Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
WELCOME TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 CONTINUUM OF CARE
COMPETITION DEBRIEFING BROADCAST FOR THE PROGRAM KNOWN AS SNAP.
MY NAME IS LISA KAUFMAN, I'M A SNAP DESK OFFICER ALONG WITH MY
COLLEAGUES EBONY WILSON AND MATTHEW AARONSON.
WE'LL BE YOUR PRESENTERS TODAY. THE PURPOSE OF THIS BROADCAST IS
TO PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF THE FY 2012 COC PROGRAM COMPETITION AND
TO GIVE YOU ALL A HEADS-UP ON THE FY 2013 GRANT INVENTORY
WORKSHEET, GIW, AND THE COC REGISTRATION PROCESS.
WE'LL DISCUSS SEVEN TOPICS TODAY.
THE FIRST ONE IS THE FY 2012 COC PROGRAM COMPETITION.
THE SECOND ONE IS THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 FUNDING HIGHLIGHTS.
THIRD, PRO RATA NEED AND ANNUAL RENEWAL DEMAND.
FOURTH, THE COC CONSOLIDATED APPLICATION.
FIFTH, THE PROJECT APPLICATION. SIXTH, THE FISCAL YEAR 2013 GIW
AND COC REGISTRATION AND LASTLY, WE'LL END WITH SOME RESOURCES
THAT YOU ALL CAN USE. THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 COC
COMPETITION WAS THE FIRST UNDER THE COC PROGRAM INTERIM RULE.
THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 COC PROGRAM COMPETITION OPENED NOVEMBER 9th,
2012, AND CLOSED ON JANUARY 18th, 2013.
THIS WAS THE LATEST START AND END DATE IN RECENT YEARS.
AS THIS WAS THE FIRST YEAR UNDER THE COC PROGRAM INTERIM RULES,
WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE WERE CHALLENGES THAT IMPACTED OUR
ABILITY TO OPEN AND CLOSE THE COMPETITION.
THESE CHALLENGES INCLUDED WAITING FOR OUR RULES TO BE GET
PUBLISH, UPDATING E-SNAP, ETCETERA.
HUD ANNOUNCED THE TIER ONE RENEWAL PROJECTS ON PARCH 13th,
2013 -- MARCH 13th, 2013, AFTER THE COMPETITION CLOSED ON
JANUARY 18th, 2013. HUD DETERMINED BASED ON THE
FUNDS AVAILABLE AND THE REMAINING PROJECT APPLICATIONS
THAT WERE SUBMITTED BY THE PROJECT DEADLINE, THAT THERE
WERE ENOUGH FUNDS TO MOVE AHEAD WITH FUNDING -- WITH AWARDING
THE TIER TWO RENEWAL PROJECTS. THE TIERS WERE FINANCIAL TRESH
HOLDS THAT HUD REQUIRED TO ENSURE THAT COCs HAD THE
OPPORTUNITY TO PRIORITIZE THEIR PROJECTS LOCALLY IN THE EVENT
THAT HUD WAS NOT ABLE TO FUND ALL THE REFUELS.
DUE TO THE HARD WORK OF THE FIELD OFFICES AND HEADQUARTERS
IN CLOSING OUT PROJECTS AND RECAPTURING FUNDS, WE WERE
PLEASED THERE WERE ENOUGH FUNDS THIS YEAR TO FUND BOTH TIERS.
HOWEVER, THIS MAY NOT BE THE CASE IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS, SO
IT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR COCs TO PRIORITIZE ALL PROJECTS.
NEW PROJECTS WERE AWARDED AUGUST 1st, 2013, FOR THOSE COCs THAT
SCORED 97 OR HIGHER ON THEIR COC APPLICATION.
NEW PROJECTS THAT WERE CREATED THROUGH REALLOCATION WERE NOT
DEPENDENT ON THE COC MINIMUM SCORE OF 97.
SO THIS YEAR, THERE WERE 8,801 PROJECT APPLICATIONS THAT WERE
SUBMITTED INTO E-SNAP, ALL OF WHICH HAD TO BE REVIEWED BY HUD
STAFF. THOSE APPLICATIONS REQUESTED
MORE THAN $1.8 BILLION. HUD AWARDED 1.6 BILLION TO 8,066
PROJECTS, OF WHICH 489 OF THOSE WERE NEW PROJECTS.
3% OF THE TOTAL FUNDING AWARDED IN THE FISCAL YEAR 2012
COMPETITION WEDNESDAY TOWARDS NEW PROJECTS, WHEREAS 97% OF THE
TOTAL WUNDING WENT TOWARDS -- FUNDING WENT TOWARDS RENEWAL
PROJECTS. A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT WE WANT
FOLKS TO BE MINDFUL OF MOVING FORWARD.
