? This is a program, as you have said, we started in 2018 under HEAP, and now we have under 2019.

So one of the things I think it's valuable to be thinking about there is, in the beginning of this program, those outcomes were all provided by the grantees, and there was a shift to wanting more data integrity through the HDIS system. And so we are in the first year where that data is going to be available.

HDIS system is three years old. So you're telling me, do you have any data from-

This is going to be the first year where we'll be able to have that data, so-

Why is it taken three years to get data? The system was implemented in 2021.

So HGIS began in 2021. It wasn't fully implemented until 2022.

Okay. That's still two years ago. So do we have anything from 2022?

Again, apologies.

Why is it taking so long? You're the one that said you're urgent. I don't know. Maybe my sense of urgency is different from your sense of urgency.

We're working expeditiously.

What does that mean, though?

Very short order. We'll have the.

What does short order mean?

We're working in the next several weeks to have a HAP annual report produced.

So why, I mean, you're coming to hearing today and you have, you can't tell us how many, you know, we spent billions of dollars and you can't tell us at all how many people we've helped?

Apologies. I don't have the information in front of me to share.

You have it in your office.

Again, we're working through data quality issues in order to finalize a report.

So what's the report going to tell us?

It will give numbers of persons served, the outcomes of those services, the types of housing that folks have exited into the demographics of the persons who have been served across HAP.

Okay, but your agencies have been getting reports every year for the last couple years.

So most of what this is, and this is about the evolution of the program, right. And in the beginning, the grantees were not asked for the kind of information that Executive officer Marshall is speaking about. So most of what grantees were asked for in the early years of this program were how much have you obligated, how much have you expended? And I don't think that's something to be proud of. I don't think that's something that we feel good about.

I don't think that's something that we accept. But we are in the first phases of a real culture change with the grantees in these programs to actually show us what they have done with that money. And the HCIs is a piece of that. But even being able to talk about what you spent this money on is a change for the grantees of this program. And so that is a shift.

And in the first year of the reporting, most of the grantees expressed that they needed a lot more assistance in providing us that information. So when you're talking about what happened in those two years, a lot of that is grantees using a data system. They'd never used before, getting used to it, getting substantial technical assistance, us getting back bad data, needing to go have further conversations, and then needing to go work on cleaning up that data and getting into a place where. Where it was more sensible. And so we are moving toward that direction. And that is a big piece of where I think we want to be moving with this program altogether.

So once we have this report, how often is that data going to be refreshed? Are we going to have real time data? Are we going to have, like, can I go on the website and be like, can the public go on the website? Can the media go on the website and say, hey, we're going to have a tracker or something? And is going to be by county, by jurisdiction, by COC, by city.

And so we are working now to fully implement AB 977. Each one of our Council Member departments and agencies who have funding in this space have their own unique dashboard. That dashboard is not. That dashboard is not public. We are working to de-identify the data that exists and makes up those dashboards so that it can be public.

Okay, great. So when is that going to happen?

We're working towards that for the end of next fiscal year.

End of next fiscal year. So we're talking. I'm sorry, I'm just. June of 25.

I believe we're working on-

June of 25?

For public facing dashboards as we're intending for AB 975.

How about a legislative facing report? How about that?

There's a requirement for an annual HAP report.

Okay, but do you see what you said? You say you're coming here streamlining. So how long is it gonna take for the money to get out the door? In your mind, what would be a good amount of time.

In terms of when the grantees are obligated, given that.

This money is allocated by formula, meaning you don't have to. It just goes right by formula. So what's a reasonable amount of time?

I think our hope is, is that grantees are showing real progress on obligation expenditure within the first six months of receiving their allocations. And what changed here was in order to sort of put pressure on that to happen are these tranches, right, so that you can't get further disbursement until you've shown that initial progress?

But I'm assuming other jurisdictions are showing progress. I'm gonna go to the counties in 1 second, but, you know, know. So will they be getting their money in July?

So you're talking about the HAP four disbursements. Absolutely. Whenever they're talking, like-

If we reappropriate HAP this year, HAP six.

Yeah.

Right. We vote on it in June of this year. How long is it gonna take to get HAP six out the door, especially to the counties that are ready to roll.

The dispersants have happened very quickly and so, like, there has been a log in

What's quickly mean?

I think within 90 days is the Max that it's ever taken. So 90 days is the Max that a dispersants ever taken. I think you may be referencing some folks who wanted to report early on their obligation expenditure so they could request those 2nd 50% disbursements early. And Executive officer Marshall has 90 days.

90 days, if the county's ready to roll. You're holding back money for the counties that aren't spending money or cities or COC's. Right.

