Community & Economic Development Committee
April 8, 2025
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Jestin D. Johnson FROM: Emily Weinstein
City Administrator Director, Department of
Housing & Community
Development
SUBJECT: Homelessness Prevention Program
Extension
DATE: March 20, 2025
City Administrator Approval Date:
RECOMMENDATION
ADOPT A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 90475 C.M.S., WHICH
AUTHORIZED FUNDING FOR THE HOMELESS PREVENTION PILOT PROGRAM GRANT TO BAY AREA COMMUNITY SERVICES, INC. FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED FOUR MILLION DOLLARS ($4,000,000.00) AND GRANT TERM THROUGH JUNE 30, 2026 TO:
(1) EXTEND THE GRANT TERM TO JUNE 30, 2027;
(2) INCREASE THE AUTHORIZED GRANT AMOUNT TO A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED FIVE MILLION DOLLARS ($5,000,000.00) AND ALLOCATING PREVIOUSLY BUDGETED FUNDS TO BACS’ HOMELESS PREVENT ION PILOT PROGRAM; AND
(3) AUTHORIZE THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO ACCEPT, APPROPRIATE, AND
INCREASE THE GRANT AGREEMENT USING ANY STATE, FEDERAL, LOCAL, AND/OR PRIVATE FUNDING THAT BECOMES AVAILABLE FOR BACS’ HOMELESS
PREVENTION PILOT PROGRAM DURING THE TERM OF THE GRANT AGREEMENT,
WITHOUT RETURN TO COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Bay Area Community Services, Inc. (BACS) and a consortium of community partners administers the Homelessness Prevention Pilot Program (HPP). HPP was launched in 2023 as a data-driven approach to reduce the flow of residents – especially Black men – into homelessness. According to the 2024 Point-in-Time Count, on a given night in Oakland, 5,490 people are experiencing homelessness and 67% are living outside or in vehicles. Black Oaklanders experience the greatest inequity in homelessness: 52.5% of the unhoused population is Black when Black Oaklanders represent only 21.8% of the general population.
Community & Economic Development Committee
April 8, 2025
Jestin D. Johnson, City Administrator
Subject: Homelessness Prevention Program Extension
Date: March 20, 2025 Page 2
HPP provides evidence-bas ed, targeted prevention services to those most at-risk of experiencing homelessness including emergency financial assistance, case management, and supportive services. A February 2025 evaluation by Stanford University and the University of Pennsylvania, “Oakland’s Targeted Homelessness Prevention Pilot” (Attachment A), highlights the effectiveness of the program, including the successful ability to efficiently reach the target population.
The C
ity has to date provided $4.3 million to support the current HPP grant, which has enabled the program to thus far serve 374 households. The proposed resolution would authorize the City Administrator to enter into an agreement with BACS to continue to administer the HPP through June 30, 2027. This proposed resolution would also allocate $1 million in funding already present in the Housing & Community Development Department’s FY 24-25 budget to increase the funding for this high-impact program. This resolution would furthermore provide staff the flexibility to accept and deploy additional funds to support the HPP if state and federal grants funds or other funding sources become available for this purpose. As many Oakland residents are severely burdened by housing costs, the universe of potential HPP beneficiaries is significantly larger than the number of clients the program has had funding to serve. This resolution would allow staff to add available funding sources to this grant agreement to better serve this unmet need and prevent Oaklanders from falling into homelessness.
BACKGROUND / L
EGISLATIVE HISTORY
BACS and its program partners provide critical homelessness prevention services to those households most at risk of experiencing homelessness. Following a competitive Request for Proposal (Attachment B), BACS and its program partners were selected to administer the Homelessness Prevention Pilot Program. Program partners include the following community- embedded organizations:
East Oakland Collective
The Unity Council
Eviction Defense Center
Black Cultural Zone
East Bay Community Law Center
211
These trusted organizations conduct outreach and leverage their networks and community relationships to reach those most at risk of becoming homeless. These community partners play a critical role not only in reaching highly vulnerable households but providing one-on-one support and assistance to complete applications and gather required documentation.
HPP uses an evidence-b ased, equity-driven approach and prioritizes applications based on factors research shows to be most predictive of homelessness risk to reach households most at risk of experiencing homelessness, especially Black men. Applications are not processed on a first come, first served basis but by the calculated risk of homelessness. Once an application is submitted, BACS uses an evidence-based prioritization system to assign points based on known risk factors such as:
Prior experience of homelessness,
Criminal justice system involvement,
Community & Economic Development Committee
April 8, 2025
Jestin D. Johnson, City Administrator
Subject: Homelessness Prevention Program Extension
Date: March 20, 2025 Page 3
Leaseholder status,
Zip code,
Income and housing costs
The initial $2.3 million funding for BACS to launch HPP was provided through $1.6 million of Community Development Block Grant funds, approved as part of the Annual Action Plan and $750,000 in General Purpose Funds per the City of Oakland FY 2022-23 M id Cycle Budget (authorizing Resolution Nos. 89283 C.M.S. and 89377 C.M.S). In FY 2023-2024, in addition to the City of Oakland funds, philanthropic funding was leveraged to serve an additional 900 households, reflecting the urgency of expanding prevention efforts. These households were highly vulnerable and in precarious housing situations, but the City funds were used exclusively for the most at-risk households.
On October 15, 2024, the City Council approved Resol ution No. 90475 C.M.S., which authorized an additional $2 million in Affordable Housing Trust Funds for BACS to continue the HPP.
ANALYSIS AND POLIC Y ALTERNATIVES
At current service rates, the HPP will exhaust its funding no later than spring 2025. This resolution will provide an additional $1 million to fund HPP operations for an additional portion of 2025 using funding already available in the Housing & Community Development Department’s FY 2024-25 budget and authorize a corresponding amendment to the grant agreement with BACS. This resolution will advance the City’s Housing, Economic, and Cultural Security Priority by continuing to provide critical homelessness prevention services to help address the homelessness crisis.
Since the beginning of the HPP, staff have sought to identify additional state, federal, and private resources that could supplement the City’s direct investment in the HPP. This resolution will provide staff with the flexibility they need to quickly deploy any such resources that become available in future. Although state and federal resources for homelessness prevention have historically been limited, staff will continue to advocate for increased funding and explore regulatory flexibility for existing funding sources.
Since launching the HPP in September 2023, BACS has served 374 Oakland households on the brink of homelessness. During a follow-up survey, 85% of households served report that without the assistance, they would have lost their housing. An evaluation conducted by Stanford University showed 91% of those assisted maintained their housing.
Seventy-five percent of clients served in FY 2023-24 were Black or African American.
Racially disaggregated data from the 2024 Point-in-Time Count shows 52% of the unhoused population is Black or African American, compared to being just 21% of the general Oakland population. According to the latest available report, zip codes with the most applications received are 94605 (17%), 94621 (16%) and 94601 (13%).
Community & Economic Development Committee
April 8, 2025
Jestin D. Johnson, City Administrator
Subject: Homelessness Prevention Program Extension
Date: March 20, 2025 Page 4
FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed resolution will authorize a grant extension for operating the HPP through June 30, 2027. The $1 million allocated via this resolution is available in the Affordable Housing Trust Fund (1870), Homeless Prevention Pilot Project (1007395). Any additional City funding is contingent on availability and may be dependent on the adoption FY 2025-2027 biannual budget.
The proposed resolution also authorizes to increase the not to exceed amount of the BACS grant by an amount corresponding to any additional local, state, federal, or private funding that becomes available for the Homeless Prevention Pilot Program. These funds will be accepted an appropriated in a Grant Fund to be determined and Project to be determined.
PUBLIC OUTREACH / I NTEREST
Prior to the launch of the Homelessness Prevention Pilot (HPP) program, Oakland HCD initiated an interdepartmental working group in summer 2022 consisting of the Human Services Department, the Department of Race and Equity, the City Administrator’s Office, and the Mayor’s Office to explore the City’s approach to addressing housing instability. The team quickly learned that the City’s primary focus had been on eviction defense, but that there had not been intentional, data-driven targeting to address racial disparities.
In response, Oakland HCD partnered with academic research teams at Stanford University’s Changing Cities Research Lab and the Housing Initiative at Penn via the University of Pennsylvania to explore the causes of housing instability more deeply. The academic research team therefore conducted eighty (80) interviews with very- and extremely low-income residents (those who earn between 0-50% and 0-30% of the Area Median Income, respectively) to better understand the barriers they face in accessing and maintaining housing. About one-third of the residents interviewed did not hold a formal rental lease. This meant they were housed but were informally/unstably living with family members or friends. The final interview sample consisted of the following participant demographics:
21 Black
22 Asian/Pacific Islander
21 Hispanic
16 White
Respondents came from all major neighborhoods including West and Deep East Oakland, Fruitvale, Downtown and Central Oakland/Chinatown, and the Elmhurst areas. Each interview lasted between 1-1.5 hours and were conducted in English, Spanish, Cantonese, or Mandarin.
All participants were compensated with $40 gift cards and were recruited through flyers and in- person conversations at BART stations, public libraries, food banks, grocery stores, community organizations, religious institutions, and more. In the interviews, residents were asked about their rental histories, living arrangements, housing conditions, finances, and more. About six months after the first interview, participants were contacted to engage in a follow-up survey to gauge how their experiences changed over time. More detailed information and high-level
Community & Economic Development Committee
April 8, 2025
Jestin D. Johnson, City Administrator
Subject: Homelessness Prevention Program Extension
Date: March 20, 2025 Page 5
results from the interviews may be reviewed in the Changing Cities Research Lab’s February 2023 report, “The State of Housing Insecurity in Oakland.”
The interviews not only identified contributing reasons for housing instability that the residents faced, but also illuminated a set of solutions and interventions that, in their opinions, would have helped them stay housed and stable. These learnings, along with data and lessons learned from previous City of Oakland initiatives such as Keep Oakland Housed, Oakland Housing Secure, the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP), provided best practices to combat housing insecurity and stem the flow of residents into homelessness. With this knowledge, Oakland HCD worked closely with its academic and community-based experts in the field to co-design an evidence-based, highly targeted program to reach those most at risk of losing their housing (Black men with former experiences being unhoused, experience in the criminal justice system, and other critical factors). Oakland HCD then released the program Request for Proposal (RFP) in fall 2022 that reflected this program design.
COORDINATION
This report was completed in coordination with the City Attorney’s Office and Finance Department.
PAST PERFORMANCE, EVALUATION AND FOLLOW-UP
To date, the HPP served 374 households most at risk of experiencing homelessness. In a participant survey, 85% of those assisted said that without the support of the program, they would have lost their housing. A February 2025 evaluation by Stanford University and the University of Pennsylvania (Attachment A) highlights the effectiveness of the program, including the successful ability to efficiently reach the target population.
SUSTAINABLE OPPORTUNITIES
Economic: The Homelessness Prevention Pilot (HPP) program provides emergency financial assistance and wraparound supports to keep people housed. For HPP participants at risk of homelessness due to a short-term economic shock, like an injury or job loss, the HPP helps participants weather the short-term financial emergency, regain employment, and remain stably housed.
Environmental: By reducing entries to homelessness, the HPP will reduce the environmental impacts of unsheltered homelessness.
Race & Equity: Black Oakland residents are disproportionately experiencing homelessness.
HPP prioritizes those most at risk of homelessness, including Black men, with prior homelessness and/or criminal justice system involvement, from zip codes with high levels of housing instability, and provides stabilizing services to keep them housed. Seventy-five percent of participants identified as Black, which suggests the community-based outreach efforts and embedded-in-the-application prioritization tool are successful in reaching a pool of participants that reflects the broader at-risk population.
Community & Economic Development Committee
April 8, 2025
Jestin D. Johnson, City Administrator
Subject: Homelessness Prevention Program Extension
Date: March 20, 2025 Page 6
ACTION REQUESTED OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Adopt A Resolution Amending Resolution No. 90475 C.M.S., Which Authorized Funding For The Homeless Prevention Pilot Program Grant To Bay Area Community Services, Inc. For A total Amount Not To Exceed Four Million Dollars ($4,000,000.00) And Grant Term Through June 30, 2026 To:
(1) Extend The Grant Term To June 30, 2027;
(2) Increase The Authorized Grant Amount To A Total Amount Not To Exceed Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00) And Allocating Previously Budgeted Funds To BACS’ Homeless Prevention Pilot Program; And
(3) Authorize The City Administrator To Accept, Appropriate, And Increase The Grant Agreement Using Any State, Federal, Local, And/Or Private Funding That Becomes Available For BACS’ Homeless Prevention Pilot Program During The Term Of The Grant Agreement, Without Return To Council
For questions regarding this report, please contact Caleb Smith, Senior Policy Analyst, at (510) 590-6275.
