HOME-ARP
Allocation Plan
City of Mountain View
Submitted to HUD
March 2023
Attachment 1
Table of Contents
Overview of HOME-ARP......................................................................................3 Introduction........................................................................................................4 Consultation Process...........................................................................................6 Public Participation...........................................................................................20 Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis ...............................................................22 HOME-ARP Activities ........................................................................................97 Use of HOME-ARP Funding ...............................................................................99 HOME-ARP Production Housing Goals.............................................................104 Preferences.....................................................................................................105 Referral Methods............................................................................................107 Limitations in a HOME-ARP Rental Housing or NCS Project .............................109 HOME-ARP Refinancing Guidelines .................................................................110 Appendix ........................................................................................................111
Overview of HOME-ARP
The City of Mountain View, California receives federal funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) programs to support affordable housing and community development initiatives serving low- and moderate-income individuals in the community. Every five years, Mountain View develops a Consolidated Plan that outlines the City’s funding strategy for its CDBG and HOME allocations over the next five federal fiscal years. The Plan is developed following extensive data analysis and public participation and identifies the City’s specific goals and expected outcomes for the use of CDBG and HOME funds. Each Consolidated Plan is divided into one-year increments called Annual Action Plans to identify the jurisdiction’s CDBG and HOME projects for the given year and how they will work toward the funding strategy outlined in the corresponding Consolidated Plan.
In 2021, Congress passed the American Rescue Plan, which appropriated $5 billion to communities across the country to address the ongoing impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on vulnerable populations. This funding is administered through HUD’s HOME program and is referred to as “HOME-ARP.” Existing HOME grantees, or participating jurisdictions (PJs), will receive a one-time allocation of HOME-ARP funds intended to serve vulnerable populations who are experiencing homelessness, are at risk of homelessness, or are fleeing various forms of violence.
HUD published Notice CPD-21-10 detailing the intended beneficiaries and eligible uses of HOME-ARP funds, as well as the requirements for PJs to receive their one-time funding allocation. The Notice specifies that PJs must develop a HOME-ARP Allocation Plan, following comprehensive stakeholder engagement and data analysis, and submit this plan to HUD as a substantial amendment to the jurisdiction’s 2021 Annual Action Plan. PJs must indicate how they intend to distribute their allocation across the eligible uses for HOME- ARP funds and whether there will be any preferences or limitations regarding HOME-ARP activities. PJs are not required to outline specific projects for the use of HOME-ARP funds in the Allocation Plan.
The following document represents the City’s HOME-ARP Allocation Plan developed in accordance with the requirements outlined in HUD Notice CPD-21-10. The City will submit this plan as a substantial amendment to Mountain View’s 2021 Annual Action Plan.
Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Overview of HOME-ARP
3 Introduction
In 2021, Congress passed the American Rescue Plan Act, which included $5 billion in HOME Investment Partnership—American Rescue Plan (HOME-ARP) funds to help communities across the country address the ongoing impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on particularly vulnerable populations. This one-time funding is administered through the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) HOME program and as an existing HOME participating jurisdiction (PJ), the City will receive a one-time HOME-ARP allocation of $982,560. Each PJ must first develop an Allocation Plan in order to receive its HOME-ARP funds.
There are four eligible groups of recipients that can be assisted by HOME-ARP funds. These qualifying populations (QPs) include:
• Individuals experiencing homelessness, as defined in 24 CFR 91.5. • Individuals at risk of homelessness, as defined in 24 CFR 91.5. • Persons fleeing or attempting to flee domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, or human trafficking, as defined by HUD. • Other populations for which providing supportive services or assistance would prevent homelessness or would serve those at greatest risk of housing instability, as defined by HUD.
Communities can use their HOME-ARP funds for specific eligible activities, which include:
• Development of affordable rental housing.
• Tenant-based rental assistance (TBRA).
• Supportive services.
• Development of non-congregate shelter (NCS) facilities. • Capacity building and operating support for organizations implementing a HOME-ARP activity.
• Planning and administration costs.
The City of Mountain View’s HOME-ARP Allocation Plan outlines how the City plans to spend its HOME-ARP funds. HUD has established a set of required actions for the allocation planning process, which includes consultations with entities serving the QPs as well as data analysis regarding unmet needs and system gaps. There are several specific elements that must be included in the submitted HOME-ARP Allocation Plans, including:
• A summary of the consultation process, its results, and any comments received through public participation, including any recommendations not accepted and the reasons why.
M
ountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Introduction
4 • A description of the size and demographic composition of the four QPs within the jurisdiction.
• The identification and assessment of the unmet needs for services, shelter, and housing for each QP.
• An assessment of the existing gaps in the grantee’s housing and shelter inventory, homeless assistance and services, and homelessness prevention service delivery system.
• A description of the grantee’s planned uses for HOME-ARP funds across the eligible activities based on the unmet needs of the QPs. This must include an allocation of HOME-ARP resources among the eligible activities and planned distribution methods.
• An estimate of the number of housing units that the grantee anticipates producing or preserving with HOME-ARP funds.
• Identification of any preferences for serving a QP or subpopulation as well as the planned referral methods.
Mountain View retained The Cloudburst Group to support the allocation planning process and plan development in accordance with the requirements provided in HUD Notice: CPD- 21-10. Planning activities commenced in March 2022 and included a set of stakeholder consultation sessions, an online stakeholder survey, and an extensive analysis of multiple data sources. The consultation sessions and survey sought to engage service, shelter, and housing providers as well as others with knowledge of the HOME-ARP QPs across the community. These perspectives, along with quantitative data analysis, helped the City better understand the multi-faceted and complex service, shelter, and housing needs facing the QPs and ultimately informed the allocation decisions in Mountain View’s HOME- ARP Allocation Plan.
The following document utilizes the suggested format provided by HUD for the development of HOME-ARP Allocation Plans. Regulatory requirements and prompts provided by HUD for each section are included in the document to provide context for the components of the Allocation Plan.
Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Introduction
5 Consultation Process
Regulatory Requirements
Participating jurisdictions (PJs) must consult with several different stakeholder organizations as outlined in Section V.A of HUD Notice: CPD-21-10. These stakeholders include:
• Continuums of Care (CoCs) serving the jurisdiction’s geographic area. • Homeless service providers.
• Domestic violence service providers.
• Veterans’ groups.
• Public housing authorities/agencies (PHAs).
• Public agencies that address the needs of the qualifying populations (QPs). • Public or private organizations that address fair housing, civil rights, and the needs of persons with disabilities.
Local PJs must consult with all PHAs (including statewide or regional PHAs) and all CoCs serving the jurisdiction. In its plan, a PJ must describe its consultation process, list the organizations consulted, and summarize the feedback received from these entities. HUD requires all PJs to complete the consultation process prior to the development of the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan.
Describe the consultation process, including methods used and dates of consultation.
Overview of the Consultation Process
The City organized virtual consultation sessions and an online survey to gather input from stakeholders before developing its HOME-ARP Allocation Plan. Mountain View began the consultation process in March 2022 and over the course of a month, conducted five consultation sessions with organizations working to meet the needs of the QPs. The City then paused the consultation sessions until October 2022, at which time staff facilitated five additional sessions for a total of ten stakeholder consultation sessions. Mountain View also developed and distributed an online stakeholder survey using SurveyMonkey to broaden input and provide additional opportunities for organizations to contribute to the consultation process in October. Overall, the City received input from 17 individuals across 15 organizations. Mountain View consulted with at least one organization from each of the required organization types in the development of the Allocation Plan. This includes the one CoC and one PHA that serve the City as well as organizations that meet the other required organization types. The City did not begin developing the Allocation Plan until the consultation process was completed.
Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Consultation Process
6 Overview of the Consultation Sessions
One of the City’s methods for gathering stakeholder input was facilitating stakeholder consultation sessions. These included scheduling calls with staff from partner organizations to discuss topics such as the needs facing the four HOME-ARP QPs; gaps in the housing, shelter, and service systems; and existing capacity constraints. Overall, Mountain View conducted ten consultation sessions, gathering input from ten organizations. Table 1 outlines which organizations participated in the consultation sessions and the date of each session.
Table 1: Consultation Sessions Participants and Dates
Session # Participating Organizations Date
1 Next Door Solutions 3/14/2022
2 Law Foundation of Silicon Valley 3/17/2022
3 Silicon Valley Independent Living Center 3/21/2022
4 Day Worker Center of Mountain View 3/28/2022
5 Community Services Agency 4/26/2022
6 Santa Clara County Office of Supportive Housing
(CA-500: San Jose/Santa Clara City and County CoC) 8/15/2022 7 Santa Clara County Office of Supportive Housing 10/14/2022 8 Next Door Solutions 10/27/2022
9 YWCA of Greater Silicon Valley 10/27/2022
10 Santa Clara County Housing Authority (SCCHA),
Jamboree Housing, and Alta Housing 11/2/2022
Overview of the Stakeholder Survey
Another method the City used to gather stakeholder input was to distribute an online stakeholder survey. Mountain View developed and distributed the survey using SurveyMonkey and sought to collect additional input from organizations working across the community to meet the needs of the HOME-ARP QPs. The City distributed the survey to over 40 individuals in 27 organizations. Mountain View kept the survey open from October 3 to November 25 and sent several reminders for stakeholders to complete the survey. By the end of November, the City had received ten survey responses from nine organizations.
There are several factors that could explain why some organizations did not respond to the survey. First, organizations in the region have experienced high staff turnover. It is possible M
ountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Consultation Process
7 that individuals included on Mountain View’s contact list for the HOME-ARP survey no longer work at organizations and therefore did not receive the survey invitation. Another factor is limited capacity. Through other planning efforts that require stakeholder consultation, such as the Consolidated Plan and Housing Element, local stakeholders have described that organizational capacity has suffered as a result of high staff turnover, limited funding for operating support, and an overall increased need for assistance from vulnerable members of the community. For the HOME-ARP consultation process, this means that stakeholders may have received the invitation to respond to the survey, but not had the time to complete it due to limited capacity. Lastly, another factor could be consultation fatigue. Many of the organizations surveyed serve multiple jurisdictions in Santa Clara County. Stakeholders for the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan are also stakeholders for many other planning processes for local, state, and federal funding opportunities that require consultation with organizations working in the community. With staff turnover and limited capacity, it is possible that stakeholders were unwilling to complete the survey due to multiple requests for their input across planning efforts.
Overview of the Organizations Consulted Through the Consultation and Survey Through the consultation sessions and survey, Mountain View received input from a total of 17 individuals across 15 organizations. Table 4 includes a complete list of all organizations consulted for the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan. Tables 2 and 3 outline the abbreviations used in Table 4 for each of the required organization types and QPs outlined in HUD Notice CPD-21-10. The organization types for consulted agencies were determined either by the organization types selected by the survey respondent(s) affiliated with the organization in the stakeholder survey or by Mountain View staff based on their understanding of the services provided by the organization. Likewise, the QPs served were determined by the QPs indicated by the respondent(s) affiliated with an organization in the stakeholder survey or by Mountain View staff based on their understanding of the individuals served by the organization.
Table 2: Abbreviations for Organization Types of Consulted Organizations Abbreviation Definition
CoC Continuum of Care
CR-FH-D
Civil Rights, Fair Housing, and/or Disabilities Service Provider or Organization
D Affordable Housing Developer
DV-SA-HT Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault, Stalking, Dating Violence, and/or Human Trafficking Services Provider
HS Homeless Services Provider
Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Consultation Process
8 Abbreviation Definition
O Other
PA Public Agency Addressing the Needs of the QPs
PHA Public Housing Authority/Agency
SS Supportive Services Provider
V Veterans Services Provider
Table 3: Abbreviations for QPs Served by Consulted Organizations Abbreviation QP
QP1 Individuals experiencing homelessness
QP2 Individuals at risk of homelessness
QP3 Persons fleeing or attempting to flee domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, stalking, or human trafficking
QP4 Other populations at greatest risk of homelessness or housing instability Table 4: Consulted Organizations for the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan # Organization Name Organization
Type QPs Served
Participated in:
Session Survey
1 Alta Housing D QP1, QP2,
QP4 X
2 Community Services Agency
of Mountain View, Los Altos,
and Los Altos Hills
CoC, HS, SS,
CR-FH-D
QP1, QP2,
QP3, QP4 X X
3 Community Solutions HS, DV-SA-HT QP1, QP2,
QP3 X X
4 Day Worker Center of
Mountain View
DV-SA-HT, CR-
FH-D, O, V QP2, QP4 X
5 Housing Authority of Santa
Clara County (CA-059) PHA, PA QP1, QP2,
QP3, QP4 X X
6 Jamboree Housing D, SS, V QP1, QP2,
QP3, QP4 X X
7 Law Foundation of Silicon
Valley
CR-FH-D, DV-
SA-HT, O, V QP4 X
8 Mid-Peninsula Housing D QP1, QP2,
QP4 X
9 Mountain View Whisman
School District PA, O QP1, QP2,
QP3 X
Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Consultation Process
9 10 MOVE Mountain View HS QP1 X
11 Next Door Solutions DV-SA-HT, HS,
SS, V QP3 X
12 Santa Clara County District
Attorney’s Office Victim
Services Unit
DV-SA-HT, PA,
CR-FH-D
QP1, QP2,
QP3, QP4 X
13 Santa Clara County Office of
Supportive Housing (CA-500:
San Jose/Santa Clara City
and County CoC)
CoC, HS, SS,
PA QP1, QP2 X X
14 Silicon Valley Independent
Living Center CR-FH-D QP4 X
15 YWCA of Greater Silicon
Valley SS, DV-SA-HT QP2, QP3,
QP4 X
Figure 1 presents the total number of organizations consulted by organization type. An organization was counted more than once if it met more than one category. Mountain View gathered input from each of the required stakeholder organization types on the needs facing the four QPs. The City is part of the Santa Clara County CoC and consulted with CoC staff during the consultation process. Likewise, Mountain View is served by one PHA, the Housing Authority of Santa Clara County, and the City consulted with housing authority staff in the development of the Allocation Plan.
Figure 1: Number of Consulted Organizations by Organization Type Continuum of Care 1
Public Housing Authority 1
H
omeless service provider 5
Supportive service provider 5
Victims' services provider (DV-SA-HT) 6
Affordable housing developer 3
Organization addressing CR-FH-D 5
Veterans service provider 4
Public agency addressing QP needs 4
Other 5
0 2 4 6 8
#
Consulted Organizations
Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Consultation Process
10 Figure 2 outlines t he total number of organizations that Mountain View consulted based on which QPs they serve. Many organizations serve more than one QP and were counted more than once if they met more than one category. For those that indicated that they serve another population (“Other”), many specified that they serve a broader range of low- and moderate-income individuals in addition to one or more of the HOME-ARP QPs.
Figure 2: Number of Organizations Consulted by QPs Served QP1 10
QP2 1
1 Q
P3 8
QP4 1
0 Oth
er 7
0 2 4 6 8 10 1
2 # Consulted Organizations
Summarize feedback received and results of upfront consultation with these entities.
Summary of the Consultation Session Themes
Through consultations, Mountain View heard perspectives directly from organizations working with the four HOME-ARP QPs on their unmet housing, shelter, and service needs.
Participants spoke of the tremendous needs and challenges faced by the QPs as well as by program staff in providing services to these communities.
Across the eight virtual consultation sessions, several cross-cutting themes emerged.
Stakeholders described how all four of the HOME-ARP QPs struggle to find housing that is affordable and accessible in the community. Housing costs have been increasing for years, but recent events including high inflation, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the end of the eviction moratorium have exacerbated the housing cost burden and housing instability for many lower-income households in Mountain View. Other factors, such as the unwillingness of landlords to rent to voucher holders, the lack of affordable units that are accessible to individuals with physical disabilities, and the inability of individuals in Mountain View to Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Consultation Process
11 access supportive services in the broader region (such as victims services), have made it difficult for people to utilize resources in the community.
Stakeholders also mentioned how specific subpopulations—including seniors; individuals with disabilities; individuals who are Hispanic; undocumented individuals; and persons fleeing domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, and human trafficking— can often have acute needs or be difficult to reach. Working with culturally specific organizations can be an effective way to contact hard-to-reach populations and can lead to new and innovative projects to better serve the community. In addition, organizations voiced concerns over the displacement of low-income communities—particularly those in the local workforce, people of color, and individuals with special needs—as a result of unaffordable housing costs.
Summary of the Stakeholder Survey Themes
The following section summarizes the major takeaways from the stakeholder survey. The Appendix contains a complete list of the multiple-choice results from the survey. It is important to keep in mind that only 10 stakeholders responded to the HOME-ARP survey.
This means that the results from the survey represent the perspectives of a handful of organizations in the community and may not be representative of all stakeholders serving the QPs in Mountain View.
The survey asked a series of questions to gauge the level of need for housing, shelter, and services for each of the HOME-ARP QPs. One question asked respondents to rank the overall level of need for each of the four QPs using a scale of high, medium, and low.
Respondents were provided the option to opt out of ranking any of the populations by responding “I don’t know.” The results to this question are summarized in Figure 3 and indicate that most respondents felt that individuals experiencing homelessness; individuals at risk of homelessness; and persons fleeing or attempting to flee domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, and human trafficking face high overall needs. Ninety percent of respondents indicated that there were high overall needs for individuals experiencing homelessness, 80 percent indicated there were high needs for individuals at risk of homelessness, and 78 percent indicated there were high needs for persons fleeing or attempting to flee. Notably, none of the survey respondents said there were low needs for any of the QPs.
For other populations at greatest risk of housing instability or homelessness, 25 percent of respondents said there were high overall needs, 50 percent said there were medium needs, and 25 percent indicated they did not know about the needs facing this population.
For this question as well as others throughout the survey, the high number of respondents who indicated that they were unsure about the needs facing the “other” QP may reflect a M
ountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Consultation Process
12 lack of clarity over which individuals comprise this population or the needs facing individuals in this population. The survey repeated definitions for each of the HOME-ARP QPs before various survey questions to help respondents understand the types of individuals and households included in each population. The high number of respondents who selected “I Don’t Know” therefore indicates that respondents may not serve individuals in this population or that there are a variety of needs facing individuals in this QP and it can be difficult to gauge overall need.
Figure 3: Overall Level of Need for Each QP
90%
80% 78%
25%
10%
20%
11%
50%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
11%
25%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
High Medium Low I Don't Know
Individuals Individuals At Risk of Persons Other Groups At Experiencing Homelessness Fleeing/Attempting to Greatest Risk Homelessness Flee
The survey then asked respondents to indicate the level of need for affordable rental housing, non-congregate shelter (NCS), supportive services, and tenant-based rental assistance (TBRA) for each of the QPs. Figure 4 shows that most respondents felt there is a high level of need for each activity for individuals experiencing homelessness; individuals at risk of homelessness; and persons fleeing/attempting to flee domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, and human trafficking. The only exception was for unmet need for NCS for individuals at risk of homelessness; 10 percent of respondents said this population has a high unmet need, 30 percent indicated there is a medium unmet need, 30 percent said there is a low unmet need, and 30 percent said they didn’t know about the level of unmet need. For other populations at greatest risk of housing instability and homelessness, most respondents indicated that they were not sure about the level of need for this population across all activities. As with other questions throughout the survey, this uncertainty may indicate a lack of understanding among respondents on which individuals comprise this population or difficulty generalizing the level of need for this population.
Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Consultation Process
13 When comparing the results across the eligible activities, more respondents indicated that there is a high unmet need for affordable rental housing relative to the other eligible activities. Specifically, when it came to affordable rental housing, 80 percent of respondents indicated there is a high unmet need for individuals experiencing homelessness, 100 percent indicated a high unmet need for individuals at risk of homelessness, 60 percent indicated a high unmet need for persons fleeing or attempting to flee, and 20 percent indicated a high unmet need for other populations. In comparison, these figures for supportive services were 70 percent, 60 percent, 60 percent, and 20 percent, respectively.