You got it. That's, that's exactly it.

Great.

So 90 days for those that are ready. When you're ready, come tell us it'll be 90 days.

And we're going to get, hopefully some user friendly report with all the data of rounds one through four.

Correct.

In when?

In a few short weeks.

In a few short weeks. So before we vote on the budget.

I can't say with, with a definite date. I apologize.

How can you expect us to vote on something if we don't have any data? Even though I'm, again, let me reiterate, I mean, I'm a big supporter of HAP. I know how critical it is, but puts us in a very tough position. What you got to do is you should walk through the supermarket with one of us on a Sunday, then you can really. Right. Supervisor Horvath, like come or let's hit the farmers market together.

You want to, you want to hear urgency, that's how you hear urgency. So I don't get how a system that started in 22, 21 I'm sorry, and we have no data. I'm sure, I mean, look, I know this easier than the Governor. I'm sure the Governor is not very happy about that either.

And it's going to be a partnership, right. It's going to be a partnership between us working with grantees to provide us that data. It's going to be us putting out that data. All we can commit to is as we work through these data quality issues with the grantees and are able to put stuff out. Once we are doing that, it will be regular, it will be transparent, it will be real time, it will be ongoing.

But this is, for those of you that are familiar with the housing element, annual progress reports. The first time that we made that data transparent. We got more calls than I can tell you of people saying my data is wrong because when we make data public, people see what's wrong with it. And so we are in that phase, and it's a new data set and it's a new reporting structure for a lot of different people.

So there are data quality issues that we need to work through. That's unfortunate. And all you can have is our commitment that we're working. We're working through it. We are going to, we are going to have the first, the first iteration of releasing that data very soon. There are pieces of that data that are financial that can be released even sooner. But this is going to be the way, this is going to be the future.

We get it's difficult the first time, but you got to hear what we're saying, which is like, you know, it's not, it sounds like an excuse. I understand.

No, I agree. I agree.

You know, one year would have sound like an excuse. Three years sounds like, I don't even want to use the word, but, you know, sounds like a huge problem. And I appreciate everything you're doing on surplus lands, on, you know, all of the, you know, making sure that arena reports are up to date and all the enforcement. I think it's making a huge, huge difference. I did want to go to chair Horvath and then to Emily Cohen.

And just from your end, were you getting the money? How long is it taking to get the money then out the door, or do you sort of anticipate the money in advance and you're kind of ready to go or you're waiting for the appropriation and then after that you got to go to grants and RFPs?

And all that sort of stuff. I was just hoping that.

I think it's both. And, you know, with HHAP, we. In round five, LA County was allocated 97.4 million and will not yet receive our initial 50% allocation until Q1 of 24-25.

Say the dates one more time. I'm sorry.

Until fiscal year 24-25. Quarter one.

The first date.

Oh. So the state budget was 23-24. For the fifth round of HHAP, LA County allocation was 97.4 million.

And so even after you're getting the appropriation, it takes potentially a year to get the money out the door?

Well, we have a lot of. We've created a dashboard, as you're describing, and so we're making sure that we're checking all of our data, that. That it is transparent and available on our website. There are systems, of course, as you know, that we're required to do in order to get the money out the door. But it does take time. I do feel like it's important to clarify that allocation moment is when the notice of funding availability comes out.

The grantees have to develop a funding plan and a regional action plan in response to that dollar amount that they provide us for review. They get feedback on that review. That allocation is not the start of the 90 day clock I was referencing. The 90 day clock is post.

How long does it take to get that?

When the grantees have an approvable application, then we will make award. That will be 90 days ago.

Live. Do you go live July 1 because we've been doing this for five years, or you go live?

The application went out October of last year, I believe.

So it takes you three months to do an app. Why does it take you three months to do an application if the application is the same?

This application was different. It was an evolution from HAPP one through four. It was meeting a number of new requirements in the legislation. We think three months was pretty expeditious to put that half five nofa out there, but I do hear your concern.

So you're saying the fastest it goes is six months? Cause you said 90. So you said October and then 90 is the fastest.

90 days from award. Folks have their money from us, but the award has to be based on a funding plan that actually complies with statute.

Not my question. I'm asking for dates. So you said October 1 roughly. Approximately is when you're coming out with the report.

The nofa? Yeah.

Nofa. Then you have what?

Then the application applications do end of the year. The applications are due March, the end of March. So the applications are due March 27.

Why does it take. Why you give them six months?

They. I mean, if you want to speak to this, you can. But to add, I mean, that's a huge amount of work we're asking these grantees to do, which is to form an MOU between their COC, their county, and their local to show that they are going to have a solution to end homelessness. Like, it's this. We are putting pretty high expectations on folks to make a funding plan, but.

