Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 1

Prepared with support and assistance by Management Partners and 

the National Forum for Black Public Administrators.

 
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................4

Introduction.................................................................................................................................................7

Overview of Clark County ........................................................................................................................7

Impact of COVID-19 on Clark County ...................................................................................................10

Overview of the Planned Use of the Funds.............................................................................................12

Community Engagement .........................................................................................................................12

Clark County Commissioner Interviews...............................................................................12

Clark County Commission Public Workshops......................................................................13

Commissioner Neighborhood Meetings................................................................................13

Community Written Comments............................................................................................14

Community Survey ..............................................................................................................14

Pre-Application Process and Summary.................................................................................15

Funding Allocation by Category and Amount ......................................................................16

Evidence of Community Needs, Recommended Use of Funds, and Key Outcomes ...........................20

Public Health ..........................................................................................................................................21

Demographic Impacts ..........................................................................................................21

Health Risk Factors..............................................................................................................23

Vaccinations ........................................................................................................................24

Behavioral/Mental Health ....................................................................................................26

Plan for Use of Funds...........................................................................................................30

Key Outcome Goals .............................................................................................................30

Negative Economic Impacts....................................................................................................................31

Plan for Use of Funds...........................................................................................................36

Key Outcome Goals .............................................................................................................37

Services to Disproportionately Impacted Communities..........................................................................38

Housing................................................................................................................................40

Homelessness.......................................................................................................................43

Food Insecurity ....................................................................................................................43

Plan for Use of Funds...........................................................................................................45

Key Outcome Goals.............................................................................................................45

Water, Sewer and Broadband Infrastructure..........................................................................................47

Plan for Use of Funds...........................................................................................................47

Key Outcome Goals.............................................................................................................47
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 3

Revenue Replacement .............................................................................................................................48

Identification and Plan for Use of Funds ..............................................................................48

Promoting Equitable Outcomes...............................................................................................................49

Table of Expenses by Expenditure Category .........................................................................................52

Project Inventory ......................................................................................................................................54

Performance Report .................................................................................................................................55

Appendix 1 – Clark County COVID-19 Cases by Zip Code and City in Clark County ....................56

Appendix 2 – Clark County Survey Results...........................................................................................58

Community Survey Results......................................................................................................................58

Stakeholder Survey Results.....................................................................................................................65

Appendix 3– Calls for Service Involving Homeless and Mentally Ill...................................................66
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report serves as the first Recovery Plan Performance Report (Recovery Report) as required by the 

United States Department of Treasury (Treasury) under the provisions of the Coronavirus State Fiscal 

Recovery Fund, and the Coronavirus Local Fiscal Recovery Fund established under the American Rescue 

Plan Act (ARPA). This report provides the information requested in the State and Local Fiscal Recovery 

Funds (Fiscal Recovery Funds) Compliance and Reporting Guidance from Treasury. 

Clark County will be receiving $440 million in Fiscal Recovery Funds to mitigate the 

impacts of COVID-19 pandemic, including social, medical, and economic impacts.

Since the declaration of the public health emergency, approximately 13% of Clark County’s population 

have contracted COVID-19, of which 1.7% have died. In addition to the health impacts, the economic 

impact from COVID-19 has also had a devastating effect on the Clark County economy. The economic 

impact has been the worst experienced in any metropolitan area of the United States, due to the high reliance 

on the leisure and hospitality industry that employs roughly 30% of the County’s workforce. With the total 

shutdown of tourism and entertainment, including the Las Vegas Strip, the regional unemployment rate

reached 33.5%, the highest in the nation. 

The Fiscal Recovery Funds are also intended to support investments in programs and initiatives that create 

equitable outcomes within communities that have historically experienced disparate negative economic, 

health, and social impacts and have suffered the most from the COVID-19 pandemic. Fiscal Recovery 

Funds are available for a broad range of uses related to COVID-19 recovery efforts. Possible uses include:

• Affordable housing;

• Rental assistance;

• Aid to small businesses and non-profit organizations;

• Vaccine programs;

• Enhancements to public health systems;

• Investments in water, sewer, and broadband infrastructure; and 

• Other areas of need, such as job retraining. 

Important provisions of the law allow for an even broader range of uses in low-income communities that 

have been especially hard hit by COVID-19. Those eligible uses include investments to address 

homelessness and other housing issues, investments in education to address disparities, and several areas 

designed to help with childcare and children’s welfare. Funding is one-time and must be allocated by the 

end of calendar year 2024 and fully spent or returned by the end of calendar year 2026.

This Recovery Report reflects Clark County’s initial strategy for using the Fiscal Recovery Funds. This 

strategy is still evolving since the legislation was signed into law in March 2021, and the initial 

implementation regulations were not released until the end of June 2021. 

The $440 million Fiscal Recovery Fund allocation presents Clark County with the 

opportunity to build capacity to meet the needs of populations disproportionately 

impacted by the pandemic and to strengthen its programs and services in a way that 
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 5

improves the quality of life for all community members. In order to understand the needs of 

the community, Clark County implemented a robust community engagement process. The community 

engagement process included participation from members of the disproportionately impacted communities, 

community stakeholders, and elected officials. Management Partners, a management consulting firm, in 

partnership with the National Forum for Black Public Administrators (NFBPA), was retained to assist the 

County in this effort. 

In the first interviews with County elected and executive officials, it became apparent that Clark County 

leaders view this funding as an opportunity to drive generational changes to the civic infrastructure of the 

County. It is an opportunity is a means to address many of the needs that low-income communities have 

suffered from for decades. The County leadership’s perspective is consistent with the 

federal intent.

The community engagement process involved engaging both stakeholders, who are providers of services, 

and the general public in setting priorities for using the Fiscal Recovery Funds. This process included four 

(4) public workshops and numerous neighborhood meetings held by the Clark County Board of County 

Commissioners (County Commission). Clark County distributed thousands of electronic surveys to 

individuals and organizations, soliciting their input regarding what they considered the greatest needs and 

barriers to recovery in the communities they serve or where they live. With over 3,500 responses received, 

the survey shed insight into the depth of the negative economic impacts experienced by Clark County 

residents. The issues of most concern cited by survey respondents were employment, housing, public 

health, behavioral health, education, economic development, and job training. 

In addition, the County initiated and administered a pre-application process for non-profit providers and 

governmental agencies to garner information on services, programs, and initiatives. These pre-applications 

identified the priorities and magnitude of the cost to address community needs.

The estimated cost of the 514 pre-application proposals received totaled $2.6 billion. The top priorities 

were:

1. Affordable housing, including services to the homeless and transitional housing.

2. A wide variety of mental and behavioral health needs, as well as access to health care for all.

3. Job opportunities, support for small businesses, and training, including financial literacy.

4. Services for children including early education, quality childcare, and a supportive environment.
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 6

Based on public comments, the community survey, and the pre-application process, the initial Recovery 

Plan recommends that the Fiscal Recovery Funds be allocated in the broad categories and amounts shown 

in Figure 1. 

Clark County Recommended Funding Allocation by Category and Amount (in millions)

As the Clark County community recovers from the devasting effects of the pandemic, the community needs 

are expected to change from what they are today, which may require adjustments to the County’s recovery 

plan in the future. Given the robust community engagement process undertaken, Clark County is confident 

that this initial funding allocation will support an equitable and strong recovery from the COVID-19 

pandemic and economic downturn and will ensure program outcomes are achieved in an effective and 

efficient manner. 

COVID-19 MITIGATION

$13

3%

PUBLIC HEALTH

$70 

16% HOUSEHOLD 

ASSISTANCE

$13 

3%

JOB TRAINING 

ASSISTANCE

$41 

9%

SMALL BUSINESS AND 

NON-PROFIT 

ASSISTANCE

$46

10.5%

EDUCATION 

ASSISTANCE

$20

5%

HEALTHY CHILDHOOD 

ENVIRONMENTS

$13 

3%

HOUSING SUPPORT

$157 

35%

SOCIAL 

DETERMINANTS OF 

HEALTH

$20 

5%

INFRASTRUCTURE

$3

0.5%

REVENUE 

REPLACEMENT/ 

CONTINGENCY

$44 

10%
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 7

INTRODUCTION

This report aims to provide the public and Treasury information on the projects that Clark County is 

interested in undertaking with program funding and how Clark County is planning to ensure 

program outcomes are achieved in an effective, efficient, and equitable manner. Clark 

County is required to submit a Recovery Plan Performance Report due to its population exceeding 250,000. 

The report aims to accomplish three (3) main contributions. First, it provides a generalized overview of 

Clark County as it relates to the structure of Clark County, its population, and the impact of COVID-19 on 

its residents and economy. Second, it provides an overview of Clark County’s steps to identify the 

recommended program funding allocations and priorities for funding distribution. It includes an overview 

of the community engagement strategies conducted to ascertain evidence supporting the report’s 

recommendations. Finally, it provides evidence of the needs in the various expenditure categories with

recommendations for how the funding can produce outcomes to reduce or eliminate the demonstrated needs. 

This report also provides a general overview of Clark County’s approach to equity in terms of funding 

programs and projects. The funding offers Clark County a unique opportunity to weave 

themes of equity throughout its programs and decision-making. In addition, this report 

discusses the expenditures to date by Clark County.

OVERVIEW OF CLARK COUNTY 

Clark County, Nevada is home to the world-famous Las Vegas Strip, McCarran International Airport (the 

nation’s seventh busiest), University Medical Center (Nevada’s only level one trauma center), Mt. 

Charleston (the highest peak in the Mojave Desert), Lake Mead (the largest man-made lake in the United 

States), and the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area. 

Clark County is a singular community among American counties: a large metropolitan area whose sheer 

size transforms an otherwise rural state into the third most urbanized State in the United States, based on 

United States Census Bureau (Census Bureau) data. It is a fast-growing economy dominated by the related 

tourism and gaming industries, with a population whose explosive growth has raced far ahead of the social

service and non-profit infrastructures designed to support residents and businesses. In good economic times, 

the County’s attributes can mask many inequities that characterize the region. However, crises such as the 

Great Recession or the COVID-19 pandemic expose the County’s systemic weaknesses and vulnerabilities.