Respectfully submitted,
Emily Weinstein (Mar 25, 2025 12:14 PDT)
Emily Weinstein
Director, Housing & Community Development
Department
Reviewed by:
Hugo Ramirez, Deputy Director, Housing &
Community Development Department
Prepared by:
Caleb Smith, Senior Policy Analyst
Maeve Talamantes, Program Analyst II
Attachments (2):
A. Keep People Housed Oaklands Targeted Prevention Pilot B. Homelessness Prevention RFP 11.14.2022
Attachment A
REPORT I February 2025
Keep People Housed:
Oakland's Targeted Homelessness Prevention Pilot
CHANGING CITIES RESEARCH LAB,
Stanford University
Mira Joseph
Iris Zhang
Jackelyn Hwang
HOUSING INITIATIVE AT PENN,
University of Pennsylvania
Cypress Marrs
Chi-Hyun Kim
Vincent Reina
Introduction
In July 2023, the City of Oakland's Housing and Community Development Department, in collaboration with Bay Area Community Services, launched a Homelessness Prevention Pilot (HPP), also called Keep People Housed, as pandemic -era residential stability programs ended. The program was conceptualized as a lifeline for low - income tenants experiencing extreme housing instability by providing short-term financial assistance and resource coordination. In just over a year, the program received 3,915 applications and assisted 1,146 households. With funding from the City of Oakland, 374 households identified as being at high risk of homelessness were assisted; additional philanthropic support allowed the program to serve an additional 772 highly vulnerable households.
The Changing Cities Research Lab at Stanford University and the Housing Initiative at Penn at th e University of Pennsylvania served as evaluation partners, analyzing the program's operations and impact through program, survey, and interview data.
housinginitiative.org
ccrl.stanford.edu 2
Key Findings
• The program conducted outreach in high -needs commumties through partnerships with community-based organizations. Over fifty percent of applicants reported paying seventy percent or more of their income on housing costs, and twenty-four percent reported that they experienced homelessness in the prior two years.
• Eighty-five percent of survey participants who received assistance through the program agreed or strongly agreed that they would have lost their housing without the program's assistance.
Eligible applicants who received assistance from the program experienced homelessness less often than those who did not; however, this may be due to pre-existing differences between the two groups.
• Some households who had encountered a temporary financial shock, like a job loss or injury , before applying reported increased confidence in their ability to maintain stable housing going forward following assistance from the program. Other households faced long -term barriers, including disability and caregiving responsibilities, to maintaining stable housing and would benefit from longer -term support.
• Waiting times hampered the program's ability to provide crucial emergency assistance to the highly vulnerable population it aimed to support. Applicants who applie d with the support of a community -based organization were more likely to receive assistance through the program relative to other applicants. Utilizing community partnerships and ensuring staff capacity to process applications quickly should be a priority for policymakers and program administrators when designing support programs for at -risk households.
Program Context
Over the last two decades, rent has become increasingly unaffordable nationwide. Between 2000 and 2023, median
rent prices rose by 32% across the U.S. 1 Consequently, the number of households spending more than half of
their income on housing costs reached a record high
of 12.1 million households in 2022. 2 Black renters, in particular, have borne the brunt of this sharp increase in housing costs. In 2023, fifty-six percent of Black renter households nationally spend over 30% of their income
on housing, compared to 53% of Hispanic or Latino/a
households, 46% of White households, and 43% of Asian
households.3 These rising housing costs exacerbate racial and economic inequality.
These national trends are especially pronounced m
1 Figures adjusted for inflation.
U.S. Census Bureau, Table B25064, 2023.
U.S. Census Bureau, "Median Gross Rent (Dollars)," 2023. 2 Joint Center for Housing Studies, America's Rental Housing 2024. 3 U.S. Census Bureau, "Nearly Half of Renter Households Are Cost- Burdened, Proportions Differ by Race."
Oakland, where the median rent has increased by 50%
over the last two decades. In 2020, 75% of Black renters in Oakland spent more than 30% of their income on rent, compared to 52% of Hispanic or Latino/a households,
37% ofWhite households, and45% ofAsianhouseholds.4
Beyond stretching the household budgets of Oakland
residents, high housing costs have been one force driving displacement and remaking the city. Nearly every
neighborhood in Oakland showed signs of gentrification
between 2000 to 2018. During that same period, the
Black population in Oakland declined by over one-third.5 Among the low -income residents who have remained,
the experience of homelessness has become increasingly
common; from 2015 to 2024, the homeless population in
Oakland grew from 2,191 to 5,485.6
4 U.S. Census Bureau, "Nearly Half of Renter Households Are Cost- Burdened, Proportions Differ by Race."
5 Hwang, Gupta, and Shrimali, "Neighborhood Change," Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Community Development Working Paper 2021-1. 6 City of Oakland, Addressing Homelessness in Oakland, 2021, 4.
Alameda County Health Housing and Homelessness Services, Alameda County 2024 PIT Homelessness Report, 2024, 21.
housinginitiative.org
ccrl.stanford.edu 3
The Homelessness Prevention Pilot
Beginning in 2023, the City of Oakland partnered with
Bay Area Community Services (BACS) to launch the
Homelessness Prevention Program (HPP), also known
as Keep People Housed. The program began accepting
applications in late July 2023, just after the COVID -era eviction moratorium in the City of Oakland ended and as the City neared the end of the process of administering federal Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP)
funds. The homelessness prevention program utilizes the administrative infrastructure of Keep Oakland Housed
to provide highly targeted short-term financial and legal support as well as resource coordination. Keep Oakland
Housed launched in 2018 and provided short -term
financial assistance alongside resource coordination and legal services through a partnership between BACS,
Catholic Charities East Bay, and the East Bay Community Law Center.
A recent large -scale survey of people experiencing
homelessness in California found that the most common
reason that people cited for losing their housing was
an inability to pay rent. 7 A study in neighboring Santa Clara County Santa Clara County found that offering
households an average of $2,000 of financial assistance reduces homelessness by 3.8 percentage points, down
from a base rate of 4.1%, measured at six months after
the intervention.
8 To i
dentify households at the highest risk of experiencing
homelessness in the short term, or those who were in
the most dire need of assistance, HPP utilized a data
-
dri
ven prioritization tool developed by BACS. The tool
identifies multiple risk factors for homelessness, including previous experience of homelessness and justice system
involvement, alongside factors that may make an instance of homelessness particularly damaging to a household
7 The California Statewide Study of People Experiencing Homelessness (CASPEH), conducted by The University of California, San Francisco Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative (BHHI). bilpM
(such as the presence of children).9 The prioritization tool categorized applicants into three risk levels: Tier 1, the most vulnerable (22% of all applicants); Tier 2, highly vulnerable (44%); and Tier 3, vulnerable (34%). Given
the resource constraints of the program, only applicants in Tiers 1 and 2 were eligible for assistance, with the program designed in such a way as to provide more intensive case coordination and higher levels of financial assistance to applicants in Tier 1 relative to applicants in Tier 2. In line with the City of Oakland's priority to support the highest needs group, City funding was primarily used to support the Tier 1 applicants.
The Keep People Housed Logo
The pilot program received $6.8 million from the City
of Oakland as well as $5.7 million from philanthropic
contributions, allowing the program to provide financial assistance to 1,146 households. The median payment
was $5,798 and could cover rental arrears, prospective
rent, utility expenses, and, in some cases, moving
costs or other immediate costs to facilitate longer
-
t
erm stability. The pilot also provided tenants with case coordination, including resources and referrals to other benefits, resources including job development and legal services. APPENDIX A describes various aspects of the
intervention model in detail.
T
hroughout the evaluation, program staff and leadership
reported that Tier 1 and Tier 2 tenants had high arrears and an urgent need for assistance. Case coordinators reported that they ultimately ended up providing Tier 1 and Tier 2 applicants with similar levels of case coordination and resources (assisted Tier 1 applicants received a median of
8 "Do Homelessness Prevention Programs Prevent Homelessness? Evidence from a Randomized Controlled Trial." Phillips, David and James Sullivan. Review of Economics and Statistics. May 2023. https://doi. org/10.1162/resLa_Ol 344
9 EveryOneHome, Homelessness in Alameda County: 2018 Strategic Plan Update, 2018. https://everyonehome.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/ EveryOne-Home-Strategic-Update-Report-Final.pdf
housinginitiative.org
ccrl.stanford.edu 4
$5,578, Tier 2 applicants a median of $5,848). As a result, throughout the evaluation, we collectively refer to Tier 1 and Tier 2 applicants as prioritized applicants and discuss the intervention as a single program.
Evaluation Approach
The City of Oakland's Department of Housing and
Community Development partnered with the Changing
Cities Research Lab (CCRL) and the Housing Initiative at Penn (HIP) to evaluate the pilot. The research partnership between the City of Oakland, CCRL, and HIP was funded
by Stanford Impact Labs, which provides funding to link social scientists with non -academic partners to tackle social problems.
This report relies on data collected between July 2023, when the program began accepting applications, and
October 2024, when the research team administered
a final round of surveys to program applicants and
recipients. Leading up to and throughout this period, the research team met regularly with Oakland's Department
of Housing and Community Development and BACS
staff to discuss the on-the-ground implementation of the program and to share real-time analytics. This partnership and collaboration between program leadership and
the independent research team allowed for a deeply
embedded evaluation that adapted to and addressed
changes in implementation that occurred during the
pilot period. In addition to this informal and ongoing
dialogue with program leadership, the research team
also had broad access to application and program data,
conducted longitudinal survey and interview work with
applicants to the program, conducted interviews and
focus groups with program staff, and drew on consumer
credit data to measure the economic and housing stability of the neighborhoods the program served. A detailed
description of the data used in our evaluation can be found in
APPENDIX B.
Thefindingspresented throughoutthereportaredescriptive
rather than causal. The program and evaluation design did not include a control group. Instead, the study team used the ongoing waitlist to compare those households who
received financial assistance to those who had applied
but had not received this type of assistance.10 While this comparison provides insight into how assistance impacts households, the findings are limited due to systematic
pre-existing differences between those who went on to
receive assistance and those who did not. Some prioritized applicants did not receive funding after three months
because of eligibility or communications issues, or
because they found assistance through other programs. A discussion of the limitations of this approach is included in APPENDIX C, and a table that compares characteristics
of the survey and interview respondents and the greater applicant pool is presented in APPENDIX D.
Program Findings
Outreach
The program was designed to provide financial support
and case management to households on the verge of
experiencing homelessness. To reach renters at high risk of falling into homelessness, BACS partnered with five
community-based non-profits, including A.L. Willis Life Center, Black Cultural Zone, East Oakland Collective,
Safe Passages, and Unity Council, to target outreach to highly vulnerable communities and assist tenants with
submitting applications. BACS also partnered with two
local legal support partners, East Bay Community Law
Center, and Eviction Defense Center, to provide tenants with legal services. Program partners shared information about the program and assisted with applications in high- needs neighborhoods. Twenty-three percent of program
applicants reported learning about the program through
a community -based organization, and fifteen percent
applied with the help of one of these organizations. Many interviewees highlighted positive interactions with these organizations.
Applicants also reported learning about the program
through 211 or 311 (24%), from their landlord (16%),
or at a local government (8%), or coordinated entry
point (6%), which are organizations that offer points of entry to the centralized homelessness response system.
1O Seventy Tier 1 and Tier 2 households were offered nonflnancial services but did not receive financial assistance through the program.
These households were not considered as assisted in our analysis. housinginitiative.org
ccrl.stanford.edu 5
FIGURE 1
Number of Prioritized Applicants per Census Tract
Population Served
The prioritized tenants predominantly resided in
census tracts in East Oakland, around Fruitvale, and
Downtown (FIGURE 1). The program's outreach
and prioritization targeted areas with the most
urgent needs, focusing on regions highly susceptible
to displacement. Over half of the prioritized
applicants (55%) came from census tracts that were
classified as most vulnerable to displacement by the
City of Oakland's Department of Transportation
Geographic Equity Toolbox. 11
Further, 43% of prioritized applicants were from
areas with the highest levels of outmigration among
financially unstable households between June 2023-
June 2024, based on consumer credit data; FIGURE
2 shows a map of neighborhoods ranked by levels of
outmigration. Finally, 60% of applicants came from
ZIP codes identified as having high levels of renter
vulnerability. Many of the neighborhoods with the
highest risk of displacement are disproportionately
Black (See FIGURE 3). As a result, most applicants
to the program were Black.