For TBRA, these percentages were 50 percent, 60 percent, 40 percent, and 10 percent while for NCS, they were 50 percent, 10 percent, 50 percent, and 0 percent, respectively.
M ountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Consultation Process
14 Figure 4: Level of Unmet Need for the HOME-ARP-Eligible Activities for Each QP Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Consultation Process
15 When asked to prioritize how they would spend HOME-ARP funds across the eligible activities, the majority of respondents indicated they would prioritize affordable rental housing, followed by supportive services, TBRA, capacity building for providers, and then NCS. Figure 5 provides an overview of how respondents ranked the HOME-ARP-eligible activities using a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 as the highest priority and 5 as the lowest. The eligible activities are presented in the order of prioritization according to survey respondents.
Figure 5 shows that 60 percent of respondents selected affordable rental housing as their highest priority, 30 percent selected it as their second choice, 10 percent as their third, 0 percent as their fourth, and 0 percent as their fifth. Among the respondents who selected another activity as their first choice, 30 percent selected supportive services as their highest priority while the remaining 10 percent selected TBRA as their first choice. No respondents selected nonprofit capacity building or NCS as their highest priority.
Figure 5: Prioritization of HOME-ARP Funds Across the Eligible Activities 1st Priority 2nd Priority 3rd Priority 4th Priority 5th Priority 60%
30%
10%
30%
30%
40%
10%
30%
20%
30%
10%
10%
20%
30%
40%
10%
40%
50%
Affordable Rental Housing
Supportive Services
TBRA
Nonprofit Capacity Building
Non-Congregate Shelter
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
T
able 5 outlines t he average weighted score for each HOME-ARP activity. The average weighted score provides a clear ranking of the activities based on respondents’ prioritization. The average weighted score is calculated by assigning weights to each response option (i.e., the 1 to 5 scale) for the survey question, with higher weights assigned to higher scores. Higher average weighted scores indicate that respondents prioritized a HOME-ARP activity more. The average weighted scores confirm that respondents prioritized affordable rental housing the most, followed by supportive services, TBRA, nonprofit capacity building, and then NCS.
Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Consultation Process
16 Table 5: Average Weighted Score of Prioritized HOME-ARP-Eligible Activities
M
ountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Consultation Process
17 Ranking
Order HOME-ARP-Eligible Activity Average
Weighted Score
#1 Affordable Rental Housing 4.5
#2 Sup
portive Services 3.8
#3 TBRA 3.2
#4 No
nprofit Capacity Building 1.9
#5 NCS 1.6
Th
e survey also asked respondents to prioritize which supportive services are most needed for each HOME-ARP QP. The survey first presented a list of eligible supportive services based on the list of eligible costs for supportive services included in HUD Notice CPD-21-10.
The survey asked respondents to select which services were needed most for each QP and then to prioritize the services they had just selected for each population. Table 6 outlines the top five most needed supportive services for each QP based on the average weighted scores from the survey.
Table 6: Top Five Most Needed Supportive Services for Each QP from Stakeholder Survey Rank
I
ndividuals
Experiencing
Homelessness
Individuals At
Risk of
Homelessness
Persons Fleeing/
Attempting to
Flee
Other Groups At
Greatest Risk
#1 Case Management Case Management Case Management Case Management #2
#3
#4
#5
Housing Search
Assistance and
Counseling
Mental Health
Services
Landlord and
Tenant Liaison
Food Assistance
Housing Search
Assistance and
Counseling
Landlord and
Tenant Liaison
Legal Services
Childcare
Victims Services
for People
Fleeing/Attempting
to Flee
Childcare
Housing Search
Assistance and
Counseling
Mental Health
Services
Childcare
Food Assistance
Educational
Services
Credit Repair
Table 6 i ndicates that respondents ranked case management as the most needed supportive service for each QP. For individuals experiencing homelessness, the top five ranked supportive services included case management, housing search assistance/counseling, mental health services, landlord/tenant liaison, and food assistance.
For individuals at risk of homelessness, respondents identified case management, housing search assistance/counseling, landlord and tenant liaison, legal services, and childcare as most needed. For persons fleeing/attempting to flee, the top-ranked services included case management, victims’ services, childcare, housing search assistance/counseling, and mental health services while for other populations, the top five included case management, childcare, food assistance, educational services, and credit repair. It is important to note that only five respondents selected and ranked supportive services for other populations at the greatest risk of housing instability and homelessness. The remaining five respondents indicated that they did not know about the needed supportive services for this population.
Lastly, the survey offered respondents the opportunity to provide additional input on the housing, shelter, and service needs of the HOME-ARP QPs as well as comment on provider and system capacity. Figure 6 includes several notable quotations from survey respondents about each HOME-ARP-eligible activity. The selected quotations highlight the spectrum of perspectives among respondents on which eligible activities are most needed in Mountain View and what barriers pose challenges to serving the HOME-ARP QP.
Figure 6: Selected Quotations from the Stakeholder Survey on Unmet Needs Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Consultation Process
18 Overall Trends and Themes Identified Through the Consultation Process Across the consultation sessions and through the survey, stakeholders expressed the need for more affordable rental housing and, in particular, supportive housing options. While stakeholders described a need for both short- and long-term housing solutions, they also underscored how the lack of affordable and available permanent housing options for lower-income communities strains the existing housing and shelter inventory. Input from stakeholders made it clear that factors such as rising housing costs, inflation, lack of affordable housing options at different income levels, difficulty finding and keeping well- trained staff, limited resources and funding, difficulty using rental vouchers on the private market, and rise in evictions have led to housing, shelter, and service systems that are having difficulty meeting the current level of need of the four QPs in Mountain View.
Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Consultation Process
19 Public Participation
Regulatory Requirements
Section V.B. of HUD Notice: CPD-21-10 outlines the requirements for participating jurisdictions (PJs) in providing and encouraging citizen participation in the development of the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan. Prior to submitting the Allocation Plan to HUD, PJs must provide residents with reasonable notice and an opportunity to comment on the proposed HOME-ARP Allocation Plan for a period of at least 15 calendar days. During public engagement, PJs must abide by the requirements outlined in their Citizen Participation Plan and hold at least one public hearing during the development of the Allocation Plan and prior to submission to HUD.
PJs must also disclose the jurisdiction’s total HOME-ARP allocation to the public as well as the range of eligible activities the PJ could pursue with their HOME-ARP funding. Following the public hearing and comment period, PJs must summarize any comments received, describe efforts to broaden public engagement, and explain whether any comments or recommendations were not accepted and why.
Describe the public participation process, including information about and the dates of the public comment period and public hearing(s) held during the development of the plan.
Table 7: Dates for Public Participation Events for the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan Event Date(s)
Public Notice February 24, 2023
Public Comment Period February 24 – March 12, 2023
Public Hearing March 2, 2023
Describe the public participation process.
The City of Mountain View will seek feedback from the general public on the draft HOME- ARP Allocation Plan through a public hearing and comment period. The City will hold a public hearing in front of the Human Rights Commission on March 2, 2023 at City Hall and respond to requests for information from interested parties.
Mountain View followed the requirements outlined in its Citizen Participation Plan during the development of the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan regarding broadening public participation and ensuring reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities.
Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Public Participation
20 Describe efforts to broaden public participation.
Mountain View is utilizing several methods to broaden public participation in the development of the City’s HOME-ARP Allocation Plan. The Allocation Plan was shared with community partners via email and the plan was published on Mountain View’s website to solicit comments from the public. In its public notice, the City provided the name and contact information for individuals to request any accommodation regarding the public hearing, public comment period, and/or access to the Allocation Plan.
The City’s public comment period is from February 24, 2023 to March 12, 2023 and the public hearing will be held on March 2, 2023. Mountain View published a public notice describing the HOME-ARP planning process, public comment period, and public hearing date and time in the Palo Alto Daily Post and in the Mountain View Voice on February 24, 2023. The public comment notice was also posted to the City’s website in English, Spanish, Mandarin, and Russian.
Following the adoption of the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan, the Appendix will be updated to include a summary of any comments received and an explanation for why any comments or recommendations were not accepted.
Summarize the comments and recommendations received through the public participation process either in writing or orally at a public hearing.
This section of the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan will be updated following the completion of the public hearing and comment period.
Summarize any comments or recommendations not accepted and state the reasons why.
This section of the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan will be updated following the completion of the public hearing and comment period.
M
ountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Public Participation
21 Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
Overview
The Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis begins with a description of the regulatory requirements outlined in HUD Notice: CPD-21-10 followed by a description of Mountain View’s data methodology. The plan then estimates the size and demographic composition of each qualifying population (QP) and summarizes the unmet housing, shelter, and service needs facing these populations.
Regulatory Requirements
HOME-ARP PJs must complete a Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis that evaluates the size and demographic composition of the four HOME-ARP QPs within the jurisdiction’s boundaries and assesses the unmet needs of these populations. These requirements are described in Section V.C.1 of HUD Notice: CPD-21-10. Required elements include analysis of the shelter, housing, and service needs of individuals experiencing sheltered and unsheltered homelessness, those currently at risk of homelessness, individuals and households requiring services or housing assistance to prevent homelessness, and those at greatest risk of housing instability or who live in unstable housing situations. The assessment must also identify existing gaps within the jurisdiction’s shelter system, housing inventory, and service delivery system.
Furthermore, the assessment must include a description of the housing characteristics that are associated with housing instability and an increased risk of homelessness if the participating jurisdiction (PJ) is including these conditions under the HUD definition of “Other Populations.” The assessment should also identify the PJ’s priority needs for each QP and describe how the PJ determined these needs as well as the existing gaps in the grantee’s shelter, housing, and service delivery systems.
Data Methodology
There are several challenges at play when it comes to gathering and analyzing data on the four HOME-ARP QPs. The definitions for each of the QPs are multifaceted and there is no single data source that neatly aligns with the entirety of each definition. PJs must therefore utilize existing data sources that line up with pieces of the HOME-ARP definitions. The implication of this is that estimates on the size, demographic composition, and needs facing each of the QPs are incomplete and underrepresent the true extent of needs facing individuals who make up these communities.
Another data limitation is the inability to deduplicate individuals and households across data sources. For available data that align with pieces of the HOME-ARP QP definitions, many sources are aggregated and provide estimates for the number of individuals and households within specific groups such as income category. Other data provide individual- M
ountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
22 level information that is useful for analyzing trends such as racial and ethnic disparities.
This data may contain unique identifiers that can be used to determine whether an individual appears more than once in the same data set; however, it is not possible to determine whether individuals in one data set are present in another. Even when unique identifiers are available, they are usually unique to only one dataset. It is therefore not possible to determine the extent of overlap across data sources, or even across the QPs.
As a result, these figures should be treated as estimates for each QP with some margin of error.
Although there are limitations, available data sources can still provide useful information to better understand the needs facing the four QPs. The City gathered and analyzed data from local, state, and federal sources including reports, assessments, datasets, and dashboards to locate the most current information on the QPs. During consultations, Mountain View asked stakeholders for recommendations on reports and datasets to gather additional resources for the Allocation Plan. Table 8 outlines the primary quantitative data sources the City used to analyze the needs of each of the QPs.
Table 8: Primary Quantitative Data Sources by QP
HOME-ARP QP Primary Quantitative Data Source
Individuals experiencing
homelessness
• Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless
Management Information System (HMIS)
(2021)/Point-In-Time Count (2022)
• Santa Clara County, Women Experiencing
Homelessness report (2018)
Individuals at risk of
homelessness
• Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
(CHAS 2014–2018)
• McKinney-Vento EDFacts Initiative (SY 2019–
2020)
• Santa Clara County Housing Authority (SCCHA)
client data (2022)
• National Low Income Housing Coalition, Out Of
Reach (2022)
• Mountain View Eviction Prevention Program
Monthly Status Report (FY 2021–2022)
Persons fleeing/attempting
to flee domestic violence,
sexual assault, dating
violence, stalking, or human
trafficking
• CoC HMIS (2021)
• Next Door Solutions to Domestic Violence
program data (PY 2021–2022)
• California Department of Justice Criminal Justice
Statistics Center, Domestic Violence-Related
Calls for Service (DVRCS 2019–2021)
• Mountain View Police Department Annual
Report (2021)
• Santa Clara County Community Development
Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
23 HOME-ARP QP Primary Quantitative Data Source
Block Grant (CDBG) Program Statistics (2022)
• Santa Clara County Study on Women and
Homelessness (2020)
• Santa Clara County Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
(CEDAW) Task Force, Compendium of Reports
(2021)
• South Bay Coalition to End Human Trafficking
(SBCEHT), Annual Report (2021)
Other populations at risk of
housing instability and
homelessness
• CHAS (2014–2018)
• American Community Survey (ACS) (2016–2020)
• National Low Income Housing Coalition, Out Of
Reach (2022) and The Gap (2022) for Santa Clara
County
• Community Services Agency (CSA) Rental
Assistance Program data (FY 2022–2023)
•
Mountain View’s 2020–2024 Consolidated Plan
Throughout the rest of the Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis, each section will specify which data sources the City used to estimate the size, demographic composition, and needs facing each QP as well as discuss specific data limitations to keep in mind while interpreting data for HOME-ARP.
Understanding the QPs in Mountain View
The City of Mountain View has experienced considerable change over the past few years.
The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, rising inflation, and the increased cost of living have placed pressure on individuals and households across the community. For the HOME-ARP QPs, the past couple of years have both exacerbated existing challenges and witnessed the influx of unprecedented government funding. The following sections present the most recent available data on the size and composition of each of the QPs as well as their unmet housing, shelter, and service needs.
Describe the size and demographic composition of the QPs within the PJ’s boundaries.
Individuals Experiencing Homelessness
The City of Mountain View is part of the San Jose/Santa Clara City & County CoC (CA-500) which is led by the Santa Clara County Office of Supportive Housing. The City worked with the Office of Supportive Housing to collect and analyze HMIS data from calendar year 2021 on individuals experiencing homelessness who affiliate with the City of Mountain View.
Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
24 Affiliation was determined by one or more criteria included in the Vulnerability Index— Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool (VI-SPDAT) that is administered when an individual enters coordinated entry. For this analysis, an individual was considered as having an affiliation with the City if one or more of the following were true:
• The individual currently resides in Mountain View or previously lived in the City before becoming homeless.
• The individual goes to school in Mountain View.
• The individual works in Mountain View.
• The individual spends most of their time in Mountain View.
In addition to affiliation, the City included individuals who had completed a VI-SPDAT sometime in calendar year 2021 and/or had an emergency shelter (ES), transitional housing (TH), or outreach enrollment during the calendar year. Lastly, the City filtered out the individuals who self-reported in the VI-SPDAT that they were currently fleeing domestic violence from the analysis for the Individuals Experiencing Homelessness QP. This is because the Individuals Experiencing Homelessness QP definition under HOME-ARP includes 24 CFR 91.5(1) (2) or (3). The fourth component (24 CFR 91.5(4)) is intentionally excluded from the Individuals Experiencing Homelessness QP definition because it is included under the QP definition for Persons Fleeing or Attempting to Flee Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Stalking, Sexual Assault, or Human Trafficking. The HMIS data on individuals experiencing homelessness and fleeing domestic violence is therefore analyzed in the section of the Allocation Plan for the Persons Fleeing/Attempting to Flee QP.
Using this criteria, HMIS data indicates that there were 690 individuals experiencing homelessness who made up 606 households in Mountain View in 2021. Table 9 provides a demographic breakdown of the individuals experiencing homelessness and compares this information to the prevalence of various subpopulations among the general population of Mountain View.
Table 9 indicates that 265 individuals experiencing homelessness (38 percent) were over age 55. The largest age cohort among the population experiencing homelessness was for adults between the ages of 25 and 54, which comprised 54 percent of the population. The smallest age cohort was for individuals under age 25, who represented seven percent of the population experiencing homelessness. Table 9 also underscores how many individuals experiencing homelessness have a disabling condition. While 46 percent of homeless individuals in Mountain View reported having a disabling condition, 49 percent of homeless households included someone with a disabling condition.
M ountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
25 Table 9: Demographics of Individuals Experiencing Homelessness and the General Population in Mountain View
Sex
Homeless Individuals
(Total=690)
General Population
(Total=82,376)
# % # %
Male 423 61% 41,206 51%
Female 259 38% 38,898 49%
Transgender, non-binary, or
questioning 3 Less than
1% N/A N/A
Data not collected 1 Less than
1% N/A N/A
Race/Ethnicity Homeless Population General Population
# % # %
White 422 61% 41,548 52%
Black/African American 87 13% 1,552 2%
American Indian, Native
American, Indigenous 27 4% 341 Less than
1%
Asian/Asian-American 49 7% 25,442 32%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 15 2% 197 Less than
1%
Multiracial 42 6% 6,108 8%
Race data not collected 48 7% N/A N/A
Hispanic (any race) 311 45% 14,485 18%
Age Group Homeless Population General Population
# % # %
Under 18 26 4% 16,181 20%
18–24 23 3% 5,553 7%
25–54 375 54% 41,256 52%
55 and over 265 38% 17,114 21%
Special Populations
Homeless Population General Population
# % # %
People with disabling conditions 314 46% 5,430 7%
Survivors of domestic violence 179 26% N/A N/A
Veterans 37 5% 1,521 2%
Chronically homeless 271 39% N/A N/A
Data Sources: 1. HMIS Data, 2021; 2. ACS, Five-Year Estimates, 2020 Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
26 In addition, the HMIS data indicates that the majority of individuals experiencing homelessness in Mountain View are male (61 percent), identify as White (61 percent), and are between the ages of 25 and 54 (54 percent). When comparing demographic information for individuals experiencing homelessness to the City’s general population, there are clear racial and ethnic disparities. Figure 7 compares the percentage of individuals by race and ethnicity in the City’s homeless population to these percentages among the general population. If race and ethnicity were not factors in who becomes homeless, then the share of individuals experiencing homelessness in each race and ethnicity would presumably closely resemble the share of race/ethnicity in the general population. Figure 7, however, indicates that individuals identifying as Hispanic (of any race) are vastly overrepresented among the City’s homeless population while Asian/Asian Americans are vastly underrepresented. Specifically, 45 percent of the City’s homeless population is Hispanic even though only 18 percent of Mountain View’s population identifies as Hispanic. And while Asian/Asian Americans comprise 32 percent of Mountain View’s population, they make up 7 percent of the City’s homeless population. Other racial groups who are overrepresented among the City’s homeless population relative to the general population include Black/African American, American Indian/Native American, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and White.
During the consultation sessions and survey, stakeholders described how issues such as language barriers, limited culturally specific services, and gentrification have contributed to the displacement of Hispanic households from Mountain View neighborhoods. Similar factors may contribute to the large percentage of Hispanic individuals experiencing homelessness in the community.
M ountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
27 Figure 7: Race/Ethnicity of Homeless Individuals in Mountain View Compared to the City’s General Population
2%
0%
32%
8%
0%
52%
18%
13%
4%
7%
6%
2%
61%
45%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Black/African American
American Indian/Native American
Asian/Asian American
Multiracial
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
White
Hispanic (any race)
% of Population
Mountain View Population Homeless Population
Data Sources: 1. HMIS Data, 2021; 2. ACS, Five-Year Estimates, 2020 Table 10 includes data on the 606 households experiencing homelessness in Mountain View and disaggregates households by size and disabling condition. The data indicates that 83 percent of homeless households include only one person and 54 percent of them have a disabling condition. Of the remaining households with more than one person, many also include an individual with a disabling condition.
M
ountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
28 Table 10: Household Size and Disabling Condition of Households Experiencing Homelessness
Household Size
(# people)
# Homeless
Households
% Homeless
Population
# With
Disabling
Condition
% With
Disabling
Condition
1 505 83% 271 54%
2 56 9% 16 29%
3 30 5% 5 17%
4 6 1% 1 17%
5 4 1% 1 25%
6 or more 5 1% 0 0%
Total 606 100% 294 49%
Data source: HMIS, 2021
Table 11 provides additional demographic data on individuals experiencing homelessness with a disabling condition. In 2021, 62 percent of homeless individuals with a disabling condition were male and 57 percent were White. About half were adults over the age of 55 and almost all (92 percent) lived in single-person households.