THE COC APPLICANT PROFILE MUST INCLUDE THE NAME AND INFORMATION
OF THE HMIS LEAD AND THE ORGANIZATION ENTERED AS THE HMIS
LEAD MUST MATCH THE HMIS APPLICANT AS DESIGNATED IN THE
PROJECT APPLICANT PROFILE. SO WE'LL NOW TALK ABOUT THE USA
DESIGNATION. ANY COLLABORATION APPLICANT
REQUESTING USA DESIGNATION MUST HAVE ALREADY BEEN PERFORMING ALL
THE DUTIES AS OUTLINED IN 24 CFR 578.11, WHICH INCLUDED MEETING
ALL THE REQUIREMENTS AS STATED IN 24 CFR 578.7, WHICH IS
RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CONTINUUM OF CARE.
THIS YEAR, 32 COLLABORATIVE APPLICANTS REQUESTED USA
DESIGNATION. THE REVIEW PROCESS FOR
DETERMINING USA STATUS ELIGIBILITY HAD TWO PARTS.
FIRST, A CURSORY REVIEW WAS COMPLETED TO ENSURE ALL
QUESTIONS WERE ANSWERED AND COMPLETE.
AND THE COLLABORATIVE APPLICANTS THAT PASSED THE CURSORY REVIEW
WERE THEN REVIEWED MORE IN-DEPTH BASED ON THE REQUIREMENTS LISTED
IN 24 CFR 578.7 AND 578.11 OF THE COC PROGRAM INTERIM RULE.
SO THE REVIEW INCLUDED INFORMATION INFORMATION PROVIDED
BY THE COLLABORATIVE APPLICANT BASED ON WHAT THEY'RE DOING, NOT
WHAT THEY PLAN TO DO. MANY OF THE NARRATIVES PROVIDED
WERE MISSING KEY INFORMATION, SUCH AS THE WRITTEN GOVERNANCE
CHARTER REVIEWED AND UPDATED ANNUALLY, THE HMIS INFORMATION
AND COORDINATION, THE CODE OF CONDUCT AND RECUSAL PROCESS FOR
BOARD MEMBERS OR ANY PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD,
THE COORDINATION WITH EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANTS, AND THE FISCAL
CONTROLS FOR THE PROJECT. WE'RE GOING TO PRESENT SOME
FUNDING HIGHLIGHTS FOR THIS YEAR'S COMPETITION.
THESE ARE THE SCORES, THE TOTAL SCORES.
THERE WERE 130 TOTAL SCORES. THERE WERE UP TO FOUR BONUS
POINTS. EACH COC SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED
THEIR DEBRIEFING SUMMARY WHICH PROVIDES FOR YOU YOUR SCORES IN
EACH SECTION. SUMMARY WAS SENT TO THE FIELD
OFFICE TO BE FORWARDED TO THE COLLABORATIVE APPLICANTS, SO ANY
CA THAT HAS NOT RECEIVED THEIR DEBRIEFING SUMMARY YET, PLEASE
CONTACT YOUR FIELD OFFICE. AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE PIE CHART,
51% OF THE COCs SCORED ABOVE THE FUNDING LINE.
A MAJOR ISSUE WE SAW DURING THE REVIEW OF THE COC APPLICATIONS
IS THAT THE INFORMATION IN THE NARRATIVE DID NOT FULLY ANSWER
THE QUESTIONS THAT WE ASKED IN THE APPLICATION.
THE INFORMATION THAT YOU ALL PROVIDE IN THE NARRATIVES SHOULD
COMPREHENSIVELY ANSWER THE QUESTION THAT IS BEING ASKED.
WE ENCOURAGE THAT ALL TRAINING MATERIALS AND DETAILED
INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE APPLICATION BE THOROUGHLY CONSULTED.
WHILE COCs HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF EXPERIENCE COMPLETING THE
APPLICATION IN PREVIOUS FORMATS, THIS YEAR THERE WERE SO MANY NEW
QUESTIONS. QUESTIONS MAY AND PROBABLY WILL
CHANGE FROM YEAR TO YEAR, SO IT IS IMPORTANT TO FULLY READ ALL
GUIDANCE PROVIDED TO ENSURE THAT THE COCs ARE ANSWERING THE
QUESTION AS IT'S BEING ASKED ON THE APPLICATION.
SO NOW I WILL TURN IT OVER TO MATT ON CONTINUE.
>> THANK YOU, LISA. AM FISCAL YEAR 2012, HUD AWARDED
7,577 RENEWAL PROJECTS, COMPARED TO 7,153 RENEWAL PROJECTS IN
FISCAL YEAR 2011. THE NUMBER OF RENEWAL PROJECTS
INCREASED BY 424 FROM THE PREVIOUS COMPETITION.
IN FISCAL YEAR 2012, HUD ALSO AWARDED 489 NEW PROJECTS.
MOST OF THE NEW PROJECTS AWARDED FUNDING WERE CREATED THROUGH
REALLOCATION OR WERE COC PLANNING COSTS.
