North Dakota Continuum of Care

2017 HUD CoC Project Ranking and Scoring Policy

 

The North Dakota Continuum of Care (CoC) reviews all applicants for HUD Continuum of Care Grant Projects. This policy specifically applies to projects seeking funding under the annual HUD Continuum of Care competition. 

 

These conditions are designed to inform Performance Evaluation, Scoring and Ranking Committee deliberations and provide all new applicants and renewing projects with clarity regarding how scoring andranking occur.  

 

IMPORTANT PROJECT APPLICATION DATES & DEADLINES: 

The CoC will publish annual HUD CoC Competition deadlines that include both state and HUD deadlines. Any agency applying for the CoC Competition must comply with the published deadlines or risk point loss and ineligibility for the funding competition. The published dates and deadlines will be published on the CoC website and sent out via email through the CoC email list. 

 

•     August 22, 2017 – Project Draft Applications submitted to CoC via PDF for ranking

•     September 8, 2017 - Project Applications due to CoC via eSnaps and PDF

•     September 15, 2017 – Project Applications notified of inclusion in CoC Collaborative Application

•   September 22, 2017 – Final Project Application edits submitted in eSnaps and PDF to CoC

•   September 28, 2017 – Appeals to HUD if application rejected by CoC.

 

HUD CoC Consolidated Application Deadline: September 28, 2017 @ 6:59 PM. 

 

Note: Project Applications must be submitted by the Project deadlines NOT the Consolidated Application deadline.

 

ELIGIBILITY  

To be eligible for inclusion in the CoC Scoring and Ranking process, all projects must pass all facets of the CoC Application process including: 

1.       Project Applications meets HUD eligibility criteria for a new or renewal Transitional Housing, Rapid-Rehousing, HMIS, Supportive Services Only-CES, Transitional Housing-Rapid Rehousing, or Permanent Supportive Housing project; 

2.       Project meets all HUD Threshold Requirements including, but not limited to; 

a.       Applicant has a DUNS # and has current SAM registration.

b.      Applicant is a nonprofit organization, State or local government, instrument of a State or local government or Public housing agency, as such term is defined in 24 CFR 5.100. 

c.       Applicant participates or has ability and willingness to participate in HMIS.

d.      Applicant demonstrates financial and management capacity and experience to successfully carry out project. 

e.      Applicant submits required certifications as required in the NOFA.

f.        Applicant agrees to only serve persons who are eligible as defined in Hearth Act regulations. 

g.       Renewal projects draw down funds from LOCCS/eLOCCS at least quarterly.

3.       Project meets all CoC Eligibility and Threshold Requirements; 

a.       Participation in CoC Membership and Committee meetings;

b.      Participation in or commitment (if a new project) to participate in Coordinated Entry;

c.       Project agrees to link households to mainstream services.

d.      Adherence to CoC Policies

i.        PSH Prioritization Policies  

ii.      School Enrollment and Connection of Services Policy

iii.     Family Separation (TH only)  iv. Written Standards for CoC Assistance

e.      Project agrees to adhere to and document participant eligibility.

f.        Agreement to provide all necessary documentation and reporting to CoC by designated deadlines.

4.       Project adheres to all local CoC Competition deadlines; o New project submits an Intent to Apply by August 16th, 2017

o Initial/Draft Project Application completed in esnaps & emailed via PDF to the CoC by August 18th, 2017

5.       Commit to Housing First and Low Barrier Principals. 

6.       Participation in or commitment to participate in HMIS if funded. 

 

 

GUIDANCE ON REQUIRED TIERS  

HUD has approximately $2 billion available in the FY17 CoC Competition. Carried over or recaptured funds from previous fiscal years, if available, may be added to this amount. 

 

Although the available amount of funding is expected to be sufficient to fund anticipated eligible renewal projects in the FY 2017 funding process, HUD continues to require Collaborative Applicants to rank all projects in two tiers. Tier 1 is equal to the greater of the combined amount of Annual Renewal Amount (ARA) for all permanent housing and HMIS projects eligible for renewal up to 94 percent of the CoC’s FY 2017 Annual Renewal Demand (ARD), as described in Section III.A.3.a. of the NOFA. Tier 2 is the difference between Tier 1 and the CoC’s ARD plus any amount available for the permanent housing bonus as described in Section II.B.3.b. of the NOFA. All CoC’s are required to review and rank all projects, except Planning.