I just want to have my colleagues understand what's the situation. Right.

Yeah.

You got a program that's by formula and. Okay. The application is not coming in till March, 9 months after the fact that we appropriate it. That's the application. So when's the money getting out the door? So that's. That means your flowchart is not accurate. Because if it's taking nine months to get the application back, you sure as heck couldn't be getting the money out the door by winter or spring.

So there is a transition this year. So this transition is moving from Cal Ach to HCD on July 1?

No, but I think in rounds 3 and 4. That's why I don't know that you're timing was at your.

I think they did. They did move more quickly that time. Hop five is a higher bar than the past. And so there was more time because there's more expectations on the grantees. Okay.

So if you get the application back end of March, and the fastest you said was 90 days. You're talking June?

End of June, yes. And our review showed that all applications needed some more work. So we are not in a place to award hap five at this point. But remember that most of these grantees still have unspent hap one through $4. They have lots of funding. Other than a few years to get.

The money out the door.

Yes. I don't think that's quite the right timing, but, yes, that is.

What do you mean? You just told me your deadline is March. Yes.

No, no, no. It would. It would be a year. I'm sorry, I misunderstood your question over there, but yes, it was a statement. No, no, no. I mean, I misunderstood what you were. You're framing there, but yes, it is. It's taking a year. That's right. So. And if that's. If that's the wrong timing, we can talk about that, but I don't think.

We need to talk about it. I think I'm just gonna look for a show of, you know, anybody feel like a year is a good amount of time. I don't think there's anybody here looking at me going like, hey, great, that seems urgent.

I think that. I think there's two conversations to have, and that's absolutely all right for you to not feel good about that and to push back on that timing. But I think it is important to note that we only have, I think it is less than five jurisdictions that have requested their hap four second allotment at this point. So in terms of our grantees, we are not in a place where grantees are showing that they are ready to receive this next set of funds.

And I think it is important that before we put out more funds that we're sure that those funds are going to be spent in a way that we all feel proud of. So I think there's timing, but there is also the quality of these investments.

Which we absolutely care about. Quality. But again, I have no idea what the quality is because I don't have any data.

Right. Right. No. And that's unfortunate.

So I don't feel good about the data. I don't feel good about the time. I mean, I may not have lunch today, so I'm going to go back to Emily and just ask once this comes out. And so this is just so everyone understands, this is why there's frustration in the public, because we go home and talk about, hey, we did this great thing in the budget and everyone's going, well, great. When are we going to get the homeless folks off the street?

So anyways, Emily, can you just talk very short and have to run the Committee once the money comes in, how soon do we. I say we because I think of San Francisco as we get the money out the door and do all of that.

Thank you, Assemblymember Ting, for the question. So for the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing in San Francisco, we appropriate the anticipated HAPP funding in our annual budget process and already have the allocations or the determined as part of our spending plan. So, HSH, our Department really takes the perspective of trying to create a long range strategy with these funds.

And so while we have totally spent down rounds 1 and 2, we are about 75% spent down on three and very low on half round four, about 33%, because we're trying to build a multi-year spending plan as allowed by the program to ensure that we're not creating fiscal clips so we can get the money out the door quite quickly because it's already appropriated in our budget, and if we are using it to continue funding of programs that are already up and running, it can be quite seamless.

If and when we do contract and want to enter into a new contract to develop a new program, then we would have to go through our solicitation process, public engagement process, and then roll out the new program. But for our current spending plans for these resources, they can get allocated rather quickly once approved in the budget, approved by the state budget once they come in.

Okay, I appreciate that. So, I mean, I'm hoping that both of your agencies can work with our local governments, right? So that, you know, my concern is, again, all the cities and counties work on the same fiscal, generally the same fiscal year as us. So if they don't know the money's coming, they're like not appropriating it for another year.

So then it's two years that I'm at the supermarket, people asking me, you talk about this great money thing, but how come I look in front of the supermarket, I got like five people camping out and we, you know, I can't get in the market.

Absolutely.

So I think this stream, I mean, I hear the word streamlining, streamlining, streamlining. And somehow to me, you know, the money getting to our communities, and I'm looking at all of our communities, taken two years to get to our communities is not streamlining. If I took two years to pay my bills, if I took two years to do stuff, I get foreclosed on. If I took two years to pay my mortgage, that's not. My bank wouldn't consider that fast. So this sense of urgency, clearly we have different definitions of what that sense of urgency is, and I think it needs to get sped up.

Yep.