EACH YEAR, THE AMOUNT OF FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR NEW PROJECTS
DECREASES AS THE NUMBER OF RENEWAL REQUESTS INCREASE,
MAKING THE COMPETITION FOR NEW FUNDS EVEN MORE CHALLENGING.
IN FISCAL YEAR 2012, HUD AWARDED $1.6 BILLION OF THE AVAILABLE
$1.8 BILLION TO COC PROGRAM RENEWAL PROJECTS.
THE FUNDING OF THESE RENEWAL PROJECTS ALLOWS HOMELESS PERSONS
TO CONTINUE TO BE SERVED AND MOVES FORWARD TOWARD
SELF-SUFFICIENCY. NOT RENEWING THESE PROJECTS
WOULD LIKELY RESULT IN PROJECT CLOSURE AND THE DISPLACEMENT OF
THE HOMELESS PEOPLE BEING SERVED.
ALL COCs WERE ABLE TO REALLOCATE IN 2012.
FUNDS COULD BE REALLOCATED TO CREATE NEW PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE
HOUSING PROJECTS, NEW RAPID REHOUSING PROJECTS OR NEW HMIS
PROJECTS AND DUE TO THE EMPHASIS IN COC PROGRAM INTERIM RULE FOR
A CENTRALIZED OR COORDINATED ASSESSMENT SYSTEM, COCs WERE
ALSO ABLE TO REALLOCATE FUNDS FROM A SUPPORTIVE SERVICES ONLY
RENEWAL PROJECT TO CREATE ONE SUPPORTIVE SERVICES ONLY PROJECT
SPECIFICALLY FOR CENTRALIZED OR COORDINATED ASSESSMENT SYSTEM IF
ONE DID NOT ALREADY EXIST IN THE COC'S GEOGRAPHY.
PRELIMINARY PRO RATA NEED, OR PPRN, IS DESIGNED TO ESTIMATE
THE BASIC FUNDING NEED OF A COC BASED ON THE GEOGRAPHY THAT THE
COC HAS CLAIMED UNDER ITS JURISDICTION.
IT IS THE FIRST OF SEVERAL FACTORS THAT HELP HUD DETERMINE
THE TOTAL AMOUNT FOR WHICH A COC IS ELIGIBLE TO APPLY AND BE
AWARDED. THE PPRN FORMULA CAN BE FOUND IN
SECTION 578.17-A OF THE COC PROGRAM INTERIM RULE.
ANNUAL RENEWAL DEMAND, OR ARD, IS CALCULATED BY EVERY COC
DURING REGISTRATION AND IS EQUAL TO THE SUM OF THE ANNUAL RENEWAL
AMOUNT, OR ARA. OF ALL ELIGIBLE RENEWAL PROJECTS
EXPIRING BETWEEN JANUARY 1, 2013, AND DECEMBER 31, 2013,
WITHIN THE COC'S GEOGRAPHIC AREA AND BEFORE ANY ADJUSTMENTS ARE
MADE BASED ON FMRs. THE ARD AMOUNT IS DETERMINED BY
INFORMATION SUBMITTED ON THE GRANT INVENTORY WORKSHEET, OR
GIW, AND IT IS THE SECOND OF SEVERAL FACTORS THAT HELP HUD
DETERMINE THE TOTAL AMOUNT FOR WHICH A COC IS ELIGIBLE TO APPLY
AND BE AWARDED. THE METHODOLOGY FOR ESTABLISHING
THE ARD CAN BE FOUND IN SECTION 578.17-B-2 OF THE COC PROGRAM
INTERIM RULE. SEES THE COC FY NOFA DEFINITION
TO SEE THE METHOD HUD USED TO DETERMINE THE ARAs.
THE FINAL PROGRAM NEED OR FPRM IS THE HIGHER OF THE PPRN, ARD,
OR THE AMOUNT FROM A POSSIBLE COC MERGER PROCESS.
THIS SERVES AS THE BASE FOR THE MAXIMUM AWARD AMOUNT FOR THE
CONTINUUM BEFORE HUD CONSIDERS NEW FUNDING UNDER COC PLANNING,
ADJUSTMENTS TO BUDGETS BASED ON CHANGE IN FMR, POTENTIALLY
AVAILABLE BONUSES OR IN THE FUTURE, WHEN APPLICABLE, USA
COSTS. HUD CONSIDERS COCs IN PPRN
STATUS WHEN THE FPRN IS EQUAL TO THE PPRN AND ARD STATUS WHEN THE
FPRN IS EQUAL FOR THE ARD. THE COC MERGER PROCESS IS
AVAILABLE FOR MERGING COCs, AT LEAST ONE OF WHICH WAS IN PPRN
STATUS AND AT LEAST ONE OF WHICH WAS IN ARD STATUS.
THE PROCESS PREVENTS A LOSS IN FPRN FOR MERGING COCs.
