Making the List:
Assessing and Scoring CoC Program
Applications
National Alliance to End Homelessness
Summer Conference
July 22, 2013
Erika Jones-Haskins
Homeward
Richmond, VA
1
Homeward’s Role
• Homeward facilitates the local application
process for agencies and develops the
Community Application/Exhibit I.
• Homeward convenes the Ranking Committee
that reviews applications and recommends
projects for HUD funding.
• Homeward submits the community
application and the Ranking Committee’s
approved projects to HUD for consideration.
2
Background and Roles
• The Richmond CoC
– Includes the city of Richmond, 2 urban counties, and 5
semi-rural counties
• The Richmond MSA: Approx. 1.2 million
• 2013 PIT: Approx. 900
• Ranking Committee
– The CoC application process is staffed by Homeward and
ranked by a community designated committee known as
the Ranking Committee (RC). Members include:
•
•
•
•
•
City and state ESG representatives
CDBG or consolidated plan representatives from each locality
Representatives from DSS
Service provider representative
Local funders (e.g. local community foundation and United Way)
3
2012 Funding
Funding Level
Amount
Renewal Burden (Amount it costs to
renew all the grants currently funded
by HUD CoC Program Funds)
$3,267,236
Preliminary Pro Rata Need ( HUD
Formula determined amount needed
to provide the needed services in the
community)
$2,951,414
Maximum Amount Available for
Permanent Housing Bonus
$295,141
Maximum Amount Available for CoC
Planning
$40,840
2012 Richmond CoC requested
$4,155,859
Request Breakdown by Tiers
Tier 1= $3,679,598
Tier 2= $476,261
4
Funding Request Breakdown by
Activity Type
CoC Funding Category
2%
Administration and HMIS
22%
Permanent Supportive
Housing
2%
Rapid Re-housing
11%
63%
Supportive Services
Transitional Shelter
5
OUR RANKING AND ASSESSMENT
PROCESS
6
Core Values of the Assessment and
Scoring Process
Proactive
• Seeking out “tricky” grantees
• Providing technical assistance
to new grantees
Transparent
• Kickoff meetings
• Information sharing
Data-driven
• APR review with projects
• APR review as part of the
ranking process
Documentation
• Extensive summaries
7
Homeward discusses
changes with
renewing applicants.
Homeward and the
RC begin data and
program review to
begin identifying
priorities.
Homeward proposes an
initial application
timeline that is ratified
by RC.
Homeward requests
LOI’s for new
applications and
renewals with
significant change.
Staff prepares a
summary of priorities
and RC ratifies.
Ranking Review
Homeward reviews
early HUD releases
and translates them
into local policy for
the funding process.
Application Process
Information Sharing and Orientation
CoC Applicant Process: Interacting with Applicants
Agencies submit an
application with
supplemental
application to
Homeward.
RC meets and
agencies present.
Agencies are asked
to make alterations
based on
suggestions.
Agencies complete Ex.2
and a supplemental.
APR review and cleanup
8
CoC Review Process: Interacting with
the Ranking Committee
Ranking Committee
Member
Identification
Priority Setting
• RC members
are re-invited
and new
members are
selected.
• RC establishes
priorities based on
Homeward staff
recommendations
and committee
input.
• Members are
briefed by
Homeward on
anticipated
priorities and
issues.
• RC ratifies
priorities.
• RC ratifies
schedule and
sets initial
priorities.
• Homeward staff
develops a scoring
matrix that reflects
the priorities. The
matrix is weighted
in favor of priority
areas.
Ranking
• RC members
review and score
applications
individually.
• RC meets and does
a collective debrief
and review.
• Recommendations
are developed and
the list is made.
9
2012 Decision Making Process
• The committee agreed to the following review process:
– The Ranking Committee approved renewals for permanent
supportive housing projects and HMIS, and where spend downs
were a issues, the committee agreed to cut the grant by the
amount that was unspent.
• This recommendation sought to sustain the community’s commitment
to permanent housing while holding agencies with performance
issues accountable for weak outcomes.
– The Ranking Committee reviewed renewal applications first and
decided to renew, reject, reduce, or hold the application.
• We addressed renewals first because we felt that the NOFA indicated
that they were the first priority.
– The Ranking Committee reviewed new applications and decided
to reject, fully fund, or fund at a reduced level.
10
Tiering Results
– One renewing application was rejected for
performance.
– All renewals, except one, were funded in Tier 1.
• Some Tier 1 renewals were reduced for spending.
– Reductions in several renewals and the rejected
application created enough money to include 3
new RH projects and 1 new PSH in Tier 1.
• All new projects supported a CoC priority.
– Tier 2 included the CoC planning grant, 1 PSH
project and a transitional shelter renewal.
11
Points to Ponder
• We liked our process, but the effectiveness is
unknown.
• What happens when the outcomes diminish the
community process?
• Integrating the ranking and review process into
CoC governance- How do you use programmatic
committee work to set priorities for the ranking
process?
• What is the role of providers?
• Building out this process into a ongoing all year
long process.
12
Thank you!
If you are interested in any of our forms or want
more details on our process, please visit us
on-line at www.homewardva.org
13