Clark County has been defined by explosive population growth, unlike any other metropolitan area in the 

United States, over the last 70 years. In 1950, Clark County and the greater Las Vegas area were not 

recognized as a metropolitan area. It had a population of approximately 48,000. By 2020, Clark County had 

a population of 2.3 million, an increase of 4,552%. Clark County grew at nearly three (3) times the rate of 

any other metropolitan area during this period. The two (2) other fastest growing urban areas in the country 

during this period were Orlando, Florida, and Phoenix, Arizona, which grew by approximately 1,600%. 

Growth at this rate, particularly in an overwhelmingly rural environment, is unprecedented. This growth 

has put incredible stress on the Clark County local government, both with respect to overall structure and 

service delivery. The whole range of “civic infrastructure,” which has struggled to catch up for decades, 

continues to be inadequate for a metropolitan region of Clark County’s size and complexity. The impact of 

the underdevelopment of civic infrastructure is reflected in Nevada’s chronically low rankings in various 
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 8

state-to-state comparisons. Nevada currently ranks last or nearly last in a myriad of social indices ranging 

from K-12 education, mental health, and substance abuse. 

The demographic information below from the Census Bureau illustrates the characteristics of Clark County 

and its population. The Las Vegas Valley, which is the heart of Clark County, is one of the largest

metropolitan areas by population in the United States, while the rest of the state is mostly very rural and 

sparsely populated. The map in Figure 2 provides the cities and unincorporated towns that make up the 

urbanized Las Vegas Valley.

Incorporated Cities and Unincorporated Towns in the Las Vegas Valley 

Source: Clark County Geographic Systems Management Office

The unincorporated portion of the Las Vegas Valley, which encompasses the unincorporated towns of 

Enterprise, Paradise (location of the famous Las Vegas Strip), Spring Valley, Summerlin South, Sunrise 

Manor, Whitney, and Winchester), and has a population of approximately 1.1 million. If this area were a 
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 9

city (as it is in every way but the official designation), unincorporated Clark County would be 

the 10th largest city in the U.S. The cities in Clark County (Boulder City, Henderson, Las Vegas, 

Mesquite, and North Las Vegas) collectively add another 1.2 million in population, making Clark 

County the 11th largest county in the United States, with a total population of 2.3 

million. 

Aside from Clark County, the State of Nevada has a population of just under one million, with only one 

other small- to medium-sized metropolitan area, Reno and Washoe County, which has a total population of 

approximately 500,000. Nevada ranks 30th in population among the 50 states in the United States. Without 

Clark County, Nevada would be one of the smallest states and would rank 45th ahead of only North and 

South Dakota, Alaska, Vermont, and Wyoming.

Clark County is home to approximately 72% of Nevada’s total population. The County 

has by a large margin the highest percentage of a total state’s population of any county in the U.S. 

Comparable counties with this size in population relative to the state population include Honolulu County 

in Hawaii with 67% and Maricopa County in Arizona with 61%. 

Counties in Nevada 

 Source: Maps.com
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 10

Paradoxically, given the sparse population of most of the state, Nevada is the third most urbanized 

state in the U.S., with a 94% urbanized population, behind only New Jersey and 

California. This is due to Clark County’s vast population relative to the entire state population. 

Accentuating this anomaly, Nevada is one of the least densely populated states, ranking 42 out of the 50 

states with a density of approximately 26 people per square mile. Without Clark County’s population 

density of approximately 264 people per square mile, the State’s overall density would fall to about 13 

people per mile, one of the lowest in the U.S. The average population density in the U.S. is 153.6 persons 

per square mile. 

Tourism is the largest industry in Clark County, attracting 46 million visitors annually (pre-pandemic) from 

across the nation and worldwide. The region benefits from roughly 150,000 hotel rooms, more convention 

and meeting space than any other market in the country, and approximately 295,000 hospitality industry 

employees. Clark County attracts 6.6 million convention and meeting travelers each year (pre-pandemic). 

IMPACT OF COVID-19 ON CLARK COUNTY

Since the declaration of the public health emergency, approximately 13% of Clark County’s population 

(300,000 people) have contracted COVID-19, and 1.7% of that number (5,000 people) have died.

Consequently, the economic impact from COVID-19 has had a devastating effect on 

Clark County. The economic impact has been the worst experienced in any 

metropolitan area of the United States due to the high reliance on the leisure and hospitality 

industry that directly employs roughly 30% of the County’s workforce. With the total shutdown of tourism 

and entertainment, including the Las Vegas Strip, the regional unemployment rate reached 33.5%, the 

highest in the nation. 

The occupancy rate in Las Vegas hotel rooms plunged from 88% in November 2019 to 47% a year later, 

while passengers through the McCarran International Airport, a County department, fell by 59% over the 

same period. Despite reopening and the loosening of COVID-19 restrictions, the County’s unemployment

rate is still higher than levels across the United States. 

The health impacts and the economic effects of the pandemic have been 

disproportionately felt by Clark County’s lower-income service workers and people 

of color. Hispanic, Black, and Asian-American/Pacific Islander residents have contracted COVID-19 at 

higher rates than the White population, with the Hispanic population being most severely impacted. As 

officials have struggled to respond, long-standing inequities in the availability of affordable housing, health 

care, mental and behavioral health services, and educational opportunities have been revealed and 

exacerbated.

In preparing the Recovery Report for the County, the negative impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the 

County were reviewed, and social safety net gaps and resource shortages in many areas were observed. 

Clark County’s inequities, and the barriers to recovery from the public health crisis, include:

• A lack of economic diversification;

• Food insecurity; 

• Insufficient supply of affordable housing; 

• The fragmented state of Clark County’s non-profit sector;
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 11

• Lack of mental/behavioral health resources;

• Relatively low rate of overall educational attainment; and 

• High rates of poverty and the related negative effects on neighborhoods across the County.

Detailed evidence of the impediments to recovery is provided later in this report.
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 12

OVERVIEW OF THE PLANNED USE OF THE FUNDS

The Fiscal Recovery Funds present Clark County with the opportunity to build community capacity to meet 

the needs of populations disproportionately impacted by the pandemic and to strengthen its programs and 

services in a way that improves the quality of life for community members. Clark County began a robust 

community engagement process to determine the use of Fiscal Recovery Funds. This included several 

interviews with community leaders and stakeholders, community surveys, and a grant pre-application 

process. The community engagement process was initiated in alignment with federal guidance. 

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

The community engagement strategy included in-person and virtual interviews and public meetings along 

with opportunities for community members to provide written comments. Specifically, the community 

engagement strategy included interviews with community leaders, four (4) community workshops, eight 

(8) in-person and virtual neighborhood meetings, a grant pre-application process, written public input and 

two (2) surveys. A summary of each is provided below. 

Clark County Commissioner Interviews

The County Commission members were interviewed to ascertain their views on the priorities for spending 

the Fiscal Recovery Funds.

The County Commission overwhelmingly agreed on the need to address immediate and short-term needs 

such as:

• Food insecurity;

• Homelessness compounded by the impending end of the moratorium on evictions;

• Substance abuse;

• Behavioral and mental health; and

• Affordable childcare. 

There was consensus that the County’s Fiscal Recovery Funds present a tremendous opportunity to make 

significant course corrections and invest in programs to significantly improve the lives of individuals in 

communities disproportionately impacted by COVID-19. Individuals in communities disproportionately 

impacted include workers in industries hardest hit by the pandemic (e.g., leisure and hospitality industries) 

and those living in Qualified Census Tracts (QCTs) or who live in similar economic conditions. QCTs are 

defined as areas where at least 50% of the households have incomes below 60% of the Area Median Gross 

Income or a poverty rate of at least 25%. Programs and service investments for generational change 

included:

• Affordable and safe housing;

• Education (early childhood, tutoring, and vocational education);

• Job programs for youth and adults;

• Job training and job retraining;

• Entrepreneurship support;

• Family preservation;

• Youth intervention; 

• Mental and behavioral health services;
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 13

• Access to basic needs (clothing, food, health, recreation)

• Reliable public transportation; 

• Access to affordable broadband for education and business uses; and

• Building infrastructure and capacity in the non-profit sector.

Clark County Commission Public Workshops 

To promote capacity building to meet the needs of underserved populations, County leaders invited 

stakeholders and partner agencies to attend one of four (4) scheduled public workshops. The workshops 

were held both during the day and in the evening to enable as many community members, partner agencies, 

and other stakeholders to participate as possible.

The workshops covered an array of community needs and were held at Clark County’s Commission 

Meeting Chamber on the dates listed below. 

• July 13 – Needs of households that were disproportionately and negatively impacted by the public 

health emergency;

• July 14 – Housing and shelter needs;

• July 15 – Needs of small businesses and job training; and

• July 20 – Public health and infrastructure.

Commissioner Neighborhood Meetings

Overlapping the workshops, Clark County Commissioners held community input sessions in a variety of 

neighborhoods. The dates, times, and locations of those neighborhood meetings are listed below. 

• July 14 – East Las Vegas Library held from 5:30 to 7:00 pm;

• July 14 – Virtual Town Hall held from 6:00 to 7:00 pm;

• July 15 – Henderson Town Center/Senior Center held from 6:00 to 7:30 pm;

• July 19 – Paradise Recreation Center held from 6:00 to 7:30 pm;

• July 20 – Sandy Valley Community Center held from 10:00 to 11:00 am;

• July 26 – Winchester Dondero Theater held from 5:30 to 7:00 pm;

• July 27 – Desert Breeze Community Center held from 9:00 to 10:00 am; and 

• August 10 – Pearson Community Center held from 5:30 to 8:00 pm.

Below is a photo (Figure 4) of the community meeting at the Pearson Community Center in the Historic 

Westside Neighborhood in Las Vegas held on August 10, 2021.