Table 11: Demographic Information of Homeless Individuals With a Disabling Condition Sex
Homeless Individuals w/ Disabling
Condition
(Total = 314)
# %
Male 195 62%
Female 114 36%
Transgender 2 1%
Other gender, non-binary, or questioning 3 1%
Race/Ethnicity
Homeless Individuals w/ Disabling
Condition
# %
White 179 57%
Black/African American 48 15%
American Indian, Native American, Indigenous 13 4%
Asian/Asian-American 28 9%
M
ountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
29 Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 9 3%
Multiracial 25 8%
Race data not collected 12 4%
Hispanic (any race) 91 29%
Age Group
Homeless Individuals w/ Disabling
Condition
# %
Under 18 1 Less than 1%
18–24 0 0%
25–54 157 50%
55–64 92 29%
65+ 64 20%
Household Size
Homeless Individuals w/ Disabling
Condition
# #
Single adult 271 92%
Household with children 13 4%
Household without children 10 3%
Data source: HMIS, 2021
Chronic Homelessness
A
nother notable theme from the HMIS data is that there was a large chronically homeless population in the City of Mountain View. In 2021, there were 271 individuals affiliated with the City who were chronically homeless at program enrollment, which represents 39 percent of the City’s homeless population.
According to the HUD definition, a chronically homeless individual is a homeless individual with a disability who lives in a place not meant for human habitation or resides in Safe Haven, an ES, or an institutional care facility. The individual must have been living in any of the above-described places either continuously for at least 12 months or on at least four separate occasions within the last three years. A chronically homeless family is a family where the head of the household is chronically homeless. This applies to adult heads of household and minor heads of household families.
M
ountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
30 Table 12 provides a demographic overview of Mountain View’s chronically homeless population and indicates that 47 percent of chronically homeless individuals were over the age of 55 and 92 percent were members of one-person households. Sixty-four percent of chronically homeless individuals were male, 56 percent were White, and 51 percent were between the ages of 25 and 54.
Table 12: Demographic Information of Chronically Homeless Individuals Sex
Chronically Homeless Individuals
(Total=271)
# %
Male 173 64%
Female 93 34%
Transgender, non-binary, or questioning 2 1%
Data not reported 3 1%
Race/Ethnicity
Chronically Homeless Individuals
# %
White 151 56%
Black/African American 45 17%
American Indian, Native American, Indigenous 11 4%
Asian/Asian-American 22 8%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 8 3%
Multiracial 20 7%
Race data not collected 14 5%
Hispanic (any race) 90 33%
Age Group
Chronically Homeless Individuals
# %
Under 18 6 2%
18–24 1 0%
25–54 139 51%
55–64 72 27%
65+ 53 20%
M
ountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
31 Household Size
Chronically Homeless Individuals
# #
Single adult 223 92%
Household with children 11 5%
Household without children 9 4%
Data source: HMIS, 2021
Veterans Experiencing Homelessness
Another subpopulation among individuals experiencing homelessness is veterans. In 2021, 5 percent of homeless individuals were veterans. Table 13 shows that 70 percent of homeless veterans were over age 55 and almost all (92 percent) were in single-adult households.
Table 13: Demographic Information of Homeless Veterans
Sex
Homeless Veterans
(Total=37)
# %
Male 35 95%
Female 2 5%
Race/Ethnicity
Homeless Veterans
# %
White 20 54%
Black/African American 7 19%
American Indian, Native American, Indigenous 5 14%
Asian/Asian-American 1 3%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 1 3%
Multiracial 3 8%
Hispanic (any race) 8 22%
Age Group
Homeless Veterans
# %
Under 24 0 0%
25–54 11 30%
M
ountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
32 55–64 12 32%
65+ 14 38%
Household Size
Homeless Veterans
# #
Single adult 33 92%
Household with children 1 3%
Household without children 2 6%
Data source: HMIS, 2021
Overall, the HMIS data indicates that even among different subpopulations experiencing homelessness, many individuals affiliated with Mountain View are over the age of 55 and are in single-person households. These characteristics have implications for the types of supportive services, shelter, and housing needs of individuals experiencing homelessness in the City.
Individuals at Risk of Homelessness
To estimate the size and demographic composition of individuals at risk of homelessness, Mountain View gathered and analyzed data from several sources that provide information on different facets of this QP. These include the 2014–2018 five-year estimates of the CHAS data, data on student homelessness from the McKinney-Vento EDFacts Initiative for school year 2019–2020, program data from clients served by the SCCHA in Mountain View in 2022, and individuals served through the City’s Eviction Prevention Program from FY 2021–2022.
C
HAS Data on Extremely Low-Income Households
T
he first data source, CHAS, includes information on the types of housing problems and needs facing households at different income levels in a geographic area. For the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan, data from CHAS aligns with parts of the HOME-ARP definition for individuals at risk of experiencing homelessness who earn less than 30 percent of the area median income (AMI) and are experiencing one or more of the four severe housing problems captured in CHAS data. The four severe housing problems include:
• Housing units lacking complete kitchen facilities.
• Housing units lacking complete plumbing facilities.
• Households being severely overcrowded, which is defined as having more than 1.5 people per room.
• Households being severely cost burdened, which is defined as spending over 50 percent of monthly income on housing costs.
M
ountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
33 Households earning less than 30 percent AMI are also referred to as extremely low-income (ELI) households and have an increased risk of homelessness which is further compounded for households experiencing one or more of the four severe housing problems.
In Mountain View, 2018 CHAS data indicates that there were 4,365 ELI households, of whom 1,325 were owners and 3,040 were renters. Overall, 2,760, or 63 percent of all ELI households experienced one or more of the four severe housing problems. The most common severe housing problem was severe housing cost burden with 2,370 households paying more than half of their income on housing costs.
Table 14 includes a breakdown of households earning less than 30 percent AMI by race and ethnicity and indicates whether the household experienced one or more of the four severe housing problems. Of the 2,760 ELI households who experienced at least one of the four severe housing problems, 45 percent were White, 23 percent were Asian, 2 percent were Black/African American, and 28 percent were Hispanic (of any race). When disaggregated by race/ethnicity, Pacific Islander households had the lowest share of households experiencing a severe housing problem within the same race/ethnicity (0 percent). It is important to note that there were only 10 ELI Pacific Islander households included in the CHAS data and that none experienced a severe housing problem. Similarly, the sample size for ELI American Indian/Alaskan Native households was zero. The small sample sizes for each group mean that the CHAS estimates may not accurately represent the housing needs of these populations within the community.
M ountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
34 Table 14: S evere Housing Problems by Race/Ethnicity Among ELI Households Race/Ethnicity
ELI Households
# With One or
More Severe
Housing
Problems
# Without
Severe Housing
Problems
Total ELI
Households
American Indian or Alaska Native,
non-Hispanic
0 0 0
Asian alone, non-Hispanic 635 400 1,035
Black or African American, non-
Hispanic
65 35 100
Pacific Islander alone, non-Hispanic 0 10 10
White alone, non-Hispanic 1,255 930 2,185
Hispanic, any race 775 210 985
Total 2,760 1,605 4,365
Data source: CHAS data, 2018
Figure 8 depicts which race and ethnicity may be experiencing disproportionately greater need in Mountain View by comparing the share of ELI households with at least one severe housing problem to the share of those who are not experiencing a severe housing problem for each race and ethnicity. CHAS data uses the race/ethnicity of the head of household who provided data on behalf of the household as a proxy for the race/ethnicity of the household. Disproportionately greater need occurs if a specific race or ethnicity at a given income level experiences housing problems at a rate that is at least 10 percentage points higher than the income level as a whole. Figure 8 indicates that among all ELI households in Mountain View, 63 percent experienced one or more severe housing problems. When disaggregated by race and ethnicity, 57 percent of ELI White households and 61 percent of ELI Asian households had a severe housing problem, whereas 65 percent of Black/African American households and 79 percent of Hispanic households had a severe housing problem. The data suggests that among ELI households with one or more severe housing problems, Hispanic households were disproportionately impacted by severe housing problems relative to the population as a whole. Since the rate of ELI households in Mountain View experiencing one or more severe housing problems is 63 percent, and 79 percent of Hispanic households have at least one severe housing problem, this population is experiencing disproportionately greater need.
M
ountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
35 Figure 8: Share of ELI Households With and Without Severe Housing Problems by Ra
ce/Ethnicity
% with one or more severe housing problems % without a severe housing problem All
White alone, non-Hispanic
Black or African-American alone, non-Hispanic
Asian alone, non-Hispanic
Pacific Islander alone, non-Hispanic
Hispanic, any race
63% 37%
57% 43%
65% 35%
61% 39%
100%
79% 21%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
% of Households
Data source: CHAS data, 2018
Table 15 explores the demographic composition of ELI households experiencing one or more severe housing problems by tenure. Overall, 75 percent of households in this population were renters and 25 percent were owners.
Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
36 Table 15: Race/Ethnicity of E LI Households With Severe Housing Problems by Tenure Race/Ethnicity
ELI Households
With One or More Severe Housing Problems
Owners Renters Total
American Indian or Alaska Native
alone, non-Hispanic
0 0 0
Asian alone, non-Hispanic 130 505 635
Black/African American, non-Hispanic 0 65 65
Pacific Islander alone, non-Hispanic 0 0 0
White alone, non-Hispanic 475 780 1,255
Hispanic, any race 100 675 775
Total 700 2,060 2,760
Data source: CHAS data, 2018
Figure 9 depicts the percentage of households by tenure, race, and ethnicity and indicates that there was wide variation in housing tenure across race and ethnicity. Specifically, 100 percent of ELI Black/African American households with at least one severe housing problem were renters whereas this figure was 62 percent for ELI White households and 80 percent for ELI Asian households. Variations in housing tenure by race and ethnicity have implications for the types of housing assistance that could be provided to mitigate housing problems or lower housing cost burden.
Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
37 Figure 9: Percentage of ELI Households With Severe Housing Problems by Tenure and Race/Ethnicity
Owner Renter
All
White alone, non-Hispanic
Black or African-American alone, non-Hispanic
Asian alone, non-Hispanic
Hispanic, any race
25%
38%
20%
13%
75%
62%
100%
80%
87%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
% of Households
C
HAS data from 2018 also indicates that among ELI severely cost-burd ened households, the three most common household types were small family, elderly/non-family, and other households. Table 16 includes a breakdown of household types included in CHAS data.
Families are defined as related individuals living together in the same household. CHAS data include the following household types:
• Small families: two- to four-person households.
• Large families: five or more people.
• Elderly families: two people, with either or both aged 62 or over. • Elderly non-family: unrelated individuals over age 62. • Other (non-elderly, non-family): could include unrelated individuals living together, or people living alone, who are under age 62.
In 2018, there were 775 ELI severely cost-burdened small-family households, 680 elderly/non-family households, and 1,005 other households. The majority of households were renters for all household types except for elderly families, of which 51 percent were owners.
Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
38 Table 16: Household Types of ELI Households With Severe Housing Cost Burden by Tenure Household Type
ELI Households
With Severe Housing Cost Burden
Owners Renters Total
Elderly family 80 55 135
Small family 105 670 775
Large family 30 95 125
Elderly non-family 255 425 680
Other (non-elderly, non-family) 230 775 1,005
Total 700 2,020 2,720
Data source: CHAS data, 2018
Lastly, CHAS data provides estimates on the number of ELI households with one or more housing problems that include an individual with a disability. Table 17 outlines the number of severely cost-burdened households by disability type. CHAS data only provides information for renter and total households, and it is not possible to calculate the number of owner households using this data because it is unknown whether any households were excluded from the analysis if, for example, severe housing cost burden could not be computed.
Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
39 Table 17: Household Types of ELI Households With Severe Housing Cost Burden by Tenure Disability Status
ELI Households
With Housing Problems
Renters Total
Household member has a hearing or vision
impairment
155 295
Household member has an ambulatory
limitation
445 535
Household member has a cognitive limitation 155 260
Household member has a self-care or
independent living limitation
400 570
Household has none of the above limitations 1,865 2,520 Data source: CHAS data, 2018
The data indicate that the most prevalent type of disability among ELI households with one or more housing problems was for self-care or independent living limitations, followed by ambulatory limitations. While it is unclear the extent to which these households overlap, the data suggests that a large number of ELI renter households in Mountain View would benefit from affordable housing options that are accessible to individuals with self-care needs or physical limitations.
M
cKinney-Vento Data on Students Experiencing Homelessness I
n addition to analyzing CHAS data, Mountain View collected data from the U.S. Department of Education on student homelessness for school year 2019–2020 for enrolled students in pre-K through grade 12. Data from the EDFacts Initiative includes information collected by local educational agencies on the number of enrolled students experiencing homelessness and provides insight into households with enrolled students who may not meet the HOME- ARP definition for Individuals Experiencing Homelessness QP but meet the definition for the Individuals At Risk of Homelessness QP. This is because the definition for homelessness used by the Department of Education is broader than the definition used by HUD.
Specifically, homeless persons are defined as individuals lacking a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence and include the following conditions:
• Children and youth who are sharing housing with others due to loss of housing, an economic hardship, or a similar reason; are living in motels, hotels, trailer parks, or M
ountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
40 camping grounds because they lack alternative accommodations; are living in emergency or transitional shelters; or were abandoned in hospitals. • Children and youth whose primary nighttime residence is a public or private place not meant for human habitation.
• Children and youth who are living in cars, parks, public spaces, abandoned buildings, substandard housing, bus or train stations, or similar settings. • Migratory children who qualify as homeless because the children are living in the circumstances described above.
Although EDFacts data provide useful information to estimate the number of enrolled students experiencing homelessness, it is important to note several factors that have likely influenced the accuracy of the data. In order to comply with federal laws to protect the privacy of student education records, data elements in the EDFacts data are suppressed if the count of students is low. This is to prevent data users from identifying students using demographic information when counts are low and suggests that counts may under- represent the true extent of student homelessness. Another factor influencing data collection on student homelessness was the COVID-19 pandemic. The 2019–2020 school year witnessed the beginning of the pandemic and the transition to online learning for many across the country. For students experiencing homelessness, the shift to online learning may have prevented some students from staying connected to their schools. At the same time, the pandemic also led to new sources of federal funding including resources to help schools identify and assist homeless students. This likely contributed to a reduction in the number of homeless students during the school year. It is unclear the full extent to which these factors have impacted the accuracy of the EDFacts data for the 2019– 2020 school year.
Table 18 summarizes the EDFacts data from the 2019–2020 school year for students enrolled at schools within the Mountain View Whisman School District (MVWSD) and the Mountain View—Los Altos Union High School District (MVLA). The Los Altos School District also serves students living in Mountain View; however, the SY 2019–2020 data on enrolled students experiencing homelessness who attend the Los Altos School District has been completely suppressed, which indicates that there are low numbers of enrolled students experiencing homelessness at this school district. The analysis in this section therefore only includes data on enrolled students at MVWSD and MVLA.
The data indicates that there were 240 enrolled students experiencing homelessness in Mountain View, representing 2.5 percent of all enrolled students in the City. Of these students, 185 attended school in MVWSD and 55 attended school in MVLA. Although data for several race categories have been suppressed, the available data indicate that almost all students experiencing homelessness in each school district identified as Hispanic or Latino. Specifically, Hispanic students made up 90 percent of students experiencing M ountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
41 homelessness at MVWSD although Hispanic students comprised 35 percent of the overall student population in the district. Similarly, at MVLA, 89 percent of students experiencing homelessness were Hispanic although Hispanic students made up 26 percent of the overall student population.
Table 18: Race/Ethnicity of Enrolled Students Experiencing Homelessness Compared to the Total Student Population in Mountain View
E
nrolled Student
Race/Ethnicity
Mountain View Whisman
# Homeless
Students
# Total
Stude
nts
Mountain View—Los
Altos Union High
# Homeless
Students
# Total
Students
American Indian or Alaska
Native 0 3 0 5
Asian 4 1,052 S 1,144
Black/African American S 71 S 56
Native Hawaiian or Pacific
Islander 4 27 0 21
Two or mo re races S 645 S 455
White 6 1,507 S 1,692
Hispanic/Latino* 167 1,777 49 1,175
Total 185 5,082 55 4,548
Data source: EDFacts Initiative, SY 2019–2020 (homeless students). Common Core Data, SY 2019– 2020 (total students)
*Note: Data from EDFacts and Common Core Data classify Hispanic/Latino as a race category, unlike CHAS data which considers Hispanic as an ethnicity that is a distinct category from race groups. An “S” represents data that have been suppressed to protect student privacy.
Table 19 provides additional information on subpopulations among students experiencing homelessness as well as the places of nighttime residence. Of the 240 students experiencing homelessness, the largest subpopulation was for students with limited English proficiency who comprised 62 percent of students experiencing homelessness in MVWSD and 35 percent of students experiencing homelessness in MVLA. There were fewer students experiencing homelessness who had a disability, no reported migratory students, and an undisclosed number of unaccompanied youths. In terms of nighttime residence, the data indicates that 79 percent of homeless students in Mountain View were doubled up Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
42 with another household, 10 percent stayed in a shelter or TH, 10 percent were unsheltered, and 1 percent lived in a hotel or motel.
Table 19: Students Experiencing Homelessness in Mountain View by Subpopulation Subpopulations Mountain View
Whisman
Mountain View—
Los Altos Union
High
Children with one or more disabilities 32 9
Limited English proficiency 115 19
Migratory students 0 0
Unaccompanied youth S S
Nighttime Residence Mountain View
Whisman
Mountain View—
Los Altos Union
High
Doubled up with another household 151 39
Hotel or motel 3 0
Shelters and TH 11 13
Unsheltered 20 3
Data source: EDFacts Initiative, SY 2019–2020
*Note: An “S” represents data that have been suppressed to protect student privacy.
Figure 10 shows the breakdown of nighttime residence by school district. The pie charts indicate that 82 percent of students experiencing homelessness in MVWSD doubled up with another household while this figure was 71 percent for students at MVLA. In addition, 24 percent of students at MVLA resided in a hotel or motel while this figure was 6 percent for students at MVWSD. The data suggests that most students experiencing homelessness rely on doubling up with other households and fewer households reside in shelters, TH, or unsheltered situations such as cars, parks, public spaces, or other places not meant for human habitation. Some of the households living in unsheltered situations may be residing in one of the City-funded Safe Parking Program parking lots for homeless individuals living in vehicles. The City funds five parking lots that can host up to 68 oversized vehicles and 33 passenger cars and provides onsite services including hygiene facilities and medical unit visits. While not a long-term housing solution, these programs provide services to meet the immediate needs of individuals living in unstable situations.
Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
43 Figure 10: Percentage of Nighttime Residence for Enrolled Students Experiencing H
omelessness by School District
Data source: EDFacts Initiative, SY 2019–2020
Differences in the percentage of nighttime residence across MVWSD and MVLA may reflect the proximity and availability of various programs, shelters, and resources in the community. For example, the larger percentage of student households residing in shelters and TH at MVLA relative to MVWSD could suggest that shelters and TH are more readily available to student households attending MVLA than those attending MVWSD. While it is not possible to determine the unmet need for shelter and housing programs of student households using the EDFacts data alone, this data is useful for understanding where students experiencing homelessness reside at night.
SCCHA Data on Voucher Recipients in Mountain View
The City also analyzed data on households receiving rental assistance in Mountain View from the SCCHA. In 2021, SCCHA assisted 541 individuals comprising 370 households with Section 8 vouchers in Mountain View. Table 20 provides a demographic breakdown of SCCHA voucher recipient households with a Mountain View address. The sex and race/ethnicity information in the table represents the demographic information for the heads of households.
