Colorado Springs / El Paso County Continuum of Care
2015 CoC Competition Ranking & Prioritization Process
Purpose: The Colorado Springs/El Paso County Continuum of Care (CoC) ranking and prioritization protocols are the foundation of a transparent decision-making process for projects submitted through the HUD CoC Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) competition. The process was designed to promote the submission and competitive ranking of projects that serve both CoC and HUD priorities with the intent of promoting successful housing solutions and leveraging maximum funds available.
In 2015, CoC NOFA priorities include: veteran homelessness, chronic homelessness, and youth and families – in alignment with HUD’s priorities. Additionally, maximizing application of Housing First principles and increasing Rapid Re-Housing and Permanent Supportive Service resources.
Decision-Making Collective:
I. Committee Membership: An open invitation for Ranking & Prioritization (R&P) committee members was made in March 2015. Goals for committee membership included (1) housing and supportive service experts, (2) service provider applicants, and (3) non-applicant CoC members.
II. Decision-Making Responsibility: While service providers/applicants are key to the work of the CoC and provided needed expertise during the review of projects, a sub-committee of the R&P committee, comprised of non-applicant CoC members was designated to perform the final R&P of projects. This independence mitigated potential conflicts of interest. Additionally, non-applicant CoC Governing Board members provided the final review and approved the sub-committee project ranking.
III. Pre-Competition Planning: Interested R&P (NOFA) committee members and all providers were invited to a meeting to discuss the R&P process for 2015. This first step was designed to promote collective input into the decision-making process and build the framework to guide the ranking and prioritization. Items covered included:
- Overview of HUD NOFA
- Review/revision of CoC renewal application
- Creation of CoC NOFA time line
- Discussion of performance factors, weighting, text contributors, and other issues
IV. HUD Competition Training/Preparation: To best prepare the committee for the responsibilities of project submission and ranking, CoC members and R&P committee members, in particular, were encourage to familiarize themselves with the HUD process and priorities through a variety of training exposures:
- Monthly Governing Board and CHAP Membership meeting updates (Apr – Oct)
- Distribution of self-guided training materials:
o “SNAPS In Focus: NOFAs Past and Present” on 7/14
o “FY 2015 CoC Program Competition is Now Open” on 9/18
o “HUD FY 2015 Continuum of Care Program Competition: Strategies for Success” Webinar (live registration and recorded) on 9/25 and 9/30
- Project applicants (providers) and R&P committee members were invited to attend one of two mandatory meeting scheduled on 9/28 and 9/24, respectively. The following information was discussed:
o Consolidated Application amounts
o 2015 CoC NOFA Competition documents
o Timeline adjustment—expanding from 6 week schedule to 9 weeks
o 2014 Evaluation Form review as baseline for 2015 Evaluation Form
o Open discussion on actions to support the application
Application Process:
I. Timeline: The competition opened on Friday 18 September with a close date of Friday 20 November. The R&P committee met on Thursday 24 September to finalize the evaluation form and process and to fill in the remainder of timeline dates.
II. New Project Solicitation/Evaluation:
- Evaluation Form: An evaluation form for new projects was created and circulated for R&P committee review prior to distribution to new project applicants. These forms include the rubric for project scoring/evaluation.
- Letters of Interest (LOI):
o Request for LOI’s for new projects issued Tuesday 29 September
o LOI’s reviewed by the CoC Administrator (Pikes Peak United Way) using the evaluation form rubric and approved projects and amounts to be included in NOFA R&P were announced
III. Renewal Project Evaluation:
- Draft version of the 2015 SuperNOFA Evaluation Tool for Renewal Project Applications was sent to the R&P Committee for final review 10/1/2015.
o Tool used 88 base points spread across 10 categories.
o Feedback was provided on all comments as part of the process. Where form modifications were needed and warranted, changes were made.
- Final version of the 2015 Evaluation Tool for Renewal Project Applications was distributed on 10/2/2015.
IV. Project Entry into HUD e-SNAPS: Applicants submitted their HUD project application in the HUD e-snaps system, along with a completed evaluation form and an Annual Performance Report (APR) for their most recently completed grant cycle as well as an APR for the common reporting period of 1 July 2014 - 30 June 2015.