Thank you for that deliberation, Mister Ting. A point well taken and agree with your comments. Again, the urgency and efficiency is an utmost priority. If we could just have Miss Trujillo maybe give a 15 second response in terms of the allocation of the resources once they hit tribes.

Sure. So we were allocated. And keep in mind that, you know, it's great to see everybody concerned about their, you know, your areas of, you know, for your homeless population. Our tribes are just as concerned, but we're always excluded, just like from the conversation. There's so much that I, that I want to talk about and I know I'm very limited, so I'll keep it limited. But it's really unfair on the tribal side to see all the outpour of concern for, you know, your jurisdictions.

But where the tribes fit in on here, the tribes are the first people of California and are always excluded. And it just really makes me sad that I'm sitting up here and there's no outpour of concern for us. But I do want to say our tribe, there's 110 federally recognized tribes and our tribe alone only got $300,000. You know what we could do with that money? Not very much, but we had to make it work.

And the other point I want to say is, you know, Cal-ICH has been great. They've been working with us. And for this next round of funding, I think it's really important that it's continuous funding, but put more money into that for tribes. Tribes have been historically excluded from all programs.

And when you, you know, when we're seeing budgets of what, $4.7 billion that have been expended or allocated already for tribal, not for tribal hap, but just for hap alone, and out of that, tribes were allocated $40 million. Those are pennies. How do we take care of our people that haven't been taken care of, that have been excluded?

So I'm sitting up here like pleading, like, how do we get more funds so we can go out and take care of our people that need to be taken care of? We're knocking out the door saying, hey, help us. But I'm hearing you help, you know, your cities and your counties, and it's saddening for us. So when you guys are, you know, talking about, like, what can we do? Come to us and ask us what can we do?

Because there's not much that we can do and we're asking for help. So if you have reservations in your backyard, go visit them and see how hard it is for them. See the dilapidated housing, see the homelessness. It's not, you know, we don't have encampments because we have overcrowding, living conditions. We have, you know, our grandmothers living with families, and we're trying to address our homelessness the same as you're trying to adjust yours.

So, you know, be mindful of that and be mindful when you're trying to include tribes or you want to include tribes, make sure you're really including them. And meaningful meaning, you know, making, make sure it's meaningful because $20 million isn't much for 110 federally recognized tribes. Thank you.

Thank you for that, that reminder. Native Americans are an intricate part of our state and to your point, the first people. So we definitely have to do more. Thank you for that.

Thank you.

Okay, let's move on to Mister Ward.

Thank you, Mister Chair. I'm mindful of the time as well. Maybe I'll just start by underscoring as well my colleague from San Francisco, how much I share his frustration with that, not because of what we experienced, but because I've also been asking these same questions since 2022. And I feel like this is Groundhog Day. I'm sorry. I will appreciate and I'm grateful for HCD, for taking over this program. I think it's better suited there than Cal ich for the management of this.

But back in my first session, I've been asking for not just talking about the dollars that we're spending, how many people are we helping, how many homes are created, what are the outcomes. And so for even back to 2021, as we've had improvements under Hap three for some of the metrics that we're expecting, it's still frustrating here three years later that we're not seeing those metrics and that they hadn't.

Maybe we were able to revamp our systems locally down in San Diego to be able to show that dashboard and show those outcomes and clean up that data. I understand you're saying you're worried some of it might be corrupted information, but you can do that.

We did that in less than a 12 month timeframe, and now we've got a monthly real time dashboard that is showing program by program, provider by provider, where those dollars are going and how many clients are being served and what are the outcomes. The fact that we're still now, three years later here at the state is incredibly frustrating because that guides our decision making here as a budget.

I'll say for some of my colleagues, because, of course, we talk about how much money back to money instead of people, but how much money we're putting out the door right now, and that we're also talking about maybe seeing a reversion of some of that support here from the state this year, being on the chopping block right now, just some back of the envelope numbers to throw out there, I think really should hopefully help you appreciate that we've never been doing enough all along that if for some of the programs that are here that are managing homelessness or starting to show about $35,000 of public subsidy per client per year, and you multiply that across 180,000 Californians experiencing homelessness, and that's just the point in time count number, that's a $6.5 billion investment that we should be making every year just to manage it.

That doesn't necessarily solve the homelessness issues that are out there, but just to be able to manage, and we're not even doing that level. But then you look at a successful program that we have urgently and expeditiously been able to put out there under home key that cost effectively is being able to produce a new unit of housing and actually stabilize and get somebody in at the tune of $140,000 a unit.

If you spread that or multiply that out, over 180,000 individuals experiencing homelessness, that's a $25.5 billion investment if you really want to make a difference or if you really want to change it. And that doesn't even get to some of the conversations that we've talked about before, the inputs into homelessness, the rise in rent, the need for more market based affordable housing. So all this really is connected.