The data show that of the 370 households that received vouchers from SCCHA in Mountain View, 202 (55 percent) had a female head of household and 168 (45 percent) had a male head of household. The majority of households (71 percent) only included one person and 86 percent were ELI households. In addition, 63 percent of households had a head of household that identified as White, and 17 percent identified as Hispanic. The data also indicate that 58 percent of households included an individual who is elderly, which is defined as being over age 62; 57 percent included an individual with a disability; and 42 percent included one or more individuals who were elderly and disabled. Lastly, there were 36 (10 percent) households that included youth.
Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
44 Table 20: Demographic Information of SCCHA Voucher Recipient Households Living in Mountain View
S
ex
Voucher Recipient Households
(Total=370)
# %
Male 168 45%
Female 202 55%
Race/Ethnicity
Voucher Recipient Households
# %
White 233 63%
Black/African American 54 15%
American Indian, Native American, Indigenous 12 3%
Asian/Asian-American 64 17%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 7 2%
Hispanic (any race) 64 17%
Income Category
Voucher Recipient Households
# %
Extremely low-income (0–30% AMI) 319 86%
Very low-income (31–50% AMI) 36 10%
Moderate income (51–80% AMI) 9 2%
Above moderate income (Above 80% AMI) 6 2%
Household Size
Voucher Recipient Households
# #
1-person 2
64 71%
2-person 71 19%
3 -person 18 5%
4 -person 9 2%
5+ p
eople 8 2%
Subpopulations
Voucher Recipient Households
# %
Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
45 Household includes elderly member 216 58%
Household includes a member with a disability 211 57%
Household includes elderly and disabled
member(s) 156 42%
Household includes youth 36 10%
Data source: HMIS, 2021
Figure 11 depicts the preferred language of SCCHA voucher recipient households in Mountain View. Over three-fourths of households preferred to speak English at home. The second most common preferred language was Russian which accounted for 43 households (12 percent). Three percent of households preferred to speak Mandarin, Spanish, and Vietnamese, respectively, and less than ten households preferred to speak either Cantonese, Farsi, or Bulgarian. While preference for a language other than English does not necessarily mean that a household has limited English proficiency, it is possible that there is need for translation services or culturally specific resources for individuals or households who have limited English proficiency.
Figure 11: Preferred Language of SCCHA Voucher Recipient Households in Mountain View English, 76%
Russian, 12%
Mandarin, 3%
Spanish, 3%
Vietnamese, 3%
Cantonese, 2%
Farsi, 1%
Bulgarian, 0.3%
Mountain View Data on the City’s Eviction Prevention Program Lastly, the City analyzed data on the number of individuals and households served through its Eviction Prevention Program. The program is part of the City’s Housing and Eviction Help Center, which connects landlords and tenants in Mountain View with services to reduce evictions and connect the community with housing resources. Community members can Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
46 access information, receive one-on-one support, and connect with services provided by partner organizations by attending clinics, webinars, and pop-up events sponsored by the program.
From August 2021 to June 2022, the Eviction Prevention Program assisted 343 households and a total of 832 individuals in Mountain View with services to avoid and reduce evictions.
Of the households assisted, 54 percent had annual incomes below $25,000, 70 percent had three or more people in their household, and 87 percent heard about services via the community. Of the individuals served, 85 percent spoke a primary language other than English and required translation assistance. The most commonly spoken language by assisted individuals was Spanish (82 percent), followed by English (15 percent), Russian (2 percent), Chinese (1 percent), and other (less than 1 percent).
On average, assisted households were 2.4 months behind on their rent and 26 percent of those served had already received a termination notice. The most commonly cited reason for eviction was a failure to pay rent. Of the 363 households served, 241 (66 percent) applied for the City’s Rent Relief Program and 98 households received assistance from the City for an average of 2.4 months. There were also 171 individuals who requested and received legal assistance through the program. While there is not much demographic information available on the individuals and households assisted through the City’s Eviction Prevention Program, the data available indicate that the City is serving a segment of the population that is ELI, requires English translation assistance, and is at risk of housing instability due to eviction.
Persons Fleeing or Attempting to Flee Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, Stalking, or Human Trafficking
To estimate the size and demographic composition of persons fleeing or attempting to flee domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, stalking, and human trafficking, Mountain View gathered and analyzed data from several sources, as there is no single data source that aligns with all components of this QP definition.
As with other data sources used for the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan, it is not possible to deduplicate across multiple sources to estimate the number of unique individuals in a QP.
In addition, data on individuals experiencing domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, stalking, and human trafficking is notoriously difficult to locate, for several reasons. For one, individuals who experience these types of traumas may not report incidents to law enforcement or other reporting agencies for fear of retaliation from perpetrators, not being believed, losing their housing, being shamed, or other potential repercussions. In other cases, individuals, advocates, and service providers may take intentional steps to limit publicly available information on individuals who have M
ountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
47 experienced such trauma in order to protect their privacy and increase safety. These data limitations imply that estimates likely represent a fraction of the true population experiencing domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, stalking, and human trafficking in Mountain View. Therefore, for the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan, the City pieced together various data sources to best estimate the size and demographic composition of individuals in this group.
Individuals Experiencing Homelessness Who Are Fleeing Domestic Violence HMIS data from 2021 provides additional insight into the demographic composition of individuals who were experiencing both domestic violence and homelessness. In calendar year 2021, 179 individuals experiencing homelessness self-reported that they had experienced domestic violence and 55 indicated that they were fleeing domestic violence at the time of program enrollment. Table 21 outlines the demographic composition for each group and indicates that the sex, age, and race/ethnicity breakdown was similar for survivors of domestic violence and those fleeing domestic violence. The extent of overlap between survivors and those fleeing is unknown with the data provided.
Table 21: Demographic Information of Individuals Experiencing Homelessness With Self- Reported Domestic Violence Experience
Sex
Self-Report
ed Survivors
of Domestic
Violence
(Total=179)
#
Individuals % Total
S
elf-Reported Fleeing
Domestic Vi
olence
(Total=55)
#
Individuals % Total
Male 62 35% 14 25%
Fe
male 114 64% 39 71%
Transgender, non-binary, or
questioning 1 0% 1 2%
Data not collected 0 0% 1 2%
Race/Ethnicity
Self-Reported Survivors
of Domestic Violence
#
Individuals % Total
Self-Reported Fleeing
Domestic Violence
#
Individuals % Total
Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
48 American Indian/Native
American 8 4% 2 4%
Asian/Asian American 12 7% 4 7%
Black/African American 24 13% 9 16%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 5 3% 2 4%
Multiracial 11 6% 2 4%
White 107 60% 31 56%
Race data not collected 12 7% 5 9%
Hispanic (any race) 64 36% 15 27%
Age Group
Self-Reported Survivors
of Domestic Violence
#
Individuals % Total
Self-Reported Fleeing
Domestic Violence
#
Individuals % Total
18 –24 2 1% 0 0%
25 –34 26 15% 8 15%
35–44 44 25% 15 27%
45–54 52 29% 15 27%
55 or above 55 31% 17 31%
M
ountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
49 Household Type
Self-Reported Survivors
of Domestic Violence
#
Individuals % Total
Self-Reported Fleeing
Domestic Violence
#
Individuals % Total
Single adult 148 83% 42 76%
Household with children 21 12% 11 20%
Household without children 10 6% 2 4%
Data source: HMIS data, 2021
When comparing survivors of domestic violence to those fleeing domestic violence, there was a higher share of single adults among survivors relative to those fleeing, which included a higher percentage of households with children. Among both groups, the majority of individuals were female, although there was a higher share of survivors who were male compared to individuals fleeing domestic violence. For race and ethnicity, the demographic composition of survivors and those currently fleeing was closely aligned; however, there was a greater percentage of survivors identifying as Hispanic (of any race) compared to those fleeing. Lastly, HMIS data indicates that about one-third of survivors and those fleeing domestic violence were over age 55.
Client Data from Next Door Solutions on Individuals Fleeing Domestic Violence City staff requested data from organizations serving victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, and human trafficking to better understand the size and demographic composition of this QP. One organization that provided data is Next Door Solutions to Domestic Violence which is a nonprofit based in San Jose that provides crisis intervention services, legal support, housing, shelter, and supportive services to individuals experiencing domestic violence in the Santa Clara County region. In program year 2021– 2022, Next Door Solutions assisted 56 low-income Mountain View residents who identified as victims and/or survivors of domestic violence. Next Door provided these individuals with services including systems advocacy, case management, and support services. During the fourth quarter of program year 2021–2022, Next Door assisted five Mountain View residents through multiple support group sessions; 15 residents through their hotline; nine residents with crisis intervention services that included risk assessments, safety planning, and legal advocacy; and one resident with housing assistance and case management. Table 22 provides the demographic information of the Mountain View residents who received services from Next Door Solutions in program year 2021–2022.
Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
50 Table 22: Demographic Information of Mountain View Residents Served by Next Door Solutions
R
ace/Ethnicity
Mountain View Residents
Total Individuals=56
# Individuals % Total
American Indian/Native American 0 0%
Asian/Asian American 8 14%
Black/African American 0 0%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 1 2%
Multiracial 0 0%
White 47 84%
Hispanic (any race) 32 57%
Mountain View Residents
Total Individuals=56 Income Group
# Individuals
52 1
3 0
Mountain View Residents
Tota l Individuals=56 Subpop
ulations
# Individuals
56 0
0 0
untai
n View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
% Total
Extremely low-income (0–30% AMI) 93%
Low-
income (31–50% AMI) 2%
Moderate income (51–80% AMI) 5%
Above moderate income (Above 80% AMI) 0%
% Total
Victims of domestic violence 100%
Veterans 0%
Elderly
HIV/AIDS posi tive
0%
0%
Mo
Need
s Assessment and Gaps Analysis
51 Homeless 3 5%
Chronically homeless 0 0%
Household Type
Mountain View Residents
Total Households=43
# Households % Total
Female-headed households 40 93%
Male-headed households 3 7%
Data source: City of Mountain View CDBG Public Services Performance Report for Next Door Solutions to Domestic Violence, 2021
The program data indicates that of the 56 individuals served in Mountain View, 84 percent were White, 57 percent identified as Hispanic, and 14 percent were Asian. In addition, 93 percent of assisted households earned less than 30 percent AMI and three were experiencing homelessness. Almost all households (93 percent) were female-headed households. Considering that only three individuals served by Next Door Solutions were also experiencing homelessness, there is likely not much overlap between Next Door Solutions’ clients and the individuals experiencing homelessness who were fleeing domestic violence captured in the 2021 HMIS data.
Data on Domestic Violence Related Calls for Service in Mountain View The City also analyzed data from the California Department of Justice Criminal Justice Statistics Center which publishes monthly statistics on Domestic Violence Related Calls for Service (DVRCS) collected from local enforcement entities across the state. DVRCS defines “domestic violence” as “abuse committed against an adult or a fully emancipated minor who is a spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant, or person with whom the suspect has had a child or is having or has had a dating or engagement relationship.” “Abuse” is further defined as “intentionally or recklessly causing or attempting to cause bodily injury or placing another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily injury to himself, herself, or another.” DVRCS data includes cases that resulted in the reporting local enforcement agency writing a report, which means that the data includes cases where an arrest was made and cases where there was a call for assistance, but no arrest.
Figure 12 depicts the number of monthly calls made to local law enforcement entities in Mountain View that were related to domestic violence from 2019 to 2021. The bar chart indicates that there was considerable monthly variation in the number of DVRCS over the past three years in Mountain View. In October 2019, for example, there were 19 cases Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
52 related to domestic violence that involved law enforcement and in the following month, the
re were six. In total, there were 140 cases in 2019, 121 in 2020, and 134 in 2021. While the state does not publish demographic information on the individuals involved in DVRCS, the data on cases in Mountain View provides a glimpse into the prevalence of domestic violence incidents from the perspective of law enforcement.
Figure 12: Monthly Domestic Violence Related Calls for Service in Mountain View (2019– 2021)
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 # of DVRCS in Mountain View
19 16 16 16 16
15 14 14
12 12 12 12 12 12
13 13 13
11 10
11 10
11 11
9 9 9 9 9
8 9 9
7 6
5 2 3
January
February
March
Q1
April
May
Q2
June
July
August
September
Q3
2019
October
November
December
Q4
January
February
March
Q1
April
May
June
July
August
September
Q2 Q3
2020
October
November
December
Q4
January
February
Q1
March
Q2 Q3
2021
April
May
June
July
August
September
Q4 October
November
December
Da
ta from the South Bay Coalition to End Human Trafficking Cit
y staff reviewed information from the South Bay Coalition to End Human Trafficking (SBCEHT) to better understand the size and demographic composition of persons fleeing or attempting to flee human trafficking in the Santa Clara County region. SBCEHT is an advocacy and service organization working in Santa Clara and San Benito counties to provide services to victims of human trafficking; promote community education and outreach on human trafficking; and provide training opportunities to service providers, law enforcement, and other critical agencies to build local capacity to respond to and identify human trafficking survivors.
In its 2021 Annual Report, SBCEHT reported that it served 362 survivors of human trafficking or individuals at risk of human trafficking in Santa Clara and San Benito counties.
Figure 13 provides a demographic overview of these individuals and indicates that 236 (65 percent) were under the age of 25 and 144 (40 percent) were under the age of 18. Most victims identified as cisgender female (82 percent). The largest ethnicity among victims of human trafficking was Hispanic/Latino, which accounted for 171 individuals (47 percent).
Mountain View HOM
E-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
53 The most common type of victimization was for sex trafficking, which accounted for 41 percent of individuals who received services from SBCEHT and includes minors, transitional-aged youth, and adults. In addition, SBCEHT served 151 children or youth who were at risk of sexual exploitation. Lastly, 55 individuals were victims of labor trafficking.
Figure 13: Demographic Overview for Victims of Human Trafficking Served by SBCEHT SBCEHT also reported that 233 clients, or 64 percent of individuals served, were from the United States. For individuals who were not from the United States, the two most common countries of origin were India, which accounted for 32 individuals (9 percent), and Mexico, which accounted for 25 individuals (7 percent). Lastly, 280 clients (77 percent) spoke English as their primary language while 57 (16 percent) spoke Spanish. Other reported primary languages included Chinese, Tagalog, Korean, Vietnamese, and Triqui.
Other populations requiring services or housing assistance to prevent homelessness and other populations at greatest risk of housing instability.
The fourth HOME-ARP QP is for “other populations” for whom providing supportive services or assistance would prevent homelessness or would serve those with the greatest risk of Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
54 housing instability. To estimate the size and demographic composition of this QP, Mountain View analyzed several data sources, including 2018 CHAS data on households earning between 30–50 percent AMI who are experiencing one or more of the four severe housing problems captured in the data. The City also collected data from the 2016–2020 five-year estimates from the ACS for information on veterans in Mountain View who are living below the poverty line and analyzed data on the individuals receiving rental assistance from CSA in 2022.
C
HAS Data on Very Low-Income Households
C
HAS data align with parts of the HOME-ARP definition for other populations at greatest risk of homelessness or housing instability that earn 30–50 percent AMI and are experiencing one or more of the four severe housing problems captured in CHAS data.
Households earning 30–50 percent AMI, also referred to as very low-income (VLI) households, can be at risk of homelessness, particularly if they are experiencing one or more of the four severe housing problems.
In 2018, CHAS data indicate that there were 2,625 VLI households in Mountain View. Of these households, about one-third (32 percent) were owners and two-thirds (68 percent) were renters. Of all VLI households, 1,410 or 54 percent experienced one or more of the four severe housing problems. The most common severe housing problem faced by this population was severe housing cost burden, with 1,035 households spending over half of their income on housing costs.
Table 23 includes a breakdown of the City’s VLI households by race/ethnicity and indicates whether the household experienced one or more of the four severe housing problems. Of the 1,410 VLI households who experienced one or more severe housing problems, 38 percent were Hispanic (of any race), 38 percent were White, 22 percent were Asian, and 0.3 percent were Black/African American. It is important to note that the sample sizes for VLI American Indian/Alaska Native and Pacific Islander households were zero and therefore may not accurately represent the housing needs of these communities in Mountain View.
Similarly, the CHAS data indicate that four VLI Black/African American households experienced a severe housing problem; however, the CHAS estimates may not fully capture the size and severity of needs facing this segment of the population.
M ountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
55 Table 23: Presence of Severe Housing Problems by Race/Ethnicity Among VLI Households Race/Ethnicity
VLI Households
# With One or
More Severe
Housing Problems
# Without Severe
Housing Problems
Total VLI
Households
American Indian or Alaska Native,
non-Hispanic 0 0 0
Asian alone, non-Hispanic 315 240 555
Black or African American, non-
Hispanic 4 95 99
Pacific Islander alone, non-Hispanic 0 0 0
White alone, non-Hispanic 540 625 1,165
Hispanic, any race 535 240 775
Total 1,410 1,215 2,625
Data Source: CHAS data, 2018
Figure 14 depicts which race and ethnicity may be experiencing disproportionately greater need in Mountain View by comparing the share of VLI households with at least one severe housing problem to the share of those who are not experiencing a severe housing problem for each race and ethnicity. CHAS data uses the race/ethnicity of the head of household who provided data on behalf of the household as a proxy for the race/ethnicity of the household. Disproportionately greater need occurs if a specific race or ethnicity at a given income level experiences housing problems at a rate that is at least 10 percentage points higher than the income level as a whole. Figure 14 indicates that among all VLI households in Mountain View, 54 percent experienced one or more severe housing problems. When disaggregated by race and ethnicity, VLI Hispanic households were disproportionately impacted by severe housing problems relative to their share of the population. Since the rate of VLI households experiencing a severe housing problem in Mountain View is 54 percent, and 69 percent of VLI Hispanic households have at least one severe housing problem, this population is experiencing disproportionately greater need.
M
ountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
56 Figure 14: Sha re of VLI Households With and Without Severe Housing Problems by Race/Ethnicity
% with one or more severe housing problems % without a severe housing problem All
White alone, non-Hispanic
Black or African-American alone, non-Hispanic
Asian alone, non-Hispanic
Hispanic, any race
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
% of Households
54% 46%
46% 54%
4% 96%
57% 43%
69% 31%
T
able 24 explores the demographic composition of VLI ho useholds experiencing one or more severe housing problems by tenure. Overall, 88 percent of VLI households with a severe housing problem were renters and 12 percent were owners. Interestingly, the share of owners was higher for households with severe housing problems earning less than 30 percent AMI (25 percent) than it was for households with severe housing problems earning 31–50 percent AMI (12 percent).
Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
57 Table 24: Race/Ethnicity of VLI Households With Severe Housing Problems by Tenure Race/Ethnicity
VLI Households
With One or More Severe Housing Problems
Owners Renters Total
American Indian or Alaska Native
alone, non-Hispanic 0 0 0
Asian alone, non-Hispanic 50 265 315
Black/African American, non-Hispanic 0 4 4
Pacific Islander alone, non-Hispanic 0 0 0
White alone, non-Hispanic 105 435 540
Hispanic, any race 20 515 535
Total 175 1,235 1,410
Data source: CHAS data, 2018
Figure 15 depicts the percentage of households by tenure and race/ethnicity and indicates that 100 percent of VLI Black/African American households experiencing a severe housing problem were renters, whereas this figure was 96 percent for Hispanic (any race) households, 84 percent for VLI Asian households, and 81 percent for VLI White households.
Variations in housing tenure by race and ethnicity have implications for the types of housing assistance that could be provided to mitigate housing problems or lower housing cost burden.
M
ountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
58 Figure 15: P ercentage of VLI Households With Severe Housing Problems by Tenure and Race/Ethnicity
Owner Renter
All
White alone, non-Hispanic
Black or African-American alone, non-Hispanic
Asian alone, non-Hispanic
Hispanic, any race
12%
19%
16%
4%
88%
81%
100%
84%
96%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
% of Households
Data source: CHAS data, 2018
CHAS data from 2018 also indicate that among VLI severely cost-burdened households, the three most common household types were other (non-elderly, nonfamily), small family, and elderly nonfamily households. Table 25 includes a breakdown of household types included in the CHAS data. Families are defined as related individuals living together in the same household and include the following types:
• Small families: two- to four-person households.