COCs RECEIVED THE TOTAL OF THE FPRN, THE FINAL PRO RATA NEED OF
EACH ORIGINAL COC TO CALCULATE THEIR FISCAL YEAR 2012 FPRN.
AGAIN, THESE CALCULATIONS WERE COMPLETED DURING THE
REGISTRATION PROCESS. WHEN HUD INTRODUCED THE GIWs IN
FISCAL YEAR 2009, THE INTENLT WAS FOR COCs TO HAVE A WORKING
LIST OF ALL COCs PROJECTS IN THE COC'S JURISDICTION.
EACH YEAR, HUD HAS SENT THE GIWs FOR REVIEW AND UPDATE TO THE
COCs AND USED THE FINAL VERSION AS AP PROVED BY HUD HEADQUARTERS
AS THE BASIS FOR THE COC'S ARD. THIS WAS CALLED THE HOLD
HARMLESS NEED IN PAST COMPETITIONS.
THE NEED FOR ACCURACY WAS THEY HAVE MORE IMPORTANT THAN IN
FISCAL YEAR 2012 COC COMPETITION BECAUSE FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER,
WE FACED HAVING TO MAKE CUTS. UNFORTUNATELY, MANY COCs DID NOT
MAKE SURE THAT THE GIW THAT WAS SUBMITTED DURING REGISTRATION
WAS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT AND THEREFORE HAD TO MAKE
ADJUSTMENTS TO THEIR FINAL GIW AT LEAST ONCE AND IN SOME CASES
MULTIPLE TIMES AS POSSIBLE CUTS WOULD BE BASED ON A COC'S ARD.
COCs MUST HAVE A FULL UNDERSTANDING OF THE COC FUNDED
PROJECTS WITHIN THEIR JURISDICTION GOING FORWARD.
GOING FORWARD, COCs MUST CLOSELY CONSULT WITH THEIR FIELD OFFICES
AND, MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE COC FUNDED RECIPIENTS WITHIN THE
COC'S JURISDICTION. IF YOU HAVE NOT DONE SO ALREADY,
IT IS SUGGESTED THAT YOU REVIEW YOUR FY 2012 GIW FOR ACCURACY
AND BEGIN THE PROCESS OF VERIFYING ALL COC FUNDED
PROJECTS AND MAKE SURE OF THE NOTE OF THE START AND SENDING TO
MAKE SURE OF THE ACCURACY OF THE GIW IN FUTURE COMPETITIONS.
HUD ANTICIPATED THAT COCs WOULD PRIORITIZE AND PROTECT RENEWALS
IN TIER ONE, AS LISA DESCRIBED, BUT MANY COCs TOOK A RISK BY NOT
PLACING ALL RENEWALS IN TIER ONE.
SOME COCs PLACED A LARGE NUMBER OF NEW PROJECTS IN TIER ONE THAT
BUMPED LOWER RANKED RENEWALS INTO TIER TWO.
THIS YEAR, THANKFULLY, WE WERE LUCKY AS WE WERE ABLE TO FUND
MORE PROJECTS THAN ORIGINALLY ANTICIPATED.
WE MAY NOT HAVE THIS FLEXIBILITY GOING FORWARD, SO COCs NEED TO
PRIORITIZE THE TIER ONE PROJECTS.
THEY ALSO NEED TO INFORM APPLICANTS OF WHERE THEY ARE
RANKED IN THE COMPETITION. THEY ALSO NEED TO INFORM
APPLICANTS OF WHERE THEY ARE RANKED IN THE COC'S APPLICATION
AND FOR A DETAILED ZRIPS OF THE TIERING PROCESS, PLEASE REVIEW
THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 NOFA, SECTION IC-16 AND VB-1-B.
NOW I'D LIKE TO HAND OVER THE PRESENTATION TO MY COLLEAGUE
EBONY WILSON WHO WILL DISCUSS THE FY 2012 COC CONSOLIDATED
APPLICATION. >> THANKS, MATT.
COC APPLICANTS ARE EXPECTED TO READ THE COC PROGRAM INTERIM
RULE AND NOFA THOROUGHLY PRIOR TO COMPLETING THE COC
APPLICATION FOR HOMELESS ASSISTANCE.
MANY COC APPLICANTS APPROACHED THIS YEAR'S APPLICATION AS IF IT
WERE A CONTINUATION OF LAST YEAR AND CUT AND PASTED LANGUAGE FROM
PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS, WHICH IN MANY INSTANCES DID NOT FULLY
ANSWER THE QUESTIONS ON THIS YEAR'S APPLICATION.
CONSEQUENTLY, THIS RESULTED IN MISSED POINTS.
IT IS IMPORTANT FOR EACH COC IN EACH PROJECT APPLICATION TO
TREAT EACH YEAR'S APPLICATION IS A NEW ENDEAVOR.
