CoC Performance Scorecard –GUIDELINES (2017) · the established ranking principles. CoC...

CoC Performance Scorecard- Guidelines Prepared by The Planning Council

CoC Performance Scorecard –GUIDELINES (2017)

Purpose To establish a policy for the 2017 Continuum of Care (CoC) process that targets resources based on high performance and sets a path for future performance-based targeting.

Background The Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Act of 2009 makes significant changes to how communities measure and assess the performance of publicly-funded programs. The HEARTH Act objectives include:

o Reduce length of time people spend in the crisis of homelessness o Rapidly exit people from homelessness to permanent housing o Achieve housing stability o Prevent returns to homelessness o Focus on income and employment

Additionally, the CoC Consolidated Application (aka Exhibit One) requires CoC’s to establish specific benchmarks for the following items:

o Increase Progress towards ending chronic homelessness o Increase housing stability o Increase project participants income o Increase the number of participants obtaining mainstream benefits o Using rapid re-housing as a method to reduce family homelessness

Historically, the CoC also focused on the following additional measures: o Program Occupancy/Utilization o Cost effectiveness o HMIS Data Quality o HUD/State Compliance

Targets Yearly targets were established at the top 50% performance level by project type for operating year (July 1, 2013- June 30, 2014). This applies to all performance categories, excluding the “Retain and Increase Income” category and the “Exits to Permanent Housing/Housing Stability,” where targets are based on the 2015 proposed numeric achievements identified in the FY2013 Continuum of Care Application and the CoC adopted Rapid Re-Housing Performance Benchmarks and Standards published in 2016.

In the future, the CoC will consider setting targets to reflect the top 25% performance level by project type to support the advancement of each objective. Although it is recognized that some programs will fall below the performance benchmarks, the 25% performance level represents an “achievable” level of performance since one-fourth of all programs would be operating at the specified performance level.

Utilization of CoC

Performance Score Card

The performance scorecard will be completed for all Renewal Projects and presented along with copies of program supplemental applications during the CoC peer review process. The CoC will utilize the information for renewal projects and work to assign each project with a conditional status (either with condition or without condition). Once the results of the peer review process are factored into the performance scorecards, programs will be ranked numerically according to the established ranking principles.


Scoring The scoring threshold is 57.5. The threshold was established at the top 60% of year one program scores. Programs that score below the scoring threshold of 57.5 will be considered for reallocation. Scoring will be awarded by program type under each category as follows:

1. Reduce lengths of homeless episodes 2. Reduce returns to homelessness 3. Retain and Increase Income 4. Exit to Permanent Housing/Housing Stability 5. Program Model effectiveness, and 6. Conditional Status

The total points possible for each project type for categories 1-6 is 90 points. There are also a total of 10 Bonus Points available for projects that serve persons in “Specialized Populations”. The inclusion of the additional points brings the total points possible under the FY2017 CoC Scorecard to 100 points. To receive points, programs must either meet or exceed established targets. Reference the performance category section for details on scoring.

Reallocation Programs that score below the scoring threshold of 57.5 will be considered for reallocation. Project applicants will be afforded an opportunity to appeal the decision by presenting to members of the Ranking Committee, a non-conflicting group of community representatives selected by the Continuum. New programs funds will be selected through an open application process.

Resources The following data sources are used to complete the CoC Performance Scorecard for each project: o Program Annual Performance Report (APR) – May 1, 2016 – April 30, 2017 o 2017 Housing Inventory Chart (HIC) o 2017 Supplemental Application o 2017 CoC System Performance Measures Report o HUD Spending Rate Report

Ranking Principles

The process and criteria for reviewing and ranking projects are intended to take maximum advantage of the current funding system in the short-term, while keeping the CoC options open for the long-term. The following are the principles for the process:

A. Renewal projects determined to be Eligible without Conditions will be ranked as the top projects from highest scoring to lowest scoring.

B. Renewal projects determined to be Eligible with Conditions will follow renewal projects Eligible without Conditions from highest scoring to lowest scoring.

C. New project(s) created through reallocation will maintain the ranking order of the previously funded project

D. New project(s) will follow renewal projects in the order determined by the Ranking Committee.

1. The lowest ranked new project will be ineligible.

2. New projects determined to be ineligible will not be ranked on the final CoC Consolidated Application or submitted to HUD for funding.