• Large families: five or more people.
• Elderly families: two people, with either or both aged 62 or over. • Elderly non-family: unrelated individuals, over age 62. • Other (non-elderly, non-family): could include unrelated individuals living together, or people living alone, who are under age 62.
In 2018, there were 445 VLI severely cost-burdened other households, 375 small families, and 160 elderly nonfamily households in Mountain View. Of these households, 100 percent of large families, 96 percent of other households, and 93 percent of small families were renters. Conversely, 56 percent of elderly households and 56 percent of elderly nonfamilies were owner households. Although a majority of VLI households paying over half of their income on housing costs were renters (86 percent), 14 percent were owners, and many include elderly household members.
Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
59 Table 25: Household Types of VLI Households With Severe Housing Cost Burden by Tenure Household Type
VLI Households
With Severe Housing Cost Burden
Owners Renters Total
Elderly family 35 45 80
Small family 25 350 375
Large family 0 80 80
Elderly non-family 70 90 160
Other (non-elderly, non-family) 20 425 445
Total 150 990 1,035
Data source: CHAS data, 2018
Veterans Living Below the Poverty Line
Data from the ACS provides additional information on the number of veterans in Mountain View who are living below the poverty line. Although veterans are not a distinct HOME-ARP QP, HUD Notice: CPD-21-10 states that veterans and their households that meet the criteria for one of the QPs are eligible to receive HOME-ARP assistance.
In 2020, there were 1,521 veterans in Mountain View, of whom 43 (3 percent) were living below the federal poverty level. Of the veterans living below the poverty line, 41 had a disability, 28 were over age 65, and 27 were both over age 65 and had a disability.
Table 26: Veterans Living Below the Poverty Line in Mountain View Veterans in Mountain View # Individuals
Total Veterans 1,521
Veterans below the federal poverty line 43
Veterans below the federal poverty line with a disability 41 Veterans below the federal poverty line over age 65 28
Veterans below the federal poverty line over age 65 with a disability 27 Data source: ACS data, 2016–2020 5-Year Estimates
Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
60 Individuals Served by CSA Rental Assistance
T
he City of Mountain View also reviewed available data from service providers to better understand the size and demographic composition of other populations at greatest risk of homelessness or housing instability. One organization serving the City, CSA, provides services to low-income residents of Mountain View, Los Altos, and Los Altos Hills to meet basic needs and promote stability. CSA’s services include emergency rent and utilities assistance, food and nutrition assistance, senior case management, homeless supportive services, and community outreach and engagement. The rental assistance program helps individuals for up to three months and caps support at $3,000 per month.
Client data on individuals who have applied for and are currently receiving CSA rental assistance provide useful information on the size and demographic composition of members of the Mountain View community who may fall within the “Other populations” HOME-ARP QP.
In FY 2021–2022, CSA assisted 1,144 individuals across 402 households in Mountain View.
Table 27 outlines the demographic information for those assisted and reveals that 39 percent of individuals were under age 18 and 79 percent identified as Hispanic. In addition, 86 percent of assisted households earned less than 30 percent AMI. The two most common reasons households provided for applying for rental assistance were economic hardship and medical emergency.
Table 27: Demographic Information of Individuals Assisted by CSA Rental Assistance in Mountain View, FY 2021–2022
Sex
Individuals Assisted by CSA in Mountain View
(Total=1,144)
# Individuals % Total
Male 534 47%
Female 610 53%
Age Group
Individuals Assisted by CSA in Mountain View
(Total=1,144)
# Individuals % Total
Under 18 441 39%
18–24 86 8%
25–54 511 45%
M
ountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
61 55+ 106 9%
Race/Ethnicity
Individuals Assisted by CSA in Mountain View
(Total=1,144)
# Individuals % Total
American Indian or Alaska Native 3 Less than 0%
Asian 65 6%
Black/African American 37 3%
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 7 1%
White 118 10%
Hispanic* 900 79%
Multiracial 14 1%
Income Level
Households Assisted by CSA in Mountain View
(Total=402)
# Households % Total
Less than 30% AMI 346 86%
30–50% AMI 31 8%
51–80% AMI 22 5%
81–120% AMI 3 1%
Data source: CSA program data, 2021
*Note: “Hispanic” is classified as a race category in this table So far in FY 2022–2023, CSA has served 180 individuals across 70 households. Table 28 outlines the demographic information for those who have received rental assistance and reveals that 32 percent of individuals were under age 18 and 73 percent identified as Hispanic. In addition, 93 percent of households earned less than 30 percent AMI. As with the households assisted in FY 2021–2022, the two most common reasons households provided for applying for rental assistance in FY 2022–2023 were economic hardship and medical emergency. CSA described how the end of the pandemic moratorium on evictions M
ountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
62 has led to an increase in three-day notices for eviction for late rental payments. As a result, CSA has witnessed a surge in individuals seeking rental assistance to avoid eviction.
Table 28: Demographic Information of Individuals Assisted by CSA Rental Assistance in Mountain View, FY 2022–2023
Sex
Individuals Assisted by CSA in Mountain View
(Total=180)
# Individuals Served % Total
Male 74 41%
Female 106 59%
Age Group
Individuals Assisted by CSA in Mountain View
(Total=180)
# Individuals Served % Total
Under 18 58 32%
18–24 16 9%
25–54 86 48%
55+ 20 11%
Race/Ethnicity
Individuals Assisted by CSA in Mountain View
(Total=180)
# Individuals Served % Total
American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0%
Asian 2 1%
Black/African American 11 6%
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 4 2%
White 29 16%
Hispanic* 131 73%
Multiracial 3 2%
M
ountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
63 Income Level
Households Assisted by CSA in Mountain View
(Total=70)
# Households Served % Total
Less than 30% AMI 65 93%
30–50% AMI 2 3%
51–80% AMI 3 4%
Data source: CSA program data, 2021
*Note: “Hispanic” is classified as a race category in this table Identify and consider the current resources available to assist the QPs, including congregate and non-congregate shelter (NCS) units, supportive services, Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA), and affordable and permanent supportive rental housing (Optional).
Affordable Housing Inventory
The City collected and analyzed local and state data on the inventory of affordable rental housing units in Mountain View to identify the community’s current resources for the HOME-ARP QPs. Data from the California Housing Partnership’s Affordable Housing Map provided an estimate for the number of state- and federally-assisted rental units in Mountain View, while data from the City and County provided additional insight into existing affordable rental housing in the community.
C
alifornia Housing Partnership Affordable Housing Map
T
he California Housing Partnership offers a publicly available mapping tool that provides information on state- and federally-funded affordable rental housing properties and units across the state. The Partnership’s database includes affordable rental properties that received subsidies from certain programs administered by HUD, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the California Housing Finance Agency, the California Department of Housing and Community Development, and the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program. The Partnership’s Affordable Housing Map Methodology outlines which specific state and federal subsidy programs are included in the affordable housing database. Since the database includes only certain state- and federally-funded affordable housing properties, it may not contain all existing assisted units in Mountain View.
For Mountain View, the mapping tool indicates that, in 2021, there were 1,391 state- and/or federally-funded affordable rental housing units across 19 properties in Mountain View.
Table 29 outlines the number of assisted units and properties by funding source and indicates that almost all assisted units (99 percent) were subsidized by Low-Income M
ountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
64 Housing Tax Credit, 29 percent were funded by a HUD program, and 16 percent were funded by a housing and community development program.
Table 29: State- and/or Federally-Funded Housing in Mountain View Funding Source # Assisted
Units
% Assisted
Units # Properties % Properties
Low-Income Housing
Tax Credit 1,375 99% 17 89%
HUD programs 409 29% 6 32%
Housing and
community
development
programs
228 16% 3 16%
Total 1,391 100% 19 100%
Data source: California Housing Partnership, 2021
Santa Clara County Supportive Housing Map
A
nother resource on the existing affordable rental housing inventory in Mountain View is Santa Clara County’s Supportive Housing Map. The County’s map shows the location of affordable housing developments that include supportive housing units, such as rapid rehousing (RRH) and permanent supportive housing (PSH), and includes four properties located in the City of Mountain View. Figure 16 provides a side-by-side comparison of the California Housing Partnership’s Affordable Housing Map and the County’s Supportive Housing Map and shows that there are only two properties in common between both maps. The two properties, which are represented by the greenhouse icons on the County’s map, include a total of 51 supportive housing units and 133 affordable units. The two properties represented by the purple houses on the County map are still in the pre- construction phase of development and will include a total of 52 supportive housing units and 168 affordable units.
M
ountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
65 Figure 16: Maps of Affordable Rental Housing Properties in Mountain View Map Key
Data source: California Housing Partnership, 2021 (left); Santa Clara County Supportive Housing Map, 2022 (right) Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
66 City of Mountain View Affordable Housing Inventory and Pipeline Another source for the City’s existing affordable rental housing units is Mountain View’s own inventory. Table 30 outlines the number of completed affordable rental units, units that have been approved by the City Council yet are still under construction, and anticipated units in the pipeline over the next five years. According to the City’s inventory, there are already 1,710 affordable rental units in Mountain View, about 752 additional units under development, and another 1,148 anticipated units to be developed over the next few years.
Table 30: Mountain View’s Affordable Rental Housing Inventory and Pipeline Unit Type Completed
Units
Approved Units
But Not Yet
Completed
Anticipated
Pipeline (Five
Years)
Below market rate
(30–120% AMI) 182 Approx. 379 TBD
100% affordable housing
developments (not including
supportive housing)
30–80% AMI
1,462 237 1,148
Supportive housing within 100%
affordable housing
developments
66 136 TBD
Total 1,710 Approx. 752 Approx. 1,148
Data source: City of Mountain View data, 2022
Since 2017, the City has funded over 500 units of affordable housing and plans to continue adding to the community’s stock in the years to come. In early 2022, the City entered into a memorandum of understanding with the County to fund up to 200 units of RRH and PSH in Mountain View. The memorandum of understanding utilizes the Measure A Affordable Housing Bond to generate funding for the acquisition, construction, or improvement of rental properties to provide housing for populations including individuals experiencing homelessness and individuals at risk of homelessness. These supportive housing units will connect individuals and households with case management, targeted supportive services, and rental subsidies to help them remain permanently housed.
Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
67 Data on Federally Assisted Units and Households
An additional source of information on federally assisted units and households in Mountain View is data from HUD’s Picture of Subsidized Households housing inventory. These data include HUD-funded public housing and units utilizing tenant-based and project-based rental assistance. Households or units subsidized by HOME or CDBG are not included in the data.
In 2021, the data indicates that there were up to 430 Housing Choice Vouchers available, and 299 units subsidized by Project-Based Section 8 vouchers. Of the available Housing Choice Vouchers, 91 percent were utilized by households and 96 percent of the Project- Based Section 8 units were occupied. Since the California Housing Partnership’s affordable housing inventory includes rental properties and units subsidized by Project-Based Section 8, the 299 units included in the Picture of Subsidized Households data are most likely also reflected in the 409 assisted units captured by the Partnership’s affordable housing inventory. Conversely, the households utilizing Housing Choice Vouchers would not be reflected in the Partnership’s inventory.
When comparing the 2021 Picture of Subsidized Households data for Mountain View to the 2022 program data provided by the SCCHA, the number of households in the City utilizing a voucher appears to have decreased. Specifically, the 2021 data indicates 400 households utilized a Housing Choice Voucher while the 2022 data indicates that 370 households were assisted. From the consultation sessions and survey, stakeholders mentioned seeing an increase in the number of voucher recipients being unable to locate and secure a unit that is affordable to them or will accept their voucher. The difference between the two datasets may reflect the challenges to utilizing a voucher in the private market.
City Housing Stabilization and Homelessness Prevention Programs In addition to developing affordable rental housing units, the City funds several housing programs aimed at enhancing housing stability and preventing homelessness for Mountain View residents. These initiatives include the City’s Rental Stabilization Program, Housing and Eviction Help Center, Homelessness Prevention initiatives, and funding for rental assistance. Table 31 outlines each program and describes the City’s efforts to connect individuals to community resources and promote housing stability.
Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
68 Table 31: City Programs to Enhance Housing Stability and Prevent Homelessness Program Description and Impact
Rent
Stabilization
Program
The Rent Stabilization Program implements the Community Stabilization and Fair Rent Act, which limits the annual change in rents for most rental developments in Mountain View containing three or more units built prior to 2017. The Program works with tenants and landlords to help stabilize rents and prevent evictions through services including community outreach, education, and mediation.
In 2022, the Program responded to a total of 782 inquiries from the public. Of these, 197 inquiries involved bilingual translation services and 167 were related to eviction protections. The Program also facilitated 45 mediation and conciliation sessions between tenants and landlords.
Housing and
Eviction Help
Center
The Housing and Eviction Help Center is a comprehensive set of outreach and coordination initiatives geared toward connecting community members with housing and service resources. The Program connects with tenants and landlords through clinics, webinars, and pop-up events to share information, provide one-on- one support, and connect individuals with services offered by partner organizations. Examples of activities include referring individuals to housing assistance programs; reviewing eviction notices and guiding landlords and tenants through the eviction process; connecting individuals to legal assistance services; and helping people access services such as food assistance, financial assistance, and homelessness prevention resources.
Homelessness
Prevention
For the past several years, the City has provided funding for case management, supportive services, and operating support for partner organizations working directly with individuals at risk of homelessness. Funding has helped enhance long-term housing stability for residents and connect individuals to a community support network.
Rental Assistance
and the City’s
COVID-19 Rent
Relief Program
In 2015, Mountain View first provided funding for a rental assistance program administered by CSA to help stabilize residents in the event of steep and/or unexpected rent increases. Later in 2020, the City created the Mountain View Rent Relief Program in response to COVID-19. This program was administered by CSA and provided up to $3,000/month for up to two months of assistance.
The program was available to Mountain View residents earning up to 80 percent AMI who had experienced financial hardship due to the pandemic. The program also helped connect eligible
households to other pandemic rental assistance programs including Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
69 Program Description and Impact
the Santa Clara County Rent Relief Program, which was targeted to ELI households, and the California Rent Relief Program, which provided up to 18 months of support to tenants and landlords impacted by the pandemic. Currently, the City provides funding for direct financial assistance to CSA to continue serving Mountain View residents.
Data source: City of Mountain View data, 2022
Shelter Inventory
The City also gathered and reviewed information on the existing shelter inventory to catalog available resources to meet the needs of the HOME-ARP QPs. A primary source was the 2021 Housing Inventory Count (HIC) data to estimate the number of shelter beds and units in Mountain View. The City also reviewed the capacity of its Safe Parking Program and interim housing units, as well as contributions to support ongoing services for individuals experiencing homelessness.
HIC Data
The 2021 HIC data provides an estimate for the number of ES, TH, and PSH beds located in Mountain View. Each facility has one geographic code (geocode) to indicate where the beds are located within the CoC. For facilities with scattered-site housing in multiple locations, the facility lists the geocode where the majority of beds are physically located. This means that the HIC estimate for the number of beds in Mountain View may not be the exact number of beds in the City if facilities include scattered-site housing.
Table 32 includes the number of shelter beds and units that have a Mountain View geocode or confirmed Mountain View address. The table includes the following bed and unit types:
• Family units: units for households with children.
• Family beds: beds for households with children.
• Adult-only beds: beds for households without children. • Child-only beds: beds for households with only children. • Veteran beds: beds for veterans and their households. • Youth beds: beds for youth aged 24 or younger.
• Chronic beds: beds for chronically homeless individuals. • Seasonal: beds available for part of the year.
• Total year-round beds: beds available for the entire year.
Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
70 The table indicates that there are a total of 221 beds in the City and 183 are available year- round. Of the year-round beds, 152 are ES beds, 23 are PSH, and five are TH. The most common type of bed is for households without children, which accounts for 73 percent of beds in the City. There are 40 beds available for households with only children, 18 beds for chronically homeless individuals, and no designated beds for youth. The YWCA is the only designated shelter for victims of domestic violence and provides 16 beds, most of which are for families.
Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
71 Table 32: HIC Beds in Mountain View
Project
Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
72 Type* Organization Project Name
Bed/Unit Type
Family
Units
Family
Beds
Adult-
Only
Beds
Child-
Only
Beds
Subset of Total Bed
Inventory
Veteran
Beds
Youth
Beds
Chronic
Beds
Seasonal
Total
Year-
Round
Beds
ES Bill Wilson
Center
Youth Shelter
North County 4 4
ES H omeFirst Mountain View
Nightly Shelter 38
ES LifeMoves Mountain View—
ES Families 36 36
ES L ifeMoves
Mountain View—
ES Singles and
Couples
96 96
ES YWCA of
Silicon Valley
YWCA—DV
Shelter 3 12 4 16
PSH
Catholic
Charities of
Santa Clara
County
San Antonio
Place 10 10 10
PSH SCCHA Eagle Park 16 5 8 16
TH LifeMoves Graduate House 5 5
Data source: HIC data, 2021
*Project Types include Emergency Shelter (ES), Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH), and Transitional Housing (TH)
County Shelter Beds for Victims of Domestic Violence
In addition to HIC data on beds located within the City, Mountain View residents who are fleeing various forms of gender-based violence are able to receive services from Santa Clara County. The County utilizes a Coordinated Access System to assess the needs of individuals experiencing homelessness and connects them to housing and shelter programs. Of these programs, the County has about 62 confidential shelter beds designated for individuals fleeing dangerous situations including intimate partner abuse; sexual assault, elder abuse, wage theft and other workplace crimes, and human trafficking.
The most recent publicly available data indicates that the County’s confidential intimate partner abuse shelters served 677 individuals in FY 2018–2019. It is unclear whether any of these individuals were residents of Mountain View.
A 2021 report by the Santa Clara County CEDAW) Task Force explains that, due to limited space, there were 1,892 unmet requests for confidential emergency shelter during FY 20182019. While this number may not represent an unduplicated count of individuals in need of shelter assistance, the report explains that the County has witnessed an increase in the average length of stay for individuals in confidential emergency shelter and that survivors are staying longer due to lack of transitional or permanent housing options. As individuals remain in shelter for longer periods of time, others in need of assistance are turned away due to lack of capacity. While capacity constraints at the County level may not accurately reflect the availability of resources in Mountain View, it does suggest that City residents may need to turn elsewhere for housing and shelter assistance.
City Programs to Address Immediate Needs of Individuals Experiencing Homelessness Over the past few years, Mountain View has taken considerable strides to provide interim housing options to meet the immediate needs of individuals experiencing homelessness in the community. This includes establishing a Safe Parking Program in partnership with the County of Santa Clara to provide homeless individuals living in their vehicles with access to a protected space that can connect them to resources to secure permanent housing. The City has also developed an interim housing community that offers shelter for around 90– 120 days for individuals and families experiencing homelessness and provides access to supportive services to help them secure long-term housing. Table 33 summarizes the City’s various initiatives to provide stability for individuals to transition to permanent housing options.
Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
73 Table 33: City Programs to Address the Immediate Needs of Individuals Experiencing Homelessness
Program Description and Impact
Shelter and
Services for
Individuals
Experiencing
Homelessness
The City has provided nearly $10 million in funding from 2016 to 2022 to support shelters and services that help meet the needs of individuals experiencing homelessness in the community.
Investments have included funding for a year-round youth shelter, renovations for emergency shelters and transitional housing case management and operating support for homelessness prevention, and support for a cold-weather shelter. In collaboration with the County and partner organizations, the City has also funded primary healthcare services for uninsured and underinsured residents, food assistance, and sanitation and hygiene services.
Safe Parking
The City provides funding for five parking lots in Mountain View to host up to 101 vehicles (68 oversized vehicles and 33 passenger cars) for individuals who are experiencing unsheltered
homelessness and living in their vehicle to safely park and access case management and wraparound supportive services. City funding covers site setup costs and, in partnership with the County and community partner organizations, helps expand onsite services, access to running water, mobile showers, and medical unit visits. The lots offer 24/7 safe parking to program participants.