The program reached renters highly vulnerable to
housing insecurity in Oakland. Over half (53%) of
applicants across tiers reported paying 70% or more
of their income on housing costs, which is well
beyond being severely cost -burdened. Furthermore,
24% of applicants reported experiences of
homelessness in the prior two years, 18% of survey
respondents were living in overcrowded conditions
(defined as more than two people in each room),
23% of applicants reported that a member of their
household had a disability, and 85% of baseline
survey respondents reported having borrowed
money from family or friends in the prior three
months to meet basic needs.
Housing instability in Oakland is deeply
racialized, with experiences of marginalization
11 The OakDOT Geographic Equity Toolbox, developed by The City of Oakland Department of Transportation based on 2019 5- Year ACS estimates. https://www.oaklandca.gov/resources/ llilli.QQ!-geographic-equity-to box.
'The folks at East Oakland Collective make you
feel comfortable talking to them about things that
you're going through. The assistance is great,
because it gives you a good shot to get everything
back in order in your life. It is actually a piece of
kindness, because you meet other people that's
going through the same thing that you're dealing
with. I want to say it's good vibes ... What I love
about it, it's right in the neighborhood. It's in
Oakland."
- Aaron, a 51-year-old Black man, who connected
with the program through a community partner.
Quote has been edited for length and clarity.
housinginitiative.org
ccrl.stanford.edu 6
FIGURE2
Number of Extremely Low-Income and Very Low-Income
Households Who Moved Out of Their Neighborhoods
Between June 2023 And June 2024
FIGURE3
Percent of Non-Hispanic Black Population by Census Tract
TABLE 1 Condensed Table of Applicant Characteristics and Vulnerabilities
Characteristic
Count overall
Percent overall
Count prioritized
Prioritized rate
Count prioritized and
assisted
Prioritized and
assisted rate
Overall 3,915 100.0% 2,603 66.5% 1,117 28.5%
Race and Ethnicity
Hispanic or Latino/a 740 18.9% 512 69.2% 236 31.9%
Black alone or in combination 2,557 65.3% 1,715 67.1% 750 29.3% Household Characteristics
Non-English language 330 8.4% 225 68.2% 117 35.5%
Household member with disability 910 23.2% 724 79.6% 324 35.6% Applying with fixed income 460 11.7% 318 69.1% 133 28.9% Applying while experiencing homelessness 461 11.8% 396 85.9% 67 14.5% Household member arrested or incarcerated in last 2 266 6.8% 227 85.3% 89 33.4% Children in household 1,916 48.9% 1,427 74.5% 662 34.6% Unlawful detainer 316 8.1% 254 80.4% 96 30.4%
Living without a lease 368 9.4% 345 93.8% 84 22.8%
Source Keep People Housed Application Database
See APPENDIX E for expanded tables.
housinginitiative.org
ccrl.stanford.edu 7
intersecting and compounding for many low -income
renters. For example, 69.9% of applicants who had
a household member who was incarcerated in the
past two years were Black, reflecting the reality that
factors associated with experiencing homelessness
particularly impact Black households. Likewise,
Hispanic or Latino/a applicants report living without
a lease at higher rates than other groups, and due to
that and other vulnerabilities tend to be prioritized for funding.
Services Offered by the
Homelessness Prevention Pilot
The pilot aimed to stabilize households identified as
highly vulnerable to homelessness by offering one -
time financial assistance alongside services. Central to this approach is the program's staff of coordinators,
who work directly with clients to process applications, obtain documentation when needed, understand the
situations and needs of prioritized households, and
coordinate services as needed, including referrals to
job development, legal services, housing navigation,
and help accessing other benefit programs such as
CalFresh. Around 80% of the applicants interviewed
reported that working with a case coordinator was
helpful,
though some also noted issues with the
consistency of communication.
The program used most of its resources on rental
assistance, which commonly covered arrears. Often,
coordinators and/or legal partners work with clients
and their landlords to have a portion of the rental
arrears forgiven or to set up a payment plan. In almost all cases, rental assistance provided by the program
was paid directly to a client's landlord, although,
occasionally, payments were made directly to tenants.
In addition to covering rental arrears, the financial
assistance was structured flexibly. This flexibility
allowed the program to assist with utility costs, moving expenses, and other expenses to promote stability.
One interviewee descr ibed the role that this flexible
financial support played in reducing their stress
and allowing them to pursue longer -term stability.
APPENDIX G further details the services provided
through the program.
Stability After the Intervention
Three months after receiving assistance, the vast majority of prioritized survey respondents (85%) agreed or
strongly agreed that they would have lost their housing without the assistance provided by the program. Likewise, descriptively, prioritized applicants who received
financial assistance from the program were less likely to experience homelessness in the following months relative to prioritized applicants who did not receive assistance through the program. Thirty percent of prioritized survey respondents who had received assistance reported that
they had experienced homelessness in the three months
prior to followup, compared to 61% of prioritized survey respondents who had not received assistance.
"/ start with a phone call to ensure that we create
a connection, provide them space to share their
stories. Based on their stories, then/ will create
a checklist of different resources that they could
potentially take advantage of in their situation.
The situations could vary. It could be someone
is homeless, so the first thing is looking into
shelters, then looking into affordable housing. Are
you employed? Let's get you a referral.
Since it's individualized, each application will take
me different routes. Many things do not have
simple solutions, so applications could carry on
for months, and people are still kind of reaching
out, following up."
- Case Coordinator
Quote has been edited for length and clarity.
"I would say everything is different, because it
takes a lot of pressure off you. With them, they
paid my PG&E. They paid my water bill. They paid
my past-due rent, and they paid the registration
for my car. All those things gave me less stress. It
allowed me to focus on other things that needed
my attention."
- Gina, a 42-year-old Black woman
housinginitiative.org
ccrl.stanford.edu 8
■
While pronusmg, the vanat1on in outcomes between
the two groups are descriptive and some variation may
be explained by pre -existing differences between the
groups. Specifically, prioritized survey respondents
who went on to receive funding through the program
were less likely than their non-funded counterparts to
report experiences of homelessness in the prior six
months when they initially applied for assistance
(32% versus 56%). This suggests that the group that
received funding through the program may have been
relatively more housing secure while also displaying
many factors that put households at high risk of
homelessness. The group that did not receive funding
included applicants BACS could not make or maintain
contact with, those not eligible for the program, and
those who found assistance through a lternative means
(see APPENDIX C for a more complete discussion).
The research team also analyzed differences in the
number of times applicants who applied to and received
funding from the program appeared in the Homeless
Management Information System (HMIS), a database
that records when people interact with homeless services providers in Alameda County. As in the analysis of
the survey data, prioritized applicants who received
assistance were compared to prioritized applicants who did not receive assistance. In the period 90-120 days
after applying, 1.1% of assisted applicants matched to
HMIS compared to 1.3% of unassisted applicants.
While there is a modest numeric difference between the
groups post -application, the analysis also showed that applicants who went on to be assisted may have already
been less likely to appear in HMIS before applying
(2.2% in the 30 days before applying for assisted
applicants, vs. 2.7% for unassisted applicants). In the 30 days immediately after the application, applicants
who went on to be assisted-excluding the few who
were assisted within 30 days-were much less likely
to appear in HMIS compa red to those who did not go
on to be assisted (1.1% vs 3.5%). These preexisting
differences make interpreting later differences difficult.
Moreover, these findings suggest that experiencing
homelessness after applying may correlate with not
receiving assistance from the program, possibly
because of the additional complexities of maintaining
communication with unstably housed tenants.
Survey respondents who received assistance through
the program were less likely than households who had
not received assistance to report borrowing money
from family or friends in the three months after
receiving assistance. Survey respondents who had
received assistance through the program tended to
rate their health more poorly at follow- up relative to how they assessed their health at the time of applying compared to those who had not received assistance
(see
FIGURE 5). This negative assoc iation may be
driven by relatively poor health among the target
FIGURE4
Respondents who borrowed money from family and friends to cover basic living expenses For respondents who reported having borrowed money at baseline
75%
Funding and priority status
Funded, Tier 1 /2
Not funded, Tier 1/2
f:!
a.
50%
25%
0%
Borrowed money both
at baseline and at followup
Borr
owed money at
baseline but not followup
Source: HIP baseline and followup surveys: data as of 2024-10-18
94%
■
Q
housinginitiative.org
ccrl.stanford.edu 9
■
C
FIGURES
Change in self-rated health between baseline and followup For participants responding to both surveys
56%
n = 35
Funding and priority status
Approved or paid
ifl
"C:'
"'
0 40%-
26%
29%
n = 22
ef2. 20%- n = 16
18%
n = 11
0%-
Health rating increased Health rating decreased
Source. HIP surveys of KPH participants, Tiers 1 & 2 only
population at large (42% of survey respondents rated
their health as 'Fair' or 'Poor' at baseline) as well as a complex interaction between health, housing stability,
and program access. Indeed, nearly half (45%) of the
interviewees described health issues affecting their
ability to work.
Experiences of Program Assistance
Interviews with applicants allowed the research team
to understand the trajectories of individual households following their interactions with the program with
more nuance. About half of the interviewed households
reported that their confidence in maintaining their
housing had increased after receiving assistance
through the program. Many households who had
increased confidence in maintaining their housing had
applied for assistance following a one-time crisis, like a job loss; in contrast, those whose sense of housing
stability did not improve following the intervention
faced long-term barriers, including disability and
caregiving responsibilities, to employment.
About half of the households who reported more
confidence in maintaining their housing following
assistance had encountered a temporary financial
shock, like a job loss or injury. Because, like most low - income tenants, these households lacked a financial
safety net, they fell behind on rent, putting them at
risk
of homelessness. Program assistance helped
these applicants pay off outstanding debt and focus
on regaining stable employment. This was the case
for West, a 57 -year-old Black man who fell behind
on rent after losing his job as a security guard. "If I didn't get [rent] paid, to be honest, I'm not sure what I would have done," he explained, "I was down to my
last option."
Program assistance provided crucial support for many
households with a temporary income shock as they
found a new equilibrium. Mary, a 44-year-old mom of
five, resigned from her job when she became pregnant
and, as a result, she and her fiance fell five months
behind on rent. Receiving assistance was both helpful
to the family in its own right and also relieved some
stress allowing Mary's fiance to increase his income.
Not approved or paid
16%
n = 12
55%
n = 41
''The assistance made it easier for us to breathe
a little bit and to focus . It made it easier for my
fiance, for him to focus on certain jobs instead
of just working just for rent, you know. He is able
to pull more jobs. He's able to focus more. He
can kind of breathe a little bit. Because mentally,
physically, it takes a lot out of people to have to
just focus on one bill and one bill only to try and
catch up and then with the rest as well. So, yeah,
a lot has changed."
- Mary
Quote has been edited for length and clarity.
■
0 housinginitiative.org
ccrl.stanford.edu 10
Among the other interviewees who reported more stability following program assistance, many had found other
ways to increase income, either through employment or
other assistance programs, while others reported that the relief provided by the program was short-lived, accruing further rental arrears as the result of a temporary crisis before regaining employment.
None of the interviews who reported decreased or
consistent confidence in maintaining stable housing
following the intervention had this profile of having
encountered a temporary crisis, accrued rental arrears, and then managing to regain employment. Rather, many
of these households faced long-term barriers to working, such as a disability or caregiving responsibilities.
We estimate that 12% of program applicants lived on a
fixed income, and 23% reported that a member of their
household had a disability. These households, among
others, likely require longer-term support than this
prevention model is built to provide. This is discussed further in
Enhancing Homelessness Prevention.
Waiting Times and Approvals
Before prioritized applications could receive services, a case coordinator would need to establish communication
with a tenant and verify documentation. The average time during the evaluation period between when a household
submitted an application and when they received funding was 87 days, with some groups of applicants, including
those for whom English is a second language and those
living without a lease, having longer average durations between submitting applications and receiving assistance.
Additionally, program data shows that case coordinators could not make or maintain contact with 18% of
prioritized applications. This difficulty in establishing and maintaining contact with these households is likely driven by precisely the instability that the program seeks to address.
