Here is a first draft of the spreadsheet containing information from the July 3rd release of the HUD Data Exchange annual CPD Cross-Program Funding Reports (https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/cpd-cross-program-funding-matrix-and-dashboard-reports/?utm_source=HUD+Exchange+Mailing+List&utm_campaign=d56c2f1a24-May+CPD+Funding+Reports_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_f32b935a5f-d56c2f1a24-19414121).
These reports provide funding information for each city and state that receive CPD program funds, including Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Continuum of Care (CoC), Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG), HOME, Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA), and Housing Trust Fund (HTF). In the reports, each entity’s use of funding for the FY2016 year can be examined. Comparing selected entities, one can see how our local entities spent the funds by kind of expense, by percentage targeted to those making less than 50% of Adjusted Median Income, by how much funding they did not spend (and are at risk of having to return), how many units of rental and rehab and homeownership were built, and how many people were served, and tha number of service units delivered.
My review results in a few areas of note. The percentage spent by Santa Rosa on Public Services and Admin (George Uberti pointed this out months ago) - far above the maximum percentages (15% and 20%) - has to be explained. The high amount of Sonoma County recapture risk, and high relative marks for Petaluma are those figures which also should be noted.
But this report doesn’t contain any serious criticism of Sonoma, Santa Rosa, or Petaluma. That’s reserved for the second spreadsheet, released in April (https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/coc/system-performance-measures/?utm_source=HUD+Exchange+Mailing+List&utm_campaign=02a3ab7931-SPM+Data+Available+-+4.26.18&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_f32b935a5f-02a3ab7931-19414121#data).
Our region (CA-504) scores so low in all measures, and calls into question how California’s Housing and Community Development Department (or any other California department administering new homeless funding) would look upon our area as anything but completely lacking any real ability to assist homeless to permanent housing. California will give huge weight to these criteria in its application reviews from California counties and cities. I’m sure that our locals will respond by saying that we’re so burdened by high rents and a lack of available land to develop. But we aren’t alone in those conditions, and this data does not paint a picture of a strong system of care, or one that has been able to successfully transition homeless from the street to permanent housing - when compared to other regions who will be competing with us for the same money we hope to receive.