Other City initiatives to support the Safe Parking Program include adopting the Safe Parking Ordinance and permit program for private lots and establishing the Human Relations Commission’s subcommittee for safe parking.
Interim Housing
The State’s Homekey Program awarded Mountain View with
funding to develop modular interim housing for individuals experiencing homelessness. The interim housing community, LifeMoves Mountain View, can serve about 124 people at a time and includes 88 units for individuals and 12 units for families.
Individuals residing at LifeMoves Mountain View stay for about 90– 120 days and have access to intensive case management and supportive services to help them move toward housing stability. In a year, LifeMoves Mountain View can serve 300–400 individuals.
Data source: City of Mountain View data, 2022
Supportive Services
Lastly, Mountain View reviewed the types of City-funded supportive services currently provided or offered to the community over the past few years to catalog services that may be able to assist the HOME-ARP QPs. Table 34 summarizes these supportive services. In Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
74 addition to supportive services funded by the City, Santa Clara County funds a variety of services that are available to Mountain View residents and are summarized in the County’s Quick Guide to Services.
Table 34: City-Funded Supportive Services
Program Description and Impact
Outreach
Services,
Community
Resources, and
Referral
Networks
The City provides funding for various partner organizations to connect vulnerable members of the community to valuable housing, shelter, and service resources. Along with Santa Clara County, the City funds organizations including CSA and New Directions to provide outreach to chronically homeless and unsheltered individuals in Mountain View. The City also offers multilingual outreach services through different channels to better reach non-English speaking segments of the community. In addition, the Mountain View Police Department has a City-funded Community Outreach Team through its Neighborhood Event
Services program that engages with individuals experiencing unsheltered homelessness and helps connect them to resources such as interim housing and the Safe Parking Program. In 2021, the Outreach Team made 59 referrals to CSA and 70 referrals to the LifeMoves Mountain View interim housing community.
Food Assistance
and Basic Needs
As part of the City’s COVID-19 response, Mountain View funded a temporary grocery store gift card program to provide food assistance for low-income members of the community. The program was administered by CSA and had provided 448 $25- dollar gift cards to 54 households by December 2020. In 2021, the program expanded to include seven organizations that provided food assistance and helped with other basic needs throughout Mountain View.
In addition to the City’s COVID-19 response, Mountain View has provided ongoing funding for organizations to maintain and enhance food services programs. This includes supporting CSA’s Senior Nutrition Program and Second Harvest’s food distribution program and providing capital funding to renovate Hope’s Corner’s commercial kitchen. These efforts have helped provide thousands of meals to community residents for multiple years.
Sanitation and
Hygiene
During the height of the pandemic, Mountain View secured and funded mobile showers at CSA and mobile showers and laundry services for Hope’s Corner. In addition, the City provided portable toilets and hand-washing stations in response to the pandemic. In 2021, the City also began funding mobile showers at its Safe Parking lots.
Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
75 Program Description and Impact
Phones and Wi-Fi
The City provides Wi-Fi locations across the community to enhance digital connectivity for low-income residents. Through online maps and the distribution of flyers about City-provided Wi-Fi locations, Mountain View has helped provide a channel for community members to stay engaged with updates and information on resources. The City has also provided funding to Hope’s Corner to distribute 151 power stations, 13 solar panels, 1,776 solar phone chargers, and 381 solar laptop chargers.
Data source: City of Mountain View data, 2022
Describe the unmet housing and service needs of the QPs.
Unmet Needs for Affordable Housing and Rental Assistance Access to and availability of affordable rental housing impacts all four of the HOME-ARP QPs. Data on unit affordability, occupancy, and availability can provide insight into the unmet housing needs of the QPs.
Rental Unit Affordability and Occupancy
One data source to better understand unit affordability and occupancy is CHAS data, which estimates the number of households occupying rental units affordable at different income levels. CHAS data uses HUD-Adjusted Median Family Incomes (HAMFIs) to classify household income which, for the purposes of this analysis, are comparable to AMI. Table 35 depicts the number of households by income level that were occupying rental units that are affordable to specific HAMFI categories in 2018. For example, “Rental Units Affordable at 30% HAMFI” are rental units where the gross rent for the unit is affordable to a household making 30 percent HAMFI. “Rental Units Affordable at 50% HAMFI” would have gross rents that are unaffordable to a household earning 30 percent HAMFI but would be affordable to a household earning 50 percent HAMFI. In 2018, CHAS data indicates that there were approximately 1,215 rental units affordable to households earning less than 30 percent HAMFI and 935 rental units affordable to households earning between 30–50 percent HAMFI.
Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
76 T
able 35: Households Occupying Rental Units by Unit Affordability and Household Income Rental Unit Affordability
Occupant Income Category
0–30%
HAMFI
30–50%
HAMFI
50–80%
HAMFI
80–100%
HAMFI
Over
100%
HAMFI
Rental Units Affordable at
30% HAMFI 800 170 45 34 190
Rental Units Affordable at
50% HAMFI 369 190 180 50 150
Rental Units Affordable at
80% HAMFI 775 550 399 195 1,175
Rental Units Affordable at
Greater Than 80% HAMFI 1,095 880 1,070 959 10,420
Data source: CHAS data, 2018
Table 35 shows the number of households at different HAMFI levels residing in rental units at varying levels of affordability. Figures 17 and 18 depict this data from different perspectives; Figure 17 shows the percentage of rental units that are occupied by households at different income categories while Figure 18 presents the percentage of households that are occupying units at different income categories. Together, the bar charts paint a clearer picture of the distribution of households across rental units as well as the availability of units at different income categories.
From the perspective of the units, Figure 17 indicates that households at the lowest and highest income categories comprised the largest share of households occupying units closest to their respective income category. Specifically, households earning less than 30 percent HAMFI occupied 65 percent of rental units affordable at 30 percent HAMFI and households earning greater than 100 percent HAMFI occupied 72 percent of rental units affordable at greater than 80 percent HAMFI. For units affordable at 50 percent HAMFI, 59 percent were occupied by households earning less than 50 percent HAMFI and the remaining units were occupied by households earning over 50 percent HAMFI. For units affordable at 80 percent HAMFI, 56 percent were occupied by households earning less than 80 percent HAMFI and the remaining 44 percent were occupied by households earning over 80 percent HAMFI.
While the data does not provide additional information on the rental units included in the analysis, higher percentages of ELI and VLI households may be occupying units affordable Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
77 at 30 and 50 perce nt HAMFI due to income restrictions for assisted housing. In addition, the number of rental units affordable and available at different income levels does not align with the number of households in each income category. There are fewer units affordable and available for ELI and VLI households and more units affordable for higher- income households. The lack of affordable housing options for the lowest-earning households can force households into units unaffordable to them.
Figure 17: Unit Perspective—Percent of Units Occupied by Households At Different Income Levels
0-30% HAMFI 30-50% HAMFI 50-80% HAMFI 80-100% HAMFI >100% HAMFI Rental Units Affordable at 30% HAMFI
Rental Units Affordable at 50% HAMFI
Rental Units Affordable at 80% HAMFI
Rental Units Affordable at Greater Than 80%
HAMFI
65%
39%
25%
8%
14%
20%
18%
6%
4%
19%
13%
7%
3%
5%
6%
7%
15%
16%
38%
72%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
% of Units
Data source: CHAS data, 2018
From the perspective of households, Figure 18 indicates that 26 percent of households earning less than 30 percent HAMFI occupied a rental unit affordable to their income category. For households earning 30–50 percent HAMFI, 9 percent occupied a unit affordable to them and 91 percent occupied a unit unaffordable to their income category.
For households earning 50–80 percent HAMFI, about 14 percent occupied units affordable to them, and for households earning 80–100 percent HAMFI, the share of households occupying units affordable to them grows to 23 percent. From the household’s perspective, the data may reflect the shortage of rental units affordable and available for low- and moderate-income households in Mountain View.
It is important to keep in mind that this data does not provide information that explains the distribution of households across rental units. For instance, ELI households may not occupy rental units that are affordable to them because these units are not located in their Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
78 communities. Alternatively, units affordable to households earning 30 p ercent AMI may be hard to find, and when they are available, ELI households may need to compete with higher-income households to secure them.
Figure 18: Household Perspective—Percent of Households Occupying Units At Different Income Levels
Rental Units Affordable at 30% HAMFI Rental Units Affordable at 50% HAMFI Rental Units Affordable at 80% HAMFI Rental Units Affordable at Greater Than 80% HAMFI 26%
9%
3%
3%
2%
12%
11%
11%
4%
1%
26%
31%
24%
16%
10%
36%
49%
63%
77%
87%
0-30% HAMFI
30-50% HAMFI
50-80% HAMFI
80-100% HAMFI
>100% HAMFI
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of Households
Data so
urce: CHAS data, 2018
Availability and Use of Rental Assistance
Quantitative data on the availability and use of rental assistance in Mountain View suggest that rental assistance is available for some and the number of households using Housing Choice Vouchers has decreased slightly over the past year. 2021 data from the Picture of Subsidized Households indicates that there were 430 Housing Choice Vouchers available in Mountain View and 400 households were assisted. Conversely, the 2022 program data from the SCCHA on Section 8 voucher recipients residing in Mountain View indicates that 370 households were assisted.
Given that available data on the HOME-ARP QPs indicates that there are 1,680 severely cost-burdened ELI renter households, 885 severely cost-burdened VLI renter households, and 472 households who have received rental assistance from CSA since 2021, there appears to be a clear need for rental assistance support in the City. In addition, the City’s Eviction Prevention Program received 368 eviction notices in FY 2022–2023 for failure to Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
79 pay rent, which suggests that a significant segment of Mountain View’s population is at risk of housing instability because they struggle to afford housing costs. The decrease in utilization of Housing Choice Vouchers likely reflects challenges in using vouchers on the private market rather than changes in the need for rental assistance in Mountain View.
Unmet Needs From the Consultation Sessions and Survey
During the consultation sessions, stakeholders described the housing needs facing the HOME-ARP QPs in Mountain View. Stakeholders described how high housing costs and the shortage of affordable housing options contribute to housing instability for Mountain View residents. The shortage of affordable housing includes ELI, VLI, and moderate-income households, and achieving and maintaining housing stability can be a significant challenge for the HOME-ARP QPs. For individuals experiencing homelessness, stakeholders noted that the shortage of different types of permanent housing options makes it difficult for some subpopulations—such as those with physical disabilities, seniors, and large families— to be able to secure and maintain housing. For individuals fleeing or attempting to flee domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, or human trafficking, stakeholders mentioned that individuals often have a variety of complex needs that require stable housing, access to supportive services, and time to heal from traumatic experiences.
To help individuals move forward, long-term support is often required, yet limited funding makes it difficult for organizations to provide prolonged housing and services.
Stakeholders also noted that available housing for the lowest income households may not be accessible to individuals with disabilities and fair housing professionals stated that the most common issue they’re seeing is people being denied reasonable accommodation.
Others described how the lack of affordable housing options forces some households to live in substandard housing with mold, pests, or broken fixtures while it prompts others to double up with other households and live in crowded situations.
Notably, many stakeholders also mentioned how the end of the pandemic moratorium on evictions has contributed to an increase in the number of termination notices and prompted more households to seek assistance to prevent eviction. The focus for many organizations serving those at risk of homelessness and housing instability is therefore to keep individuals housed through eviction defense services, rental assistance, and other services to help individuals maintain their housing.
Lastly, stakeholders explained that voucher recipients are often unable to locate and secure a unit that is affordable to them on the private market. For those who manage to find an affordable unit, many will encounter landlords who are reluctant to accept their vouchers.
Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
80 Unmet Needs for Shelter and Supportive Housing
The City explored 2021 HMIS data to better understand the existing availability of housing and shelter to meet the needs of the HOME-ARP QPs. By analyzing the availability of shelter beds, exit destinations of individuals in 2021, and returns to homelessness, Mountain View was able to identify areas of unmet need among the QPs.
A
vailability of Shelter Beds
T
he 2021 HMIS data indicates that there were 690 individuals experiencing homelessness who were affiliated with Mountain View. Of these individuals, 505 (73 percent) were in single-person households and 101 households included two or more people. There were also 271 (39 percent) chronically homeless individuals.
Data from the 2021 HIC provides the number of CoC shelter beds and units that are available in Mountain View. According to the HIC, there are a total of 221 beds available with 183 available year-round. Of the year-round beds, 190 are ES beds, 26 are PSH, and 5 are TH. There are 131 adult-only beds, which is the most common type of bed offered across the City. For families, there are 12 beds and three units available. The distribution of beds by household type generally aligns with the proportion of single adults and families experiencing homelessness in Mountain View.
The HIC data also indicates that there are 40 beds available for households with only children, 18 beds for chronically homeless individuals, and no designated beds for youth.
Based on the demographic composition of individuals experiencing homelessness, there is an insufficient number of beds designated for chronically homeless individuals. In addition, the HMIS data indicates that there were 55 individuals experiencing homelessness and fleeing domestic violence, of whom 42 were single adults, 11 were in households with children, and 2 were in households without children. The YWCA is the only designated shelter for victims of domestic violence and provides 16 beds, most of which are for families. There are currently not enough designated beds for single adults fleeing domestic violence in Mountain View.
Other available resources to meet the needs of individuals experiencing homelessness include the Safe Parking Program, which offers five lots that can accompany up to 101 vehicles and LifeMoves Mountain View which offers 88 units for individuals and 12 units for families to serve a total of 124 individuals at a time. These additional resources may help address the unmet shelter needs identified in the HIC data.
M
ountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
81 E
xit Destinations for Individuals in Mountain View
A
mong the individuals experiencing homelessness in Mountain View who were enrolled in ES, TH, outreach, and coordinated entry (CE) programs, there were 469 exits in 2021. Of these exits, 140 were to temporary destinations, 88 were to permanent destinations, and 241 were to unknown destinations or places not meant for human habitation.
Table 36 provides demographic information for the individuals who exited by destination type and indicates that the majority of individuals were male, White, and lived alone. Most individuals who exited a program were over age 55. Specifically, for those who exited to a permanent destination, 30 percent were over age 55 while this figure was 34 percent for exits to unknown locations or places not meant for human habitation and 45 percent for temporary destinations. For individuals who exited to unknown destinations or places not meant for human habitation, it is unclear where these individuals exited. Unfortunately, HMIS data does not capture the physical location associated with exits to places not meant for human habitation. Since Mountain View has a Safe Parking Program, it’s possible that individuals who exited to a place not meant for human habitation joined the program because residing in a vehicle is considered a place not meant for human habitation in HMIS data. Lastly, of those who exited to a temporary destination, 85 percent were single-person households, 56 percent were male, 58 percent were White, and 38 percent identified as Hispanic (of any race). HMIS data also indicates that of the individuals who exited to a temporary destination, 60 percent exited to emergency shelter, 20 percent went to temporarily stay with friends or family, 14 percent went to transitional housing, and 6 percent went to a hotel or motel.
M ountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
82 Table 36: Demographics of Individuals Who Exited a Program in 2021 in Mountain View Sex
Permanent Exits
(Total Individuals=88)
Unknown/Places Not
Meant for Human
Habitation Exits
(Total Individuals=241)
Temporary Exit
Destinations
(Total Individuals=140)
# % # % # %
Male 46 52% 144 60% 79 56%
Female 39 44% 96 40% 58 41%
Transgender 0 0% 1 0% 1 1%
Other gender 2 2% 0 0% 2 1%
Not collected 1 1% 0 0% 0 0%
Race/Ethnicity
Permanent Exits
(Total Individuals=88)
Unknown/Places Not
Meant for Human
Habitation Exits
(Total Individuals=241)
Temporary Exit
Destinations
(Total Individuals=140)
# % # # # %
White 54 61% 145 60% 81 58%
Black/African American 7 8% 36 15% 17 12%
American Indian, Native
American, Indigenous 7 8% 5 2% 9 6%
Asian/Asian-American 6 7% 13 5% 17 12%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 4 5% 5 2% 4 3%
Multiracial 4 5% 21 9% 8 6%
Race data not collected 6 7% 16 7% 4 3%
M
ountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
83 Hispanic (any race) 44 50% 104 43% 53 38%
Age Group
Permanent Exits
(Total Individuals=88)
Unknown/Places Not
Meant for Human
Habitation Exits
(Total Individuals=241)
Temporary Exit
Destinations
(Total Individuals=140)
# % # % # %
Under 18 6 7% 4 2% 3 2%
18–24 4 5% 8 3% 6 4%
25–54 51 58% 146 61% 67 48%
55–64 10 11% 54 22% 37 26%
65+ 17 19% 28 12% 27 19%
Unknown 0 0% 1 0% 0 0%
Household Size
Permanent Exits
(Total Households=72)
Unknown/Places Not
Meant for Human
Habitation Exits
(Total Households=218)
Individuals With
Temporary Exit
Destinations
(Total Households=124)
# % # % # %
Single-person households 54 75% 194 89% 105 85%
Households with 2 people 10 14% 14 6% 12 10%
Households with 3 people 5 7% 7 3% 5 4%
Households with 4+ people 3 4% 3 1% 2 2%
Data source: HMIS, 2021
M
ountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
84 Length of Stay by Program Type and Returns to Homelessness T
he City analyzed the average length of stay by program for individuals experiencing homelessness in Mountain View. Table 37 outlines the average length of stay for various subpopulations for RRH and indicates that there were 93 households enrolled in the program in 2021 who stayed for an average of 423 days. When disaggregated by subpopulation, the average length of stay was 584 days for the nine households fleeing domestic violence who utilized rapid rehousing. For the 52 households with an individual with a disabling condition who utilized rapid rehousing, the average length of stay was 406 days.
Table 37: Average Length of Stay for Rapid Rehousing by Subpopulation Subpopulations Utilizing Rapid
Rehousing
#
Households
Average
Length of
Stay
Median
Length of
Stay
Disabling condition 52 406 days 391 days
Single-person households 55 406 days 402 days
Veterans 28 413 days 303 days
Households with two or more members 38 448 days 424 days Fleeing domestic violence 9 584 days 569 days
Total households 93 423 days 405 days
Data source: HMIS, 2021
The data suggests that it may take longer for households fleeing domestic violence to receive the help they need, given the average length of stay for this subpopulation is higher than the average length of stay for the population as a whole. Since there were only nine households fleeing domestic violence who were enrolled in rapid rehousing, the average length of stay may not accurately represent the typical length of stay for this population.
Table 38 presents the length of stay for households utilizing emergency shelter. For the 276 households enrolled in emergency shelter in 2021, the average length of stay was 167 days.
The shortest average length of stay for emergency shelter was for households with an individual with a disabling condition as well as single-person households at 162 days each.
In comparison, the longest average length of stay was for households with two or more members (193 days) and for veteran households (189 days).
M
ountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
85 Table 38: Average Length of Stay for Emergency Shelter by Subpopulation Subpopulations Utilizing Emergency
Shelter
#
Households
Average
Length of
Stay
Median
Length of
Stay
Fleeing domestic violence 31 139 days 104 days
Disabling condition 149 162 days 102 days
Single-person households 233 162 days 100 days
Veterans 17 189 days 177 days
Households with two or more members 43 193 days 129 days Total households 276 167 days 103 days
Data source: HMIS, 2021
HMIS also provides information on returns to homelessness. Table 39 indicates that there were 2,834 individuals who exited to permanent housing in Santa Clara County in 2019. Of them, 79 were affiliated with Mountain View. Within two years, 553 of these individuals returned to homelessness across Santa Clara County, and 18 were individuals affiliated with the City. While the number of individuals who returned to homelessness in Mountain View represents 3 percent of all returns across the County, it makes up 23 percent of the individuals who exited to permanent housing two years prior. Among the individuals who returned to homelessness in 2021, 93 percent were single-adult households, 53 percent were female, 67 percent were aged 25–54, and 33 percent were over age 55. Additional information is needed to understand what factors contributed to the individuals’ returns to homelessness.
