CoC Review, Score, and Ranking Procedures IL-508 Notice to Citizens and Organizations in St. Clair County, Illinois Date: August 22, 2016 The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) issues funding opportunities for homeless projects annually. This noticeispostedpursunttothe“oticeof Funding Availability (NOFA) for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 Continuum of Care Program 1 ompetition”-6000-N-25). HUD requires local Continuum of Care to rank all projects in priority order. This notice details the process for reviewing, scoring, and ranking projects. New projects will be ranked and scored. New projects will be reviewed based on the following objective criteria: ? Estimated project performance measures ? Severity of needs and vulnerabilities of project participants ? Type of project ? No or few barriers to participation ? Housing First Renewal projects will be reviewed based on the following objective criteria: ? Project performance measures ? Monitoring results ? Severity of needs and vulnerabilities of project participants ? Type of project ? No or few barriers to participation ? Housing First The specific objective ranking criteria and scoring rubric begin on the following page. 1. Review, scoring, and ranking will be conducted by the Review and Ranking Committee of the Homeless Action Council. 2. All projects included in the CoC application will be ranked in order of priority. 3. Final project rankings must be approved by the HAC as provided in the governing documents. 4. Minutes of the meeting(s) where projects are reviewed, scored, and ranked will be posted on this website. Persons with questions about this notice should send them by email to this address: ljohnson@co.st-clair.il.us . 1 For complete information about this competition, including the entire Notice of Funding Availability, please go to https://www.hudexchange.info/e-snaps/fy-2016-coc-program-nofa-coc-program- competition/ 1 = Page 1 = Project Ranking System Guide St. Clair, Illinois Continuum of Care (IL-508) Introduction CoC IL-508 utilized a well-defined set of objective criteria to review, score, and rank projects in the FY2016 CoC Competition. The criteria are balanced, using four major factors: ? Performance Outcome Criteria (10 maximum points, 16% of score) o Retention in, or exits to permanent housing o Increases in cash income ? Monitoring Criteria (12 maximum points, 20% of score) o Utilization o Drawdowns o Recapture o HMIS data quality ? Priority Population Criteria (approximately 25 maximum points, 40% of score) o Youth o Families with children o Chronically homeless o Veterans o Domestic violence survivors o Low or no income o Serious and persistent mental illness and/or substance use disorders o Criminal history ? Best Practice Criteria (15 maximum points, 24% of score) o Housing First compliance o Project type o Project capacity o CoC participation The remainder of this guide contains the process, the scoring system and a description of each element and how the score is computed. 2 = Page 2 = Process The CoC appointed a Review & Ranking Committee , consisting of well-qualified people who had no affiliation with any CoC funded program. Among them are … Minutes of every meeting are posted on the website of the Collaborative Applicant. The committee created a Scoring System with a scale, using criteria suggested from HUD documents and local research. Among the HUD documents are ones concerning the System Performance Measures, the FY2016 NOFA, the CoC Application instructions, and the debriefing summary from the FY2015 competition. For data sources , the committee used APRs, customized HMIS reports, reports from the HUD Chicago Field Office, and CoC applications. Because HUD has delayed submission of APRs during the introduction of new APR formatting, the HMIS lead generated faux APRs using both the old and new HUD formatting for each project. To make things even fairer, we used the same year – July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016 – for each faux APR. No subjective data were permitted . The committee devised a scale for each criteria, and rated each project for every criteria. 3 = Page 3 = Scoring System We use a 62-point scale. The table below displays the criteria. Points in Criteria Where Found Old APR FY2016 Performance Outcome Criteria: 10 Retention or exits to PH APR Q23a; HMIS Q29a1 & Q29a2 7 Increases in income APR Q19a3; HMIS Q24b3 3 Monitoring Criteria: 12 Utilization HMIS Q10 & Q11 3 Drawdowns HUD Field Office Report 3 Recapture HUD Field Office Report Q31a4 3 HMIS data quality Quality APR Q5A; HMIS Q7 3 Priority Population Criteria: 25 Youth From project applications Q8 4 Families with children From project applications Q8 4 Chronically homeless From project applications 4 Veterans From project applications Q21 4 DV From project applications Q19 2 Low or no income From project applications 2 MI/SA (current/past/etc) From project applications 2 Criminal history From project applications 1 Only project targeting a group From project applications 1 Project targets only one group From project applications 1 Best Practice Criteria: 15 Housing First CoC Application 5 Project type CoC Application 5 # of beds HMIS Q5 5 CoC participation Attendance logs tiebreaker TOTAL POINTS: 62 4 = Page 4 = Performance Outcome Criteria ? 