But I just deeply want to underscore that, yes, it's frustrating that we're spending as much as it is and we need to be efficient with every single one of those dollars, but we've never been doing enough all along. And so it really, you know, it gets me that we're thinking about making more cuts this year because our locals need it. And I'll underscore as well what others have been saying.

You know, in my county, it's not been up to 12 months that we've been able to see from appropriation out to impact. It's more than 18 months for hap three funding that it's taken to be able to get down there and actually be able to put out the door for them to start to actually Fund those programs. And then the impact starts to happen. Right. That takes another 12 months to be able to measure and report back to the state.

So we've got to shrink this timeframe. I've worked with HCD, we've done legislation together, and I'm asking for more information about any and all authorities that you need to more expeditiously be able to streamline, to be able to cut that timeframe down, to be able to try something new, because our monies that are coming down to local government are not enough. We know those programs are oversubscribed.

The number of qualified applicants that are coming in that are ready to do that work, it eats into the budget that they're given every single year. So we got to do our part to be able to increase that. I did want to ask maybe just one question, two, if I may. One, is that knowing that these metrics for HAPP three have been out there since 2021, is that what we're going to expect to see in this report? Because I've been asking this again for three years.

Are you going to start to show us the number of clients that are served so we can start to measure apples to apples. Which programs or which regions are doing better.

Brief responses.

It will be included in the report.

Thank you. And then HAPP versus ERF funding. Both of those seem very flexible, and I appreciate the flexibility by design, but there's also a lot of overlap and maybe the kinds of programs that could be served there if you had to pick one or another. Like if you could only Fund one, which one is more effective? Sort of. From your vantage point today, without a.

Doubt, I would say HAPP. ERF is a competitive application, number one, limited to.

But that's the one that the Governor doesn't want to touch in this draft by budget in January. Yet we want to gut Hap just.

Based off of the data that we have and the all inclusive nature of Hap. Hap doesn't focus on a specific population. It focuses on the community as a whole. ERF is a focus on one encampment in a community.

Right. Okay, well, perhaps we want to collapse those two and take best lessons learned from each of one of those programs. And wherever we can find efficiencies and consolidation. And I think our supervisor's point, that coordination, putting all the money and all the resources and all the partners together, making these decisions, I think would benefit the overall picture. Thank you, Mister chair.

Appreciate your comments and questions. Mister Ward, let's move on to Mister Gallagher.

Yes, thank you, Mister Chairman. I mean, this is an oversight hearing. So to me, it's really about you all kind of justifying to us why we should continue to spend the money. And I think, look, there's some big questions here, very big questions, and we're alluding to them. But look, $24 billion expended and homelessness has increased by 20% in California. That's the facts. So to say, somehow we're doing things really well. I don't think it's an accurate statement.

And the lion's share, that money, to be fair, has gone to the big cities and hasn't gone to tribes and rural areas that also have issues with homelessness. You know, with suburban or mid, you know, mid-sized counties that also have issues with homelessness. Right? So a lot of money been expended, especially in big counties, big cities, to see the problem actually get worse.

And so I think the real question that we need to be asking here is like, I am very much concerned by the first part of Mister Ting's questioning where we don't have data to really show us what's going on, but I'm less concerned by the second part. I don't know that I want to keep sending money out when I don't have good data to show me that that money is actually helping get people out of homelessness and being effective.

And so I do want to maybe go to each of you and just say, hey, what needs to change? Maybe specifically to LA County. I know you guys have already done your own audit of money, and now we had the recent homeless audit that came back to us. We said we don't have a whole lot of data. Can you tell me just, just from your guys own review, how many, what's the percentage of successful homeless exits?

Do you guys have that data from LA County for the money that you spent on different programs? What's the amount of, what's the percentage of those brought into shelter and have had a successful exit to housing?

I don't know the specific percentage, but I can tell you, I'm sure that's something that we can provide. We have 30% of the nations unhoused in our region, so we have a lot that we're contending with. I think one of the. To your question, what could also help? One of the things that we're doing between county and Lhasa is aligning what KPI's are being measured.

I think everyone asking for data is helpful, and I understand why you would ask for it and understanding what measurements are actually meaningful, like the question that you're asking versus some other. There's a lot of data that gets produced. Some of it is more helpful than others. And if we're spending our time doing data, we're not doing service delivery. So I think figuring out exactly the kinds of questions like the one you asked that you want to see as key measurements, would be a helpful way to move forward. Right.

How about on your audit, you guys actually came out with that $734,000 a unit was expended. At least one project that I believe was apartments. How many of those apartments are actually filled now at this point.

