fy2017 hud coc competition nofa: understanding the rank … the rank and... · fy2017 hud coc...

FY2017 HUD CoC Competition NOFA: Understanding the Rank and Review ProcessAugust, 2017

FY2017 HUD CoC Competition NOFA: Understanding the Rank and Review Process

HUD’s Goals for the Competition

The Process

The Rank and Review Committee

The Final Word


HUD’s Goals for the Competition


FY 2017 CoC Program Competition NOFA Section II.A. Policy Priorities

HUD’s policy priorities continue to focus on: 1. Ending Homelessness for all persons,

2. Creating a systemic response to homelessness,

3. Strategically allocating and using recourses, and

4. Use of a Housing First approach.


FY 2017 CoC Program Competition NOFA Section VII.A.5. System Performance Measures

The system performance measures will be scored based on a CoC system-wide performance related to reducing homelessness.

a. Reducing the Number of Homeless Individuals and Families

b. Reduction in the Number of First Time Homeless

c. Length of Time Homeless

d. Successful Permanent Housing Placement or Retention

e. Returns to Homelessness

f. Jobs and Income Growth

g. HMIS System Performance Measures (Data Quality)


FY 2017 CoC Program Competition NOFA Section VII.A.6. System Performance Measures

The system performance measures will be scored based on a CoC system-wide performance related to reducing homelessness.

a. Ending Chronic Homelessness

b. Ending Homelessness Among Households with Children

c. Ending Youth Homelessness

d. Ending Veteran Homelessness

FY2017 COMMUNITYCompetition : Understanding the Rank and Review Process

The Process

FY2017 HUD COMMUNITY Competition: Understanding the Rank and Review Process

Project Review and Selection Process Procedures

There are 3 factors used to review and rank project for the 2017 Continuum of Care Application.

1. Performance Evaluation

2. Strategic Resource Allocation

3. Community Impact

FY2017 COMMUNITY Competition: Understanding the Rank and Review Process

Project Review and Selection Process Procedures

Factor 1. Performance Evaluation Processes

A. Site Visits

B. Performance Scorecards

C. Renewal and New Application Components


Criteria for Evaluation and Ranking

Factor 1. Performance Evaluation Process A. Site Visits

Site visits include:

Review of agency documents,

Program documents,

Random case file reviews,

HIMS printouts,

Recent LOCCS draws, and

Physical observation of program operations



Factor 1. Performance Evaluation Process B. Performance Scorecards

1. Performance Benchmarks

2. Fiscal Management

3. Data Management

4. Fidelity to Housing first

5. Full Participation in the Coordinated Entry System

6. Prioritization



Factor 1. Performance Evaluation Process C. Renewal Applications

1. Organization Capacity

2. HUD Priority Alignment & Project Quality

3. Supportive Services

4. Performance Metrics

5. Community Leverage



Factor 1. Performance Evaluation Process C. New Applications

1. Organization Capacity

2. Relevant Project Experience

3. Project Quality

4. Demonstrate Need

5. Community Leverage

6. Alignment with HUD Priority Alignment


Criteria for Evaluation and RankingFactor 2. Strategic Resource Allocation

A. Ending Chronic HomelessnessB. Ending Family & Youth Homelessness C. Using a Housing First Approach

This factor is used to determine if the CoC is making the best use of limited resources. EXAMPLES

If 90% of the renewal projects are dedicated for individuals unaccompanied by children who are chronically homeless and only 10% serve all other populations, then a lower scoring PSH project could be reallocated to higher scoring new project serving a population that is underserved.

Another example, if a project cost per exit to permanent housing is very high, that project budget may be reduced to bring the project in line with similar type.

If projects consistently do not spend all of their funds, the budget may be reduced by the amount of unspent funds.

Projects that use a Housing First approach would be prioritized higher that a project that does not.



Factor 3. Community Impact

After reviewing the program evaluation and strategic reallocation of resources, each project will be assessed for its impact on the community’s ability to end homelessness in all priority populations. Projects with the greatest impact on the Continuum of Care and the community if they do not continue to receive HUD funding. This includes:

Projects that effectively serve a greater number of persons,

Projects that provide housing and services unavailable elsewhere for the population served, and

Projects that are critical to the operations of the CoC as outlined in the HEARTH Act

Coordinated Entry

HMIS


The Rank & Review Committee


Rank and Review Committee Composition

The Committee contains the following categories of representation:

1. Department of Human or Children’s Services

2. Department of Veterans Affairs

3. Legal Field

4. The Research Community

5. A Non-CoC funded provider

6. Philanthropy

7. The Faith Community

8. Formerly Homeless Individual


Rank and Review Committee Election Process

1. The Governing Council Chair appoints members to the Nominating Committee of the Consortium

2. The Nominating Committeea) Identifies candidates from the fields or organizations

b) Confirms the candidates will agree to serve

c) Presents a slate of candidates to the Consortium for selection

3. The Consortium votes on the candidates at the annual meeting

4. Each member is elected for a two-year term of service, serving staggered terms.


Rank and Review Committee Responsibilities

1. Committee members agree to complete training and orientation

2. Committee members sign a Conflict of Interest Statement.

3. Committee to a maximum of two days of project review per grant cycle


Rank and Review Committee Training

Training includes:

1. The Hearth Act

2. The Continuum of Care

3. The role of the committee

4. The Policies and Procedures governing the renewal process

5. The scoring tools and weighting information


Rank and Review Committee Process

1. The Committee will elect a chairperson and a recorder

2. CAFTH staff will be available as needed to respond to questions

3. CAFTH staff will not remain in the room during the deliberations unless requested by the committee. The request will be documented and signed by all committee members

4. The recorder will provide the summary score and comments to CAFTH for distribution to the program directors


Rank and Review Committee Process

PRIORITIZATION

Once the review is complete, the Rank and Review Committee with prioritize the projects according to the processes used above.


The Final Word


Process for Approving Rank and Review Recommendations

1. The Rank & Review Committee’s recommendations will be brought to the Governing Council for approval.

2. The Governing Council will review the recommendations for accuracy.

3. The Governing Council will vote to approve or reject the recommendations.

4. The Governing Council will hear appeals from project applicants. Appeals may only be made if a project was

recommended for non-renewal.

fy2017 hud coc competition nofa: understanding the rank … the rank and... · fy2017 hud coc...

Documents