WHILE YOUR PROJECT OR THE WORK OF THE COC IS CONTINUING, IT IS
IMPORTANT THAT YOU FULLY DESCRIBE WHAT THE COC AND THE
PROJECT APPLICATION IS DOING AS RELATES TO THE QUESTION.
HUD PROVIDES DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS AS PART OF THE
E-SNAP APPLICATION ON THE LAST MENU BAR AND TRAINING MODULES
VIA THE HUD HOMELESS RESOURCE EXCHANGE, HRE WEBSITE TO COCs IN
AN EFFORT TO PROVIDE AS MUCH ASSISTANCE AS POSSIBLE IN
COMPLETING THE COCs APPLICATION. THE RESOURCES INCLUDED STEP BY
STEP TRAINING MODULES FOR EACH SECTION OF APPLICATION.
IN ADDITION TO THE GUIDANCE AND TRAINING MODULES, APPLICANTS
ALSO HAD THE ABILITY TO CONTACT THE VIRTUAL HELP DESK ON THE HRE
WEBSITE WITH QUESTIONS. QUESTIONS WERE ANSWERED AS LONG
AS THE INFORMATION REQUESTED WAS NOT PROTECTED UNDER THE HUD
REFORM ACT. HUD ASSUMED THAT THE COCs
UTILIZED THESE VALUABLE RESOURCES.
HOWEVER, DURK THE REVIEW -- DURING THE REVIEW OF THE
CONSOLIDATED APPLICATIONS, COCs CONTINUED TO LOSE CREDIT ON
QUESTIONS BECAUSE THE INSTRUCTIONS, GUIDANCE, AND
TRAINING PROVIDED WAS NOT FOLLOWED.
IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT COCs ENSURE THEIR RESPONSES FULLY
PROVIDE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS BEING ASKED.
THE COC APPLICATION INCLUDED FOUR SCORING CATEGORIES WHICH
WERE DEFINED IN THE FY 2012 NOFA.
THESE INCLUDED COC HOUSING SERVICES AND STRUCTURE, HOMELESS
NEEDS AND DATA COLLECTION, COC STRATEGIC PLANNING, COC
PERFORMANCE, AND THERE WAS A FIFTH CATEGORY, LEVERAGE, WHICH
IS NOT IN THE APPLICATION. ITS POINTED WERE CALCULATED FROM
THE PROJECT APPLICATION DATA. PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS A
DIFFERENCE IN THE LAYOUT OF THE APPLICATION AND THE SCORING
CRITERIA ESTABLISHED IN THE NOFA.
WHILE SOME QUESTIONS MAY HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN A CERTAIN
SECTION OF THE APPLICATION, THE SCORING MAY HAVE BEEN APPLIED
UNDER A DIFFERENT CATEGORY. WE ARE WORKING TO BETTER ALIGN
THE QUESTIONS AND THE SCORING CATEGORIES FOR THE NEXT
COMPETITION. APPLICATIONS WERE ASSESSED ON A
130-POINT SCALE. SECOND ONE CONTAINED 14 POINTS,
SECTION TWO HAD A MAXIMUM OF 21 POINTS.
SECTION THREE, A MAXIMUM OF 55 POINTS.
SECTION FOUR, A MAXIMUM OF 34 POINTS, AND THE OTHER WERE SIX
POINTS. THERE WERE ALSO FOUR BONUS
POINTS AVAILABLE. UP TO TWO BONUS POINTS WERE FOR
COCs UP TO 100% OF THEIR APPLICATION PROP POSED TO SERVE
CHRONICALLY INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES AND UP TO TWO BONUS
POINTS FOR COCs WHERE 100% OF THE PROJECT APPLICATIONS
REQUESTED 7% OR LESS IN PROJECT ADMINISTRATION COSTS.
THE COC HOUSING SERVICES AND STRUCTURE SECTION MADE UP A
TOTAL OF 14 POINTS. THE AVERAGE SCORE FOR PART ONE
WAS 10.33, INDICATING THAT MOST COCs HAVE ESTABLISHED A GOOD
FIELD STRUCTURE AND ARE ABLE TO ACCURATELY PROVIDE INFORMATION
ON HOUSING SPOTS. THE MAJORITY OF COCs
DEMONSTRATED THE EXISTENCE OF A COORDINATED AND INCLUSIVE AND
OUTCOME-ORIENTED COMMUNITY PROCESS, WHICH INCLUDES A
MEMBERSHIP OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS AS WELL AS
INDIVIDUALS. A SIGNIFICANT PART OF SECTION 1
WERE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE COC REVIEW AND RANKING PROCESS.
IN SECTION TWO, HOMELESS NEEDS AND DATA COLLECTION, THE AVERAGE
SCORE WAS 19.93 OUT OF 21. ALL COCs ARE EXPECTED TO HAVE A
FUNCTIONING HMIS. HOWEVER, COCs NEED TO REMEMBER
THAT PER THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT, VAWA, VICTIM SERVICE
PROVIDERS ARE PROHIBITED FROM ENTERING INTO HMIS.