Apartments fill up pretty quickly, and we are certainly working on reducing the cost. Some of that is also related to the cost of the land on which the housing sits.

Would you say that's cost effective? 734,000 a unit?

No, that's not the best use of $734. $734,000. But we do need the housing. And so we are working to find more cost effective solutions to housing, but we can't not build housing.

What about Santa Monica now has just announced another apartment that they're built home for homeless housing, $1.0 million a unit. Is that a cost effective use of our money?

I'm not sure what went into their housing project to get to the number that you're indicating, but I do know that we have to build more housing, and the longer we wait, the higher the cost is going to be. Right.

And this is money that's being expended right now. And the problem is, I have no idea if that's actually a success. I don't know if those programs are actually successful. I'll go to Miss Trujillo. What do you think needs to change in terms of how money and what programming might be a better use of funds and allocation might be a better use of funds?

Well, I do have to say tribal hap has been successful. The only thing that I would reiterate is that it's not enough funding. We have, like I said, 110 federally recognized tribes, not all tribes apply for the program or for the funding. And if they do, can you imagine how many, you know, if every tribe was awarded how much money 20 million would serve? That would be nothing. Then I'm listening to, like, $700,000 for a unit. We don't even get that much in our allocation.

So it's kind of. I'm just sitting here, like, taking it back. Like, wow. You know, I know that there was a developer, or story of a developer in San Diego that kind of went on his own, and he was able to build units for $300,000. So I don't know. I know that housing is a lot of money. I know that the square footage to construct, even for our reservation lands, is about $250 to $300 a square foot.

So there's a crisis and it's across the board. But when it comes to tribal housing, and for my input, $20 million is not enough, especially if the tribes have not been invested in at the state level at all. And for us to serve our people, it's going to take more than that. You know, cities and states and COCs, you know, they've been able to serve, you know, people, you know, for decades, and we haven't.

And I want to just also say we're not part of a COC, we're not in the HMIs system. That's something new for tribes. So we're not included with those. We're completely separate. We have our own data. So when you're asking for data, we have our own data. I know how many people we've served because I work with those people daily. We were able to serve 60 people with our grant, and that was minimal, small funding.

We were able to do like a $5,000 down payment so they can get into a home outside of the reservation, waiting for a home on the reservation to where they're back to the culture. So we try to make it work, and we will make it work. But we do need funding. We need more funding. And tribal HAPP is the most important funding source for us at the time.

That's impressive. And I'll be done. Mister Chairman, if San Francisco, just to you, what is your percentage of successful exits based on the program you've been doing so far?

Thank you very much for the question. The HF funds in San Francisco have been incredibly impactful. We use this to support nearly 1700 rooms of shelter during our COVID response, which we called shelter in place hotels. The funding has also dedicated or created 973 shelter beds, as well as supported our long term strategic planning and through these and other efforts, because we also have a robust, locally and federally funded components of our program. We rehoused last year 3600 people.

And since 2018, we have moved 15,000 people out of homelessness. Between 2019 and 2023, we increased our housing placement rate by over 100%. And while this is not all attributable to HAPP, because of the braided funding strategy in most of our programs, HAPP has been instrumental to achieving that success. And I hear your frustration about, we spend all this money and, look, homelessness is going up. I mean, that is the reality.

Yeah. I mean, especially in your City of our lives.

But what we are not able, this is. It's a twofold problem on the inflow, in terms of having enough affordable housing that people are not falling into homelessness when they hit an economic bump and then having enough prevention services to be able to catch them when they do.

And that is something that we have struggled, I think, every community here, to get our hands around in terms of we are getting better and better and better at rehousing people and getting them out of homelessness, and we are struggling to keep people from falling into homelessness. And so much of that has to do with systems far upstream from ours, whether that's discharge planning, hospital release, foster care, a myriad of systems that discharge into homelessness. And that is an entirely, you know, another body of work that we need to discuss. But it doesn't minimize the impact that these dollars are having on the street.

So what's the percentage, though? I heard a lot of. And I get that there's a lot of facets, but what's the percentage of people actually getting successfully rehoused of those served?

I don't have the exact percentage, but what I can say is about 30% of people experiencing homelessness in our community are eligible and working towards permanent housing solutions funded by our system. And that will grow with the more funding we have.

Thank you Mister Gallagher. Appreciate your understanding. I want to make sure that we get to other colleagues as well before session starts, if we can jump to the one question Mister Hoover has.