 

•       Tier 1 = $1,733,822

•       Tier 2 = 7% ($110,669) 

•       Potential Bonus ($110,669)  

•       Planning Grant= $55,335

•       Total Available request amount = $1,844,491 

 

Tier 2 projects are conditional and will depend on CoC Scoring, HUD/CoC Priorities, Project Performance and Rank. Projects will be able to straddle Tier 1 and Tier 2.  CoC score and project score will determine which projects from Tier 2 will be conditionally selected.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NEW PROJECT CRITERIA AND PRIORITY 

There are four different types of projects that can be funded as new projects in the 2017 NOFA.   

Project Type

Eligibility Type

 

Justification for Priority

New Supportive Services Only (SSO) projects for centralized or coordinated entry systems. 

Reallocation

CE performance is a vital component to monitoring system performance and remaining competitive for future HUD funding. 

New rapid re-housing projects for homeless individuals, unaccompanied youth, and families coming directly from the streets or emergency shelter or fleeing domestic violence.

Reallocation or Bonus

Rapid rehousing has a higher unmet need than PSH based upon CES data.

New permanent supportive housing projects that serve chronically homeless individuals, unaccompanied youth, and families.

Reallocation or Bonus

Continued HUD priority

Hardest to serve population We sometimes struggle filling the PSH chronic beds already, thus lower local priority

HMIS expanded services carried out HMIS Lead.  

Reallocation

HMIS is required for 

Joint PH-RRH and TH   

Reallocation 

Will better serve homeless individuals and families, including those feeing or attempting to flee domestic violence.

 

 

SCORING & RANKING PROCESS

The following describes the CoC process to score and rank projects for 2017 CoC funding.  It should be noted that the CoC uses “scoring”, “reallocation”, “ranking” as three distinct steps.  Scoring informs, but does not dictate, the final ranking decisions.  

 

The NDCHP Board is responsible for developing Scoring Criteria and is designed to utilize a non-biased process based on HUD and CoC priorities and applicant quality. 

 

The Ranking Committee thoroughly reviews each project during the scoring/ranking process utilizing the ND CoC Scoring Tool. Projects are assigned a score based on the criteria defined in the tool on the following page. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

North Dakota Continuum of Care

2017 Ranking Scoring Tool

 

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED

Project Eligibility: 

-                      Project Type                     - Eligible Applicant Type 

-                      Target Population           - DUNs# and SAM Registration - Certifications

Project Application

HMIS Participation

HMIS or Pre-Application & Threshold Assessment  

Financial and Administration Management

LOCCS shows a minimum of quarterly draw-downs

No outstanding findings (HUD report)

Audit, Cost effectiveness

Coordinated Entry Participation

CES Prioritization Participation, 100% beds filled and CES Review 

Reporting & Deadline Compliance

CoC Coordinator report

Adherence to CoC Policies and Principals

CES review, Self-Certification & verified reports

Eligible Points

SCORING SECTIONS

LOW CRITERIA

MEDIUM CRITERIA

HIGH CRITERIA

 

Leverage: 4 POINTS

4

Leverage amount w/ correct dates

(0)     Under 100%       

(1)     100%-124%

(2)     125%-149%

(3)     150%-199% 

(4) Over 200%

 

Local Need: 7 POINTS

2

CoC Need

(0) There is an overabundance of services in our CoC

(1) Continued services are needed in our CoC

(2) There is an unmet need for this project type in our CoC.

3

Geographical Need

(0) There is an over- abundance of services in the area.

(1) The need is still present in the area.

(3)   There is an unmet need for this project type in the area. 

2

Target Population: determined by Coordinated Entry

(0) Target population is not a priority.

(1) Continued services are needed for this population. 

(2) There is a strong unmet need for serving population. 

 

HUD Priorities: 21 POINTS

1

CH Prioritization (PSH

ONLY)

(-1) no dedicated or decreased CH beds and not prioritized

(0) maintain dedicated CH beds and prioritize

(1) Increase dedicated CH beds and prioritize 

6

Housing First Approach 

(-1) Did not demonstrate or complete Housing First documentation 

(3) Determined to be Housing First in Application AND (3) demonstration of Housing First approach in practice 

3

Strategic Resource Allocation

(0) Not cost effective & does not collaborate, self-evaluate, or integrate.

(1) Comprehensive & diverse service plan/partnerships + (1) Cost effective + (1) Selfevaluation

6

Removing Barriers to Housing: 

(-1) NOT Barrier Free

(3) Self verified low barrier AND (3) demonstrates barriers free entry. 

5

Prioritization of need and history of homelessness.

(0) PH beds turned over are not prioritized using CES policy.

  (5) 100% PH beds turned over (TH, RRH, PSH) follow CoC priority policies. 

 

CoC Participation: 8 POINTS

3

CoC Reporting

(-1) Consistent late reports & outstanding reports (1) 1 late report

(2) CoC reports are completed on time but require extra prompts.