THERE'S NO IMPACT ON THE COC SCORE FOR HMIS AS A RESULT.
COCs SHOULD NOT REQUIRE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROJECTS TO ENTER INTO
HMIS OR IMPLY THAT THEIR PROJECTS ARE LESS COMPETITIVE AS
A RESULT OF NOT BEING ABLE TO ENTER DATA INTO HMIS.
VAWA, HOWEVER, DOES NOT PREVENT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROJECTS FROM
MAINTAINING A COMPARABLE DATABASE WITHOUT PERSONALLY
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AND PROVIDING THE COC AGGREGATE DATA
FOR INCLUSION IN THE COC'S REPORTING.
HUD REQUIRED THAT EACH COC CONDUCT A POINT IN TIME COUNT OF
SHELTERED AND UNSHELTERED PERSONS AT LEAST EVERY TWO YEARS
DURING THE LAST TEN DAYS OF JANUARY.
THE LAST COUNT WAS REQUIRED IN 2011.
EVEN THOUGH THE UNSHELTERED COUNT IS ONLY REQUIRED EVERY
OTHER YEAR, HUD STRONGLY ENCOURAGES COCs TO CONDUCT AN
ANNUAL UNSHELTERED POINT IN TIME COUNT IF RESOURCES ALLOW, AS IT
SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASES THE QUALITY OF DATA THAT A COC WILL
PRODUCE. AS YOU KNOW, BEGINNING WITH THIS
CALENDAR YEAR, 2012, SHELTERED COUNTS ARE NOW REQUIRED
ANNUALLY. COCs THAT INDICATED A COUNT ON A
DATE OUTSIDE OF THE LAST TEN DAYS OF JANUARY 2012 SHOULD HAVE
REQUESTED AND RECEIVED A WAIVER FROM HUD.
IF A COC CONDUCTS AN ANNUAL SHELTERED AND UNSHELTERED POINT
IN TIME COUNT, THE COUNTS MUST OCCUR WITHIN THE LAST TEN DAYS
OF JANUARY. ANY COC THAT CONDUCTED A COUNT
OUTSIDE OF THE JANUARY 22nd THROUGH JANUARY 31st TIME FRAME
MUST HAVE RECEIVED A WAIVER FROM HUD, WHETHER IT IS AN OFFICIAL
COUNT YEAR OR NOT. COCs REQUEST A WAIVER BY
CONTACTING MICHAEL ROHOUSE. COCs WERE ASKED TO DESCRIBE THE
METHODS USED TO COLLECT AND CALCULATE SHELTERED AND
UNSHELTERED POPULATION DATA, INCLUDING INFORMATION ON
SUBPOPULATIONS. IN SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT
ASKED THE COC TO SELECT THE METHODS USED AND DESCRIBE EACH
METHOD, MANY COCs DID NOT GET FULL POINTS BECAUSE WHILE THEY
SELECTED OPTIONS, THEY DIDN'T DESCRIBE ALL OF THEM.
COCs WERE EXPECTED TO USE METHODOLOGIES CONSISTENT WITH
HUD POINT IN TIME GUIDELINES. INFORMATION ON THE HUD POINT IN
TIME GUIDELINES CAN BE FOUND IN THE GUIDE FOR COUNTING
UNSHELTERED PEOPLE AND THE GUIDE FOR COUNTING SHELTERED PEOPLE.
A LINK TO BOTH OF THESE DOCUMENTS WERE PROVIDED IN THE
COC APPLICATION DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS AND COULD ALSO BE
FOUND ON THE ONE CPD WEBSITE. COCs WERE TO COMPARE THE MOST
RECENT POINT IN TIME COUNT TO THE PREVIOUS ONES AND INDICATE
IN THE NARRATIVE WHICH YEARS THEY WERE COMPARING.
THE NARRATIVE SHOULD ALSO HAVE SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED FACTORS
THAT MAY HAVE RESULTED IN AN INCREASE, DECREASE, OR NO CHANGE
IN BOTH THE SHELTERED AND UNSHELTERED POPULATION.
A COMMON ERROR IN THIS SECTION WAS NOT CORRECTLY RESPONDING TO
THE QUESTION ASKED. FOR EXAMPLE, SOME COCs NECESSITY
GRECTED TO INDICATE WHICH -- NEGLECTED TO INDICATE WHICH
YEARS WERE BEING COMPARED OR ONLY ADDRESSED ONE OF THE
COUNTS, SHELTERED OR UNSHELTERED.
MAXIMUM POINTS WERE ONLY AWARDED IF THE COC HAD A DECREASE.