We are out of time and I have a lot of questions, but I will state a one. I think I share the frustrations expressed by my colleagues on this panel today, and to me, the long and short of it is we have to stop measuring success by how many dollars we're spending. I don't. You know, I am frustrated by the lack of urgency that I see today and the lack of data. And I think that at the end of the day, we have to change that.

And so my one question would be that in the State Auditor's report, they recommended that the Legislature amends state law to require Cal-IHC to mandate reporting by state agencies of costs and outcomes of state homelessness programs. I want to get your thoughts on that recommendation. I have legislation to implement that, but I want to know your thoughts on that legislation. And also, as was mentioned by HCD about this reporting system, real time reporting system that providers can report to. Are you going to be requiring that they report certain metrics to that system once it's up and running? So that would be my question. Thank you.

I'll start first with the Auditor's recommendations, which Cal ICH supported and agreed with. However, in 2021, I believe it was, the Legislature made a significant allocation for Cal-ICH to conduct a system wide assessment and became known as the landscape assessment. That was a one time investment. We partnered with Turner Center for the completion of that report. Cal-ICH would love to step in the space of aggregate reporting across our state departments and agencies. Would need to, as we indicated in the response, would need to come with additional resources, which I know is a tough ask in this particular budget climate.

So none of the billions that we've expended can not, a percentage of those cannot go to Fund transparency.

Cal-ICH is. So with the existing grant funds moving over to HCD, CALC is in a position where it needs to explore long-term funding for Ca-ICH to exist, to continue to exist as an entity. And so we will no longer have access to dollars that have been attached administratively to these programs.

And I guess the question for HCD. Thank you.

So they, right now, the grantees report quarterly on their obligation and expenditures and how they're using their funds. Those will still be deadlines by which they need to report. But what we're changing in the next couple weeks is making it so that they can report early on that information. And then we obviously do Ta to follow up for anybody that is behind in their reporting. And so that has been going on.

We'll continue that practice, but we are, they get three months to report on the data, and I have not at this point, envisioned speeding up that timeline. What we're trying to speed up is our customer service to make sure that those who want to report earlier can do so.

Thank you. We will head to Mister Muratsuchi and then finish up with Mister Fong.

Thank you very much, Mister Chair, for inviting me to join this very important discussion. And I want to, as a member of the LA County delegation, welcome chair Horvath, and thank you for your participation in this hearing. So, Chair Horvath, you and I probably saw the same headline in the Los Angeles Times on April 9 of 2024. California spent billions on homelessness without tracking if it worked.

And the article goes on to talk about how California has spent $20 billion over the past five years dedicated to the state's homelessness crisis. Still, homelessness grew 6% in 2023 from the year prior to more than 180,000 people. And since 2013, homelessness has grown in California by 53%. So I wanted to echo what Chair Gabriel was saying earlier. We are all dealing with constituents that are not seeing any difference being made.

And my timing, the timing of this hearing is great because I have a town hall on homelessness in Torrance this coming Saturday, and you can imagine what a tough crowd that's going to be. But I wanted to actually follow on Mister Gallagher's line of questioning in terms of I've been feeling for years like we've just been shoveling money at this crisis without really having the data to know whether we're spending the money wisely.

And I've been harping on this point, the same point that Mister Gallagher raised about the cost per unit of affordable housing being built you mentioned, I think you affirmed that there is a figure, $734,000 per affordable apartment unit being developed in Los Angeles County. Is that correct?

That's what's been reported.

Okay. All right. And do you know how long, how many years, on average, it takes for these affordable apartment units to be built?

It depends on the jurisdiction. Many jurisdictions can have overly burdensome processes, as you know.

But is there an average for Los Angeles County?

I don't have an average amount of time at this point to be able to share with you.

Okay. I have heard anything from $700,000 to $1.0 million per affordable housing unit to take between three to five years to build. And to me, that seems to capture how we're being asked to continue to shovel money toward this crisis when we know that we are facing a massive budget deficit this year and spending over $700,000 per affordable unit. I mean, I've visited some of these units. It's like, you know, for the lucky person that gets housed in that unit, that's one lucky person.

Like, as if that's, you know, winning the lottery. But it doesn't seem to be sustainable. It doesn't seem to be effective in terms of getting people as quickly as, you know, as we want to see, as our constituents want to see off of the streets. And so I just wanted to raise the concern.

I feel that the state auditors report validates what I've been saying for years, that we can't just be shoveling money at a problem without knowing if we're spending the money wisely in the most cost effective way. I understand this should not be a reason for us to stop addressing this crisis, but we need to get smarter in terms of how we're spending the money. Thank you, Mister chair.

Thank you, Mister Muratsuchi let's finish up with Mister Fong.