Appeals Process

Projects considered for reallocation will receive written notification from the Regional Continuum of Care Program Administrator. Project applicants will be afforded an opportunity to appeal the decision by presenting to members of the Ranking Committee, a non-conflicting group of community representatives selected by the Continuum. The Ranking Committee will put forth a recommendation to the Leadership Team as to if the decision to reallocate project funds will stand or if the project will be eligible to apply with conditions. Upon receipt of the recommendation, the non-conflicted members of the Leadership Team will vote to approve or deny the recommendation of the Ranking Committee.

Notification Policy

Written notification of funding decisions and project ranking orders will be distributed electronically via email and posted on the Greater Virginia Peninsula Homeless Consortium (GVPHC) website at www.gvphc.org.

http://www.gvphc.org/

2017 GVPHC Scorecard PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING

Agency Name

Program Name

Project Type

Total Points Received during 2017 Review

Eligible With Condition

Ranking Order

Total Number of Year Round Beds reported in 2017

Total Number of Year Round Units reported in 2017

Primary

Secondary

Total Number of Persons Served (5a.1.)

Number of Adults (age 18 or over) (5a.2.)

Number of Children (under age 18) (5a.3.)

Number of Persons with Unknown Age (5a.4.)

Number of Youth Under Age 25 (5a.12)

Number of Parenting Youth Under Age 25 with

Children (5a.13)

Total Number of Leavers (5a.6.)

Number of Adult Leavers (5a.7.)

Total Number of Leavers (May 1, 2016 - April 30, 2017)

Total Number Served (May 1, 2016- April 30, 2017)

0

Permanent Supportive Housing

0

Comments:

Housing Inventory

Target Population(s)

Page 1 of 8


POINTS

POSSIBLE

POINTS

RECEIVED

Length of Participation (22a1) 30 Days or Less

(LEAVERS)

Length of Participation (22a1) 31-60 Days

(LEAVERS)


(LEAVERS)


(LEAVERS)

Subtotal of Exit Destination - 90 Days or Less (23b)

Permanent Destinations Subtotal

Total Number of Program Leavers before 6 months 0

Greater Than 0% 5 0

Reduce lengths of homeless episodes Comments:

Ranking and Review Comments/Concerns

Page 2 of 8


Total Number of Leavers (5a.6.) 0

Exit Destination - More than 90 days (23a)

Temporary Destinations (Subtotal)

Other Destinations (client doesn’t know/client

refused)

Exit Destination - Less than 90 days (23b)

Temporary Destinations (Subtotal)

Other Destinations (client doesn’t know/client

Percentage of Exits to Unknown or Homelessness #DIV/0!

Less than 17% 15 0

Number of persons that exited the program to PH

but returned to Homelessness within 24 months

SPM )

Percentage of Returns to Homelessness within 24 months #DIV/0!

Less than 5% 5 0

Number of Adult Leavers (5a.7.) 0

Number of Adults with Earned Income (i.e.

Employment Income) Perfomance Measure: Adults

who Gained or Increased Income from entry to exit,

average gain. Percentage of Adults with Earned Income at Exit #DIV/0!

Greater than 10% 5 0

Number of Adults with Other Income Perfomance

Measure: Adults who Gained or Increased Income

from entry to exit, average gain. Percentage of Adults with Other Income at exit #DIV/0!

Client Cash Income Change - Income Source - by Entry and exit (19a3) -- Income

Retain or Increase Income

Reduce returns to homelessness

Comments:

Comments:

Comments:

Page 3 of 8



Number of Adults with Any Income (i.e. Total

Income) Perfomance Measure: Adults who Gained

or Increased Income from entry to exit, average

gain. Pecentage of Adults with any income at Exit #DIV/0!


Number of Non-Cash Benefit Sources (20b) 1+

Source(s) at Exit for Leavers

Number of Non-Cash Benefit Sources (20b) 1+

Source(s) at EntryPercentage of participants obtaining or retaining

mainstream benefits from entry to program exit #DIV/0!

Less than 100% 5 0

Total Number of Leavers (5a.6.) 0

Exit Destination - More than 90 Days (23a-

Permanent Destination Subtotal)

Exit Destination - Less than 90 Days (23b-

Permanent Destination Subtotal)

Percentage of Persons Exiting to PH #DIV/0!



Permanent Destination Staying or Living with

Family, permanent tenure)



Friends, permanent tenure)



Family, permanent tenure)

Exits to Permanent Housing/ Housing Stability

Comments:

Comments:

Comments:

Comments:

Page 4 of 8




Friends, permanent tenure)Percentage of Persons Exiting to Family and Friends

Permanent Destination #DIV/0!