Case coordinators had particular difficulty establishing or maintaining contact with applicant households who
reported living without a lease, being doubled up at the time of application, and experiencing homelessness in
the prior two years. On the other hand, interviewees who reported feeling more confident in their ability to maintain their housing following the intervention experienced
shorter wait times, being approved for assistance, on
average, 74 days after applying. Long intervals between applications being submitted and approved may impact
both the ability of prevention programs to reach the
households it intends to target as well as the effectiveness of the assistance.
Applications submitted with the assistance of a
community-basedorganization were less likely to become
inactive and more likely to receive assistance through the program, even though waiting times were similar (62%
of prioritized applicants supported by a community-based organization received assistance versus 43% overall). One program administrator explained that the applications
submitted with a community partner's help were often
more complete and so more streamlined to process.
Many applicants who worked with a community-based
organization had already received nonfinancial services from these partners, which also decreased the period
between a case coordinator making initial contact with an applicant and financial services being approved.
TABLE 2 Condensed Table of Approval Rates, Waiting Times, and Percent of Applications to Become Inactive
Characteristic Percent of prioritized applications
that received assistance
Percent of prioritized applications
to become inactive
Median days to approval of
financial assistance
Total 42.9% 18.2% 87
Non-English language 52.0o/o 12.4% 121
Experienced homelessness in last 2 years 32.4% 21.0o/o 87 Applying while experiencing homelessness 16.9% 27.3% 104 Living without a lease 24.3% 26.1o/o 93
Assisted by community partner agency 61.7% 12.7% 86
See APPENDIX H for a complete table.
housinginitiative.org
ccrl.stanford.edu 11
Enhancing Homelessness Prevention
During the evaluation, the research team gained valuable insights into key factors shaping the effectiveness
of homelessness prevention programs and the role
that prevention can play in assisting households
most impacted by the ongoing housing crisis.
Matching Targeting with Appropriate Services is
Important for Prevention
HPPutilized on-the-ground partnerships with community-
based organizations in tandem with a novel data -driven approach developed by BACS in collaboration with All
Home to target assistance to households at the highest risk of experiencing homelessness and to determine the level of assistance households would receive. This approach
targeted limited prevention services and minimized
opportunities for administrator bias to emerge. Two-
thirds of all applicants were identified as high need, and a third of those (22% overall) we re classified as Tier 1 and extremely vulnerable to homelessness. The program
initially planned to provide these applicants with more intensive case coordination and higher levels of financial assistance to Tier
1 applicants relative to Tier 2 applicants.
Throughout the program's operations, program
leadership aimed to balance two priorities: serving the most vulnerable tenants, many of whom had complicated
and overlapping needs, and using funds strategically
by assisting clients for whom short term financial
assistance and working with a case coordinator would
allow for stabilization over the long term. Indeed, as the program progressed, BACS began targeting funds to the
households identified as highly vulnerable, for whom there was also a visible pathway towards longer-term stability with one -time financial support and case coordination.
Our work suggests that short -term assistance may be
particularly effective in stabilizing households that have experienced temporary income shocks. Other approaches
to prevention, such as long-term shallow subsidies, would likely better match the needs of other households at-risk of entering homelessness. Additional research in this area would guide policymakers and program administrators
as they make difficult tradeoffs when designing and
administering resource-constrained emergency housing
programs.
Reducing Wait Times Can Increase Program Equity and
Efficacy
Homelessness prevention programs are designed to target and stabilize tenants at immediate risk of homelessness.
However, the median time between applicants applying
and receiving assistance from HPP was over ten weeks.
The long period between an applicant initially applying and beginning to work with a case coordinator likely
hampers the program's ability to provide crucial
emergency support to the highly vulnerable population it was initially designed to support.
The impact of waiting times on the efficacy and equity
of housing stability programs has been documented
in academic work.
12 Waiting times can be particularly
damaging in the context of homelessness prevention
programs, where the aim is to intervene and support
households at immediate risk of losing their housing.
Given this early evidence, minimizing the impact of
waiting times by utilizing community partnerships and
providing resources to ensure ample staff capacity to
process applications and provide res ource coordination quickly should be a priority for policymakers and program administrators when designing emergency stabilization
programs for high-needs households.
Long-Term Housing Affordability Solutions Can Benefit
from Effective Homelessness Prevention Strategies
Consistent with other work on short -term financial
assistance as a homelessness prevention strategy, our
work demonstrates that this type of intervention can
stabilize some households. Those who applied for
and received assistance through the program were
descriptively less likely to experience homelessness
in the months following the intervention compared
to those who did not receive assistance. Interviews
with forty households revealed that many found the
assistance helpful for maintaining housing after a one- time shock. However, others indicated that ongoing
12 Phillips and Sullivan 2023.
housinginitiative.org
ccrl.stanford.edu 12
housing support would be necessary for them to
remain housed.
While working with applicants, case coordinators
found that some applicant households required more
long-term assistance than the program was designed
to provide. For instance, some applicants entered the
program with high rental arrears and were continuing
to pay a high pe rcentage of their income on housing
costs. These applicants were offered support to make
changes that would promote residential stability
over the longer term, such as relocating to a more
affordable unit, finding roommates, or engaging with
the job develo per to increase income. If an applicant
was uninterested or unable to engage with these
nonfinancial services that could promote longer -term
residential stability, and a pathway towards affording rent was not clear, they were not offered financial
support. However, they were given the option to re -
engage with the program if/when they were able to
engage with other services.
Some of these households had high rental arrears that
the program was not able to support, including people
with barriers to employment, such as pregnant, elderly, and disabled applicants. These tenants would likely
benefit from an ongoing subsidy or another way to
affordable housing; this is consistent with other work indicating that one -time assistance, while essentially stabilizing for some households in the short term, may
not be able to stabilize highly vulnerable households in the medium to long term. A robust prevention program
would take a variety of approaches to prevention and
a streamlined process to match households with the
programs and resources that best suit their needs. For example, the intake process would efficiently direct
applicants to different prevention strategies, to meet
the various needs of vulnerable households.
This high level of need exists despite ongoing
action on displacement in Oakland. Both good cause
eviction and the rent adjustment program provide
robust protection for tenants in the city. In its 2023 - 2027 Strategic Action Plan, the City of Oakland made
permanent supportive housing and extremely low -
income housing top priorities for new Measure U
funding. Additional actions to shift rental dynamics in Oakland - such as expanding the stock of affordable
housing and ensuring that all Oaklanders have the
opportunity to make a living wage - are required to
reduce the need for longer -term support for many of
Oakland's low income renters.
Lessons Learned
During its pilot period of just over ayear, the homelessness prevention program assisted 1,146 households, providing over $6 million in financial assistance alongside resource coordination. The City of Oakland and BACS worked
with the evaluation team throughout this period. This
partnership provided administrators with insight into the program in real time.
Program assistance was highly targeted. Outreach
was conducted in areas experiencing high levels
of displacement, and the program employed a data -
driven tool to identify households particularly likely
to experience homelessn ess.
For many households, the financial assistance they
received through the program was crucial. Eighty -five
percent of applicants who received assistance through
the program and responded to a survey three months
after receiving funding indicated that they believed
they would have lost their housing without aid from the program. Analysis of interview data indicates that many households who had experienced a temporary income
shock reported increased confidence in maintaining
their housing following receivi ng assistance. However, many households facing longer-term challenges
expressed the need for long-term support.
The average period between a household applying
to the program and receiving assistance was eighty -
seven days. The program's long wait times li kely
impacted the program's ability to meet the needs of
many households it sought to support. Providing more
funding and resources for case coordination could
help reduce waiting times, allowing the program
to more effectively provide one -time assistance for
tenants who have faced a short-term crisis. Additional
capacity issues may be handled by making strategic
housinginitiative.org
ccrl.stanford.edu 13
partnerships with subgrantees. Analysis of program
data shows that prioritized applicants who applied
with the assistance of a partner agency were more
likely to successfully receive assistance through the
program than those who did not, suggesting that
hands-on and on -ground support may be valuable in
ensuring that assistance successfully reaches highly
vulnerable households.
The homeless population in Oakland more than
doubled between 2015 and 2024. The homelessness
prevention program provided assistance to housing-
insecure tenants in Oakland to help them stay housed.
Many low income tenants in Oakland and beyond face
long-term housing instability and could benefit from
ongoing housing support; short term assistance, like that provided by the homelessness prevention program, has
a role to play in preventing low -income tenants from
experiencing homelessness due to short-term crises.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank Vasudha Kumar for guiding the early stages of this evaluation and Katharine Nelson for her early insights into the project. We are grateful to Maggie Song for her design work on the report. Additionally, we thank Aaron Adriano, Jayne Abraham, William Heafey, Grace Pena, Evani Radiya- Dixit, Sarah Reyes, and Adriana Torres Ceja for their excellent research assistance. This work was supported by Stanford Impact Labs. housinginitiative.org
ccrl.stanford.edu 14
Appendix A
Program Model
The homelessness prevention pilot model was conceptualized as providing short-term financial assistance and resource coordination to prioritized tenants. TABLE 3 describes the various components of the intervention.
Resource Coordination
and Problem-solving
Case coordinators worked with clients to connect them to services to meet immediate and ongoing needs. This included helping clients complete the application and making sure that clients are enrolled for benefit services. Coordinators also assisted with budgeting, communicating with landlords, and formulating plans to reduce rent burden (such as moving or finding a roommate). Based on analysis of case notes, case coordinators often assisted tenants (131 of the data sample o f 271 applicants) with communicating with third parties, such as family members, representatives, landlords, or non- profit workers. Case coordinators sometimes additionally offered clients gift and gas cards to meet immediate needs. In surveys, 80%
of applicants who received help accessing benefits reported that this service was very or somewhat helpful.
Financial Assistance The program could cover rental arrears, prospective rent, and in some cases, moving costs or other immediate needs to facilitate longer -term stability. In general, these payments were made directly to landlords. The median payment amount was $5,798 for prioritized applicants. The program also sometimes assisted with utility bills, security deposit s, car payments, and/or other miscellaneous living expenses.
Job Assistance The Jobs Developer at BACS helped tenants find jobs. BACS also had a role for an Employment Coordinator who builds relationships and networks with employers in the community at job fairs. Due to constrained funding, one person managed both roles during the data collection period. Case notes describe case coordinators and the employment worker at BACS discussing employment goals with tenants, editing resumes, and sending employment referrals to companies. In surveys, 56% of applicants who received employment services reported that this service was very or somewhat helpful.
Housing Stabilization Case coordinators at BACS also helped tenants locate affordable units.
In case notes, case coordinators describe adding tenants to housing lists, connecting tenants with shelters, creating housing stability plans, and referring tenants to additional housing stability programs and services.
Legal Services
BACS partnered with the East Bay Community Law Center and the Eviction Defense Center to provide legal services to clients with active eviction cases and to refer clients to the program. Program funds were often used alongside legal services to settle active eviction cases. Case notes described case coordinators disc ussing habitability issues, like mold, with tenants and referring tenants to legal assistance organizations. In our surveys, 84% of applicants who received legal services reported that this was very or somewhat helpful.
TABLE 3 Program Model
housinginitiative.org
ccrl.stanford.edu 15
Appendix B
Data Sources
The research team had access to application and programmatic data, household geographic data, Consumer Credit Panel data, and matched Homelessness Management Information Systems (HMIS) data. The research team conducted longitudinal applicant surveys and longitudinal semi-structured applicant interviews.
Data Source High-Level Description Details
Application and
Programmatic Data
Information collected by BACS through administering
the application process (e.g., applicant demographics)
as well as data created through the process of
administering the program (e.g., payment amounts,
services rendered, and approval dates).
As of the date of final data collection in October 2024, the program database included 4,482 records and
3,915 unique applicants, 3,617 of whom consented to
sharing personally identifiable information (PII) with
the research team.
Longitudinal Surveys of
Program Applicants
A baseline survey was conducted at the time of
application. A follow-up survey was conducted 3
months after applicants received funding from the
program. If applicants had not been assisted three
months after application, then the survey was sent to
them 3 months after applying to the program.
The surveys were designed to assess applicant housing
and financial stability, as well as health and well being, and to solicit feedback on program function.
At baseline, the team received 724 unique responses
that matched to applications.
At follow-up, the team received 486 unique responses
that were matched to applications.