(3) All CoC reports are completed on time and with little prompts

2

Participation in CoC Requests

(0) did not participate or provide response. 

(1) Did not participate, but provided response. 

(2) Participated and provided necessary response.

3

Meeting/Committee Attendance

(-1) 0 Attendance

(1) One Meeting

 (3) 100% Attendance

 

Service Quality Plan (PH, TH, PSH only): 16 POINTS

 

6

Understanding of core principles of harm reduction, person centered care, low barrier, housing first.  

(-2) No understanding demonstrated.

(3) Demonstrates partial understanding & plan to train/enhance understanding.

(6) Demonstrate staff are trained & practice/follow: CoC/CES policies & data requirements.

2

Outreach

 

(1) At least 85% coming from unsheltered, ES or DV. 

(2) 100% coming from ES and unsheltered or fleeing DV.

1

Accessibility Plan:

Transportation, outreach

& non-discrimination

(-1) No plan demonstrated. 

 

(1) Demonstrated in threshold. 

2

Collaboration with mainstream and key support services.

(0) Poor service access plan and linkage to mainstream resources.

(2) Linkages to mainstream resources

2

Educational Assurances & Non-separation (Family programs only)  

(0) Does not demonstrate compliance w/ CoC Education policy.

 

(2) Agency demonstrates compliance w/ CoC policy.

3

Analysis and Planning

(0) Rarely/never uses data to adjust services.  

(3) Utilizing data annually to improve services.

 

 

PERFORMANCE:  30 POINTS   (Assessed on APR)

 

8

HUD Housing Stability Objective

 (0) -60%  (1) 60%-64%

 (2) 65%-75%      

(4) 76%-80%

(6) 81%-85%

(8) 86%+

4

HUD Earned Income

Objective 

(0)PSH: 0-9%           

(0)RRH/TH: 0-15%

(3) PSH: 10-20%    (3) RRH/TH:16-25% 

(4) PSH: 20% or higher 

(4) RRH/TH: 26% + 

4

HUD Maintain or Increase Income Objective

(-1) 0-24%             

(1) 25%-50%       

(3) PSH: 51-54%            (3)

RRH/TH:51-74% 

(4) PSH: 55% or higher  

(4) RRH/TH: 75% +

3

HUD Mainstream

Objective

(0) 0-24%   (1)25%-49%    

(2) 50%-56%

(3) 57%-79%     (4) 80%+

4

Budget Management - Expenditure/ 

(-1) 49-74%   

(0) 75-84%

(1)85-90% 

(2)90-95%

(3) 96-99%

(4)100%

2

Recapture

(-2) Funding has been recaptured by HUD in the previous grant year.

(2) No funding has been recaptured by HUD in the previous grant year.

5

Utilization  

(-1) -50%      

(0) 50%-74%

(2) 75%-85% 

(3)86%-99%

(4) 101%+

 

HMIS:  13 POINTS

 

1

Training

(0) Did not participate in HMIS training or refresher

 

(1) Participated in at least one HMIS training or refresher

4

Data Privacy and Security 

 (-3) Demonstrates data privacy or security issues

 

(4) Demonstrates compliance

5

Bed Coverage 

(-3) NOT all beds in HMIS

 

(5) All beds in HMIS

4

Data Quality 

(-1) over 10%

(3) 5-10% 

(4)0-4% null/missing/ refused/unknown

100

TOTAL SCORE

 

 

ND CoC REVIEW AND RANKING PROCESS 

1.       The CoC solicits Pre-application and Project Threshold Assessments from both new and renewal applicants. 

2.       The RankingCommittee reviews data for potential reallocation. 

3.       The CoC Executive Director follows-up with new applicants or renewal applicants interested in or targeted for reallocation. 

4.       The CoC Ranking Committee members receive applications and conducts initial scoring independently.

5.       The CoC Ranking Committee meets to: 

a.       Review Pre-applications

i.          to review and align scores

ii.        Review projects for potential reallocation

iii.       Review new projects

b.      Committee makes recommendation for reallocation. 

6.       The CoC Executive Director emails individual score sheets to all applicants and invites applicants to respond. Projects may amend applications when applicable. Amended applications are reviewed and scores adjusted if applicable.

7.       The CoC Ranking Committee meets to deliberate scores (specifically any adjustments due to amended application or other input from projects) and to rank projects in Tier 1 and Tier 2. 

8.       The CoC Ranking Committee presents final applicant scores and rank to the CoC Executive Director. 

9.       Approved Priority Listing placed on CoC website and mailed to CoC mailing list and Project Applicants. Project Applicants are notified separately of reallocations made to their projects fifteen days prior to application deadline.