August 10, 2021 Neighborhood Meeting at Pearson Community Center
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 14

The number of attendees that participated in these meetings spanned from 20 to 100 community members. 

Participants at each session reflected the racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity of locations where the 

meetings were held. Attendees shared stories and concerns regarding:

• Rapid increases in rent following the expiration of the eviction moratorium;

• Lack of available affordable and transitional housing;

• Insufficient behavioral health services; 

• Lack of resources to theaters and galleries; and

• Inaccessibility to immigration resources 

Community Written Comments 

In addition to the structured public input collected for this plan, Clark County invited community members 

to share their interests and needs in writing. Clark County collected 592 comment cards during July and 

August 2021. Of these, 578 of the written comments endorsed expanding community navigation services 

and providing financial assistance to families and individuals in need. The remaining written input included 

requests to increase affordable and transitional housing, enhance broadband, improve transit, offer cooling 

centers, and provide small business and job training assistance.

Community Survey

In collaboration with Clark County leadership, Management Partners developed and administered a 

community survey in multiple languages to understand the impacts of the pandemic in Clark County and 

residents’ priorities for Fiscal Recovery funding. 

The survey was publicized on the County website, social media, shared by Clark County Commissioners, 

and provided in paper form at County offices and in-person neighborhood meetings. A total of 3,532 

responses were received, of which 3,103 were received in English, 413 in Spanish, and 16 in Tagalog. 

Respondents were asked a series of demographic questions to help County leaders and staff understand the 

disparate impacts of the pandemic on different communities. The largest respondent age group were those 

aged 35 to 49, representing 40.4% of respondents.
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 15

Respondents were asked to consider 16 areas of potential need in the community and rank their top five (5) 

areas of concern in priority order. The results are shown in Figure 5 below:

Top Ten (10) Areas of Community Needs as Ranked in the Community Survey

Overall, the highest-ranking needs included affordable housing, mental health services, homelessness, 

health care, and education. 

The community survey also provided insight into the depth of the negative economic impacts experienced 

by Clark County residents. Of the respondents, 36% indicated they had either lost a job or experienced 

reduced employment due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

In addition to the community survey, Clark County completed a survey of non-profit organizations. The 

response rate was low, but the responses that were received supported the community survey results. All 

non-profit organizations that responded to the survey indicated that they had experienced a greater demand 

for services. Clark County and Management Partners believe that the non-profit organizations used the preapplication process to fully express their perspectives on community needs. 

Appendix 2 provides the complete summary of the survey results. 

Pre-Application Process and Summary 

In July 2021, Clark County initiated and administered a pre-application process to ascertain the breadth and 

depth of stakeholder interest and their understanding of the community recovery needs. Clark County 

stakeholders and community members were invited to submit pre-applications for Fiscal Recovery Funds. 

The County advertised the call for pre-applications, posted the information on its website and social media, 

emailed the pre-application to current partner agencies, and made verbal announcements at Clark County 

meetings throughout July and August 2021. 

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

First Priority Second Priority Third Priority Fourth Priority Fifth Priority
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 16

At the time of this report, the County received a total of 514 pre-applications. The submissions aligned with 

the following community needs:

• 142 pre-applications related to public health;

• 107 pre-applications related to negative economic impacts;

• 192 pre-applications related to services to disproportionately affected communities;

• 64 pre-applications for water and sewer infrastructure and broadband;

• Two (2) pre-applications for premium pay; and

• Seven (7) pre-applications for revenue loss. 

The proposals have an aggregate estimated cost of approximately $2.6 billion and are evenly represented 

between non-profit organizations and government entities. A summary of the requests and potential uses 

collected to date are provided in Table 1 by expenditure category. 

 Pre-Application Requests as of August 20, 2021

Request Expenditure Category Number of

Pre-Applications Amount (in millions)

Public Health 142 $692.0

Negative Economic Impacts 107 $348.8

Services to Disproportionately Impacted Communities 192 $816.9

Premium Pay 2 $18.6

Sewer, Water, and Broadband Infrastructure 64 $598.7

Revenue Replacement 7 $39.0

Administrative and Contingency $44.0

TOTAL 514 $2,558.0

County staff believes that the pre-application process could be the first time such a comprehensive portrait 

of needs in the County has been compiled. Many of the projects and programs are creative and innovative,

and most align with County priorities. Pre-applications include projects that address the immediate 

community response to and recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. The majority of requests represent 

investments in the community to address the systemic disparities in the health and socioeconomic 

infrastructure. 

Funding Allocation by Category and Amount 

County leaders determined that the needs expressed in the pre-application process and the community input 

provided through the survey should inform a “macro” allocation of funds to broad categories. Moreover, 

the macro allocation should serve as a basis to prioritize the funding across the many programs and projects 

submitted. In finalizing the prioritized needs, the County also de-emphasized projects with alternative 

funding sources available and those that did not directly benefit impacted households. The results of the 

macro sorting process prioritized the following community needs:
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 17

1. Affordable and transitional housing, including services to homeless;

2. A wide variety of behavioral/mental health needs, as well as expanded access to health care;

3. Job opportunities, support for small business, training, and financial literacy; and

4. Services for children including early education, quality childcare and a supportive environment.

Table 2 provides an overview of the macro sorting process and the recommended funding amounts. 

Summary of Funding Allocation by Category and Amount

Expenditure 

Category Programming

Expenditure Category 

Allocation (in millions)

% $

COVID-19 

Mitigation

3% $13

1.1 Vaccination

1.2 Testing

1.3 Contact Tracing

1.4 Prevention in Congregate Settings

(Nursing Homes, Homeless Shelters, Jails)

1.5 Personal Protective Equipment

1.8

Other Expenses (Communications, Marketing 

Campaigns, Enforcement, Public Health 

Surveillance, Isolation/Quarantine)

1.9 Payroll Costs for Public Health, Safety, and 

Other Public Sector Staff

Public Health

16% $70

1.6 Medical Expenses (Enhancement of Health Care 

Facilities)

1.7 Capital Investments in Public Facilities to 

Respond to Pandemic Operational Needs

1.10 Mental Health Treatment Services

1.11 Substance Abuse Treatment Services

1.12 Other (Health Data Systems, Crisis Intervention)

Household 

Assistance1

3% $13

2.1 Food Programs

2.2 Rent, Mortgage, and Utility Assistance

2.3 Cash Subsidies

2.4 Internet Access Programs

2.5 Eviction Prevention

Job Training 

Assistance

9% $41

2.7 Sector Job-Training, Subsidized Employment,

Employment Support Incentives or Services

Small Business/

Economic 

Assistance/

Aid To Non-Profit 

Organizations

10.5% $46

2.9

Small Business Economic Assistance

(Grants, In-Kind Assistance, Counseling 

Programs)

2.10 Aid to Non-Profit Organizations (Administration, 

Operations)

2.13 Entrepreneurship Support

Education 

Assistance

5% $20

3.1 Early Learning (Pre-K)

1 There is additional State and Federal funding available for household assistance programs. 
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 18

Expenditure 

Category Programming

Expenditure Category 

Allocation (in millions)

% $

3.3 Academic Services (Counseling, Tutoring)

3.4 Social, Emotional, and Mental Health Services

3.5 Other (After School Programs, Financial 

Literacy)

Healthy

Childhood 

Environments

3% $13

3.6 Child Care (New or Expanded High Quality 

Child Care, Subsidy Assistance)

3.7 Home Visiting

3.8 Services to Foster Youth or Families Involved in 

Child Welfare System

3.9. Other

Housing Support

35% $157

3.10 Affordable Housing (Retain and Expand 

Capacity)

3.11 Homeless Services (Emergency Shelter, 

Transitional Housing)

3.12 Other Housing Assistance (Supportive Services)

Social 

Determinants of 

Health

5% $20

3.13 Other (Immigration Assistance)

3.14 Community Health Workers or Benefits 

Navigators

3.16 Community Violence Interventions

(Victim Assistance, Juvenile Justice Services)

Infrastructure2

0.5% $3

5.1 Clean Water: Centralized Wastewater Treatment

5.2 Clean Water: Centralized Wastewater Collection 

and Conveyance

5.3 Clean Water: Decentralized Wastewater

5.4 Clean Water: Combined Sewer Overflows

5.5 Clean Water: Other Sewer Infrastructure

5.6 Clean Water: Stormwater

5.7 Clean Water: Energy Conservation

5.8 Clean Water: Water Conservation

5.9 Clean Water: Non-Point Source

5.10 Drinking Water: Treatment

5.11 Drinking Water: Transmission & Distribution

5.12 Drinking Water: Transmission & Distribution:

Lead Remediation

5.13 Drinking Water: Source

5.14 Drinking Water: Storage

5.15 Drinking Water: Other Water Infrastructure

5.16 Broadband: “Last Mile” Projects

5.17 Broadband: Other Projects

Revenue 

Replacement/

Contingency

10% $44

6.1 Provision of Government Services

7.1 Administrative Expenses

TOTAL 100% $440

2 There is additional State and Federal funding available for water, sewer, and broadband infrastructure projects.
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 19

Figure 6 gives a graphic representation of the macro allocations. 