While all follow -up survey responses were used for
most analyses, the 166 unique responses from Tier
1 and Tier 2 applicants who completed both the
baseline and follow-up surveys were used specifically
in analyses that compared respondents' own answers
across time (e.g., change in an individual's borrowing
amounts over time).
Applicant Household
Geographic Data
BACS collected and shared applicant household
geographic data at the time of application that the
research team used to understand where in Oakland
the program was providing assistance.
The research team had access to the census tract
information of 3,912 applicants, representing 99.92%
of the total applicant pool. Of this dataset, 4.11% of
the addresses (32 in Tier 1 and 75 in Tier 2) were
listed as homeless, or otherwise unfindable.
Applicant Case Notes BACS' case coordinators took notes on communication and work with tenants.
The team analyzed 1,126 case notes describing 291
distinct Tier 1 applicants from July 2023 to August
2024. This represents 33.60% of the entire Tier 1
applicant pool.
Interviews with Applicants In-depth, semi-structured interviews with applicants at the time of receiving assistance, and a few months
after, provided the opportunity to understand applicants' experiences in greater detail, and hear their perspectives and reflections on the program.
Forty interviews were conducted with program
applicants at roughly the time of receiving assistance
or while waiting for assistance. A second round of
interviews was conducted, following up with 23 of the
same households, roughly 3 to 7 months after the first
interview. Interview sampling focused on the most
highly prioritized tenants who had received aid; such
households represent 75% of the interview sample.
Interviews/Focus Groups
with Service Providers
The research team conducted semi-structured
interviews, focus groups, and informal conversations
with program staff to understand challenges, successes, and lessons learned about program operations.
The team interviewed:
• BACS' case coordinators
• BACS' job developer/employment coordinator
• Community partner organizations
• Legal aid organizations
The Federal Reserve Bank of
New York Consumer Credit
Panel/Equifax Data
Through a partnership with the Federal Reserve Bank,
CCRL used a large-scale anonymized dataset of
Oakland residents' credit history to analyze citywide
trends in residential instability.
A 5% random and anonymized sample of adult
Oakland residents, tracking residential mobility,
across Oakland. This dataset employs Equifax scores,
proprietary credit scores which estimate the likelihood of an individual paying their debts without defaulting.
The team used data describing the period from June
1, 2023, to June 1, 2024.
Homeless Management
Information System
BACS matched applicants in Tiers 1, 2, and 3 to
records in Alameda County's HMIS, and provided the
research team with the dates in which applicants
appeared in HMIS, both before and after their
application to the pilot.
Between January 2019 and September 2024, 811
unique applicants (in Tiers 1, 2, and 3) appeared in
HMIS in 2,461 instances. Our HMIS analysis only
considered Tier 1 and Tier 2 applicants.
TABLE 4 Data Sources
housinginitiative.org
ccrl.stanford.edu 16
Appendix C
Applicants Unfunded After Three Months
There are several reasons why an applicant may not have been funded after applying for the program. • Many (more than 40% of unassisted applicants) had priority scores that were too low to meet BACS' prioritization requirements for assistance.
• BACS was not able to establish communication with approximately 20% of unfunded applicants.
This widespread challenge in establishing communication likely reflects the instability of many of these applicants.
• About 20% of applicants in the unfunded group were: waitmg to be contacted by a case coordinator; working with a case coordinator; or a case coordinator had tried to-but failed to maintain contact with- these applicants.
• An additional 10% of unfunded applicants were ineligible for the program, often because they did not live in Oakland. The fact that this group applied for this program may signal acute desperation or unfamiliarity with available local programs. In other cases, these applicants were referred to or found assistance through other programs. • Approximately another 5% of unfunded applicants were recorded as finding assistance through other means or were redirected by Homeless Prevention Pilot staff to other programs.
While we make comparisons between the funded and unfunded applicants, there are systematic differences between the two groups. This precludes making causal statements about program outcomes. housinginitiative.org
ccrl.stanford.edu 17
Appendix D
Research Participants Compared to Overall Applicant Pool
Compared with the overall applicant pool, followup survey respondents were more likely to be assisted by the program (46% vs 29%), somewhat more likely to speak English (95% vs 92%), more likely to be female (69% vs 67%), and less likely to have a senior in the household (7% vs 11%). There may be other unobserved selection effects; for example, those with the ability and interest to engage with research often come from a position of greater stability. TABLE 5 compares the demographics of the entire applicant pool to follow-up survey respondents and interview participants.
Characteristic Applicants
Percent among
applicants
Follow-up survey
respondents
Percent among follow-up
survey respondents Interviewees
Percent among
interviewees
Overall 3915 100.0% 486 100.0% 40 100.0%
Race and Ethnicity
Black or African American alone 2443 62.4% 319 65.6% 28 70.0% Hispanic or Latino/a 740 18.9% 72 14.8% 5 12.5%
White alone 183 4.7% 34 7.0% 2.5%
Two or more races, including Black 114 2.9% 19 3.9% 2.5% Asian alone 76 1.9% 11 2.3% NA NA
Middle Eastern/North African alone 47 1.2% NA NA 2 5.0% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 40 1.0% 5 1.0% 2.5% American Indian and Alaska Native alone 32 0.8% 3 0.6% NA NA Some other race alone 28 0.7% 2 0.4% NA NA
Two or more races, not including Black 25 0.6% 6 1.2% NA NA Gender
Cisgender man 1191 30.4% 126 25.9% 12 30.0%
Cisgender woman 2606 66.6% 336 69.1% 28 70.0%
Gender Expansive 78 2.0% 17 3.5% NA NA
Household Size
1 household member 1555 39.7% 194 39.9% 11 27.5%
2 household members 985 25.2% 128 26.3% 10 25.0%
3 or more household members 1375 35.1% 164 33.7% 19 47.5% Household Characteristics
Non-English language 330 8.4% 23 4.7% 2.5%
Household member with disability 910 23.2% 123 25.3% 16 40.0% TABLE 5 Survey and Interview Sample Characteristics
housinginitiative.org
ccrl.stanford.edu 18
Appendix E
Applicant Demographics
TABLE 6 details the race and ethnicity, gender identity, household size, language, and disability status of program applicants. The table also reports the rates at which each group was prioritized for assistance and received assistance during the data collection period .
Characteristic
Count overall
Percent overall
Count prioritized
Prioritized rate
Count prioritized and
assisted
Prioritized and
assisted rate
Overall 3,915 100.0% 2,603 66.5% 1,117 28.5%
Race and Ethnicity
Black or African American alone 2,443 62.4% 1,620 66.3% 712 29.1% Hispanic or Latino/a 740 18.9% 512 69.2% 236 31.9%
White alone 183 4.7% 110 60.1% 30 16.4%
Two or more races, including Black 114 2.9% 95 83.3% 38 33.3% Asian alone 76 1.9% 46 60.5% 12 15.8%
Middle Eastern/North African alone 47 1.2% 23 48.9% 13 27.7% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 40 1.0% 21 52.5% 13 32.5% American Indian and Alaska Native alone 32 0.8% 22 68.8% 10 31.3% Some other race alone 28 0.7% 18 64.3% 6 21.4%
Two or more races, not including Black 25 0.6% 12 48.0% 4 16.0% Gender
Man 1,191 30.4% 774 65.0% 317 26.6%
Woman 2,606 66.6% 1.751 67.2% 772 29.6%
Gender Expansive 78 2.0% 49 62.8% 17 21.8%
Household Size
1 household member 1,555 39.7% 924 59.4% 363 23.3%
2 household members 985 25.2% 665 67.5% 276 28.0%
3 or more household members 1,375 35.1% 1,014 73.7% 478 34.8% Household Characteristics
Non-English language 330 8.4% 225 68.2% 117 35.5%
Household member with disability 910 23.2% 724 79.6% 324 35.6% TABLE 6 Applicant Characteristics
housinginitiative.org
ccrl.stanford.edu 19
Appendix F
Program Subpopulations
Program applicants reported intersecting vulnerabilities; for example, while 24.3% of all applicants reported experiencing homelessness in the prior two years, 45.9% of households that reported a member having had justice system involvement in the prior two years also reported experiencing homelessness in the prior two years. This table illustrates how vulnerabilities intersected with one another among the applicant pool.
Category
Applications
Share of applicants
Percent black
Percent rent burden
70 percent or greater
Percent homeless
in the last 2 years
Percent
prioritized
Percent prioritized
and funded
Overall 3,915 100% 68.5% 52.5% 24.3% 66.5% 42.9%
Applying with fixed income 460 11.7% 67.2% 50.7% 24.1% 69.1% 41.8% Applying while experiencing
homelessness 461 11.8% 71.4% 64.2% 65.7% 85.9% 16.9%
Household member arrested or
incarcerated in last 2 years 266 6.8% 69.9% 59.3% 45.9% 85.3% 39.2% Children in household 1,916 48.9% 65.7% 52.9% 22.4% 74.5% 46.4% Unlawful detainer 316 8.1% 69.9% 53.7% 23.7% 80.4% 37.8% Living without a lease 368 9.4% 64.1% 62.8% 50.3% 93.8% 24.3% Household member with
disability 910 23.2% 65.3% 53.6% 26% 79.6% 44.8%
TABLE 7 Intersecting Vulnerabilities
housinginitiative.org
ccrl.stanford.edu 20
-
z
Appendix G
Nonfinancial and Financial Assistance Rendered
The number of prioritized applicants who received each nonfinancial service is recorded in the bar chart. The most common services were food pantry referrals, employment services, and landlord negotiation.
N onfinancial services received by KPH applicants
For Tier 1 and 2 applicants only
200-
Cl)
C
0 ·.;::; 150-
ruo
C.
C.
ro
0 100-
.c<ii
E
::,
50-
0-
Referral Services,
Linkages,
etc.
Negotiation Stabilization
Services
Referral Card (Budgeting, etc.) Counseling Expenses Health Referral
Closet
Referral
Source BACS KPH Dataverse
On the following page, TABLE 8 details the household characteristics of assisted applicants, among those prioritized by the program. These numbers reflect program operations through October 2024.
Food 'Pantry Emplo'yment Land' lord Hou'sing Lega'l Aid Gro'cery Work'shop Gas 'Card Ben'efits Transp'ortation Me'ntal Clot'hing housinginitiative.org
ccrl.stanford.edu 21
Characteristic
Count
assisted
Percent
assisted
Median
amount assisted
Count
assisted in tier 1
Total 1,117 42.9% $5,778 374
Race and Ethnicity
Black or African American alone 712 44.0% $5,500 250
Hispanic or Latino/a 236 46.1% $6,650 71
Two or more races, including Black 38 40.0% $6,351 17
White alone 30 27.3% $6,032 10
Middle Eastern/North African alone 13 56.5% $5,972 2
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 13 61.9% $7,347 4 Asian alone 12 26.1% $4,587 2
American Indian and Alaska Native alone 10 45.5% $4,271 NA Some other race alone 6 33.3% $4,200 2
Two or more races, not including Black 4 33.3% $6,540 NA Gender
Man 317 41.0% $5,601 90
Woman 772 44.1% $5,810 273
Gender Expansive 17 34.7% $5,575 7
Household Size
1 household member 363 39.3% $5,400 84
2 household members 276 41.5% $6,000 98
3 or more household members 478 47.1% $6,090 192
Household Characteristics
Non-English language 117 52.0% $7,012 22
Household member with disability 324 44.8% $5,470 139
Applying with fixed income 133 41.8% $4,375 46
Experienced homelessness in last 2 years 300 32.4% $5,512 153 Applying while experiencing homelessness 67 16.9% $5,085 33 Household member arrested or incarcerated in last 2 89 39.2% $5,500 54 Children in household 662 46.4% $6,030 265
Unlawful detainer 96 37.8% $8,021 42
Living without a lease 84 24.3% $4,824 59
TABLE 8 Characteristics of Assisted Households
housinginitiative.org
ccrl.stanford.edu 22
The program was conceptualized as a flexible funding model in which various costs could be covered to promote residential stability. TABLE 9 reports the number of households to receive various types of financial assistance.
Type of assistance Number of recipients
Back rent 1030
Security deposit 278
Future rent 276
Utilities 274
Move in assistance 97
Discretionary fund payment 9
Misc. household debt payment 8
Vehicle repair 5
Direct cash 2
Hotel stay
Background credit check
TABLE 9 Financial Assistance Types
housinginitiative.org
ccrl.stanford.edu 23
Appendix H
Approval Rates, Waiting Times, and Percent of Applications to Become Inactive
As a result of a heavy caseload, the program operated with 87 median days to approval. The table details, among prioritized applications only, the percent of applications that became inactive (or uncontactable) and the median days between an application being submitted, and funds being approved.