Less than 35% 5 0

Occupancy (Program Utilization)

Total Number of Year Round Beds reported in 2017

Total Number of Year Round Units reported in 2017

Point-in-Time Count of Persons on the Last

Wednesday (7b)

January

April

July

October

Average Number of Persons Served on the Last

Wednesday #DIV/0!

Point-in-Time Count of Households on the Last

Wednesday (8b)

January

April

July

October

Average Number of Households Served on the Last

Wednesday #DIV/0!

Average Occupancy by Person #DIV/0!Average Occupancy by Person #DIV/0!

One or both greater than 94% 5 0

Program model effectiveness

Comments:

Comments:

Page 5 of 8


HMIS Audit Results

Greater than 90%7.5

0

Deobligated Funds (Reported by HUD) Program Deobligated more than 10% of awarded

funds 50

Drawdown Rates (Reported by HUD)

Drawdown Rates 5 0

Special Populations

Total Number of Persons Served (5a.1.) 0

Number of Adults (age 18 or over) (5a.2.) 0

Total Number of Youth Under Age 25 and Number

of Parenting Youth Under Age 25 with Children 0

Youth (18-24 Years Old) Head of Households and

Parenting Youth Under Age 24 with Children #DIV/0!

Greater than 10%

Physical or Mental Health Condition at Entry -

HIV/AIDS (13a1) Total Persons

Bonus Points

Comments:

Comments:

Page 6 of 8


Percentage of Persons with HIV/AIDS #DIV/0!

Greater than 10%

Persons Fleeing Domestic Violence- Yes (14b)

Percentage of Persons Fleeing Domestic Violence #DIV/0!

Greater than 10%

Number of Households Served (8a) Total

Number of Households Served (8a) With Children

and Adults

Percentage of Households Served with Children #DIV/0!

Greater than 10%

Number of Chronically Homeless Persons by

Household (23b) Chronically Homeless Percentage of Persons that are Chronically

Homeless #DIV/0!

Greater than 10%

Number of Veterans (25a) Chronically Homeless

Veteran Total

Numer of Veterans (25a) Non-Chronically Homeless

Veteran Total

Total Number of Veterans Served 0Percentage of Veterans Served #DIV/0!

Greater than 10%

Number of Adults (age 18 or over) (5a.2.) 0Number of persons that enter progam with 0

income

Greater than 10%

Page 7 of 8


Bonus Points

Yes to one special population 5 0

Yes to two or more special population 5 0

Conditional Status

Conditional Status 12.5 0

Objective Section Score

Reduce lengths of homeless episodes 0

Reduce returns to homelessness 0

Retain or Increase Income 0

Exits to Permanent Housing/ Housing Stability 0

Program model effectiveness 0

Conditional Status 0

Bonus Points 0

0

Overall Score for the Project Maximum Points Possible 105 Points

Minimum Threshold to Be Met 57.5

Total Score

Page 8 of 8

FY2017 Ranking Committee – New and Expansion Project

Review and Ranking Overview August 24, 2017

INTRODUCTION AND PROCESS OVERVIEW

Members of the FY2017 GVPHC Ranking Committee will be comprised of the non-conflicting members of the Leadership

Team. The GVPHC Ranking Committee will evaluate all requests for new and expansion projects and decide which

project(s) will be eligible to apply for Permanent Housing Bonus funding under the Greater Virginia Peninsula

Homelessness Consortium (GVPHC) under the FY2017 Continuum of Care Application funded under the U.S. Department

of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Continuum of Care process.

The GVPHC has an opportunity to create new projects through the $117, 508 in Permanent Housing Bonus funds.

Bonus funds can be used to support one or more of the following program types:

o Permanent Supportive Housing

o Rapid Re-Housing

o Joint TH and PH-RRH

o Expansion Projects

The Program Monitoring Committee and the Ranking Committee will meet during a joint meeting scheduled to take place

on Thursday, August 24, 2017 from 9:00am-11:00am. During the meeting the members of both committees will hear the

presentation of new and expansion project requests for funding under the GVPHC FY2017 Continuum of Care Application.

Members of the Ranking Committee will be provided with copies of new and expansion project Letters of Interest for

review. Members of the Ranking Committee (only) will stay behind following the conclusion of all presentations to

deliberate and establish a proposed ranking order.