Macro Funding Allocation by Category and Amount (in millions)

Projects will be evaluated using the criteria below with the intention of at least 25% of total funding 

allocated to programs that benefit low-income households and impoverished neighborhoods. The 

evaluation criteria include the following:

1. Provides assistance in QCTs and to disproportionately impacted communities,

2. Aligns with the State of Nevada’s top four (4) recovery strategies as presented in the Every Nevadan 

Recovery Framework;

3. Aligns with County priorities;

4. Aligns with regional needs assessments;

5. Provides measurable and proven outcomes;

6. Leverages delivery of a County service to expand capacity;

7. Uses service providers with a demonstrated commitment to inclusionary and diversity practices

8. Fiscal sustainability;

9. Benefits low-income and/or impoverished neighborhoods; and

10. Leverages a non-County funding source.

COVID-19 MITIGATION

$13

3%

PUBLIC HEALTH

$70 

16% HOUSEHOLD 

ASSISTANCE

$13 

3%

JOB TRAINING 

ASSISTANCE

$41 

9%

SMALL BUSINESS AND 

NON-PROFIT 

ASSISTANCE

$46

10.5%

EDUCATION 

ASSISTANCE

$20

5%

HEALTHY CHILDHOOD 

ENVIRONMENTS

$13 

3%

HOUSING SUPPORT

$157 

35%

SOCIAL 

DETERMINANTS OF 

HEALTH

$20 

5%

INFRASTRUCUTRE

$3

0.5%

REVENUE 

REPLACEMENT/ 

CONTINGENCY

$44 

10%
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 20

EVIDENCE OF COMMUNITY NEEDS, RECOMMENDED USE 

OF FUNDS, AND KEY OUTCOMES 

The following sections provide context for the Clark County environment in each of the Expenditure 

Categories contained in the Compliance and Reporting Guidance for the Fiscal Recovery Funds from 

Treasury. It provides details on the projects and programs being considered for funding. As this report has 

already stated, Clark County faces unique challenges in that it grew into an urbanized metropolitan area 

faster than any other metro area in the United States. 

The following sections describe the challenges facing Clark County and how the Fiscal Recovery Funds 

could be used to transform this community into a better place, especially for those who have historically 

been underserved and impoverished. 

The federal government has established seven (7) categories of Fiscal Recovery Funds to facilitate the 

administration, tracking, and reporting of results. The categories identified by the County as potential uses 

of Fiscal Recovery Funds are outlined in the following pages. 
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 21

PUBLIC HEALTH 

The Southern Nevada Health District (District) serves as the local public health authority, encompassing 

the unincorporated County areas and Boulder City, Henderson, Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, and Mesquite. 

The District has maintained records and data points that have been used in determining the appropriate 

mitigation measures throughout the pandemic. 

Clark County has experienced significant health impacts to its population and health 

care infrastructure from the COVID-19 pandemic that began in March 2020 and continues as 

of August 2021. Although Nevada and Clark County implemented strict mitigation measures to combat the 

pandemic, its population has been hard hit by the virus. In Clark County, COVID-19 cases and 

deaths per 100,000 exceed the nation by 13.2% and 16.9%, respectively3. 

Demographic Impacts

COVID-19 has had disproportionate impacts in Clark County based on race and/or ethnicity, with Hispanic, 

Black, and Asian-American/Pacific Islander residents experiencing higher levels of COVID-19 cases than 

White residents. The Hispanic population has been the most severely impacted, with a rate per 100,000 

approximately 42% higher than the next highest group. 

Tables 3 and 4 summarize the demographic breakdowns of COVID-19 cases by age, sex, and racial and 

ethnic background.

Demographic Breakdown of COVID-19 Cases as of July 6, 2021 by Age and Sex

Category Demographic Number of Cases Percent Rate per 100,000

Age

Age 4 or less 5,427 2.07% 3,638.3

Age 5 to 17 25,388 9.67% 6,244.1

Age 18 to 24 32,823 12.50% 15,142.0

Age 25 to 49 120,361 45.90% 14,975.0

Age 50 to 64 50,585 19.30% 11,946.0

Age 65+ 27,804 10.60% 8,730.8

Unknown 93 0.04% -

Birth Sex

Female 134,272 51.20% 11,572.0

Male 125,963 48.00% 10,879.0

Unknown 2,246 0.86% -

 Source: Southern Nevada Health District

3 Hannah Ritchie, Edouard Mathieu, Lucas Rodes-Guirao, Cameron Appel, Charlie Giattino, Esteban Ortiz-Ospina, 

Joe Hasell, Bobbie Macdonald, Diane Beltekian, and Max Roser (2020)- “Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19)”. 

Published online at OurWorldInData.org. Retrieved from: ‘https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus’ [Online 

Resource]. 
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 22

Demographic Breakdown of COVID-19 Cases as of July 6, 2021 by Race/Ethnicity 

Category Demographic Number of Cases Percent Rate per 100,000

Race/Ethnicity

Hispanic 85,082 32.4% 11,150.0

White 66,234 25.2% 6,577.8

Black 20,654 7.87% 7,863.1

Asian or Pacific 

Islander 19,877 7.57% 7,356.1

American Indian, 

Eskimo, or Aleut 396 0.15% 2,586.3

Other 18,409 7.01% -

Unknown 51,829 19.70% -

 Source: Southern Nevada Health District

Of those who have contracted the virus, 93.7% recovered. However, a total of 5,005 people (1.7% of those 

affected) died from the virus. Table 5 summarizes the total number of cases and the outcomes for Clark 

County since the pandemic began in March 2020.

Clark County COVID-19 Cases, Hospitalizations, Deaths, and Recovered (August 17, 2021)

Variable Total Percent Rate per 100,000

COVID-19 Cases 295,104 100% 12,730.02

Hospitalized 18,926 6.4% 816.42

Deceased 5,005 1.7% 215.90

Recovered4 276,422 93.7% 11,924.13

MIS-C Case5,6 75 - -

 Source: Southern Nevada Health District

 

 

4 Recovered Criteria: A case must be alive, not currently hospitalized (or at least seven (7) days past the hospital 

discharge date), have completed quarantine or isolation, and/or be 14 days past event onset date.

5 MIS-C is COVID-19 Associated Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children.

6 Rates are suppressed for MIS-C cases due to low counts.

A 

disproportionate 

number of cases 

are within the 

Hispanic 

population.
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 23

In Clark County, of the 5,005 deaths reported from COVID-19, a substantial majority (70.4%) were 65

and older. Of those who died, 61.6% were male 

and 38.3% were female, as shown in Table 6

below.

General Characteristics of COVID-19 Deaths 

 Source: Southern Nevada Health District

Health Risk Factors

The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has widely reported that age, diabetes, 

heart disease, and lung diseases are among the most significant risk factors for severe COVID-19 

complications and related illnesses. Clark County has been especially vulnerable to the health effects of 

COVID-19 due to the State’s high rates of cardiovascular disease and diabetes before the onset of the 

pandemic, both of which are far more prevalent among people of color. Nevada has the nation’s 7th 

highest death rate from cardiovascular disease and the 19th highest death rate from 

diabetes.7

According to the Southern Nevada Health District’s 2019 Community Health Needs Assessment, health 

care access remains a critical challenge for the region. Specifically, the high cost of care, the lack 

of health care coverage, and the lack of available medical providers have contributed 

to challenges with health care in Clark County. The Community Health Needs Assessment 

revealed that almost 22% of adults were uninsured, and 36% did not have a personal health care provider 

7 Stats of the State of Nevada, CDC. 

Category Demographic Number of 

Deaths Percent Death Rate per 100,000

Age

Age 5 to 17 5 0.1% -

Age 18 to 24 11 0.2% -

Age 25 to 49 411 8.1% 51.14

Age 50 to 64 1,077 21.2% 224.33

Age 65+ 3,585 70.4% 1,125.70

Birth Sex

Female 1,947 38.3 % 167.80

Male 3,134 61.6% 270.66

Unknown 9 0.2% -

Race/Ethnicity

Hispanic 1,343 26.4% 176.00

White 2,322 45.6% 230.60

Black 629 12.4% 239.46

Asian or Pacific 

Islander 692 13.6% 256.10

American Indian, 

Eskimo, or Aleut 14 0.3% 91.44

Other 57 1.1% -

Unknown 33 0.6% -

Black and Asian/Pacific populations are 

experiencing higher rates of death. 
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 24

in 2019. Clark County (and Nevada as a whole) lacks medical professionals when compared with other 

areas in the United States. 

Clark County has a disproportionate number of uninsured adults and adults without a personal health care 

provider compared to the State of Nevada and the rest of the United States. With 18% fewer medical 

providers (per 100,000) than the national average, Clark County residents have 

limited access to health care.

Health Care Indicators for Clark County, the State of Nevada, and the United States8

Percent of Adult 

Population Uninsured 

(%) (2019)

Percent of Population 

without a Personal 

Health Care Provider 

(%) (2019)

Number of Medical 

Professionals per 

100,000 Population 

(2016)

Clark County 21.55% 36.20% 237

Nevada 19.42% 33.75% 246

United States 14.73% 22.45% 288

Source: Southern Nevada Health District via SRI International, December 2020

Vaccinations

Even with widely distributed news reports of COVID-19 cases and related deaths, many Nevada residents 

have not yet been vaccinated. Vaccine hesitancy seems to be more prevalent among the Black population, 

with only 31% of Black residents vaccinated. It is estimated that 42% of Hispanics are vaccinated in a 

population that has experienced the highest infection rates in the State. The Asian-American population 

has the highest vaccination rates to date (55%). Table 8 summarizes case and vaccination rates in Nevada 

by race or ethnicity. 

Nevada COVID-19 Case and Vaccination Rates by Race or Ethnicity as of August 16, 2021

Category White Black Hispanic or Latino Asian

Percent of Population 48% 9% 29% 8%

Percent of Total Cases 33% 8% 47% 8%

Percent Vaccinated 41% 31% 42% 55%

Source: Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) analysis of CDC, COVID-19 Response. COVID-19 Case Surveillance Restricted Data 

Access, Summary, and Limitations, August 16, 2021. Total State Population Distribution by Race/Ethnicity based on KFF 

analysis of 2019 American Community Survey.

Appendix 1 contains maps that provide the number of cases by city and zip code as of July 6, 2021. The 

cities of Las Vegas and North Las Vegas have experienced the highest numbers of cases. A breakdown by 

zip code identifies those areas with the highest numbers of reported cases. Many of these areas have 

significant populations of Black individuals and households in poverty. 