Characteristic Percent assisted
Percent
application inactive
Median
days to approval
Total 42.9% 18.2% 87.0
Race and Ethnicity
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 61.9% 14.3% 76.0 Middle Eastern/North African alone 56.5% 4.3% 77.0
Hispanic or Latino/a 46.1% 18.0% 97.0
American Indian and Alaska Native alone 45.5% 18.2% 79.5 Black or African American alone 44.0% 17.3% 84.0
Two or more races. including Black 40.0% 15.8% 84.5
Some other race alone 33.3% NA 60.5
Two or more races, not including Black 33.3% 16.7% 132.0 White alone 27.3% 31.8% 90.5
Asian alone 26.1% 32.6% 91.0
Gender
Man 41.0% 20.2% 87.0
Woman 44.1% 17.5% 87.0
Gender Expansive 34.7% 14.3% 91.0
Household Size
1 household member 39.3% 19.4% 85.0
2 household members 41.5% 18.5% 87.0
3 or more household members 47.1% 17.0% 88.0
Household Characteristics
Non-English language 52.0% 12.4% 121.0
Household member with disability 44.8% 17.5% 85.0
Applying with fixed income 41.8% 20.8% 83.0
Experienced homelessness in last 2 years 32.4% 21.0% 87.0 Applying while experiencing homelessness 16.9% 27.3% 104.0 Household member arrested or incarcerated in last 2 years 39.2% 19.8% 83.0 Children in household 46.4% 17.0% 86.0
Unlawful detainer 37.8% 14.6% 83.0
Living without a lease 24.3% 26.1% 93.0
Assisted by community partner agency 61.7% 12.7% 86.0
TABLE 10 Approval Rates, Waiting Times, and Percent of Applications to Become Inactive housinginitiative.org
ccrl.stanford.edu 24
References
Hwang, Jackelyn, Vasudha Kumar, and Elizabeth
Kneebone. 2023. "Recent Findings on Residential
Instability in Oakland." Federal Reserve Bank of
San Francisco Community Development Research
Brief 2023-02. Doi: 10.24148/cdrb2023- 02. https://
www.frbsf.org/research-and-insights/publications/
community-development-research-briefs/2023/02/
recent-findings-on-residential-instability-in-oakland/
Hwang, Jackelyn, Vineet Gupta, and Bina P.
Shrimali. 2021. "Neighborhood Change and
Residential Instability in Oakland." Federal Reserve
Bank of San Francisco Community Development
Working Paper 2021 -1. Doi: 10.24148/cdwp2021 -
01. https://www.frbsf.org/research-and-insights/
publications/community-development-working
papers/2021/05/neighborhood-change-and -
residential-instabiIity-in-oakland/.
Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard
University. 2024.
Americas Rental Housing 2024.
Rep. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Retrieved
from https://w
ww.jchs.harvard .edu/americas-rental-
housing-2024.
Keene, D. E., P. Schlesinger, S. Carter, A.
Kapetanovic, A. Rosenberg, and K. M. Blankenship.
"Filling the Gaps in an Inadequate Housing Safety
Net: The Experiences oflnformal Housing Providers
and Implications for Their Housing Security, Health,
and Well-Being." Socius 8 (2022): 1-13. https://doi.
org/10.1177 /23780231221115283.
Marrs, Cypress, and Claudia Aiken. Evaluating a
Cash Transfer Benefit to National Housing Trust
Residents. Philadelphia, PA: The Housing Initiative
at Penn, 2022. https ://www.housinginitiative.org /
uploads/1/3/2/9/132946414/hip_nht_october.pdf.
The Housing Initiative at Penn, Housing
Vulnerability in Oakland, CA. Philadelphia, PA:
Housing Initiative at Penn, 2020. https: //www.
housinginitiative.org/uploads/1/3/2/9/132946414/
hip_oakland_market_study_9-29- 20_small.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce.
2000. "Median Gross Rents: Adjusted to 2000
Dollars." American Community Survey, ACS
Historical Census of Housing Tables: Gross Rents.
Accessed December 20, 2024. https://www.census.
gov/data/tables/time-series/dee/coh grossrents.html.
U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce.
2002. Summary File 3: 2000 Census of Population
and Housing. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Commerce.
U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce.
2023. "Median Gross Rent (Dollars)." American
Community Survey, ACS I -Year Estimates Detailed
Tables, Table B25064. Accessed December 20,
2024. https://data.census.gov/table/ACSDTl Y2023.
B25064_,
U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce.
2023. "Selected Housing Characteristics."
American Community Survey, ACS I-Year
Estimates Data Profiles, Table DP04, 2023,
Oakland, CA, Accessed December 20, 2024.
https://data.census.gov/table/ACSDP1Y2023.
DP04?q=Median+Gross+Rent+Oakland+CA.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2024. "Nearly Half of Renter
Households Are Cost -Burdened, Proportions Differ
by Race." CB24-I 50. September 12, 2024. Accessed
December 1, 2024. https://www.census.gov/
newsroom/press-releases/2024/renter-households-
cost-burdened race.html.
Attachment B
CITY OF OAKLAND
2022
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
For
Homelessness Prevention Services
https://www.oaklandca.gov/departments/department-of-housing-and-community-development
Due Date:
Monday, December 5, 2022 2:00 PM
(Pacific Time) - [email protected]
Voluntary Pre-Proposal Meeting:
Wednesday, November 16, 2022 - 10:00AM (Pacific Time)
Via Zoom at: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89761224779
Meeting ID: 897 6122 4779 Call In #: +1 669 900 6833
City of Oakland
DHCD Homelessness Prevention RFP
Released
11/14/2022
1 Table of Contents
I. GENERAL INFORMATION ........................................................................................................... 2 IMPORTANT DATES .................................................................................................................................................. 3 NOTICES OF REQUIRED SCHEDULES ......................................................................................................................... 3 ISUPPLIER REGISTRATION & NOTICES OF REQUIRED SCHEDULES ........................................................................... 3 II. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 4 III. SCOPE OF SERVICES .................................................................................................................. 5 A. DESCRIPTION OF TYPE OF AGENCY WE ARE LOOKING FOR ......................................................................... 5 B. SERVICE AS A LEAD AGENCY ............................................................................................................................ 5 C. PROPOSED PARTNER AGENCIES ....................................................................................................................... 5 D. SPECIFICATION OF TYPE OF HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION SERVICES/PROGRAM SOUGHT ........................ 6 E. EVALUATION AND DATA .................................................................................................................................. 7 F. PERFORMANCE PERIOD .................................................................................................................................... 7 IV. THE PROPOSAL........................................................................................................................... 7 A. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................................ 7 B. REQUIRED PROPOSAL ELEMENTS AND FORMAT ............................................................................................ 8 C. GENERAL INFORMATION ................................................................................................................................ 11 D. REJECTION OF PROPOSAL ELEMENTS ............................................................................................................ 17 E. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS ......................................................................................................................... 17 F. CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS & AWARD .......................................................................................................... 18 ATTACHMENTS:
A - SAMPLE AGREEMENT
B - SCHEDULES E, I, O, Q
C - CITY SCHEDULES & POLICIES
2 I. GENERAL INFORMATION
This Request for Proposal (RFP) is being issued by the City of Oakland, Department of Housing & Community Development (HCD) for homeless prevention and housing stability service categories as described In the Scope of Services section of this RFP. Through this RFP, Oakland HCD seeks to advance racial equity by removing barriers to long- term housing for Black, veteran, formerly incarcerated, and other Oakland residents most likely to experience homelessness for the provision of services that may include, but not limited to flexible financial assistance, wrap -around services for removing barriers to accessing housing including legal support and financial stability services, and outreach and referral.
artment seeks a
collaborative of partnering agencies to provide homelessness prevention and housing stability program services for the most vulnerable of Oakland residents. To this end, this RFP will make $2.3 million available for homele ssness prevention services to address vulnerable residents.
Applicants to this RFP are expected to apply as a team, comprised of a Lead Agency with partner agencies to assist with the delivery and administration of a comprehensive homelessness prevention program.
The Lead Agency will be an organization with the capacity to administer and distribute sub-grants to partner agencies on a regular basis and be the sole administrator of direct financial assistance to program clients. This capacity should be supported by proof of program management abilities. The Lead Agency will be responsible for submitting all reports to the City of Oakland on services provided and shall be the primary point of contact representing the larger homelessness prevention service collaborative.
Current funding sources available ($2,305,293) to support homelessness prevention/ housing stability activities under this RFP include City of Oakland General Purpose Funds and Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds approved under the 2022/23 Annual Action Plan and Substantial Amendments to the 2020/21 - 2024/25 Five Year Consolidated Plan. Said funds are subject to City of Oakland regulations, CDBG Eligibility Requirements & Regulations, National Objectives and other Crosscutting regulations, and CDBG Income Limits,
3 Important Dates:
Pre-proposal Meeting Date and Time (Voluntary): Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 10:00 AM via Zoom at https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89761224779 , Meeting ID: 897 6122 4779
Call In #: +1 669 900 6833
One Click Tap In: +16699006833,,89761224779# US (San Jose)
Deadline for Questions: Friday, December 2, 2022 - 2:00 PM via email. All inquiries should be forwarded to [email protected], with Subject Line:
Proposal Submittal Deadline Date and Time: Monday, December 5, 2022 at 2:00 PM.
Please submit Proposals electronically to [email protected], before or not later than the December 5, 2022 2:00 PM deadline. Each proposal will be time -stamped and dated, via the CDE email account. Proposals submitted after the 2pm, December 5, 2022 deadline will not be accepted.
Notice of Required Schedules:
The Lead Agency shall be required to comply with all applicable City programs and policies outlined in Attachment C (City Schedules & Policies). Details are presented in the project documents and will be discussed at the pre-proposal meeting.
The Combined Grant Schedules and Stand-Alone Schedules will be collected from the successful proposer(s) before a final decision is made and up to full contract execution. Required schedules may be:
a. Viewed and downloaded at: https://www.oaklandca.gov/documents/contracts- and-compliance-forms-and-schedules ; or
b. Forwarded via email request to [email protected] iSupplier:
Successful applicants will be required to register in iSupplier in order to execute grant agreements and process payment requests with the City of Oakland. Click here to access the iSupplier registration page. All applicants are encouraged to register in iSupplier to receive Citywide notices of funding available, updates and other announcements and notifications for contracting opportunities. Updating y regularly and periodically confirming that the
represents the scope of products and services provided is recommended. For further questions regarding iSupplier registration, please email [email protected] or visit
https://www.oaklandca.gov/services/register-with-isupplier
Free copies of the RFP documents and any Addenda will be made online at https://www.oaklandca.gov/departments/department-of-housing-and-community- development. Hard copies will NOT be available for purchase from the City.
4 Contact Information: Please forward inquiries regarding this RFP and required schedules to [email protected] .
II. INTRODUCTION
The City of Oakland seeks partnering agencies to provide homelessness prevention and housing stability program services vital to the prevention of homelessness for the most vulnerable of Oakland residents.
Community Development Department seeks to advance racial equity by removing barriers to long- term housing for Black, veteran, formerly incarcerated, and other Oakland residents most likely to experience homelessness.
The most recent 2022 Point -In-Time Count of Unsheltered/Sheltered individuals in Oakland estimated a population of 5,055. 1 Within this population, clear racial disparities exist: 60% of unhoused individuals in Oakland are African-
population and only 11% of the larger .2 Unfortunately, many more Oaklanders are on the verge of becoming unhoused according to EveryOne Home, especially those who: are African -American, have previous experience with being unhoused, are veterans, have prior involvement with the cr iminal justice system, experience mental health challenges, and struggle with substance abuse.3
Research conducted through the Oakland-Berkeley-
Equity Impact Analysis highlighted nine root causes of homelessness in Oakland.4 Of these causes, the City of Oakland Housing and Community Development (HCD) Department identified three as focus areas for this Request for Proposals: housing displacement and evictions, barriers to Thus, Oakland HCD is releasing a
Request for Proposals for homelessness prevention services in the amount of $2.3 million to address these root causes and provide stability for a portion of residents.
provision of services that may include, but not limited to flexible financial assistance, wrap-around services for removing barriers to accessing housing including legal support and financial stability services, and outreach and referral. Successful proposals will serve Oakland populations most at- risk of becoming unhoused if assistance is not provided, including very- and extremely low - income Oakland -based residents, especially those with informal rental agreements, facing an immediate loss of housing.