Table 39: Returns to Homelessness in Santa Clara County and Mountain View Santa Clara County Mountain View
Individuals who exited to permanent
housing in 2019 2,834 79
Returns to homelessness within 2
years 553 18
Data source: HMIS, 2021
Unmet Needs From the Consultation Sessions and Survey
During the consultation sessions, stakeholders described the shelter and supportive housing needs facing the HOME-ARP QPs in Mountain View. Stakeholders noted that the overall shortage of affordable housing makes it challenging for individuals experiencing homelessness to locate permanent housing options. This has contributed to longer stays in Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
86 short-term arrangements, such as emergency shelter, and can limit the availability of shelter space for other individuals in need of assistance.
Stakeholders also explained that individuals experiencing homelessness may not be aware of the resources that are available to them, especially if providers do not have outreach services specific to Mountain View or are not physically located within the City. At the same time, other individuals may be aware of shelter and services available to them but are unable to access them. Stakeholders mentioned that hotel and shelter programs for individuals experiencing homelessness may not be located in areas that are accessible. For individuals fleeing domestic violence and human trafficking, stakeholders noted that housing, shelter, and services to support this population are often provided at the County level or located in San Jose and therefore not necessarily accessible. Lastly, stakeholders noted that some individuals experiencing homelessness and/or fleeing domestic violence may avoid staying in shelters altogether. For individuals experiencing homelessness, stakeholders explained that individuals may be afraid for their personal safety or of losing their belongings in shelters, while victims of domestic violence may be reluctant to seek out shelter and services due to fear of retaliation, not being believed, or losing their existing housing.
Unmet Needs for Supportive Services
Unmet Needs of Victim Service Providers Identified by the SBCEHT In its 2021 Annual report, SBCEHT noted several trends, challenges, and needs facing victim service providers (VSPs) serving victims of human trafficking in Santa Clara and San Benito counties. In the realm of housing, the report explained that VSP clients often struggle to find stable or affordable housing and that there are specific challenges in locating housing for youth. The report mentioned that congregate care options have closed across California and newer options for youth have not replaced them. In addition, VSPs have found that emergency shelter placements are sometimes not good options for survivors of human trafficking who are triggered by group housing or hotels. Shelters also may not offer victims experiencing homelessness safe spaces to have confidential conversations with case managers.
The report also provided trends and challenges related to staffing at VSP agencies and client care. Many VSPs across the region have experienced significant and unexpected changes in funding and staffing which has left current personnel spread thin across caseloads. In addition, organizations often find it challenging to recruit qualified candidates when job openings set standards high and offer non-competitive salaries. The report also noted that VSPs witnessed a decrease in new referrals during the pandemic; however, existing clients experienced greater needs as a result of COVID-19. Challenges with Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
87 unemployment increased during the height of the pandemic and some clients had issues with technology and digital literacy.
Unmet Needs from the Consultation Sessions and Survey
Through the consultation sessions and survey, stakeholders underscored the need for additional supportive services for each HOME-ARP QPs. Table 40 summarizes the top five most-needed supportive services for each QP that stakeholders identified in the survey.
Notably, case management was the most-needed supportive service for each of the HOME- ARP QPs. Housing search assistance/counseling and childcare were identified as top- needed services among three of the four QPs.
Table 40: Top F ive Most-Needed Supportive Services for Each QP From Stakeholder Survey Rank
Individuals
Experiencing
Homelessness
Individuals At
Risk of
Homelessness
Persons Fleeing/
Attempting to
Flee
Other Groups At
Greatest Risk
#1 Case Management Case Management Case Management #2
#3
#4
#5
Housing Search
Assistance and
Counseling
Case Management
Mental Health
Services
Landlord and
Tenant Liaison
Food Assistance
Housing Search
Assistance and
Counseling
Landlord and
Tenant Liaison
Legal Services
Childcare
Victims Services
for People
Fleeing/Attempting
to Flee
Childcare
Housing Search
Assistance and
Counseling
Mental Health
Services
Childcare
Food Assistance
Educational
Services
Credit Repair
Duri
ng the consultation sessions, stakeholders also shared that some households struggle with high debt and need financial assistance while others would benefit from employment search assistance. A few organizations spoke of the need to help seniors age in place and provide services to prevent seniors from becoming isolated from the community.
A few stakeholders also specifically mentioned undocumented households as a subpopulation with a variety of housing and service needs. Some organizations described working with undocumented individuals who have not been compensated for work completed. These households may also reside in overcrowded situations with other households. They also mentioned how requirements by some landlords for paystubs or credit checks can pose significant barriers to securing housing for undocumented individuals. Lastly, some service providers noted a need for more training opportunities for Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
88 housing case managers to help individuals search for, secure, and maintain housing due to the scarcity of affordable housing options in the area.
Multiple service providers noted that they have witnessed an increase in individuals reaching out for services since the pandemic. Some mentioned that their organizations have seen more undocumented individuals seeking assistance related to domestic violence. One organization mentioned how the pandemic has contributed to an increase in substance use disorders and that there is a need for additional substance use treatment services for individuals experiencing homelessness. Others explained how periods of homelessness can exacerbate mental illness and that there is a widespread need for mental health services. Some highlighted the need for services to assist with basic needs such as hygiene and food, as well as support in finding and securing employment opportunities.
Identify any gaps within the current shelter and housing inventory as well as the service delivery system.
Gaps Within the Current Affordable Rental Housing Inventory Economic and job growth in the region has placed increasing demand on the local housing stock which has in turn increased housing costs for many households in Mountain View. 2018 CHAS data estimates that there are about 1,215 rental units affordable to households earning less than 30 percent HAMFI and 935 rental units affordable to households earning 30–50 percent HAMFI. In terms of households, there are 1,680 ELI renter households and 885 VLI renter households in Mountain View who are paying over half of their incomes on rent. Data from the California Housing Partnership’s Affordable Housing inventory indicates that there are 1,391 assisted rental units in Mountain View whereas the City’s inventory places this figure at 1,710. Of these units, 182 are below market rate, 1,462 are affordable to households earning 30–120 percent AMI, and 66 are supportive housing units. While the City has at least another 752 affordable rental units currently in development, there is still a need to develop affordable housing for households earning less than 60 percent AMI and create supportive housing units for chronically homeless individuals with acute needs.
Gaps in the Availability and Utilization of Rental Assistance The available data on the HOME-ARP QPs demonstrates a clear ongoing need for rental assistance support. With an estimated 1,680 severely cost-burdened ELI renter households, 885 severely cost-burdened VLI renter households, and 472 households who have received rental assistance from CSA since 2021, numerous households are unable to afford housing costs. In addition, the City’s Eviction Prevention Program received 368 eviction notices in FY 2022–2023 for failure to pay rent, which suggests that a significant segment of Mountain View’s population is at risk of housing instability because they struggle to afford housing costs. The decrease in utilization of Housing Choice Vouchers likely reflects challenges in M
ountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
89 using vouchers on the private market rather than changes in the need for rental assistance in Mountain View.
Furthermore, the consultation process identified the need for rental assistance related to households at risk of eviction. Stakeholders described how many organizations are focusing on providing eviction defense services, rental assistance, and other support to help individuals maintain their housing. At the same time, households who have received Housing Choice Vouchers have reported challenges with using their vouchers on the private market. Many voucher recipients are unable to locate and secure a unit that is affordable to them, and of those who manage to find an affordable unit, many will encounter landlords who are reluctant to accept their voucher. There is therefore a need for rental assistance in Mountain View; however, several existing challenges with voucher programs limit the ability of households to use this assistance in the current private rental market.
Gaps Within Non-Congregate Shelter
Confidential Emergency Shelter for Persons Fleeing/Attempting to Flee Violence T
he 2021 report by the Santa Clara County CEDAW Task Force provides additional insight into confidential emergency shelter capacity for individuals who have experienced intimate partner violence, domestic violence, human trafficking, or other dangerous situations. The report explains that, due to limited space, there were 1,892 unmet requests for confidential emergency shelter during FY 2018-2019. While this number may not represent an unduplicated count of individuals in need of shelter assistance, the report explained that the County has witnessed an increase in the average length of stay for individuals in confidential emergency shelter and that survivors are staying longer due to lack of transitional or permanent housing options.
This information aligns with trends from the 2021 HMIS analysis on average lengths of stay for persons fleeing domestic violence who were enrolled in rapid rehousing but not those enrolled in emergency shelter. Households fleeing domestic violence spent on average 584 days in rapid rehousing while this figure was 423 days for all households. For those enrolled in emergency shelter, households fleeing domestic violence spent on average 139 days in the program while the average was 167 days for all households.
N
eed for Supportive Housing Options
T
he HMIS data analysis on the size and demographic composition of individuals experiencing homelessness in Mountain View indicates that there were 314 individuals with a disabling condition and 271 individuals who were chronically homeless. The assessment of 2021 HIC data indicates there are 26 permanent supportive housing units in Mountain View while the City’s affordable housing inventory identifies an additional 40 M
ountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
90 completed supportive housing units for a total of 66 in the community. Although the City has made notable strides toward increasing the stock of supportive housing, the current number of units is insufficient to meet the needs of the number of chronically homeless individuals in the community who would be eligible for and benefit from supportive housing. Considering that 23 percent of the individuals who exited to permanent housing in 2019 returned to homelessness by 2021, there is a clear need for expanded housing options with wraparound supportive services to provide the stability and support for members of the community to secure and maintain long-term permanent housing.
Gaps Within the Supportive Services System
The consultation process identified gaps within the existing supportive service system. The consultation sessions and survey underscored areas for improved coordination between VSPs at the County and regional levels with organizations at the local level. While Mountain View residents can utilize County and regionwide victims’ services and housing programs, City residents who are fleeing domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, and human trafficking may not be able to access those services, especially when VSPs do not offer community outreach to Mountain View or have a physical location within the City.
Gaps Related to Nonprofit Capacity
The consultation process identified several gaps related to nonprofit capacity in Mountain View and the broader region. Service providers noted a need for more training opportunities for housing case managers to help individuals search for, secure, and maintain housing due to the scarcity of affordable housing options in the area. Through the survey, stakeholders mentioned that many organizations serving the HOME-ARP QPs have experienced increased staff turnover and lost valuable expertise as a result. Many of the remaining staff have high workloads, which makes it difficult for organizations to adequately meet the needs of clients and help them achieve longer-term goals. High inflation has also increased operating costs for organizations across the region, which in turn has limited the ability of organizations to meet the needs of the populations they serve.
Under Section IV.4.2.ii.G of the HOME-ARP Notice, a PJ may provide additional characteristics associated with instability and increased risk of homelessness in their HOME-ARP Allocation Plan. These characteristics will further refine the definition of “Other Populations” that are “At Greatest Risk of Housing Instability,” as established in the HOME-ARP Notice. If including these characteristics, identify them here.
Mountain View’s 2020–2024 Consolidated Plan outlines several characteristics that are associated with housing instability and an increased risk of homelessness. These include:
M
ountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
91 • Populations at risk of homelessness or housing instability include low- and moderate-income renter households (earning less than 80 percent AMI) who are experiencing severe housing cost burden and are impacted by the demolition of affordable housing units in the City.
• Factors that contribute to the greatest risk of homelessness include having low or no income, having a mental illness, experiencing abuse, and having criminal justice involvement. The CoC uses the following eligibility criteria to assess a household’s eligibility for the County’s Homelessness Prevention System: low income; self-report of imminent risk of homelessness OR unsafe housing situation; and a Prevention VI- SPDAT score of 8 or greater. The Prevention VI-SPDAT is for those at imminent risk of homelessness and scores the following factors: income and financial health, history of homelessness, eviction risk, abuse and/or trafficking, interaction with emergency services including criminal justice, and acuity of mental and physical needs.
• The 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey found that the primary causes of homelessness according to respondents were job loss (30 percent), drug and alcohol abuse (22 percent), divorce or separation (15 percent), eviction (14 percent), and having an argument with or being asked to leave by a family or friend (13 percent).
• Elderly households (households containing at least one person age 62 or older) are more likely to experience housing problems, due to circumstances such as having physical limitations, unique housing needs (based on unit size and access to transit, healthcare, and other services), lower incomes, and increased healthcare costs. Of all Mountain View elderly households, 53.2 percent (3,910 households) have incomes at or below 80 percent AMI, as compared to 34.5 percent for the City as a whole. More than half (53.7 percent) of elderly low- and moderate-income households are cost burdened and 29.7 percent are severely cost burdened.
Outreach efforts in the City also indicated more attention should be given to elderly needs and services.
• Community feedback during regional public forums and local meetings identified that support is needed for others at risk of homelessness due to a high cost of living such as college students, individuals who were formerly homeless, those who cannot live alone, and those with a criminal history.
Identify priority needs for the QPs.
Figure 19 summarizes the priority needs facing the four HOME-ARP QPs based on the information gathered through the consultation sessions, online stakeholder survey, and quantitative data analysis.
M
ountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
92 Figure 19: Priority Needs for the HOME-ARP QPs
Individuals Experiencing Homelessness
•There is a high need for supportive housing as well as a variety of permanent housing options.
•There is need for improved outreach to individuals experiencing homelessness to better connect them to available housing, shelter, and supportive services. This is true especially for programs that are not physically located in Mountain View but serve residents or are located in areas that are inaccessible to those who need them.
•Supportive services needs include mental health services, basic needs assistance, culturally-specific services, substance use treatment services, case management, housing search assistance/counseling, and landlord/tenant liaison.
Individuals At Risk of Homelessness
•There is a high need for a variety of affordable housing options including units that are accessible to individuals with physical disabilities. •There is need for assistance for the high number of ELI renter households who are severely cost burdened.
•There is need for assistance for the households who are at risk of homelessness due to evictions to help them remain stably housed.
•Supportive services needs include eviction prevention assistance, employment search assistance, culturally-specific services, case management, housing search assistance/counseling, landlord/tenant liaison, legal services, and childcare.
Persons Fleeing/Attempting to Flee
•There is a high need for a variety of housing and shelter options to support victims with different needs.
•There is need for additional designated shelter beds for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, and human trafficking in Mountain View.
•There is need for improved coordination and outreach to individuals fleeing/attempting to flee violence in Mountain View as some individuals are unaware of or have trouble accessing resources that are available to them. This is true especially for VSPs who do not have outreach services specific to Mountain View or do not have a physical location in the community. •Supportive services needs include case management, victims’ services, childcare, housing search assistance/counseling, and mental health services.
Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
93 Other Groups At Greatest Risk of Homelessness/Housing Instability •There is a high need for a variety of affordable housing options including units that are accessible to individuals with physical disabilities. •There is need for assistance for the VLI renter households who are severely cost burdened.
•There is need for assistance for the households who are at risk of homelessness due to evictions so they can remain stably housed.
•There is need to provide targeted services for individuals who are undocumented and facing specific challenges including stolen wages, overcrowded housing, and barriers to securing housing in the private market.
•Supportive services needs include eviction prevention assistance, employment search assistance, culturally-specific services, case management, childcare, food assistance, educational services, and credit repair.
Explain how the PJ determined the level of need and gaps in the PJ’s shelter and housing inventory and service delivery systems based on the data presented in the plan.
The City paired the qualitative information gathered from the stakeholder consultation sessions and survey with insights gleaned from quantitative data analysis to better understand the needs facing each of the QPs and gaps in the shelter, housing, and service delivery systems. Participants were asked to identify gaps for each QP and identify levels of need for each HOME-ARP-eligible activity for each QP. They were also asked to provide a rank order prioritization for the HOME-ARP-eligible activities. Table 41 outlines the primary qualitative and quantitative data sources used to analyze the priority needs of each QP as well as the housing, shelter, and service gaps across the community.
M
ountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
94 Table 41: P rimary Data Sources to Determine Needs and Gaps HOME-ARP QP Primary Data Sources
Individuals
experiencing
homelessness
• CoC HMIS (2021)/Point-In-Time Count (2022)
• Santa Clara County Study on Women and Homelessness
Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
95 (2018)
• St akeholder consultation sessions and online stakeholder survey
Individuals at risk of
homelessness
• CHAS (2014–2018)
• McKinney-Vento EDFacts Initiative data (SY 2019–2020) • N ational Low Income Housing Coalition , Out of Reach and The Gap for Santa Clara County (2022)
• M ountain View Eviction Prevention Program
• S anta Clara County Housing Authority program data
(2022) M onthly Status Report (FY 2021 –2022)
• St akeholder consultation sessions and online stakeholder survey
Persons
fleeing/attempting to
flee domestic
violence, sexual
assault, dating
violence, stalking, or
human trafficking
• CoC HMIS (2021)
• Next Door Solutions to Domestic Violence client data (2021–20 22)
• C alifornia Dept. of Justice , Criminal Justice Statistics Center, D omestic Violence Related Calls for Service
(2019–20 21)
• M ountain View Police Dept. Annual Report (2021)
• S anta Clara County CDBG Program Statistics (2022)
• Sa nta Clara County Study on Women and Homelessness
(2020)
• S anta Clara County CEDAW Task Force, Compendium of
Reports ( 2021)
• So uth Bay Coalition to End Human Trafficking, Annual Report (2021)
• St akeholder consultation sessions and online stakeholder survey
Other populations at
risk o f housing
instability and
homelessness
• CHAS (2014–2018)
• ACS data on veterans (2016–2020)
• M ountain View ’s 2020–2024 Consolidated Plan
• N ational Low Income Housing Coalition, Out of Reach
and The Gap f or Santa Clara County (2022)
• C SA client data (2022)
• St akeholder consultation sessions and online stakeholder survey
Topic Primary Data Sources
Housing inventory
• California Housing Partnership, Affordable Housing Map (2022)
• CHAS (2014–2018)
• Santa Clara County Supportive Housing Map (2022)
• Mountain View Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Strategy Memo (2022)
• HUD Picture of Subsidized Households data for Mountain View (2021)
• Stakeholder consultation sessions and online stakeholder survey
Shelter inventory
• Point-In-Time Count and Housing Inventory Count (2021) • Mountain View Housing and Homelessness Prevention
Programs (2022)
• Santa Clara County CEDAW Task Force, Compendium of
Reports (2021)
• Stakeholder consultation sessions and online stakeholder survey
Service delivery
system
• Stakeholder consultation sessions and online stakeholder survey
• South Bay Coalition to End Human Trafficking, Annual Report (2021)
Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis
96 HOME-ARP Activities
Regulatory Requirements
In accordance with Section V.C.2. of the Notice, participating jurisdictions (PJs) must describe how they will distribute HOME-ARP funds aligned with the identified priority needs and the method for soliciting applications for funding, selecting developers, service providers, subrecipients, and/or contractors. Furthermore, PJs must describe whether they will administer the HOME-ARP-eligible activities directly.
Describe the method(s) that will be used for soliciting applications for funding and/or selecting developers, service providers, subrecipients, and/or contractors.
Mountain View issues a Notice of Fund Availability (NOFA) every other year for a two-year funding cycle to solicit applications for CDBG public service grants. In addition, the City allocates funding on a case-by-case basis to existing City contracts with community based organizations to expand programs or increase services. Mountain View will use one of these processes to distribute HOME-ARP funds allocated for supportive services.
The City has a NOFA process for 100 percent affordable housing developments and allocates funding to accepted projects. For city -owned affordable housing sites, the City uses a competitive application process to select affordable housing developers. Mountain View will use one of these processes to distribute HOME-ARP funds allocated to affordable rental housing development.
The HOME-ARP funds allocated to non-profit operating support will be distributed through one of these processes along with HOME-ARP supportive services and/or HOME-ARP affordable rental housing development resources.
Describe whether the PJ will administer eligible activities directly.
Mountain View will not directly administer specific HOME-ARP activities. The City will select sub-recipients or affordable housing developers to implement eligible HOME-ARP activities.