8 Note: Data availability varies by year. The latest year of availability for each indicator is indicated in parenthesis.
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 25

The number of current COVID-19 cases has declined from November 2020 to January 2021 , when cases 

were at their highest levels. Figure 7 illustrates the timing of identified cases in Clark County since March 

2020. An increase in cases has been reported in July 2021.

COVID-19 Cases in Nevada as of August 19, 2021

Source: Nevada Health Response

The Southern Nevada Health District has distributed three (3) approved vaccines and through multiple 

community partner locations throughout the County to combat the virus. As of August 19, 2021, 60.53% 

of eligible Nevada residents had at least one vaccine dose. Table 9 summarizes the total number of vaccine 

doses initiated and completed in Clark County as of August 18, 2021.

Total Number of Vaccine Doses Initiated and Completed as of August 18, 2021 (Cumulative)

Manufacturer Initiated Completed

Johnson & Johnson 103,751 103,751

Moderna 381,609 324,366

Pfizer-BioNTech 831,854 621,490

 Source: Southern Nevada Health District

INITIAL VACCINATIONS
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 26

The largest number of residents received vaccinations in March, April, and May of 2020. Since that time, 

residents receiving vaccinations has decreased each month. Figure 8 illustrates the timing of vaccinations 

administered in Clark County as of August 19, 2021. 

COVID-19 Vaccinations in Nevada as of August 19, 2021

 Source: Nevada Health Response

Behavioral / Mental Health

Based on the data provided by Mental Health America, the 2020 rankings of the State of Mental Health in 

America reflect the poor condition of Nevada compared with other states and Washington D.C. In 2020, 

Nevada ranked: 

• 49th in access to care;

• 47th in adult mental health;

• 45th in prevalence of mental health;

• 51st in youth mental health; and 

• 51st in overall health.

Youth mental health ranked 51st in the nation in 2019 and 2020. Risky behaviors, such as 

planning or seriously attempting suicide and purposely hurting oneself, were prevalent in middle and high 

school youth before the onset of the pandemic. 

Clark County’s youth were already facing many mental health challenges that have been exacerbated by 

the additional risk factors brought on by the pandemic9:

9 Source: State of Nevada Department of Health and Human Services
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 27

• Enforced isolation and quarantine;

• Separation from important adults and caregivers;

• Changes in routines, including circadian rhythm;

• Pandemic-related hardship in the family; and

• Educational stressors.

Greater attention to and funding for mental health issues is desperately needed. Suggested improvements

include focusing on basic systems that keep people safe and secure, increasing capacity of school-based 

behavioral health care, early intervention, crisis services for individuals and families, and building 

resilience in families and communities. 

Although Nevada’s mental health system has ranked at or near the worst in the nation, the State’s general 

fund expenditures for mental health has decreased both in real and constant dollars from 2010 levels. In 

2010, the state allocated $150M to mental health in the state general fund budget. In 2021, that decreased

to $123.5M, or 18% in constant dollars (adjusted for inflation). On a per capita basis, that equates to a 

decrease of 29%. Figures 9 and 10 illustrate this decrease in mental health funding in current and constant 

dollars. 

Mental Health Funding in Nevada’s General Fund from FY 2010 to FY 2021

 Source: Guinn Center

Behavioral / Mental Health Funding per Capita in Nevada from FY2010 to FY2021

 Source: Guinn Center
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 28

At the same time, State funding has been flattened or reduced, the need for mental health services has 

increased due to COVID-19. In its 2020 State of Mental Health in America Report, Mental 

Health America ranked Nevada worst in the nation for mental health care services.

The rankings were based on a variety of measures, including substance abuse and mental illness numbers. 

Figure 11 further demonstrates Nevada’s low ranking in mental health agency expenditures per capita 

compared to the rest of the nation. Nevada ranks 38th in State Mental Health Agency 

Expenditure Per Capita.

State Mental Health Agency Expenditures Per Capita

 Source: American Addition Centers National Rehabs Directory
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 29

Figure 12 illustrates the increase in opioid deaths for Nevada residents that coincided with the pandemic. 

In 2020, opioid-related deaths increased by 29% over 2019 and were the highest in number since 2010.

Nevada Residents’ Opioid Related Overdose Deaths by Year

Source: Department of Health and Human Services Office of Analytics

Figure 13 illustrates the number of patients who received treatment for substance abuse. Even before 

COVID-19, the number of individuals treated for substance abuse increased by 96%, almost double, 

between 2018 and 2019. 

Patients Who Received Substance Abuse Treatment Services through Nevada Medicaid 

Source: State of Nevada Health and Human Services Department

OPIOD DEATHS INCREASED 29% IN 2020.

COVID-19

31% INCREASE IN SUBSTANCE ABUSE 

TREATMENT SERVICES SINCE THE PANDEMIC.
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 30

Plan for Use of Funds

The County has received requests totaling $692 million for public health services. Through the prioritization 

process, $83 million has been allocated towards public health programs. Public health programming 

includes COVID-19 mitigation initiatives such as expanding testing and vaccination efforts, vaccination 

education and incentives, and prevention measures in congregate settings. Public health programs also 

include initiatives to increase access to public health, behavioral/mental health, and substance abuse 

services through the expansion of existing programs and the development of new programs that will 

emphasize community outreach through the delivery of services and expansion of health care providers.

In keeping with federal and County priorities, many projects and programs suggested in the public health 

area focus on serving disproportionately impacted neighborhoods and areas with chronic poverty and lowincome. 

Key Outcome Goals

1. Decrease the County’s COVID-19 positivity rate by increasing testing, vaccination administration,

and mitigation measures.

2. Improve health risk factors in populations demonstrating high percentages of cardiovascular 

disease and diabetes through community outreach, education, and access to health care and 

nutrition resources.

3. Expand access to health care, mental and behavioral health, and substance abuse services through 

community outreach, mobile and virtual delivery of services, and provider expansion.

4. Better develop the community’s ability to deliver public health and behavioral health services with 

targeted capital improvements, particularly those that would support programing to reduce the 

incidence of mental health and substance abuse disorders. 
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 31

NEGATIVE ECONOMIC IMPACTS

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a substantial impact on Clark County’s economy. The leisure and 

hospitality sector suffered the most considerable losses in employment due to capacity limitations and 

business closures which prevented much of Clark County’s workforce from working. The total shutdown 

of the regional tourism and entertainment industry and subsequent capacity limitations resulted in furloughs 

or layoffs to a substantial portion of the workforce. 

According to the Brookings Institute, Las Vegas has the second-largest tourism industry in the nation, 

producing $19 billion per year. (The largest is Orlando at $26 billion per year.) The hospitality and leisure 

sectors of the economy directly employed roughly 30% of Las Vegas workers in 2019. In November 2019, 

88% of Las Vegas’s hotel or motel rooms were occupied; in November 2020, that figure dropped to 47%. 

In November 2020, 59% fewer passengers passed through Las Vegas’ McCarran International Airport than 

a year earlier. 

The pandemic has had a significant impact on Clark County’s labor market, more than in other metropolitan 

areas in the United States. The unemployment rate in March 2020 reached 33.5% due to business 

shutdowns. 

Figure 14 below compares the unemployment rates from June 2019 to June 2021 for Clark County, the 

State of Nevada, and the United States. 

Unemployment Rates for Clark County, Nevada, and the United States: June 2019-June 

2021

 Source: Nevada Department of Employment, Training, and Rehabilitation

Clark County is still far above the 

national unemployment rate. 
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 32

Clark County’s labor market is overwhelmingly concentrated in low-wage, low-skill, and service sector 

occupations. This may be the result of lower education levels of the workforce 

compared with peer areas. In 2019, area employment statistics report 59% of

workers employed in the top ten (10) occupational categories in Clark County 

had an annual median wage of $36,000 or less. Table 10 shows there has 

been little change in the number of employees within each job 

sector since 2010.

Top Ten (10) Occupations in Clark County, by Number of Employees

Occupational Category 2019 

Employment

2019 

Employment 

Share

Change in 

Employment 

Share 2010 

to 2019

2019 Annual 

Median 

Wage

Food Preparation and 

Serving 151,120 14.8% -1.2% $24,980

Office and 

Administrative Support 138,720 13.6% -3.5% $35,680

Sales 109,480 10.7% -0.5% $27,550

Transportation and 

Moving 88,500 8.7% +1.6% $30,410

Personal Care and 

Service 58,100 5.7% -0.8% $21,480

Building and Grounds 

Maintenance 57,370 5.6% -1.0% $34,000

Construction and 

Extraction 53,250 5.2% -0.3% $47,320

Management 50,120 4.9% +0.4% $95,960

Health Care and 

Technical 47,270 4.6% +0.5% $83,090

Business and Financial 

Operations 38,960 3.8% +0.7% $62,120

 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupation and Employment Statistics via SRI International, December 2020

$36,000 is the average 

median wage for the top 

10 occupations. 
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 33

Table 11 ranks the lower education levels of the County’s labor force compared with other areas. As of 

2018, only 26% of Clark County workers had bachelor’s degrees or higher, by far the 

lowest among peer regions.

Labor Force Educational Attainment by Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) in 2018

Metropolitan Statistical Area

Less than 

High 

School

High School 

Graduate

Some College 

or Associate 

Degree

Bachelor’s 

Degree or 

Higher

Austin-Round Rock, TX 8% 17% 27% 47%

Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO 7% 18% 28% 47%

Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA 7% 17% 33% 43%

Colorado Springs, CO 5% 18% 36% 41%

Urban Honolulu, HI 5% 23% 33% 38%

Sacramento-Roseville-Arden-Arcade, 

CA

8% 19% 35% 38%

Salt Lake City, UT 8% 22% 34% 36%

Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL 7% 23% 34% 36%

Albuquerque, NM 9% 22% 34% 35%

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ 10% 21% 34% 35%

Reno, NV 11% 23% 34% 32%

Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV 13% 27% 34% 26%

Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, via SRI International, December 2020
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 34

Figure 15 illustrates the growth trends of Clark County’s major employment sectors from January 2010 

through September 2020. Although other sectors grew during that time (business, professional, education, 

and health services), leisure and hospitality remains by far the largest sector in the area prior to the 

pandemic. Employment in this sector contracted 24.2% between February and September 2020 as 

businesses shut down and visitor travel halted.