THE COC STRATEGIC PLANNING SECTION OF THE APPLICATION
LOOKED AT THE EXTENT TO WHICH A COC DEMONSTRATED THE EXISTENCE
OF AND ALIGNMENT WITH A PERFORMANCE-BASED TEN-YEAR
STRATEGY FOR ENDING HOMELESSNESS THAT ESTABLISHES SPECIFIC ACTION
STEPS TO ACHIEVE THE SEVEN OBJECTIVES INDICATED IN THE
NOFA. THE COC'S PROGRESS IN WORKING
WITH THE APPROPRIATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENTITY TO DEVELOP AND
IMPLEMENT DISCHARGE POLICIES AND PROTOCOLS FOR PERSONS LEAVING
PUBLICLY FUNDED INSTITUTIONS DEMONSTRATE COORDINATION WITH
HUD VASH AND ANY ADDITIONAL ARRA PROGRAMS.
PROVIDE INFORMATION ON EDUCATIONAL ASSURANCES, AND
FINALLY, DEMONSTRATE LEVERAGING OF FUNDS REQUESTED UNDER THE FY
2012 COC NOFA WITH OTHER RESOURCES.
IN FY 2012, THE LEVERAGING SCORE WAS CALCULATED ON ELIGIBLE NEW
PROJECT REQUESTS ONLY. COCs WERE ASKED TO PROVIDE TWO
NARRATIVE RESPONSES DESCRIBING THE SHORT-TERM STEPS AND THE
LONG-TERM PLANS THE COC WOULD IMPLEMENT IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE
THE PROPOSED NUMERIC ACHIEVEMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THAT OBJECTIVE.
THE NARRATIVES WERE TO INCLUDE ONE OR MORE SPECIFIC MEASURABLE,
ACHIEVABLE, AND REALISTIC STEPS THAT WERE DIRECTLY RELATED TO
THE OBJECTIVES. A PROPER RESPONSE INCLUDED A
SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF WHAT THE COC WAS GOING TO DO, HOW THEY
WERE GOING TO ACCOMPLISH IT, AND A DISCUSSION OF WHO WOULD BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN.
COCs WERE TO SPECIFY THE COC LEAD AGENCY, COMMITTEE OR OTHER
QUESTION BY NAME THAT WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CARRYING OUT THE
STEPS. MANY COCs DID NOT FOLLOW
INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO DEMONSTRATE NUMERIC ACHIEVEMENT
SPECIFIC STEPS TOWARD MEETING THE NUMERIC GOALS OR IDENTIFY
THE STAKEHOLDER BY NAME. THE NARRATIVE RESPONSES ALSO HAD
TO BE RELATED TO THE NUMERIC GOALS.
DEPENDING UPON THE EFFECTIVE COCs WERE TO PROVIDE EITHER
NUMBER OF BEDS, PERCENTAGE OF HOMELESS PERSONS, OR NUMBER OF
HOUSEHOLDS. FURTHER MORE, WHILE THE FIRST
FIVE OBJECTIVES WERE LOOKING FOR AN INCREASING IN NUMERIC
ACHIEVEMENT, THE SIXTH OBJECTIVE REGARDING HOUSEHOLDS WITH
CHILDREN SHOULD HAVE DEMONSTRATE ADD DECREASE.
COCs WERE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE CUMULATIVE INCREASES OR
DECREASES FOR EACH OBJECTIVE FROM THE BASELINE TO THE
TEN-YEAR GOAL. SPECIFIC EXAMPLES WERE PROVIDED
IN THE DETAILED INSTRUCTION. THE MCKINNEY-VENTO ACT REQUIRES
THAT STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS HAVE POLICIES AND PROTOCOLS IN
PLACE TO ENSURE THAT PERSONS BEING DISCHARGED FROM A PUBLICLY
FUNDED INSTITUTION OR INSTITUTION OF CARE ARE NOT
DISCHARGED TO HOMELESSNESS. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE,
CONTINUUMS OF CARE SHOULD DEMONSTRATE HOW THEY COORDINATE
WITH STATE OR LOCAL DISCHARGE PLANNING EFFORTS TO ENSURE THAT
DISCHARGED PERSONS ARE NOT RELEASED DIRECTLY INTO THE
STREETS, AND WHETHER IT BE HOMELESS SHELTERS OR OTHER
MCKINNEY-VENTO HOMELESSNESS ASSISTANCE HOMELESS PROGRAMS.
FORM 303-B ASKED COCs TO PROVIDE THE WH, THE WHERE, AND THE WHO
IN RELATION TO THEIR DISCHARGE PLANNING AND PROTOCOLS.
COCs WERE ASKED TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ON POLICIES AND
PROTOCOLS THAT THE COC EITHER HAS IN PLACE OR HAS DEVELOPED
FOR EACH SYSTEM OF CARE TO ENSURE THAT PERSONS ARE NOT
ROUTINELY DISCHARGED INTO HOMELESSNESS, THE STREETS, AND
HOMELESS SHELTERS OR OTHER HOMELESS ASSISTANCE HOUSING
PROGRAMS. MANY COCs IMPROVED THEIR OVERALL
DISCHARGE PLANNING NARRATIVE SCORES BY PROVIDING CLEAR
DESCRIPTIONS OF THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES THAT WERE EITHER
BEING DEVELOPED OR ALREADY IN PLACE.