M
ountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
HOME-ARP Activities
97 If any portion of the PJ’s HOME-ARP administrative funds are provided to a subrecipient or contractor prior to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) acceptance of the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan because the subrecipient or contractor is responsible for the administration of the PJ’s entire HOME-ARP grant, identify the subrecipient or contractor and describe its role and responsibilities in administering all of the PJ’s HOME-ARP program.
This section is not applicable to Mountain View as the City will be responsible for the overall administration of the HOME-ARP program.
M
ountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
HOME-ARP Activities
98 Use of HOME-ARP Funding
Regulatory Requirements
Section V.C.2 of the Notice states that participating jurisdictions (PJs) must outline the amount HOME-ARP funding that is planned for each eligible HOME-ARP activity type and demonstrate that any planned funding for nonprofit organization operating assistance, nonprofit capacity building, and administrative costs is within HOME-ARP limits. The plan must also explain how the characteristics of its shelter and housing inventory, the service delivery system, and the needs identified in the Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis provided a rationale for the PJ’s plan to fund eligible activities. Table 42 summarizes the City’s proposed uses of HOME-ARP funding.
Table 42: Distribution of the City of Mountain View’s HOME-ARP Funds Across Eligible Activities
Funding Amount Percent of
the Grant
Statutory
Limit
Supportive Services $50,000 5%
Acquisition and Development of Non-
Congregate Shelters $0 0%
Tenant-Based Rental Assistance $0 0%
Development of Affordable Rental
Housing $780,176 79%
Non-Profit Operating $5,000 1% 5%
Non-Profit Capacity Building $0 0% 5%
Administration and Planning $147,384 15% 15%
Total HOME-ARP Allocation $982,560 100%
Describe how the PJ will distribute HOME-ARP funds in accordance with its priority needs identified in its needs assessment and gap analysis.
The City intends to use 79 percent of its HOME-ARP allocation for affordable rental housing, 5 percent for supportive services, 1 percent for non-profit operating costs, and the remaining 15 percent for PJ administration and planning activities. This funding distribution will allow Mountain View to develop additional affordable rental housing options and Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Use of HOME-ARP Funding
99 provide needed supportive services. It will also help provide organizational operating support for organizations selected to implement HOME-ARP affordable rental housing development or supportive services. This option also provides funding for the City to enhance its own capacity to administer affordable housing developments for the HOME- ARP qualifying populations (QPs) in the community.
Describe how the characteristics of the shelter and housing inventory, service delivery system, and the needs identified in the gap analysis provided a rationale for the plan to fund eligible activities.
Information analyzed from the consultation sessions, stakeholder survey, and quantitative data demonstrates that there are high levels of unmet needs faced by all four of the HOME-ARP QPs. While the City of Mountain View is appreciative of the additional funding, the City’s HOME-ARP allocation of $982,560, more funding is needed to completely address the housing, shelter, and service needs for each of the QPs. Given the limited resources available, as well as the major themes underscored in the Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis, the City plans to spend 80 percent of its HOME-ARP allocation on affordable rental housing, 5 percent on supportive services, and the remaining 15 percent on planning and administration.
As required by HUD, the trends identified in the Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis were a major factor that led to Mountain View’s HOME-ARP allocation distribution decision. The major trends highlighted in the data analysis, consultation sessions, and survey responses all pointed to a significant need for affordable rental housing for each of the HOME-ARP QPs. Stakeholders described how all four of the HOME-ARP QPs struggle to find housing that is affordable and accessible in the community. Housing costs have been increasing for years, but recent events including high inflation, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the end of the eviction moratorium have exacerbated the housing cost burden and housing instability for many lower-income households in Mountain View. Analysis of Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) data and the existing shelter and housing inventory indicates that there is a need for PSH options for the four QPs. Lastly, the stakeholder survey found that 60 percent of respondents selected affordable rental housing as their top priority for the use of HOME-ARP funds. The data from the Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis, therefore, indicates that there is a considerable need for the development of additional affordable rental housing opportunities in Mountain View.
The Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis also highlighted the need for and importance of supportive services for the four HOME-ARP QPs. During the consultation sessions, stakeholders described how the end of the eviction moratorium has exacerbated the housing cost burden and housing instability for many lower-income households in Mountain View and many organizations are focusing on keeping individuals facing eviction Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Use of HOME-ARP Funding
100
housed. Furthermore, through the survey, stakeholders underscored the need for additional supportive services for each HOME-ARP QPs. Notably, case management was the most needed supportive service for each QP, and housing search assistance/counseling and childcare were identified among the top five most needed services for three of the four QPs. The analysis also identified gaps in locally available supportive services for people fleeing or attempting to flee gender-based violence.
While the Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis indicated that there are unmet needs for each of the HOME-ARP-eligible activities, the data also shows that there are challenges and concerns with implementing some of these activities. Table 43 outlines how survey respondents prioritized the five eligible activities according to the average weighted score.
While affordable rental housing and supportive services were prioritized as the top two activities among respondents, TBRA was the third-highest-scoring eligible activity from the survey followed by nonprofit capacity building and non-congregate shelter.
Table 43: Average Weighted Score of Prioritized HOME-ARP-Eligible Activities Ranking
Order HOME-ARP-Eligible Activity Average
Weighted Score
#1 Affordable Rental Housing 4.5
#2 Supportive Services 3.8
#3 Tenant Based Rental Assistance 3.2
#4 Nonprofit Capacity Building 1.9
#5 Non-Congregate Shelter 1.6
Although the survey clearly indicates that some respondents would prioritize TBRA among the eligible activities, the information gathered through the consultation sessions and survey open-ended responses suggests there are mixed feelings among stakeholders.
Several participants through the consultation process explained that local housing markets have been saturated with TBRA due to local, state, and federal pandemic response programs. While many are thankful for the additional resources, the surge in TBRA has made it difficult for voucher recipients to secure housing. Factors such as rising housing costs, inflation, low vacancy rates, and the unwillingness of landlords in the private market to accept vouchers have decreased the number of units that are available and affordable to voucher holders. The data suggests that there is support for rental assistance; however, there are currently other sources of rental assistance funding available in the community and as a relatively small, one-time funding source, HOME-ARP is not well-suited for a program such as TBRA that would require ongoing financial contributions.
Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Use of HOME-ARP Funding
101
Similarly, the consultation sessions and survey indicated that fewer stakeholders would prioritize non-congregate shelter with HOME-ARP funds. Throughout the consultation process, stakeholders described how staff burnout and limited organizational capacity are challenges for organizations serving the four HOME-ARP QPs. They shared that the pandemic has exacerbated some pre-existing challenges such as insufficient pay for staff, and limited funding and resources to serve those in need of assistance. In the survey, 50 percent of stakeholders selected non-congregate shelter as their fifth choice among the eligible activities. This data suggests that while non-congregate shelter can be a vital resource for the HOME-ARP QPs—especially for individuals experiencing homelessness and those fleeing or attempting to flee domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, and human trafficking—there are capacity challenges that make it difficult to adequately serve vulnerable populations.
By prioritizing affordable rental housing and supportive services with its HOME-ARP allocation, Mountain View can help meet the needs of all four QPs while addressing some of the priority needs identified in the Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis. Adding to the stock of affordable rental housing would alleviate some of the pressure currently exerted upon the housing and shelter inventory. In addition, the range of eligible supportive services under HOME-ARP would allow Mountain View to fund programs that could broaden the impact of programs serving all the QPs. Section VI.D.4.c.i of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Notice CPD-21-10 outlines the allowable uses for HOME-ARP supportive services, which align with the needs identified in the Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis. Supportive services could therefore be utilized to address some of the noted challenges with TBRA and non-congregate shelter programs while serving a broad range of HOME-ARP-eligible households across the community.
Lastly, the City decided to allocate 1 percent of its HOME-ARP allocation toward nonprofit operating support. Mountain View opted to allocate some funding that can be used to pay the operating expenses of nonprofit organizations that will carry out the HOME-ARP activities. Eligible operating expenses are necessary costs for operating a nonprofit organization such as employee salaries, wages, and other employee compensation and benefits; employee education, training, and travel; rent; utilities; communication costs; taxes; insurance; and equipment, materials, and supplies. Through the consultation sessions and survey, stakeholders described how challenges such as insufficient pay for staff and limited program funding have made it harder for organizations to support their own staff and capacity while adequately meeting the needs of their clients. The consultation process also noted areas to form new partnerships and strengthen linkages with victim service providers (VSPs) serving the broader region with individuals in Mountain View. By allocating HOME-ARP funding toward nonprofit operating costs, the City can help M
ountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Use of HOME-ARP Funding
102
address some of the challenges impacting the nonprofit organizations that will carry out the HOME-ARP supportive services.
Lastly, Mountain View opted to allocate funding up to the statutory limit for HOME PJ planning and administration support. Eligible administration and planning costs include necessary costs for the management, coordination, monitoring, and evaluation of the HOME-ARP program. Examples include administration activities such as developing systems to comply with HOME-ARP requirements, developing interagency agreements, monitoring HOME-ARP activities for progress and compliance, preparing HOME-ARP reports and documents for submission to HUD, and evaluating program results against stated objectives. A full list of eligible costs is provided in Section VI.A of the HUD Notice.
Since the HOME-ARP program is a new source of federal funding with its own unique program requirements, the City has elected to allocate sufficient funds to build its own internal capacity to administer, monitor, and evaluate the program. Doing so will help ensure that the HOME-ARP-eligible activities have the greatest impact and best meet the needs of some of Mountain View’s most vulnerable communities.
M ountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Use of HOME-ARP Funding
103
HOME-ARP Production Housing Goals
Regulatory Requirements
In accordance with Section V.C.3 of the Notice, participating jurisdictions (PJs) must provide an estimate for the number of affordable rental housing units for qualifying populations (QPs) that they will produce or support with HOME-ARP funds. In addition, PJs must also include a narrative about the specific affordable rental housing production goal that the PJ hopes to achieve and describe how it will address the PJ’s priority needs.
Estimate the number of affordable rental housing units for QPs that the PJ will produce or support with its HOME-ARP allocation.
The City estimates that it will spend approximately $195,000 per unit of affordable rental housing for a total of four units with its HOME-ARP resources. Given the high costs to develop affordable housing in Mountain View, the City’s allocation will only be able to assist a small number of units.
Describe the specific affordable rental housing production goal that the PJ hopes to achieve and describe how the production goal will address the PJ’s priority needs.
HOME-ARP funds will provide a one-time expansion of resources for the development of affordable rental housing for some of Mountain View’s most vulnerable residents.
Prioritizing the development of affordable rental housing aligns with the needs of all four HOME-ARP QPs identified in the Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis and will further the City’s goals of expanding affordable housing options for households earning less than 50 percent area median income (AMI). While the estimated number of units that will be produced with the HOME-ARP allocation is small, it will help make a long-term impact with a one-time source of funding. The funds will likely leverage state and federal funds for affordable housing and fill important gaps to allow a project to move forward.
M
ountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
HOME-ARP Production Housing Goals
104
Preferences
Regulatory Requirements
Section V.C.4 of the Notice states that participating jurisdictions (PJs) must identify whether they intend to establish a preference for one or more of the qualifying populations (QPs) or a subpopulation within one or more of the QPs for any eligible activity or project. If a PJ chooses to establish a preference, they must explain how the use of a preference or method of prioritization will address the unmet needs or gaps in benefits and services identified in the Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis. PJs must also describe how they will still address the unmet needs or gaps of the other QPs that are not included in a preference through the use of HOME-ARP funds.
Preferences cannot violate any applicable fair housing, civil rights, and nondiscrimination requirements, including but not limited to those requirements listed in 24 CFR 5.105(a). The PJ must comply with all applicable nondiscrimination and equal opportunity laws and requirements listed in 24 CFR 5.105(a) and any other applicable fair housing and civil rights laws and requirements when establishing preferences or methods of prioritization.
Identify whether the PJ intends to give preference to one or more QPs or a subpopulation within one or more QPs for any eligible activity or project.
The City does not intend to give preference to any specific HOME-ARP QP or subpopulation for affordable rental housing projects supported with HOME-ARP funds. Affordable rental housing projects will be available to any HOME-ARP QP.
The City may include a preference in the provision of supportive services for the following HOME-ARP QPs:
• Individuals experiencing homelessness, as defined in 24 CFR 91.5. • Persons fleeing or attempting to flee domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, or human trafficking, as defined by HUD.
If a preference was identified, explain how the use of a preference or method of prioritization will address the unmet need or gap in benefits and services received by individuals and families in the QP or subpopulation of the QP, consistent with the PJ’s needs assessment and gap analysis.
Mountain View does not intend to give preference to any specific HOME-ARP QP or subpopulation for affordable rental housing projects supported with HOME-ARP funds but may include a preference in the provision of supportive services for victims’ services for M
ountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Preferences
105
individuals experiencing homelessness and persons fleeing or attempting to flee domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, or human trafficking. If the City decides to include this preference, doing so would allow Mountain View to address two of the priority needs identified in the Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis. Specifically, stakeholders noted the need for improved community outreach to individuals experiencing homelessness and persons fleeing/attempting to flee. Including a preference for these two QPs would target funding to two populations who are currently facing an unmet need.
M ountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Preferences
106
Referral Methods
Regulatory Requirements
The HUD Notice states that participating jurisdictions (PJs) are not required to describe referral methods in the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan; however, a PJ must require a project or activity to use coordinated entry (CE) along with other referral methods or to use only a project/activity waiting list if:
• CE does not have a sufficient number of qualifying individuals or families to refer to the PJ for the project or activity.
• CE does not include all HOME-ARP qualifying populations (QPs). • CE fails to provide access and implement uniform referral processes in situations where a project’s geographic area(s) is broader than the geographic area(s) covered by the CE system.
Identify the referral methods that the PJ intends to use for its HOME-ARP projects and activities. A PJ may use multiple referral methods in its HOME-ARP program. (Optional)
Santa Clara County’s CE system focuses primarily on persons experiencing homelessness and includes some components of the definitions of the other three HOME-ARP QPs. As a result, Mountain View will require HOME-ARP-funded projects and services to use a project- specific waiting list. Mountain View will review all referral methods to ensure compliance with HOME-ARP program requirements.
If the PJ intends to use the CE process established by the Continuum of Care (CoC), describe whether all QPs eligible for a project or activity will be included in the CE process, or the method by which all QPs eligible for the project or activity will be covered. (Optional)
Santa Clara County’s CE process includes portions of the HOME-ARP QP definitions. The Individuals Experiencing Homelessness QP is fully included and covers the components defined under 24 CFR 91.5(1) (2) and (3). The Individuals At Risk of Homelessness QP is not included in CE but the CoC tracks client enrollment and assessments regarding homelessness prevention through another system. In addition, CE partially includes the Persons Fleeing/Attempting to Flee QP by covering 24 CFR 91.5(4). Victims’ services providers (VSPs) place clients who are survivors of/fleeing domestic violence on the CE confidential queue and these individuals are referred to programs through the CE process.
Lastly, the Other Groups At Greatest Risk of Homelessness/Housing Instability QP is not included in CE.
M
ountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Referral Methods
107
Since not all components of the HOME-ARP QP definitions are covered in CE, Mountain View will require HOME-ARP-funded projects and services to use a project or activity- specific waiting list. Mountain View will review all referral methods to ensure compliance with HOME-ARP program requirements.
If the PJ intends to use the CE process established by the CoC, describe the method of prioritization to be used by the CE. (Optional) This section does not apply to Mountain View since the City intends to use a project-specific waiting list for HOME-ARP projects.
If the PJ intends to use both a CE process established by the CoC and another referral method for a project or activity, describe any method of prioritization between the two referral methods, if any. (Optional)
The City only intends to use one referral method.
M
ountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Referral Methods
108
Limitations in a HOME-ARP Rental Housing or NCS Project Regulatory Requirements
The HUD Notice states that limiting eligibility for HOME-ARP rental housing or non- congregate shelter (NCS) projects is only permitted under certain circumstances. For example, participating jurisdictions (PJs) may limit admission to HOME-ARP rental housing or NCS projects to households who need specialized supportive services that are provided in such housing or NCS. Any limitations must follow all applicable fair housing, civil rights, and nondiscrimination requirements.
Describe whether the PJ intends to limit eligibility for a HOME-ARP rental housing or NCS project to a particular qualifying population (QP) or specific subpopulation of a QP identified in section IV.A of the Notice.
The City does not intend to limit eligibility to any specific HOME-ARP QP or subpopulation for affordable rental housing projects supported with HOME-ARP funds. Affordable rental housing projects will be available to any HOME-ARP QP.
If a PJ intends to implement a limitation, explain why the use of a limitation is necessary to address the unmet need or gap in benefits and services received by individuals and families in the QP or subpopulation of the QP, consistent with the PJ’s needs assessment and gap analysis.
This section does not apply to Mountain View.
If a limitation was identified, describe how the PJ will address the unmet needs or gaps in benefits and services of the other QPs that are not included in the limitation through the use of HOME-ARP funds (i.e., through another of the PJ’s HOME-ARP projects or activities).
This section does not apply to Mountain View.
M
ountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Limitations in a HOME-ARP Rental Housing or NCS Project 109
HOME-ARP Refinancing Guidelines
Regulatory Requirements
If the participating jurisdiction (PJ) intends to use HOME-ARP funds to refinance existing debt secured by multifamily rental housing that is being rehabilitated with HOME-ARP funds, the PJ must state its HOME-ARP refinancing guidelines in accordance with 24 CFR
92.206(b). The guidelines must describe the conditions under with the PJ will refinance existing debt for a HOME-ARP rental project, including the below.
Establish a minimum level of rehabilitation per unit or a required ratio between rehabilitation and refinancing to demonstrate that rehabilitation of HOME-ARP rental housing is the primary eligible activity.
Mountain View does not intend to use HOME-ARP funds for this purpose.
Require a review of management practices to demonstrate that disinvestment in the property has not occurred; that the long-term needs of the project can be met; and that the feasibility of serving qualified populations for the minimum compliance period can be demonstrated.
Mountain View does not intend to use HOME-ARP funds for this purpose.
State whether the new investment is being made to maintain current affordable units, create additional affordable units, or both.
Mountain View does not intend to use HOME-ARP funds for this purpose.
Specify the required compliance period, whether it is the minimum 15 years or longer.
Mountain View does not intend to use HOME-ARP funds for this purpose.
State that HOME-ARP funds cannot be used to refinance multifamily loans made or insured by any federal program, including CDBG.
Mountain View does not intend to use HOME-ARP funds for this purpose.
Other requirements in the PJ’s guidelines, if applicable.
Mountain View does not intend to use HOME-ARP funds for this purpose.
M
ountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
HOME-ARP Refinancing Guidelines
110
Appendix
Acronyms
Acronym Definition
ACS American Community Survey
AMI Area Median Income
CDBG Community Development Block Grant
CE Coordinated Entry
CEDAW Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination CHAS Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
CoC Continuum of Care
CSA Community Services Agency
DVRCS Domestic Violence-Related Calls for Service
ELI Extremely Low-Income
ES Emergency Shelter
HAMFI HUD-Adjusted Median Family Income
HIC Housing Inventory Count
HMIS Homeless Management Information System
HOME HOME Investment Partnership Program
HOME-ARP HOME American Rescue Plan Program
HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
MVLA Mountain View—Los Altos Union High School District MVWSD Mountain View Whisman School District
NCS Non-Congregate Shelter
PHA Public Housing Authority/Agency
PJ HOME Participating Jurisdiction
PSH Permanent Supportive Housing
QP Qualifying Populations
RRH Rapid Rehousing
Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
Appendix
111
Acronym Definition
SBCEHT South Bay Coalition to End Human Trafficking
SCCHA Santa Clara County Housing Authority
TBRA Tenant-Based Rental Assistance
TH Transitional Housing
VI-SPDAT Vulnerability Index—Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool VLI Very Low-Income
VSP Victim Service Provider
A
Mountain View HOME-ARP Allocation Plan
ppendix
112