Some sectors, such as financial activities and business and professional services, were able to continue 

operating during the pandemic through remote work. As a result, they were less affected by the pandemic. 

Unfortunately, the leisure and hospitality sectors, upon which Clark County is dependent, had fewer remote 

working alternatives.

This evidence supports Clark County’s need for a wide variety of job re-training programs, economic 

diversification, as well as household assistance. 

Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise MSA Non-Seasonally Adjusted Employment (in 

thousands) by Selected Industry from January 2010 to September 202010

Source: Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Via SRI International, December 2020

10 Note: The data in parentheses represent the change in employment from February 2020 to September 2020, 

capturing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The grey line indicates the beginning of stay-at-home orders caused 

by the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020.

OVER 200,000 

EMPLOYEES WERE OUT 

OF WORK ONE (1) DAY 

AFTER THE STAY-ATHOME ORDER.
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 35

Figure 16 illustrates the unemployment rates from October 2019 through December 2020 by race and 

ethnicity, and the unemployment rates compared to the White population during the same time period. 

Unemployment has affected people of color to a greater extent than the White 

population.

Unemployment by Race or Ethnicity11

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey,” December 2020. Via 

Brookings Institution. 

11 Note: Unemployment rate based on seasonally adjusted employment status of the civilian noninstitutional

population.
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 36

Figure 17 provides the high percentage of Hispanic or Latino workers working in leisure and hospitality in 

Clark County (Las Vegas) compared with other metropolitan areas. Hispanic or Latino workers in 

Clark County experienced much higher unemployment rates than other metropolitan

areas with high tourism employment.

Hospitality, Unemployment, and the Hispanic or Latino Population by Metropolitan 

Area

 Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Over-the-Year Change in Unemployment Rates for Metropolitan Areas,” 

 November 2020; American Community Survey 2019 one-year (1-year) estimates; State of Nevada Department of 

 Employment, Training and Rehabilitation, “Current Payroll Employment Estimates,” 2019. Via Brookings Institution. 

Clark County’s economic dependence on the hospitality and leisure industry made it more susceptible to 

the negative economic impacts of the pandemic than other major metropolitan areas. The industry provides 

hundreds of thousands of service jobs; however, they are typically lower-paying jobs that are not conducive 

to remote working options. As a result of the initial business closures, succeeding capacity limitations, and 

slow recovery, this workforce struggles to meet their household’s basic needs. These households, a large 

proportion of which are people of color, have required and will continue to require economic support 

throughout the recovery period. 

Plan for Use of Funds

The County received requests totaling $349 million for economic recovery programs. Through the 

prioritization process, $100 million has been allocated towards programs aimed at recovery from the 

negative economic impacts of the pandemic. This funding will be used for programs and projects designed 

to provide assistance to households, such as rent, mortgage, utility, and eviction prevention services. 

Programs will also include investments in small business assistance and job training programs. 
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 37

Key Outcome Goals

1. Reduce evictions and improve housing stability by providing rental assistance, utility assistance, 

legal aid assistance, and jurisdictional coordination with courts to keep people housed. 

2. Increase cash flow and financial resiliency of regional small businesses.

3. Reduce the regional unemployment rate through job training opportunities, particularly those aimed 

at fostering economic diversification and providing jobs to individuals and households in or near 

poverty. 
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 38

SERVICES TO DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACTED COMMUNITIES

Targeted assistance is needed in the hardest-hit communities based on the defined areas of QCTs. QCTs 

are defined as areas where at least 50% of the households have incomes below 60% of the Area Median 

Gross Income or a poverty rate of at least 25%.

There are approximately 100 QCTs in the Las Vegas Valley as well as in Laughlin and Overton. QCTs are 

present in all Clark County Commission Districts in the Las Vegas Valley, but largely in Districts B, D, E,

and G. Districts A and B contain QCTs in outlying areas. Figure 18 provides the location of QCTs in Clark 

County. 

Figure 19 provides the overlap of QCTs (in bright green) over Commissioner districts and zip codes.

Las Vegas Qualified Census Tracts

 Source: Census Bureau
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 39

Clark County Commission Districts, Zip Codes, and Qualified Census Tracts 

Source: Census Bureau

Most of these zip code areas can be clearly defined as a QCT by poverty, median income, or both. The 

average rate of COVID-19 in Clark County QCTs is 14% above the County average.

Clark County has at least 336,000 people living in disproportionately impacted zip codes. In addition,

• In 6 of 10 areas, Black or Hispanic/Latino residents are the majority;

• People living in the majority of these zip codes rent their housing and are subject to a high degree 

of rent burden; and

• Only one (1) area has broadband access in more than 80% of households.
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 40

Housing

In Clark County, housing prices increased rapidly over the past ten (10) years since the Great Recession. 

Clark County Housing Prices from 2007 to 2021

Source: Zillow Home Values Index

 $-

 $50,000

 $100,000

 $150,000

 $200,000

 $250,000

 $300,000

 $350,000

 $400,000

180% INCREASE OVER THE LAST 10 YEARS
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 41

Clark County ranks seventh among the 12 listed metropolitan areas in housing affordability. Table 12 ranks 

housing affordability by selected metropolitan areas. This is a measurement of “whether or not a typical 

family earns enough income to qualify for a mortgage loan on a typical home at the national and regional 

levels based on the most recent price and income data,” according to the National Association of Realtors. 

Even before COVID-19, housing was unattainable for many County residents. 

Housing Affordability Index

12 by Selected Metropolitan Area in 2018

Metropolitan Area 2018 Percent Change 

2017 to 2018 (%) Rank

Albuquerque, NM 162.4 -9.3 1

Austin-Round Rock, TX 152.6 -9.2 2

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ 141.2 -12.1 3

Salt Lake City, UT 129.3 -10.4 4

Colorado Springs, CO 128.1 -13.3 5

Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL 124.1 -12.4 6

Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV 120.0 -14.6 7

Sacramento—Roseville—Arden-Arcade, CA 116.2 -10.5 8

Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA 114.0 -7.3 9

Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO 109.2 -11.1 10

Reno, NV 101.6 -13.5 11

Urban Honolulu, HI 61.9 -9.4 12

 Source: National Association of Realtors (NAR). Via SRI International, December 2020.

Approximately 46% of the County’s residents are renters. In 2021, the median monthly rent in Clark County 

for a three-bedroom home was over $1,600. Of course, rental prices vary based on the size, type, and 

location of the rental. Nevada is among the eight (8) states with the least available affordable housing for 

lowest-income renters. Affordable housing is generally defined as housing that costs no more than 30 

percent of a person’s gross income. According to the National Low-Income Housing 

Coalition (NLIHC), there is a shortage of 80,453 rental homes affordable and 

available for very low to extremely low-income renters in Southern Nevada.

Additionally, NLIHC reports that Nevada has only 18 affordable units for every 100 people earning 30 

percent or less of area median income, 50% less than the national average of 36 affordable and available 

units for every 100 renters.

12The Housing Affordability Index (HAI) has a value of 100 when the median-income family has sufficient income 

to purchase a median-priced existing home. A higher index number indicates that more households can afford to 

purchase a home. 
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 42

Figure 21 compares the median monthly earnings for workers in the most vulnerable industries (food 

service, retail sales, accommodations, and gaming) to the median rent in Nevada. 

Changes in Income for Jobs Most Impacted by COVID-19 Shutdowns in Nevada

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics and National Low-Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC); calculations by the Guinn Center.

According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, housing is considered a 

“Cost Burden” if a family pays more than 30% of its income for housing. By this 

criterion, housing is a cost burden for many Clark County residents. With reduced income (or no income) 

and the high cost of housing experienced by Clark County residents, those who are behind in their rent or 

struggling to pay their rent could ultimately face eviction. 

Many County residents have found themselves without income during the ongoing health crisis. 

Unemployment payments may assist those who have suffered job losses, but those payments are insufficient 

in many cases to meet their rent or mortgage obligations. 

$2,105 $1,999 

$2,628 

$2,231 

$1,010 $960 

$1,262 

$1,071 

$1,656 

 $-

 $500

 $1,000

 $1,500

 $2,000

 $2,500

 $3,000

Food Prep and Serving

Related Occupations

Retail Sales Occupations Accomodations

Occupations

Gaming Occupations

Median Monthly Earnings Median Monthly Unemployment Payments Median Rent in Nevada

“Cost Burden” ranges between 

33% and 53%.
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 43

Homelessness

According to the 2020 Annual Homeless Assessment Report prepared by the Housing and Urban 

Development Department (HUD), Nevada has one of the worst levels of homelessness in the United States. 

As shown in Figure 22 below Nevada has the 5th highest homeless population per 10,000 

trailing only California, Oregon, Alaska, and Hawaii. 

Number of Individuals Experiencing Homelessness per 10,000 individuals

Source: The 2020 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress, United States Department of Housing and Urban 

Development

According to this same HUD report, Nevada ranked 2nd (to California) in the percentage of 

homeless individuals that lived in an unsheltered environment. Finally, and perhaps most 

alarming, Nevada ranked highest in both 2018 and 2019 in the percentage of 

unaccompanied youth under 18 that were homeless and living in an unsheltered 

environment. Further, there is evidence that homelessness tends to be associated with police calls 

involving both crime and mental illness. This is further illustrated in Appendix 3.

Food Insecurity

Food insecurity was expected to increase due to COVID-19, according to Feeding America. Nationwide it 

was expected that 15.6% of the population (and 23.1% of children), or 50.4 million people, will be food 

insecure in 2020. 
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 44

Nevada ranks 5th highest in the percentage of projected food insecurity at 19.2%, a 

50% increase from 2018, as shown in Table 13 below. With Clark County’s population representing 

between 70% and 75% of the State’s population, it is reasonable to expect high levels of food insecurity in 

the County. 