EVALUATION PROCESS

Project Applicants interested in Permanent Housing Bonus funds for new projects, to include Expansion Projects, will present to the Ranking Committee. The Committee will use the FY2017 New Project Rating Tool to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of each project. The following process is used to guide the Ranking Committee:

1. Rankers receive guidance from the Program Monitoring Committee including: a. Federal Strategic Plan To End Homelessness b. CoC Project Scorecard Results for 2016 and 2017 ( Expansion project grantees only) c. Copies of the FY2017 Letter of Interest w/ proposed budget d. GVPHC Housing Registry Report e. Average Cost Stats for HUD funded programs

2. Rankers will have an opportunity to interview applicants regarding each proposed project, to aid in the completion of the New Project Rating Tool

3. Rankers discuss, analyze and make the final decision for each project and established a proposed ranking order.

NEW PROJECT REVIEW SCHEDULE

9:00am Introduction and Overview 9:30am Williamsburg House of Mercy- Permanent Supportive Housing Program (Presentation) 10:00am Transitions Family Violence – Expansion Project (Presentation) 10:30am Ranking Committee – Deliberation PROJECT REVIEW

Each project applicant will have 15 minutes to present and 10 minutes for questions and answers. In the interest of time,

project applicants should utilize the New Project Rating Tool as a guide to present information on each project. Project

applicants should be prepared to demonstrate the following:

Eligibility to apply for HUD Funds

Experience

Design of Housing and Supportive Services

Timeliness or ability to rapidly implement this program

Financial Capacity and Project Budgeting

At the conclusion of the project review process, members of the Ranking Committee will be left alone (absent of the

Program Monitoring Committee and Regional CoC Program Administrator) to deliberate.

RANKING COMMITTEE -MEMBERS

Members of the FY2017 GVPHC Ranking Committee will be comprised of the non-conflicting members of the Leadership

Team, and will include no less than Five (5) of the following active non-conflicted members of the Leadership Team:

a. Tim Luken, Five Loaves Food Pantry

b. Marshall Jackson, Hampton Roads Community Action Program

c. Anita Taylor, Hampton Roads Community Action Program

d. Danita Melvin, Hampton Redevelopment and Housing Authority

e. Mike Taylor, Newport News DHS

f. Sylvia Jones, Menchville House

g. Denise Kirschbaum, James City County DSS

h. Thelma Satchell, The Salvation Army Peninsula

i. Charvalla West, United Way Greater Williamsburg

j. Doris Cruea, VAMC

k. Marti Chick-Ebey , VAMC

RANKING COMMITTEE -INSTRUCTION

The Ranking Committee will determine which project(s) should be afforded an opportunity to apply for Bonus funding

under the GVPHC FY2017 Continuum of Care Application. The Committee will submit final recommendations to the GVPHC

General Membership for approval.

Greater Virginia Peninsula Homelessness Consortium

2017 Ranking Committee- Conflict of Interest Form

RANKERS INFORMATION

Name:______________________ Title:__________________________ Email:__________________________

Thank you for participating on this year's review panel for applicants for Continuum of Care funding for the Greater

Virginia Peninsula Homelessness Consortium (GVPHC).

CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY 1. Procurement. For the procurement of property (goods, supplies, or equipment) and services, the recipient and its

subrecipients must comply with the standards of conduct and conflict-of-interest requirements under 2 CFR 200.317 and 200.318.

2. Continuum of Care board members. No Continuum of Care board member may participate in or influence discussions or resulting decisions concerning the award of a grant or other financial benefits to the organization that the member represents.

3. Organizational conflict. An organizational conflict of interest arises when, because of activities or relationships with other persons or organizations, the recipient or subrecipient is unable or potentially unable to render impartial assistance in the provision of any type or amount of assistance under this part, or when a covered person's, as in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, objectivity in performing work with respect to any activity assisted under this part is or might be otherwise impaired. Such an organizational conflict would arise when a board member of an applicant participates in decision of the applicant concerning the award of a grant, or provision of other financial benefits, to the organization that such member represents. It would also arise when an employee of a recipient or subrecipient participates in making rent reasonableness determinations under § 578.49(b)(2) and § 578.51(g) and housing quality inspections of property under § 578.75(b) that the recipient, subrecipient, or related entity owns.