5 points – Length of Homelessness How scored: The Review and Ranking Committee creates a scale based on length of homelessness. This is the same measurement used in the HUD System Performance Measure metric 1.2 The data are found in the APR (new APR Q22a1, old APR Q27), or by running the HUD System Performance Measures in HMIS for the specified 12-month period ended June 30, 2016. ? 7 points – Exits to / retention of permanent housing How scored: The Review and Ranking Committee creates a scale based on: ? For SSO and Transitional Housing projects: exits to permanent housing ? For Permanent Housing projects including RRH: Retention in housing plus exits to other permanent housing These data are found in the APR (new APR Q23a, old APR Q29a1 and Q29a2), or by running the HUD System Performance Measures in HMIS for the specified 12-month period ended June 30, 2016. The Review and Ranking Committee divides the number of clients who exited to and/or retained permanent housing by the total number of clients. ? 3 points – Increases in Income How scored: The Review and Ranking Committee creates a scale based on retention or gains in earned income and other cash income. This is the same measurement used in the HUD System Performance Measure by combining metrics 4.3 and 4.6. The data are found in the APR (new APR Q19a3, old APR Q24b3), or by running the HUD System Performance Measures in HMIS for the specified 12-month period ended June 30, 2016. The Review and Ranking Committee divides the number of adults who retained or gained cash income (from employment and non-employment sources) by the total number of adults. ? 5 points – Returns to Homelessness How scored: The Review and Ranking Committee creates a scale based on the percentage of clients who exited to stable housing in the past 24 months and who later re-entered the homeless system. This is the same measurement used in the HUD System Performance Measure metrics 2a and 3a. The data are found in customized HMIS reports, or by running the HUD System Performance Measures in HMIS for the specified 12-month period ended June 30, 2016. 5 = Page 5 = Monitoring Criteria ? 3 points – Utilization How scored: The Review and Ranking Committee creates a scale based on utilization rates. We use a customized HMIS report that divides the average number of participants by the number of beds in HIC inventory (or slots, for the SSO project). ? 3 points – Drawdowns How scored: The Review and Ranking Committee creates a scale based on regular drawdowns during the most recently completed project year. The HUD Chicago Field Office creates a customized report showing drawdowns and unspent funds. ? 3 points – Recapture How scored: The Review and Ranking Committee creates a scale based percentage of unspent grant funds at the end of the most recently completed project year. The HUD Chicago Field Office creates a customized report showing drawdowns and unspent funds. ? 3 points – HMIS Data Quality How scored: The Review and Ranking Committee creates a scale based on data quality, i.e., the percentage of unduplicated client records with null or missing values and the percentage of "Client Doesn't Know" or "Client Refused" during the time period from July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016. The data are found in the APR (new APR Q 5A, old APR Q7). 6 = Page 6 = Priority Population Criteria ? Up to 25 points – Targeted Populations How scored: The Review and Ranking Committee awards points for any project targeting the following priority populations: ? Unaccompanied Youth – 4 points ? Domestic violence – 4 points ? Families with children – 4 points ? Chronically homeless – 4 points ? Survivors of domestic violence – 2 points ? Low or no income households – 2 points ? Persons with serious and persistent mental illness and/or substance use disorders – 2 points ? Persons with criminal histories – 1 point In addition, these are two bonus points available: ? The Review and Ranking Committee awards 1 point to any project that is the only project in the CoC that targets any one of the priority populations listed above. ? The Review and Ranking Committee awards 1 point to any project that exclusively targets one or more of the priority populations for 100% of its units or participants. The data are found in the Project Application sections 3B-1 and 5B. 7 = Page 7 = Best Practice Criteria ? 5 points – Housing First Compliance How scored: The Review and Ranking Committee creates a scale based on the ranges of responses to the Housing First item in the Project Application. Points are awarded The data are found in the Project Application section 3B-3. ? 5 points – Project Type How scored: The Review and Ranking Committee awards points based on the type of project based on the following scale: ? Rapid Re-Housing – 5 points ? Permanent Supportive Housing – 5 points ? HMIS – 3 points ? Coordinated Assessment – 0 points ? Transitional Housing – 4 points The data are found in the Project Application. ? 5 points – Project Capacity How scored: The Review and Ranking Committee awards points based on the number of beds in the project. This provides an advantage for projects that can house a large number of persons. The data are found in HMIS. ? Tiebreaker – CoC Participation How scored: This factor will be used only to resolve ties. The CoC secretary counts the number of times the project was represented by persons at CoC meetings in the period from July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016. The date are found in based on minute and attendance logs at CoC meetings including regular meetings, committees, subcommittees, task forces, and work groups. 8 = Page 8 =