Continuum of Care Project Selection and Ranking Process
1. The CoC Committee of the Governing Board met on August 29, 2013 and heard proposals from grantees that wanted to make major changes in their projects. They approved two reallocations to PSH; one grantee decided not to reallocate at this time and one did so as part of the 2013 CoC Competition. They also approved the assumption of one nonprofit grantee by another nonprofit provider, who is now the grant sponsor.
2. On October 29, 2013 the CoC Committee of the Governing Board met and approved appointment of the members of the CoC Ranking Committee. They also adopted the process to be used and decided that all permanent supportive housing would be ranking higher than all transitional housing.
3. On November 18, 2013 the CoC Committee met to select a sponsor of a new PSH project created through reallocation.
- A grantee voluntarily agreed to forgo applying for renewal funding for a transitional housing project.
- A request for applications was sent to a wide range of potential sponsors.
- Four applications were submitted, one did not meet the basic eligibility requirements and one was withdrawn prior to the selection meeting.
- The Committee met and heard presentations from two potential sponsors and chose one to be the applicant.
- The new projects is part of the CoC application.
4. All HUD CoC Program grantees were informed of the ranking process and criteria.
5. Part of the ranking process was the inclusion of the project scoring that was instituted this year as part of the new monitoring and evaluation process.
6. Overview of the monitoring and evaluation tool and process:
Formation of Committee and Development of Tool:
- A Monitoring and Evaluation Committee was formed, consisting of representatives of agencies receiving CoC Program funding as well as other service providers.
- All CoC Program grantees were invited to send a representative; some accepted and some declined the offer to participate.
- The committee met and discussed how to monitor and evaluate the projects.
- A comprehensive tool was developed. There were two components; one for agencies and one for projects. Together they were able to measure a wide range of competencies including agency capacity, financial stability, adherence to HUD regulations and requirements, commitment to federal and local priorities, and performance outcomes.
- The tool was distributed to all HUD CoC Program grantees for completion.
- All projects submitted the tool for review.
- The scoring was completed by a subcommittee comprised of people not associated with any of the HUD CoC grantee organizations.
- As this was the first year we used this tool the committee felt that there were some areas that should not be scored but that the information gathered will be helpful for general CoC planning as well as for monitoring and evaluation in the future.
- The points for questions for those serving families and singes evened out.
- The total score available for the agency component was 25.
- The total score available for Permanent Supportive Housing projects was 38
- The total score available for Transitional Housing projects was 41.
- All projects met the threshold to be included in the collaborative application.
- In general there were very high scores on both components, demonstrating high level capacity and experience.
- The actual outcomes of the programs, as determined by HUD, and measured by the APRs, were impressive and speak to the high level of programs throughout our CoC.
- Most agencies followed instructions, compiled many attachments, submitted in a timely fashion, indicating seriousness of purpose.
- A great deal of important information was collected, providing a baseline for further monitoring and evaluation. This information will allow us to determine community standards and additional outcome measures.
- There is a need for standardized forms and policies throughout the CoC; they will be developed together this coming year. An example of this is forms for verifying homeless and chronic homeless status.
7. The ranking committee reviewed material on each project before meeting on January 7 and 8.
8. Criteria for ranking included:
- The scores received on the Monitoring and Evaluation Tool.
- Extent to which the projects serves the chronically homeless.
- Other target populations served.
- Implementation of a housing first model.
- The ratio of client served/$ of CoC Program funding with consideration of level of supportive services provided.
- Ownership of property was taken into consideration.
- The ratio of leveraging & match/$ of CoC Program funding.
- Completeness and timeliness of all deliverables as part of the 2013 CoC Program Competition.
9. The committee met and discussed overall strategic issues as well as individual projects.
10. The committee reviewed all 26 renewal grants as well as the planning grant and two new grants created through reallocation.
11. As transitional housing projects were at risk of being placed in Tier 2; putting funding at risk, they presented before the committee.
12. Each committee member ranked the projects individually and then the ranks were compiled.
13. All HUD grantees were officially informed of their rank on January 9, 2014.
14. All HUD grantees were officially informed that their applications would be included in the Collaborative Application on January 13, 2014.
15. The ranking process and results are available to the public on the Community Partnership to Prevent and End Homelessness website.