The Source for Housing Solutions Supportive Housing and Olmstead – CDFI/Developer Experience Andrew Baldwin, Director of Loan Originations, CSH csh.org

Our Mission Improve lives of vulnerable people Maximize public resources Build strong, healthy communities Advancing housing solutions that:

What We Do CSH is a touchstone for new ideas and best practices, a collaborative and pragmatic community partner, and an influential advocate for supportive housing. Lines of Business Training & Education Policy Reform Consulting & Assistance Lending Research-backed tools, trainings and knowledge sharing Powerful capital funds, specialty loan products and development expertise Custom community planning and cutting-edge innovations Systems reform, policy collaboration and advocacy

Supportive Housing is the Solution Coordinated Services Housing: Affordable Permanent Independent Support: Flexible Voluntary Tenant-centered Supportive housing combines affordable housing with services that help people who face the most complex challenges to live with stability, autonomy and dignity. Employment Services Case Management Primary Health Services Mental Health Services Substance Abuse Treatment Parenting/ Coaching Life Skills Affordable Housing

High Quality Supportive Housing A variety of housing models exist with common factors including: Located in within safe neighborhoods with close proximity to: Transportation Employment opportunities Services shopping, recreation and socialization. Tenants have a lease identical to those of tenants who are not in supportive housing. Services are voluntary and consumer-driven. They focus on ensuring that tenants can obtain and thrive in stable housing, regardless of barriers they may face. The housing and its tenants are good neighbors, contributing to meeting community needs and goals whenever possible.

Approaches to creating supportive housing in an Olmstead context  Development approaches:  Scattered Site  Integrated / Mixed Tenancy  Single-site  Olmstead impacted states increasingly promote integrated housing model  Approaches vary by state  Developer comfort with integrated housing varies  CSH lending supports different models based on risk assessment

QAPs Continue to Support Integrated Housing Models  Increasing use of threshold requirements  New requirement in Delaware, DC, Iowa  Scoring incentives and set-asides  Up from 22 to 35 QAPs  25 QAPs promote multiple integrated models  Keys to success:  Sufficient operating subsidies and services financing  Establishing a good tenant referral system  Compliance monitoring to ensure quality

Georgia  New threshold requirement –  Submission of an Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Marketing Plan  Incentive points:  Presenting an innovative project concept/design – one project  Projects with rental assistance for at least 15% of units (down from 30%)  Willing to accept Section 811 to promote integrated housing per settlement  Development environment  Scattered site  Traditionally single site PSH; integrated model less accepted

New York  Three allocating agencies offer incentives  DHCR  HFA  HPD  Funders take differing approaches to integration  HPD – 60/40 model  OMH – 50% limit (recent)  Development environment  Mix of housing options available  Acceptance of integrated model  New to DD and OMH providers

Illinois  Incentives promote integrated housing  2014 vs draft 2015 QAP  State Referral Network (SRN)  Established by intergovernmental agreement  Created to link tenants to PSH units and services  689 units created since 2008 / 175 per year  Average targeted project has 13% SRN units  Developer Experience – survey findings:  Basic knowledge of integrated housing  Knowledge gap about SRN  Variable experience with SRN  TA/predevelopment funding needs

Indiana  QAP set-aside and incentives  10% set-aside for Housing First  Applicants assisted through Supportive Housing Institute  Limited Olmstead impact  No settlement  State encouraging IH model  Focus on balanced housing opportunities, including single-site  Limited developer/provider support for integrated model

Risk Assessment  Olmstead risk incorporated into CSH lending process. Factors include:  % level of integration  Existence of settlement(s)  Existence/likelihood of future suits  Target population(s)  Single site projects: project/sponsor/system flexibility, level of community options & integration, size of project  Funding sources