States with the Ten (10) Highest Rates of Projected Food Insecurity in 2020 versus 2018

2020 Projections 2018

Ranking State

Food 

Insecurity

Rate

Number of 

People in Food 

Insecure

Households

Ranking

Food 

Insecurity

Rate

1 Mississippi 22.6% 675,300 1 18.7%

2 Arkansas 20.5% 617,010 2 17.3%

3 Alabama 20.3% 993,240 3 17.0%

4 Louisiana 20.1% 938,280 4 16.1%

5 Nevada 19.2% 583,340 20 12.8%

6 Michigan 19.1% 1,906,860 13 13.6%

7 New Mexico 18.7% 392,420 5 15.1%

8 Oklahoma 18.6% 731,970 5 15.1%

9 Texas 18.6% 5,346,640 7 15.0%

10 Kentucky 18.1% 809,820 8 14.8%

10 Ohio 18.1% 2,116,540 11 13.9%

Source: Feeding America, The Impact of the Coronavirus on Food Insecurity in 2020.
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 45

Table 14 summarizes the states with the highest rates of projected child food insecurity in 2020. Nevada 

has the highest rate of child food insecurity in the nation at 32.3%, equal to Louisiana. 

This is a significant increase from 2018 (which was already high) and demonstrates a great level of need 

for additional resources.

States with the Highest Rates of Projected Child Food Insecurity in 2020 versus 2018

2020 Projections 2018

Ranking State

Food 

Insecurity

Rate

Number of 

People in Food 

Insecure

Households

Ranking

Food 

Insecurity

Rate

1 Nevada 32.3% 222,350 9 19.5%

1 Louisiana 32.3% 354,580 1 24.6%

3 New Mexico 30.8% 147,940 2 23.8%

4 Mississippi 30.5% 215,290 5 23.0%

5 Alabama 29.6% 321,980 3 23.1%

6 Hawaii 29.4% 89,050 19 18.4%

7 Arkansas 29.1% 204,840 3 23.1%

8 Texas 28.7% 2,124,960 7 21.6%

9 Oklahoma 28.5% 272,530 6 21.8%

10 West Virginia 28.3% 102,680 8 20.3%

Source: Feeding America, The Impact of the Coronavirus on Food Insecurity in 2020.

Plan for Use of Funds

The County received requests totaling $817 million for programs assisting communities disproportionately 

impacted by COVID-19, almost double the amount of Fiscal Recovery Funds allocated to Clark County. 

Through the prioritization process, $190 million has been allocated towards programs aimed at recovery 

for those individuals, households and communities which have been disproportionately impacted. This 

funding will go to programs and projects designed to increase permanent affordable housing for those most 

in need, for food assistance, to provide early childhood education and welfare assistance, fund emergency 

housing shelter and transitional housing for homeless individuals and provide community violence 

intervention. 

Key Outcome Goals

1. Increase the availability of quality affordable housing, particularly for households in COVID-19

high-risk groups such as seniors, disabled, and homeless through emergency repair, acquisition, 

rehabilitation, and new construction.

2. Expand access to housing and supportive services for homeless who are defined as high risk for 

poor outcomes from COVID-19 through street outreach, post-hospitalization housing, noncongregate shelter, medical supports, rapid rehousing, transitional housing, and a variety of 

supportive services. 

3. Increase access to nutritious food for COVID-19 economically impacted households through food 

bank programs and food delivery for homebound households and linkages to mainstream benefit 

programs.
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 46

4. Increase access to therapeutic services for children with developmental delays or disabilities by 

referring families to Nevada Early Intervention Services.

5. Reduce the number of children with mental health and behavioral needs housed in shelter settings 

by providing therapeutic residential programming.

6. Reduce the number of children entering the foster care system by providing in-home support prior 

to removal from the home. 

7. Increase access to mental and behavioral health services for children in foster care through 

provision of clinical care coordination and comprehensive mental health services.

8. Increase the number of youth and young adults exiting the child welfare and juvenile justice 

systems with secure housing options. 
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 47

WATER, SEWER AND BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE

About 90% of Nevada’s population is situated in Reno and Las Vegas. The American Society of Civil 

Engineers gave Nevada’s infrastructure a “C” on a scale of A through F in its 2018 Infrastructure Report 

Card. The infrastructure components included in the rating are drinking water, stormwater, roads, bridges, 

wastewater, solid waste, schools, transit, energy, public parks, aviation, and dams. The report noted that 

“Nevada will require $5.316 billion for water system improvements over the next twenty (20) years.” The 

Report Card also noted that Nevada is the driest state in the U.S. and, with a growing population, will have 

increased water supply needs. 

As related to broadband infrastructure and connectivity, the County is committed to providing equitable 

services and access to broadband. The County recently hired a consultant to assess the region’s broadband 

system and develop a multi-year plan to build a system that provides equitable access to all community 

members. Table 15 provides the top ten (10) in need zip codes in Clark County and the percent of 

households with broadband access. These zip codes are all within QCTs.

Percent of Households with Broadband in Key Qualified Census Tract Zip Codes

Zip Code Percent Households with Broadband

89030 65.4%

89101 54.7%

89102 67.2%

89104 69.6%

89106 62.5%

89115 76.0%

89119 71.6%

89122 78.3%

89156 83.7%

89169 62.2%

 Source: Census Bureau

Plan for Use of Funds

The County received requests totaling $490 million for sewer and water infrastructure projects and $108 

million for broadband infrastructure. Although there are significant needs in this area, there are existing 

funding sources for sewer and water projects. The County is seeking additional funding sources for sewer, 

water, and broadband investments. The County plans to allocate approximately $3 million to analyze the

gaps in broadband service and fund an urgent rural water project. 

Key Outcome Goals

1. Identify the gaps in fiber and broadband service that limit connectivity.

2. Complete the urgent rural water project. 
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 48

REVENUE REPLACEMENT

Identification and Plan for Use of Funds

Clark County has completed the Revenue Loss calculation for the period ending December 31, 2020,

totaling $528 million. At this time, the County does not plan to use Fiscal Recovery Funds to replace 

revenues lost during this period; however, the condition of the County’s local economy and financial 

condition may change. The County budgets $969 million in public health and safety costs each year that 

are essential to the community. Fiscal Recovery Funds may be required to replace these revenues in the 

future to maintain public health and safety services. 

Clark County Revenue Loss

Agency 

Name

Program or 

Service Brief Description Impacted Population

Calculated 

or 

Requested 

Amount

Treasury 

Activity 

Type

Clark 

County

All County 

Operations

Full-service County 

government which 

experienced a counter factual 

revenue decrease of 

approximately 13% for the 

Fiscal Year Ended 

12/31/2020

2.3

million $528,520,680 6.10
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 49

PROMOTING EQUITABLE OUTCOMES

Throughout the process of exploring how best to use the Fiscal Recovery Funds, Clark County 

prioritized those communities and households hardest hit by the pandemic that have 

also been historically disadvantaged. Many employees in the leisure and hospitality industry have 

been unemployed and unable to pay for their basic needs, including rent, utilities, and food. County leaders 

have also prioritized recovery efforts within the approximately 100 QCTs in the County.

Table 17 provides some of the most distressed zip codes in the County. Each includes multiple QCTs.

Most Distressed Clark County Zip Codes

Zip Code 2019 

Population

2019 Below 

Poverty 

Level

2019 Median 

HHD 

Income

COVID-19 

Cases as of 

7/26/2021

Rate / Per 

Capita

% of County

Average

89101 42,592 34.2% $ 25,310 6256 0.147 120%

89106 26,480 31.0% $ 29,906 3652 0.138 113%

89030 50,417 30.7% $ 36,275 8691 0.172 141%

89102 39,449 30.5% $ 36,729 4649 0.118 97%

89169 21,822 29.7% $ 30,581 2585 0.118 97%

89115 63,084 28.3% $ 39,412 8945 0.142 116%

89119 52,378 25.1% $ 35,705 5844 0.112 91%

89104 39,443 24.6% $ 36,448 6343 0.161 132%

 Source: Census Bureau and Southern Nevada Health District 

Collectively, these areas have a population of approximately 330,000. Six (6) of the eight (8) most 

distressed areas have a majority of Black or Hispanic populations. None of these areas have broadband 

access to 80% of their households.

The efforts to promote equitable outcomes include short-term assistance such as eviction prevention and 

housing assistance. Equitable outcomes are also focused on mid-term and long-term investments to address 

mental and behavioral health service needs and efforts to boost the County’s historically low educational 

attainment rates. 

Over the next several months, the County plans to fund projects that will meet the community’s immediate 

response and recovery needs. All remaining projects will be evaluated against a set of established priorities 

that reflect community interests and long-term community investments. The County plans to evaluate 

projects against criteria developed to maximize programmatic impact and align projects with County, State, 

and Federal objectives. 
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 50

This priority matrix is shown in Table 18. 

Priority Matrix 

Pass / Fail Factors

Compliance with Fiscal Recovery Funds Guidance

Compliance with County Regulations and Conflict of Interest Standards

Weighting Factors (25% Emphasis on Low-Income Communities)

1. Federal priority – Assists QCTs and Disproportionately Impacted Communities

2. Alignment with State Top Four (4) Strategies in the Every Nevadan Recovery Framework

3. Alignment with County Priorities 

4. Alignment with Regional Community Needs Assessments

5. Leverages County Services

6. Fiscal Sustainability

7. Benefits Low-Income/Impoverished Neighborhoods 

8. Leverages Non-County Funding

9. Uses Service Providers with a Demonstrated Commitment to Inclusionary and Diversity Practices

10. Provides Measurable and Proven Outcomes for Clark County

The County has pledged that not less than 25% of its Fiscal Recovery Funds will 

benefit disproportionately impacted communities, low-income households, and 

impoverished neighborhoods.

As the County evaluates the pre-applications for Fiscal Recovery Funds, foundational to the review and 

consideration of administering the funds is delivering meaningful community results and promoting 

equitable outcomes. This includes tracking performance and reporting the key outcomes related to the 

programs and services. 