4. Other conflicts. For all other transactions and activities, the following restrictions apply: a. No covered person, meaning a person who is an employee, agent, consultant, officer, or elected or appointed

official of the recipient or its subrecipients and who exercises or has exercised any functions or responsibilities with respect to activities assisted under this part, or who is in a position to participate in a decision-making process or gain inside information with regard to activities assisted under this part, may obtain a financial interest or benefit from an assisted activity, have a financial interest in any contract, subcontract, or agreement with respect to an assisted activity, or have a financial interest in the proceeds derived from an assisted activity, either for him or herself or for those with whom he or she has immediate family or business ties, during his or her tenure or during the one-year period following his or her tenure.

b. Exceptions. Upon the written request of the recipient, HUD may grant an exception to the provisions of this section on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the cumulative effects of the criteria in paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this section, provided that the recipient has satisfactorily met the threshold requirements of paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this section.

i. Threshold requirements. HUD will consider an exception only after the recipient has provided the following documentation:

1. Disclosure of the nature of the conflict, accompanied by a written assurance, if the recipient is a government, that there has been public disclosure of the conflict and a description of how the public disclosure was made; and if the recipient is a private nonprofit organization, that the conflict has been disclosed in accordance with their written code of conduct or other conflict-of-interest policy; and

2. An opinion of the recipient's attorney that the interest for which the exception is sought would not violate State or local law, or if the subrecipient is a private nonprofit organization, the exception would not violate the organization's internal policies.

ii. Factors to be considered for exceptions. In determining whether to grant a requested exception after the recipient has satisfactorily met the threshold requirements under paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section, HUD must conclude that the exception will serve to further the purposes of the Continuum of Care program and the effective and efficient administration of the recipient's or subrecipient's project, taking into account the cumulative effect of the following factors, as applicable:

1. Whether the exception would provide a significant cost benefit or an essential degree of expertise to the program or project that would otherwise not be available;

2. Whether an opportunity was provided for open competitive bidding or negotiation; 3. Whether the affected person has withdrawn from his or her functions, responsibilities, or the

decision-making process with respect to the specific activity in question; 4. Whether the interest or benefit was present before the affected person was in the position

described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section; 5. Whether undue hardship will result to the recipient, the subrecipient, or the person affected,

when weighed against the public interest served by avoiding the prohibited conflict; 6. Whether the person affected is a member of a group or class of persons intended to be the

beneficiaries of the assisted activity, and the exception will permit such person to receive generally the same interests or benefits as are being made available or provided to the group or class; and

7. Any other relevant considerations.

Please indicate whether you, the committee member, have an actual or perceived conflict of interest in

reviewing applications from the following organizations:

________________________________ ______________________________ ___________________________ Rankers Name Rankers Signature Date

Organization No Conflict Conflict of Interest Williamsburg House of

Mercy

________ I have no conflict of interest to report.

________ I have a conflict of interest to report. (If initialed here, the member will be asked to leave.)

Transitions Family Violence ________ I have no conflict of interest to report.

________ I have a conflict of interest to report. (If initialed here, the member will be asked to leave.)

NEW PROJECTS RATING TOOL

Project Name:

Organization Name:

Project Type: Saved!

Rankers Name: Instructions on Awarding Points

POINTS

AWARDED

MAX POINT

VALUE

EXPERIENCE

out of 15

out of 10

out of 5

0 out of 30

DESIGN OF HOUSING & SUPPORTIVE SERVICES

out of 15

Does your agency have the financial and management capacity and experience to carry out the project as detailed in the project application and to

Does the agency currently participate or agree to participate in the CoC’s Coordinated assessment system?PSH Project Applicants Only (mark NA if RRH): Will this permanent supportive housing project (units included in HUD application only) exclusively

serve persons who meet the HUD definition of chronically homeless?

A. Extent to which the applicant

1. Demonstrate understanding of the needs of the clients to be served. ( 3 Point)

2. Demonstrate type, scale, and location of the housing fit the needs of the clients to be served ( 3 Point)

3. Demonstrate type and scale of the all supportive services, regardless of funding source, meet the needs of the clients to be served ( 3 Point)

4. Demonstrate how clients will be assisted in obtaining and coordinating the provision of mainstream benefits ( 3 Point)

5. Establish performance measures for housing and income that are objective, measurable, trackable, and meet or exceed any established HUD, HEARTH or CoC benchmarks. ( 3 Point)

RATING FACTOR

A. Describe the experience of the applicant and sub-recipients (if any) in working with the proposed population and in providing housing similar to that proposed in the application. 0-5

Points -Experience with popultion; 6-10 Points -Experience providing housing similar to that proposed in the application, or 11-15 Points - Both expierence with the population and providing housing.