1 https://everyonehome.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Oakland-PIT-2022-Infographic-Report.pdf Ibid.
3 https://everyonehome.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/2018-EveryOne-Home-Strategic-Update-Executive- Summary.pdf
4 https://everyonehome.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/2021-Centering-Racial-Equity-in-Homeless-System- Design-Full-Report-FINAL.pdf
5 III. SCOPE OF SERVICES
A. Description of Type of Agency We Are Looking For
The successful proposer/Lead Agency is an established community organization with a demonstrated commitment to serving Oakland residents. The Lead Agency should have prior experience serving vulnerable Oakland communities including, but not limited to:
1. Individuals who have previously experienced homelessness;
2. Formerly incarcerated individuals;
3. Veterans;
4. Individuals experiencing mental illness;
5. Individuals with substance abuse challenges; and
6. Individuals with disabilities
B. Service as Lead Agency
The successful proposer selected shall be the Lead Agency with partner agencies to assist with the duties described in this Scope of Services. The Lead Agency shall be an organization with sufficient capacity to administer and distribute sub- grants to part ner agencies on a regular basis and be the sole administrator of funds to clients as needed. This capacity should be supported by proof of program management abilities through the response to this Request for Proposals. The Lead Agency shall be responsible for submitting all reports to the City of Oakland on services provided and shall be the primary point of contact representing the larger homelessness prevention service collaborative.
C. Proposed Partner Agencies
The Lead Agency is strongly encouraged to submit a response to this Request for Proposals in collaboration with partner agencies to execute this Scope of Services. Partner agencies shall be carefully selected by the Lead Agency to strengthen the conduct successful outreach to and serve multiple target populations. Like the Lead Agency, partners should have prior experience serving vulnerable Oakland communities including, but not limited to:
1. Individuals who have previously experienced homelessness;
2. Formerly incarcerated individuals;
3. Veterans;
4. Individuals experiencing mental illness;
5. Individuals with substance ab/use challenges; and
6. Individuals with disabilities
A successful response will list all proposed partner agencies and their anticipated roles within the collaborative, as well as a budget demonstrating how funds will be allocated.
D. Specification of type of homelessness prevention services/program sought
1. Wrap-Around Services
6 a. In response to this Request for Proposals, respondents shall propose an approach to barrier removal and financial stability via wrap -around services that meet each . Respondents shall describe how their proposed approach demonstrates racial equity and meets the needs of the target populations. The identified target populations experience many barriers to accessing stable housing including, but not limited to:
i. Criminal records;
ii. High costs of application and credit check fees;
iii. High costs of security deposits;
iv. Discrimination based on income source; and more.
b.
face challenges around overcrowded housing units, a lack of landlord cooperation, a lack of knowledge about their rights and resources, and more. proposal should describe their approach to assist clients in navigating and removing their housing access barriers and improving financial stability. Additional services offered should include other stabilizing supports such as employment resources, The
ultimate outcome of these services is to assist at- risk residents in accessing and maintaining stable housing.
2. Legal Supports
a.
legal/mediation support to clients to help remove barriers to affordable and stable housing, as well as those fa cing eviction. If the Collaborative is unable to provide such supports directly, they shall refer clients to appropriate partners for service as requested in section 4 of this Scope of Services (Outreach and Referral), below.
3. Flexible Financial Payments
a. As an extension of wrap -around service support, the Collaborative shall provide flexible financial payments to clients based on need in order to help them remain housed and support financial stability. In addition to rental assistance, in- depth research conducted with Oakland community members shows that residents forego necessities such as utilities and food in order to pay rent. Others may need assistance with paying application or credit check fees in order to access housing, or security deposits to confirm their rental agreements. The successful proposer shall demonstrate an ability to administer such funds for clients-in-need in order to keep them stably housed.
4. Outreach and Referral
a. As many community members requiring assistance may be unaware of available services to assist with their housing stability needs, the final part of this Scope of Services requests outreach and referral efforts. The Collaborative shall respond to this Request for Proposals detailing a comprehensive approach to identifying and serving the target populations listed. The proposal should include a target number
7 of clients served per quarter as well as a description of how each Partner Agency will play a role in achieving that goal.
E. Evaluation and Data
1. The Lead Agency must agree to use a data -driven targeting mechanism and client database including a vulnerability score,
and demonstrate a history of leveraging data to develop, monitor and evaluate programs. The Lead Agency will be required to maintain and develop a comprehensive client data set that allows for targeting and client prioritization.
2. Data, client demographics, and program utilizations will help to estimate the number and type of service units needed to right -size the Homeless Prevention Program strategically and intentionally to support improved coordination, more strategic use of existing sources, greater competitiveness of new resources, and improved data to guide investment and policy decisions.
3. The Collaborative will participate in a data sharing agreement between the City of
impact on target populations over time. Members of the Collaborative will have the oppo
services and outcomes.
4. Agree to submit bi-annual reports which detail the impact of the program, challenges experienced and lessons learned. Reporting form and performance metrics will be Laboratory, and the City of Oakland Housing and Community Development Department. Collaborative members should input data on clients served at regular intervals to ensure a comprehensive data set for the evaluation.
F. Performance Period
1. Services under this grant shall begin no later than February 1, 2023 and shall last until February 1, 2024 with an option to extend the contract based on remaining funds available.
IV. THE PROPOSAL
A. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Submit Proposals electronically to [email protected] before the 2:00 P.M., December 5, 2022 deadline. Questions regarding online submittal must be directed to [email protected] by 2:00 P.M. December 2,
2022.
All proposals must include the project name, submittal date, and time the proposals are due on the documents.
8 B. REQUIRED PROPOSAL ELEMENTS AND FORMAT
1. Please include all of the items below in your response to this Request for Proposals:
2. Transmittal Letter (1 Page)
a. The transmittal letter attached to the proposal should be addressed to City of Oakland Department of Housing & Community Development, Emily Weinstein, Deputy Director, 250 Frank Ogawa Plaza, 6th Floor, Oakland, California, 94612 VIA EMAIL. (Please do not send proposals to this address; submit proposals to [email protected])
b. Must be signed by an officer of the Lead Agency. In case of joint venture or other joint-prime relationship, an officer of each venture partner shall sign.
3. Project Team (2 Pages)
a. This RFP seeks a response from a collaborative of qualified organizations which must carry out the activities listed in t
considered, The Collaborative (lead and partner agencies together) must demonstrate their alignment through responses to the sections below. b. Lead Agency: list address, primary contact(s), telephone number(s) and areas of expertise. For Local Business Enterprises (LBE) and Small Local Business Enterprises (SLBE), submit a copy of current business license and date established in Oakland.
c. Partner Agencies: list addresses, telephone numbers and areas of expertise of each.
Identify which contractors are LBE/SLBEs. Additionally, for LBEs/SLBEs, submit a copy of current business license and date established in Oakland.
4. Minimum Qualifications (2 Pages)
a. Project Team Experience
i. Describe the Lead and Partner A
populations including, but not limited to: individuals who have previously experienced homelessness; formerly incarcerated individuals; veterans; individuals experiencing mental illness; individuals with substance use challenges; and individuals with disabilities
ii.
disburse financial assistance. Indicate which organizations will be considered a direct financial assistance provider, or partner providing outreach and application assistance or case management services only, or a combination of the above.
9 iii. Describe the sufficient capacity to collect data and performance period
iv. If the team has worked together collaboratively, please include a description of this work.
v. Describe experiences and ability to work effectively with City staff, community groups, and other stakeholders.
b. Agreement on Operational Policies and Procedures
i. Please summarize your ability to adhere to the following operational policies and procedures required for a successful program:
ii.
iii. Participate in a data sharing agreement between the City of Oakland and
on target populations over time. Members of the Collaborative will have the
of services and outcomes. Collaborative members should input data on clients served at regular intervals to ensure a comprehensive data set for the evaluation. iv. Issue financial assistance to clients within one week of determined eligibility or within 72 hours in an emergency situation.
v. Provide supportive services, case management and access to specialized services or appropriate referrals for participating clients.
5. Response to the Requested Scope of Services (4 Pages) a. Describe the
proposal.
b. Legal Services. Describe the legal and mediation supports the respondent will provide to clients to remove legal barriers in order to keep clients housed and/or to access housing. In the case the Collaborative is unable to provide such support directly, outline a proposed referral process in alignment with section e below.
c. Wrap-Around Services. Describe the proposed approach to remove barriers to accessing long-term housing for clients in the target population referencing the key issues listed in the Scope of Services. Identify which partner agencies will execute each activity and describe their expertise/qualifications to do so.
Use a data-driven targeting mechanism and client database .
10 d.
ability to administer flexible financial payments for clients in-need in order to promote housing stability.
e.
Scope of Services. The proposal should include a description of how each partner agency will play a role in reaching these targets as well as a proposed referral process.
6. Activity and Budget Proposal (2 Pages)
a. Please project, in a table format, how many households you propose to serve in 12 months for each of the items b- e above as well as a projected cost for the services.
b. Describe the project responsibility of each partner agency and provide an itemized or functional budget for each organization on the team (including that of the Lead Agency).
c. Provide a complete list of all staff hourly rates by category, i.e., Principal, Project Manager, Project Professional, Technician, Clerical, etc. Hourly rates shall be all-inclusive, i.e., base salary, fringe benefits, overhead, profit, etc.
7. Commitment to Racial Equity (2 Pages)
a. Describe, in narrative form, commitment to advancing racial equity and reducing racial disparities through their work. This commitment may be additionally or optionally proven through:
i.
statements, and either
ii. a published report (annual or otherwise) that demonstrates impact on the communities served, or
iii. a summary of clients served in the most recent fiscal year disaggregated by race, and outcomes achieved
8. Attachments
In addition, please provide the following attachments:
a. 501(c)3 letter or provide the information for your fiscal sponsor; b. Board of Directors list and place of occupation for each agency; c. Financials for each organization (current year agency operating budget and most recent audited financials, or an alternative financial statement); d. For lead grantee - Written financial policies and procedures and/or accounting controls;
11 e. Article of Incorporation/bylaws;
f. California Business Portal Certificate of Good Standing (https://bizfileonline.sos.ca.gov/search/business );
g. Organizational Chart; and
h. Any other supporting
qualifications (optional).
9. Schedules Required with submission of proposal
a. Schedule E - Project Consultant Team
b. Schedule I Sanctuary City Contracting and Investment Ordinance c. Schedule O - Campaign Contribution Limits
d. Schedule W Border Wall Prohibition
10. Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) Number
Effective April 2022, the Federal government no longer uses Data Universal Number System (DUNS) number to uniquely identify entities. Entities doing business with the federal government will use a Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) number created on the System of Award Management (SAM) website at www.SAM.gov
. The UEI number is mandatory for all financial submissions beginning with fiscal year end 3/31/2022. Current www.SAM.gov registrants have already been assigned their Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) and can view it within SAM.gov. For more information on how to view your Unique Entity Identifier go to this article. For new users, SAM.gov registration can be completed online at www.sam.gov.
11. Addenda - Proposal and Acknowledgment of all Addenda if issued, please provide signed addenda and submit with proposal.
Proprietary Information: All responses to the RFQ become the property of the City. To withhold financial and proprietary information, please label each page as "confidential" or "proprietary".
Public Records Act or Sunshine Ordinance: Although a document may be labeled "confidential" or "proprietary", information is still subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act or Sunshine Ordinance, and is, at the City's discretion, based on the potential impact whether to disclose "confidential" or "proprietary" information.
Other schedules required at full contract execution are available at Combined Grants Schedules.
C. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. The successful proposer(s) selected for this service shall obtain or provide proof of having a current City of Oakland Business tax Certificate.
12 4.
2. The City Council reserves the right to reject any and all bids.
3. Local and Small Local Business Enterprise Program (L/SLBE) - The City of Oakland has adopted a Local and Small Local Business Enterprise Program the following link: https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/LSLBE- Program-Guidelines_Revised.5.4.21.pdf
Awarded Agency understands and agrees to the following regarding L/SLBE:
a. Preference Points Preference points are awarded based on the level of local, small local and very small local business participation that is proposed by contractors during the competitive solicitation process. b. Maintaining Participation As a condition of award of this Contract, Lead Agency must achieve and maintain the levels of local, small local or very small local business participation for which preference points were earned during the competitive solicitation process or the levels of participation agreed upon by the Parties during negotiation of this Agreement. Failure to achieve and maintain the proposed levels of participation may result in the imposition of penalties as set forth in the above-reference L/SLBE Program guidelines. See Attachment A & C for further L/SLBE details and forms.