Based on Treasury guidance, the County will track and report on the following: 

1. Household Assistance and Housing Support: 

a. Number of people or households receiving eviction prevention services (including legal 

representation).

b. Number of affordable housing units preserved or developed.

2. Negative Economic Impacts: 

a. Number of workers enrolled in sectoral job training programs.

b. Number of workers completing sectoral job training programs.

c. Number of people participating in summer youth employment programs.

3. Education Assistance: 

a. Number of students participating in evidence-based tutoring programs. 

4. Healthy Childhood Environments: 

a. Number of children served by childcare and early learning (pre-school/pre-K/ages 3 to 5).

b. Number of families served by home visiting.

In addition to these metrics, the County will establish performance indicators and outcome measures that 

will provide transparency, meet the needs of community members disproportionately impacted by COVID19, and promote equitable outcomes across the County. 
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 51

Clark County leaders are in the process of evaluating pre-applications for Fiscal Recovery Funds. Once 

funding requests have been approved, the County will use quantitative and qualitative data to promote 

equitable outcomes. This will include detailed reporting on strategies to overcome barriers and address 

geographic inequities. The County will include a more detailed accounting of its use of evidence and 

evaluation in future Recovery Plan updates.
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 52

TABLE OF EXPENSES BY EXPENDITURE CATEGORY

Table 19 provides a complete list of all eligible expenditure categories and the County’s expenditures 

incurred between the award of funds and July 31, 2021, in each expense category. Since Clark County is in 

the initial planning phase, the Fiscal Recovery Fund expenditures to date are not significant. 

Summary of Expenses by Expenditure Category

Category

Cumulative 

Expenditures 

to Date ($)

Amount Spent Since Last 

Recovery Report

1 Expenditure Category: Public Health

1.1 Vaccination

1.2 Testing

1.3 Contact Tracing

1.4 Prevention in Congregate Settings

(Nursing Homes, Homeless Shelters, Jails)

1.5 Personal Protective Equipment

1.8

Other Expenses (Communications, Marketing 

Campaigns, Enforcement, Public Health 

Surveillance, Isolation/Quarantine)

1.9 Payroll Costs for Public Health, Safety, and 

Other Public Sector Staff

1.6 Medical Expenses (Enhancement of Health Care 

Facilities)

1.7 Capital Investments in Public Facilities to 

Respond to Pandemic Operational Needs

1.10 Mental Health Treatment Services

1.11 Substance Abuse Treatment Services

1.12 Other (Health Data Systems, Crisis Intervention)

2

Expenditure Category: Negative Economic 

Impacts

2.1 Food Programs

2.2 Rent, Mortgage, and Utility Assistance

2.3 Cash Subsidies

2.4 Internet Access Programs

2.5 Eviction Prevention

2.7 Sector Job-Training, Subsidized Employment,

Employment Support Incentives or Services

2.9

Small Business Economic Assistance

(Grants, In-Kind Assistance, Counseling 

Programs)

2.10 Aid to Non-Profit Organizations (Administration, 

Operations)

2.13 Entrepreneurship Support
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 53

Category

Cumulative 

Expenditures 

to Date ($)

Amount Spent Since Last 

Recovery Report

3

Expenditure Category: Services to 

Disproportionately Impacted Communities

3.1 Early Learning (Pre-K)

3.3 Academic Services (Counseling, Tutoring)

3.4 Social, Emotional, and Mental Health Services

3.5 Other (After School Programs, Financial 

Literacy)

3.6 Child Care (New or Expanded High Quality 

Child Care, Subsidy Assistance)

3.7 Home Visiting

3.8 Services to Foster Youth or Families Involved in 

Child Welfare System

3.9. Other

3.10 Affordable Housing (Retain and Expand 

Capacity)

3.11 Homeless Services (Emergency Shelter, 

Transitional Housing)

3.12 Other Housing Assistance (Supportive Services)

3.13 Other (Immigration Assistance)

3.14 Community Health Workers or Benefits 

Navigators

3.16 Community Violence Interventions

(Victim Assistance, Juvenile Justice Services)

5 Expenditure Category: Infrastructure

5.1 Clean Water: Centralized Wastewater Treatment

5.2 Clean Water: Centralized Wastewater Collection 

and Conveyance

5.3 Clean Water: Decentralized Wastewater

5.4 Clean Water: Combined Sewer Overflows

5.5 Clean Water: Other Sewer Infrastructure

5.6 Clean Water: Stormwater

5.7 Clean Water: Energy Conservation

5.8 Clean Water: Water Conservation

5.9 Clean Water: Non-Point Source

5.10 Drinking Water: Treatment

5.11 Drinking Water: Transmission & Distribution

5.12 Drinking Water: Transmission & Distribution:

Lead Remediation

5.13 Drinking Water: Source

5.14 Drinking Water: Storage

5.15 Drinking Water: Other Water Infrastructure

5.16 Broadband: “Last Mile” Projects

5.17 Broadband: Other Projects

6/7 Expenditure Categories: Revenue 

Replacement and Administrative and Other

6.1 Provision of Government Services

7.1 Administrative Expenses $98,900 $98,900

TOTAL $98,900 $98,900
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 54

PROJECT INVENTORY 

Clark County is in the process of evaluating programs and projects and pre-applications for Fiscal Recovery 

Funds. No specific projects have been identified for funding yet. Once funding requests have been 

approved, the County will build a project inventory that will include the funding amount, expenditure 

category, project overview, and use of evidence for each project selected for funding. The County will 

include these detailed project inventories in future Recovery Report updates.
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 55

PERFORMANCE REPORT

Clark County is in the process of evaluating projects and pre-applications for Fiscal Recovery Funds. Once 

funding requests have been approved, the County will develop key performance indicators for each 

projector group of projects with substantially similar goals and the same outcome measures. Key 

performance indicators will include both output and outcome measures, with data disaggregated by race, 

ethnicity, gender, income, and other relevant factors wherever possible. The County will include key 

performance indicators for its identified projects in future Recovery Report updates.
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 56

Appendix 1 – Clark County COVID-19 Cases by Zip 

Code and City in Clark County

Number of COVID-19 Cases by Zip Code in Clark County (July 6, 2021)

Source: Southern Nevada Health District
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 57

Number of COVID-19 Cases by City in Clark County (July 6, 2021)

Source: Southern Nevada Health District
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 58

Appendix 2 – Clark County Survey Results

COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS

Respondent Age Groups

Number of Household Members 

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Under 18 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+

English Spanish Tagalong

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1 2 3 4 More than 4

English Spanish Tagalong
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 59

Number of Household Members Under 18

Respondent Race or Ethnicity

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

0 1 2 3 More than 3

English Spanish Tagalong

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

White or

Caucasian

Latino or

Hispanic

Black or African

American

Asian Native Hawaiian

or other Pacific

Islander

Native

American or

Alaska Native

Other

English Spanish Tagalong
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 60

Respondent Employment Status Prior to COVID-19

Post-COVID Employment Status

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000

Part-time student

Unable to work for health reasons

Full time student

Disabled

Other

Unemployed

Stay-at-home parent

Retired

Employed part-time (less than 40 hours per week)

Self-employed

Employed full-time (40 hours per week)

English Spanish Tagalong

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200

I am working from home but am working reduced hours

I had to quit my job to take care of people who depend on

me (children, parents)

I am working from home for the same number of hours as

before the pandemic

I am still going to my workplace but am working reduced

hours

I lost my job

Not applicable

I am still going to my workplace for the same number of

hours as before the pandemic

English Spanish Tagalong
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 61

Respondent Areas of Occupation 

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Farming, Fishing, and Forestry

Life, Physical and Social Sciences

Military

Architecture and Engineering

Manufacturing and Production

Installation, Maintenance, and Repair

Personal Care and Services

Construction, Oil and Gas

Media and Marketing

Management and Consulting

Transportation and Material Moving

Arts, Theater, Sports and Entertainment

Legal

Office and Administrative Support Services

Computers, Software and Technology

Sales and Related Occupations

Business and Financial

Community and Social Services

Culinary, Bars and Restaurants

Government and Public Safety

Education and Library

Medical and Healthcare

Other

Hospitality (Casinos, Hotels)

Unemployed

English Spanish Tagalong
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 62

Areas Most Impacted by COVID-19

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600

Other

Public Transportation

Legal and Immigration Services

Business Assistance

Access to Transitional or Permanent Housing

Homeless Services

Access to Food

Childcare

Youth, Family and Social Services

Healthcare

Education and Training

Mental Health and Behavioral Services

Employment

English Spanish Tagalong
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 63

First Priority by Language Choice

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Homelessness

Affordable Housing

Mental Health Services

Healthcare

Food Access

Childcare

Job Opportunities

Adult Education and Training

Internet Access

Clean, Safe Water

Public Safety

Education (K-12)

Public Transportation

Economic Development

Immigration Services

Spanish English
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 64

Combined Priorities

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

First Priority Second Priority Third Priority Fourth Priority Fifth Priority
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 65

STAKEHOLDER SURVEY RESULTS

A second survey was created and sent to non-profit and community partners to gain more in-depth 

perspectives on community needs. A total of 46 responses were received. These highlighted similar themes 

to the community survey, including the need for investment in affordable housing and the outsized impacts 

of the pandemic on Clark County’s most vulnerable populations. Figure 35 summarizes the types of services 

that respondents provide through their organizations. Over half of the respondents indicated they provide 

youth and family services, 48% provide homeless services, and 39% provide food services. 

Approximately what percent growth have you seen in the size or need of the 

population(s) you serve as a result of the pandemic?

Top Priorities for Fiscal Recovery Funds

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0% to 15% 16% to 25% 26 to 50% 51 to 75% 76% to 100% 101% to 150% Over 150%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

First Priority Second Priority Third Priority Fourth Priority Fifth Priority
Clark County Recovery Plan Performance Report 

2021 Report P a g e | 66

Appendix 3– Calls for Service Involving Homeless and 

Mentally Ill

 Source: Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department