B. Describe experience with utilizing a Housing First approach. Include 1) eligibility criteria; 2) process for accepting new clients; 3) process and criteria for exiting clients. Must demonstrate there are no

preconditions to entry, allowing entry regardless of current or past substance abuse, income, criminal records (with exceptions of restrictions imposed by federal, state, or local law or ordinance), marital

status, familial status, actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity. Must demonstrate the project has a process to address situations that may jeopardize housing or project assistance to ensure that

project participation is terminated in only the most severe cases.

0-3 Points -Meets all preconditions; 4-6 Points -Experience with the Housing First approach, or 7-10 Points - Meets all preconditions and has experience with the Housing First approach.

C. Describe experience in effectively utilizing federal funds including HUD grants and other public funding, including satisfactory drawdowns and performance for existing grants as evidenced by timely

reimbursement of subrecipients (if applicable), regular drawdowns, timely resolution of monitoring findings, and timely submission of required reporting on existing grants.

Eligibility Threshold Requirements: Please refer to Statement of Interest (SOI) Question 9, except where noted. Is the threshold met? Yes or No (No points)

Is your agency eligible to apply for funding through HUD?

Is your agency a 501(c)3 or eligible governmental entity?

2017 NEW PROJECTS RATING TOOL

New Projects

Rating Complete

0%

Does your agency have any outstanding findings from HUD or the State on any other projects your agency operates?

Does your agency agree to enter all client level data in the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS)?

Experience Subtotal

Does your agency have any recent (within the last 24 months) organizational audit findings? (If yes, attach copy of a findings.)

Page 1 of 3


out of 5

out of 5

0 out of 25

TIMELINESS

out of 10

0 out of 10

FINANCIAL

out of 5

out of 3

out of 3

out of 4

out of 5

out of 20

0 out of 40

PROJECT EFFECTIVENESS

out of 5

0 out of 5

OTHER AND LOCAL CRITERIA

out of 5

out of 5

out of 5

out of 5

A. Project is cost-effective - comparing projected cost per person served to CoC average within project type.

B. Describe the plan to assist clients to rapidly secure and maintain permanent housing that is safe, affordable, accessible, and acceptable to their needs.

C. Describe how clients will be assisted to increase employment and/or income and to maximize their ability to live independently.

A. Describe plan for rapid implementation of the program documenting how the project will be ready to begin housing the first program participant. Provide a detailed schedule of proposed activities for 60

days, 120 days, and 180 days after grant award.

1. Per your agency’s financial policies, are you able to have your grant contract executed within 45 days? (e.g. would it require Board or City Council approval and how long does that process take?)

( 2 Point)

2. Is this program contingent upon receipt of this grant award? If so, how long will it take you to hire and train program staff? Would these staff be new hires or current positions? ( 2 Point)

3. These programs operate on a reimbursement model, what is your agency’s financial capacity to carry the costs for the first 60 days of the program and does your agency have the ability to perform

grant-based accounting? (2 Point)

4. Many landlords require money orders in hand for application fees and deposit/first month’s rent checks in hand for lease signing, what is your agency’s average turnaround time to release funds on a

client’s behalf? (2 Point)

5. Do you have written policies and procedures for this program, along with agreements for the client’s and landlord’s signatures that address the required elements of a HUD-funded program? (e.g.

grievance procedure, recertification forms, HQS inspections, etc.) ( 2 Point)

Financial Subtotal

Coordinated Entry Participation- 100% of entries to project from CE referrals

Timeliness Subtotal

Design of Housing & Supportive Services Subtotal

B. Audit

3. Most recent audit indicates no findings

2. Most recent audit identified agency as ‘low risk’

1. Most recent audit found no exceptions to standard practices

C. Documented match amount.

D. Budgeted costs are reasonable, allocable, and allowable.

Section V Subtotal

Projects contribution to community efforts to:

Maintaining a functional end to Veterans Homelessness

Ending Chronic Homelessness by December 2017

Ending homelessness among Youth

Ending homelessness for Families

Page 2 of 3


0 out of 20

0 out of 130

0 out of 100

CoC funding requested NOTE: Edit on the LIST OF PROJECTS TO BE REVIEWED tab

Amount of other public funding (federal, state, county, city)

Amount of private funding

PROJECT FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Weighted Rating Score

$ -

$ -

$ -

$ -

TOTAL PROJECT COST

TOTAL SCORE

Section VI Subtotal

Page 3 of 3

CoC Performance Scorecard –GUIDELINES (2017) · the established ranking principles. CoC...

Documents

Transcript of CoC Performance Scorecard –GUIDELINES (2017) · the established ranking principles. CoC...