Ranking & Prioritization Committee Process:
I. R&P Committee Meeting: A meeting was convened Monday 2 November to review project submissions and rank/prioritize projects for submission through the HUD NOFA competition. 22 people attended the meeting including all providers and 3 non-applicant committee members.
II. Materials and Tools: Meeting started with a review of materials and tools:
- Renewal project list showing our Annual Renewal Demand
- New project list
- Spreadsheet of renewal project scores by project category and final total score
- Spreadsheet of new project scores by project category and final total score
Note: This form illustrated the projects’ commitment to the principles and priorities of the CoC. All projects scored within 1 point of each other, so scores were removed and projects evaluated based on alignment to the CoC priorities.
- Spreadsheet with first pass/baseline ranking based on scoring rubric
- Copies of both the renewal and new evaluation forms
- Copy of the HUD Consolidated Application scoring
III. Ranking Protocol:
A project ranking list was generated from the scoring rubric designed by the R&P Committee and approved by the CoC Governing Board. This list is arranged from highest to lowest score based upon the total of possible points.
Projects were arranged in first pass/baseline ranking based upon total score, divided between Tiers 1 and 2 based on fund allocations in each tier. Per HUD NOFA, Tier 1 fund allocation was limited to 85% of ARD.
New projects were allocated to Tier 2 in first pass/baseline scoring but integrated throughout Tiers 1 and 2 based on alignment with priorities, populations served, etc.
The CoC HMIS grant aligns with Tier 1 based on its foundational support for the effective reporting, evaluation, and support of all HUD activities.
IV. Reallocation Protocol:
The CoC may use the reallocation process to shift funds in whole or part from existing renewal projects to new project applications without decreasing the CoC’s annual renewal demand. HUD encourages CoCs to take advantage of this option. During our CoC’s initial ranking, the Salvation Army surrendered two projects, Hope House and New Beginnings, to give us re-allocable funds for new projects (total of $79,887).
V. R&P Committee Process:
Full Committee
o Overview and discussion of HUD priorities, constraints, and regulatory requirements
o Review and discussion of our CoC’s priorities: veteran homelessness, chronic homelessness, and youth and families – in alignment with HUD’s priorities.
Note: We covered the fact that the CoC is in the process of developing a strategic plan, and that in the meantime, we are following the priorities of HUD.
o Review of sample scoring and ranking process (using “easy math”) was provided to demonstrate mechanics and impact of scoring of projects
o Review and validation of the initial scoring spreadsheet with scores pulled from the Evaluation Tool each project applicant submitted. Applicants reviewed their project scores for accuracy in transcription.
Note: One change was made based on an agency self-identifying an erroneous score. Administrator reviewed the Evaluation form as submitted and verified the score was incorrectly entered. As a result, the score was lowered for the project.
o Discussion of contributing circumstances affecting project scores.
§ Each applicant had the opportunity to address specific scores on their project evaluation and circumstances that contributed to the scores.
§ Circumstances mentioned by applicants were written and displayed for all in attendance to see and digest.
Note: Discussion illustrated most projects were adversely affected by unforeseen circumstances, i.e. acts of nature, staffing gaps. These circumstances were captured for long-term planning but consensus was not to adjust scores. Scores for each project, as submitted by the applicant, were accepted as the final score.
o Initial project ranking discussion:
§ All projects were included in Tier 1 and ranked by score.
§ Discussion on which projects might reasonably be put in Tier 2 based on scoring, alignment with ranking priorities, populations served, and capacity of the agency to support the project.
§ All applicants/committee members were afforded an opportunity to offer final thoughts and input for sub-committee consideration.
Non-applicant Sub-Committee
o Final project ranking discussion:
§ Projects were divided between Tier 1 and Tier 2 based on:
· Final project scoring
· Alignment with HUD priorities, i.e. permanent and rapid re-housing projects
· CoC capacity to serve a spectrum of vulnerable populations, i.e. veterans and victims of domestic violence
§ No projects were rejected
o Decision-making considerations and project ranking recommendation were synopsized to guide Governing Board review and approval.
VI. Recommendation for CoC Funding/Ranking Approval: All non-applicant Governing Board members were invited to participate in a review of the sub-committee’s recommendations and final vote to approve. Meaningful discussion on the findings including questions and answers with the sub-committee supported final approval of ranking recommendation which was published Wednesday 4 November 2015.