Thank you, Mister Chair. I will be brief. Let me just say to Ms. Trujillo, I hear you as someone who's toured my tribal areas in my district in Central Valley, you need access not only to homelessness funding, but to road funding, infrastructure funding, especially when it comes to water and housing. And so your points are well taken, at least by me.

And we need to give our tribal leaders access to funds to address the significant challenges in your communities, just as well as every other community across the State of California. Let me also speak to the data piece. I participated in a homelessness field hearing in San Francisco six years ago, six or plus years ago. When I first came into the Legislature eight years ago, we had a hearing three years ago.

I know that the Chair of budget was instrumental in the data piece, and I participated in point and time counts. I have advocated for a consolidation of HCIs and HMAs and the fact that there are tribal entities that don't participate and send their data into your system, and the fact that there's 44 entities statewide, but there are probably more county and city entities that need to participate. It's very troubling to me that we cannot have real time data when everyone collects it.

Out of the funding that is provided by the State of California, every single entity, COC, county, city, tribal entity is required to provide data. And the fact that it takes five years to consolidate data to put into a database, as well as to provide information and data and results to us and whether the funding is working, I mean, it's not even, you know, you guys aren't even providing excuses. It's just a failure of what's happening right now.

Over the eight years I've been Legislature, we've been asking for data, not only to spend more. I mean, look, the state doesn't do very well when it comes to it projects, clearly, but in this piece, every Bipartisan, Republican, Democrat, local entities have been asking for more data to inform us on how we spend our resources.

And so the fact that you're asking for even more money to do a data piece when we provided you with billions of dollars, and the call for data is not just this year. It's been happening year over year over year. So the only predictor of future behavior is past behavior to me. And so unless you demonstrate some ability to actually produce something, this is a very troubling trend.

And so my only question is that in 2023, the Governor came out and said that his goal was 15% reduction in the state's unhoused population by 2025. Now, is that still the goal, and do we have the data to back that up?

I'll speak first to the goal has not changed. I think we've seen an increase, as you've heard from panelists throughout this hearing, the increase has been dramatic, and so dramatic that it was not expected. Obviously, with the billions of dollars that have gone out to support Hap five is an opportunity for us to expand what it means to prevent somebody from entering into homelessness. The definition of someone who's at risk of homeless has changed with Hap five.

And so I do believe this is something that will, will see over the life of Hap five, contribute to the entry new entries into homelessness. As far as the data is concerned, we know from each of our continuums of care changes in their point in time count numbers we have seen. I'll highlight Monterey County. Monterey County has had a 10% reduction in unsheltered homelessness in the last two years, which is tremendous for a community of its size. So the data does exist to be able to speak to those reductions.

Let me just. My last point. As someone who's participating in the point time count, I believe that that's the. That's probably the most lack of a description. It's not a good way of counting. And this is why we pushed.

That's why the Legislature pushed us as a state, to go to the HDMIS or HCIS, HMIS system is that you had an ongoing count, that you had a real-time count when someone entered into the homelessness space, when there was a nonprofit or organization or a COC that interacted with an individual, when a hospital interacted with an individual, that that individual would be put into a system that we could, by name, know why they went to homelessness and what services they need.

As someone who's participating in a point time count, that you want me to allocate billions of dollars on a four hour account starting at 605:00 in the morning, and that we're going to allocate billions of dollars on that account one time, one day, that is the worst way to count. And the fact that we're using data like that to allocate billions of dollars in the state is a travesty.

And so, until we get the data right, I would hope that there would be a sense of urgency, to use my term from my colleague from San Francisco, is that we got to get the data right, and that we actually don't even have to create data. We have entities across the State of California that already are collecting data. We're asking you to aggregate the data, not to create a whole brand new system. We're asking you to aggregate the data that's already being collected so that we can allocate the money and show results which the public demands. Thank you.

Thank you, Mister Fong. I'd like to conclude by thanking our witnesses and panelists, and of course, our Committee Members. I can't recall the last time I sat in on a hearing or a viewed a hearing where every Member on the Committee wanted to provide some sort of feedback or ask questions. I think that is a testament to the urgency to the need to address this issue.

Now, to reiterate what we discussed, speed, efficiency, responsibility, the collaboration component is going to be key between our tribes, between our local, the county, the state, and of course, the state departments. To ensure that we're actually addressing the issue now and not kicking this can down the road any further.

The Budget Committee looks forward to receiving the Governor's Budget, may revise and will evaluate any proposed actions to establish greater accountability measures for homelessness programs and equally important, measures to provide greater transparency with the Legislature and, of course, most importantly, the California public. With that, conversations are to be continued, and this hearing is adjourned. Thank you all.

Thank you.