A Grant Agreement awarded under this RFP is subject to the Oakland Living Wage Ordinance. The Living Wage Ordinance requires that nothing less than a prescribed minimum level of compensation (a living wage) an initial hourly wage rate of $16.14 with health benefit or $18.53 without health benefits be paid to employees of service Contractors (lead agency or partner agencies) of the City and employees of CFARs (Ord. 12050 § 1, 1998). Oakland employers are also subject to the City of Oakland Minimum Wage law , and must pay employees wages and provide benefits consistent with the Minimum Wage law or Oakland Living Wage Ordinance, whichever are greater. See Attachment A for further detail s. See Attachment A & C for further details and forms.
5. Minimum Wage Ordinance
employees who perform at least two (2) hours of work in a workweek and within the geographic limits of the City of Oakland must be paid wages of note less than the current Minimum Wage rate ( $15.06 per hour effective January 1, 2022).
Employers must notify employees of the annually adjusted rates by each December 15
th and prominently display notices at the job site. See Attachment A & C for further details and forms.
13 6. Equal Benefits Ordinance
A Grant Agreement awarded under this RFP is subject to the Equal Benefits Ordinance of Chapter 2.32 of the Oakland Municipal Code and its implementing regulations. The purpose of this Ordinance is to protect and further the public, health, safety, convenience, comfort, property and general welfare by requiring that public funds be expended in a manner so as to prohibit discrimination in the provision of employee benefits by City Contractors (contractors) between employees with spouses and employees with domestic partners, and/or between domestic partners and spouses of such employees. (Ord. 12394 (part), 2001). See Attachment A & C for further details and forms.
7. Prompt Payment Ordinance Pursuant OMC Section 2.06.070 Prompt Payment Terms Required in Notices Inviting Bids, Requests for Proposals, a Grant Agreement awarded under this RFP is subject to the Prompt Payment Ordinance of Oakland Municipal Code, Title 2, Chapter 2.06. The Ordinance requires that, unless specific exemptions apply. Lead Agency and its Partner Agencies shall pay undisputed invoices of their Partner Agencies for goods and/or services within twenty (20) business days of submission of invoices unless the Lead Agency or its Partner Agencies notify the Liaison in writing within five (5) business days that there is a bona fide dispute between the Lead Agency or its Partner Agency and claimant, in which case the Lead Agency or its Partner Agency may withhold the disputed amount but shall pay the undisputed amount. See Attachment A & C for further details.
8. Non-Discrimination/Equal Employment Practices
Lead Agency shall not discriminate or permit discrimination against any person or group of persons in any manner prohibited by federal, state or local laws. During the performance of A Grant Agreement awarded under this RFP, Lead Agency agrees to the terms listed in Attachment A. See Attachment A & C for details and forms.
9. Arizona and Arizona-Based Businesses
Lead Agency agrees that in accordance with Resolution No. 82727 C.M.S., neither it nor any of its subsidiaries, affiliates or agents that will provide services under this agreement is currently headquartered in the State of Arizona, and shall not establish an Arizona business headquarters for the duration of this agreement with the City of Oakland or until Arizona rescinds SB 1070.
Lead Agency acknowledges its duty to notify Department of Workplace and or any of its subsidiaries
affiliates or agents subsequently relocates its headquarters to the State of Arizona.
Such relocation shall be a basis for termination of this agreement.
14 10. Sanctuary City Contracting and Investment Ordinance Ordinance N.O. 13540 CMS was adopted by the Oakland City Council on June 4th, 2019 and prohibits the City from contracting with any person or entity that provides the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) services or goods for data collection or with the United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Customs and Border Protection (CBP), or the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement (HHS/ORR) to support immigration detention facilities. These contractors are not to be used unless the City Council makes a specific determination that no reasonable alternative exists. The ordinance also prohibits the City from investing in any of these companies and requires the City to include notice of these prohibitions in any Requests for Proposals (RFPs), Requests for Qualifications (RFQs), and any construction or other contracting bids. The ordinance also requires that the City provide an annual report to the Privacy Advisory Commission on its enforcement.
11. Border Wall Ordinance
This contract is subject to the Border Wall Ordinance of Oakland Municipal Code (Ordinance 13459 C.M.S, passed November 28, 2017) and effective immediately upon adoption. The purpose of the ordinance is to mandate and direct the City Administrator- in instances where there is no significant additional cost, to be defined in regulations, or conflict with law - to refrain from entering into new or amended contracts to purchase professional, technical, scientific or financial services, goods, construction labor and materials or other services, or supplies from businesses that enter into contracts to provide such services, goods, materials or supplies to build the U.S.- Mexico border wall. See Attachment A for further details.
12. Pending Dispute Disclosure Policy:
Contractors are required to disclose pending disputes with the City of Oakland when they are involved in submitting bids, proposals or applications for a City contract or transaction involving professional services. This includes contract amendments. Lead Agency agrees to disclose, and has disclosed, any and all pending disputes to the City prior to execution of this agreement. The City will pending disputes prior to execution of this amendment shall be a basis for termination of this agreement.
13. City of Oakland Campaign Contribution Limits
This Agreement is subject to the City of Oakland Campaign Reform Act of Chapter 3.12 of the Oakland Municipal Code and its implementing regulations if it requires Council approval. The City of Oakland Campaign Reform Act prohibits Contractors that are doing business or seeking to do business with the City of Oakland from making campaign contributions to Oakland candidates between commencement of negotiations and either 180 days after completion of, or 15 termination of, contract negotiations. If this Agreement requires Council approval, Lead Agency must sign and date an Acknowledgment of Campaign Contribution Limits Form.
14. Nuclear Free Zone Disclosure
Lead Agency represents, pursuant to the combined form Nuclear Free Zone Disclosure Form
restrictions on doing business with service providers considered nuclear weapons makers. Prior to execution of this agreement, Lead Agency shall complete the combined form, attached hereto.
15. Insurance Requirements
The Lead Agency will be required to provide proof of all insurance required for
insurance policies if and when requested. Failure to provide the insurance proof requested or failure to do so in a timely manner shall constitute grounds for rescission of the contract award. Please see Attachment A for further details.
16. City Lead Agency Performance Evaluation
At the end of the pr oject, the Project Manager will evaluate the Cont Performance in accordance with the City Federal Reporting and Evaluation Requirements.
17. Violation Of Federal, State, City/Agency Laws, Programs Or Policies:
The City or Agency may, in their sole discretion, consider violations of any programs and policies described or referenced in this Request for Proposal, a material breach and may take enforcement action provided under the law, programs or policies, and/or terminate the contract, debar contractors from further contracts with City and Agency and/or take any other action or invoke any other remedy available under law or equity.
18. Lead Agency represents that Lead Agency has the qualifications and skills necessary to perform the services under this Agreement in a competent and services will be performed in accordance with the generally accepted principles
-contractors
are properly licensed, registered, and/or certified as may be required under any applicable federal, state and local laws, statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations pursuant to this Agreement shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations.
Lead Agency will promptly advise City of any change in the applicable laws,
16 Agency is able to fulfill the requirements of this Agreement. Failure to perform all of the services required under this Agreement will constitute a material breach of the Agreement and may be cause for termination of the Agreement. Lead Agency has complete and sole discretion for the manner in which the work under this Agreement is performed. Prior to execution of this agreement, Lead Agency shall complete the Independent Lead Agency Questionnaire, Part A , attached hereto.
19. The following City staff are available to answer questions regarding items 1-19 of this section:
Contract Analyst: Paula Peav, (510) 238-3190
Compliance Officer: Vivian Inman (510) 238-6261
20. All responses to the RFQ become the property of the City.
21. The RFQ does not commit the City to award a contract or to pay any cost incurred in the preparation of the proposal.
22. The City reserves the sole right to evaluate each proposal and to accept or reject any or all proposals received as a result of the RFQ process.
23. The City reserves the unqualified right to modify, suspend, or terminate at its sole discretion any and all aspects of the RFQ and/or RFQ process, to obtain further information from any and all Lead Agency teams and to waive any defects as to form or content of the RFQ or any responses by any Lead Agency teams
24. The City may require a service provider to participate in negotiations and submit may result from negotiations.
25. All documents and information submitted to the City of Oakland in response to an RFP are public records pursuant to California Government Code, Sections 6254, et seq. and City of Oakland Sunshine Ordinance, Oakland Municipal Code Chapter
2.20. The City shall disclose such documents and information upon request by any member of the public, absent a mandatory duty to withhold or a discretionary exemption that the City may choose to exercise. The City shall not in any way be liable or responsible for any disclosures of documents or information made pursuant to a request under the Public Records Act or the City of Oakland Sunshine Ordinance.
26. The Fair Political Practices Act and/or California Government Code Section 1090, among other statutes and regulations may prohibit the City from contracting with
17 a service provider if the service provider or an employee, officer or director of the -Lead
Agency or Lead Agency of the service provider, is serving as a public official, elected official, employee, board or commission member of the City who will award or influence the awarding of the contract or otherwise participate in the making of the contra ct. The making of a contract includes actions that are preliminary or preparatory to the selection of a Lead Agency such as, but not limited to, involvement in the reasoning, planning and/or drafting of solicitations for bids and RFQs, feasibility studies, master plans or preliminary discussions or negotiations.
D. REJECTION OF PROPOSAL ELEMENTS
The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals, whether minimum qualifications are met, and to modify, postpone, or cancel this RFQ without liability, obligation, or commitment to any party, firm, or organization. The City reserves the right to request and obtain additional information from any candidate submitting a proposal. A proposal may be rejected for any of the following reasons:
1. Proposal received after designated time and date.
2. Proposal not in compliance with the City of Oakland Local/Small Local Business Enterprise Program.
3. Proposal not containing the required elements, exhibits, nor organized in the required format.
4. Proposal considered not fully responsive to this RFQ.
E. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS
The following sample of criteria and the points for each criterion, for a total of 100 points, may be used in evaluating and rating the proposals:
1) Relevant Experience 30 points
Past, recently completed, or on-going local government projects to substantiate experience.
Experience on at least three (3) projects providing services like those described in this RFQ.
Prior experience and ability to work with City staff, community groups, and other stakeholders.
18 2) Qualifications 25 points
Professional background and qualifications of team members and firms comprising the team to meet program requirements, administer grant funding, and execute data collection and reporting.
3) Approach 30 points
Understanding of the nature and extent of the services required.
A specific outline of how the work will be performed.
Awareness of potential problems and providing possible solutions.
Special resources the team offers that are relevant to the successful completion of the project.
4) L/SLBE Certified Business Participation 5 Points
5) Other Factors 10 points
Presentation, completeness, clarity, organization, and responsiveness of proposal.
F. CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS AND AWARD
1. The completion of this evaluation process will result in the Lead Agency being numerically ranked. The Lead Agency ranked first will be invited to participate in contract negotiations. Should the City and the first ranked Lead Agency not be able to reach an agreement as to the contract terms within a reasonable timeframe, the City may terminate the negotiations and begin negotiations with the Lead Agency that is next in line.
2. The contract amount (including reimbursements) shall be a not to exceed amount, to be established based upon a mutually agreeable Scope of Services and fee schedule.
3. The City has the option to withhold the final 10% of contract amount pending successful completion of work.
4. Upon successful completion of the negotiations, the City Administ rator will award the contract to the selected contractor.
5. A sample City standard professional services agreement is included in the RFP as referenced as Attachment A Sample Agreement . The selected Lead Agency will be required to enter into a contract that contains similar terms and conditions as in the standard agreement. Please note
19 Office is typically not inclined to make any modifications to the standard agreement terms and provisions.
6. Upon award the City will issue a Notice to proceed.
7. The selected Lead Agency and its other members will be required to maintain auditable records, documents, and papers for inspection by authorized local, state and federal representatives. Therefore, the Lead Agency and its other members may be required to undergo an evaluation to demonstrate that the Lead Agency uses recognized accounting and financial procedures.
END OF RFP
ATTACHMENTS: A Sample Agreement
B - Schedule E, I, O, Q
C City Schedules & Policies