HOWEVER, MANY COCs FAILED FOR CLEARLY IDENTIFY THE
STAKEHOLDERS AND/OR COLLABORATING AGENCIES THAT
ENSURE PERSONS BEING DISCHARGED FROM PUBLICLY FUNDED
INSTITUTIONS ARE NOT BEING DISCHARGED INTO HOMELESSNESS
SITUATIONS. RESPONSE SHOULD HAVE ADDRESSED
THE POLICY, THE PERSON, AND STAKEHOLDER RESPONSIBLE FOR
ENSURING THE POLICY IS IMPLEMENTED.
MANY COCs DID NOT CLEARLY SPECIFY WHAT THE DISCHARGE
PLANNING STEPS WERE, WHO THE STAKEHOLDERS WERE IN THE
PLANNING PROCESS, AND/OR WHETHER PERSONS BEING DISCHARGED GO UPON
RELEASE FROM THE INSTITUTION. THE LAST SECTION OF PART THREE
WAS FORM 3-C, CONTINUUM OF CARE COORDINATION.
COCs WERE TO DISCUSSION PARTICIPATION IN OR COORDINATION
WITH AT LEAST ONE OF THESE PROGRAMS.
HPRP, HUD VASH AS WELL AS OTHER HUD-MANAGED ARRA PROGRAMS.
COCs SHOULD HAVE INDICATED THE AMOUNT OF FUNDING THAT WAS
AWARDED TO THEIR JURISDICTIONS AND CLEARLY DESCRIBED THE EFFORT
TO COORDINATE AND COLLABORATE WITH ONE OR MORE OF THE PROGRAMS
IDENTIFIED. COCs THAT DID NOT HAVE ANY
JURISDICTIONS WHICH WERE RECEIVING ANY FUNDING FROM AT
LEAST ONE OF THESE PROGRAMS SHOULD HAVE INDICATED THIS IN
THE NARRATIVE. FINALLY, COCs WERE TO DESCRIBE
HOW THEY ADDRESSED AND WORKED WITH HOMELESS VETERANS AND YOUTH
POPULATIONS. WITH REGARD TO EDUCATIONAL
ASSURANCES, COCs WERE TO INDICATE IF THEY ALREADY HAD
ESTABLISHED POLICIES IN PLACE THAT REQUIRE HOMELESS ASSISTANCE
PROVIDERS TO ENSURE ALL CHILDREN IN HOMELESS ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
ARE ENROLLED IN SCHOOL AND CONNECTED TO APPROPRIATE
SERVICES WITHIN THE COMMUNITY. COCs WERE THEN TO DESCRIBE THE
ESTABLISHED POLICIES. THEY WERE TO ESTABLISH EFFORTS
TO COLLABORATE WITH LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCIES AND DESCRIBE
HOW THE COC WILL CONTINUE TO CONSIDER THE EDUCATIONAL NEEDS
OF CHILDREN IN HOMELESS FAMILIES.
I WILL NOW TURN IT OVER TO LISA KAUFMAN.
>> THANK YOU, EBONY. SO PART FOUR, THE COC
PERFORMANCE, WAS ANOTHER SECTION THAT CARRIED A LARGE PROPORTION
OF TOTAL POINTS. THE AVERAGE SCORE FOR THIS
SECTION WAS 19.05 OUT OF 34 POINTS.
SECTION FOUR OF THE APPLICATION HAS THE LARGEST NUMBER OF POINTS
ASSIGNED AS HUD WANTS COCs TO REPORT ON THEIR OVERALL
PERFORMANCE AS REPORTED BY THE RENEWAL PROJECT APPLICATIONS, AS
WELL AS THE COC-WIDE ACTIVITIES TO REDUCE HOMELESSNESS.
THE INFORMATION WAS TO BE COMPLETED USING THE DATA
REPORTED IN THE 2009, 2010, AND 2011 POINT IN TIME COUNTS, AND
THE HOUSING INVENTORY CHART. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUESTED
FOR THIS SECTION INCLUDED FUNDING SOURCES FOR ALL NEW BEDS
CREATED FOR CHRONICALLY HOMELESS, CREATED BETWEEN
FEBRUARY 1st, 2010, AND JANUARY 31st, 2011.
COCs WERE PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN INCREASES
IN THE CHRONIC HOMELESS POPULATION IF ANY AND THE
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT CAUSED THE INCREASE, AND IF THERE WERE
DECREASES IN THE NUMBER OF PERMANENT HOUSING BEDS FOR THIS
POPULATION, THE REASONS FOR THE DECREASE.
MANY COCs HAD DIFFERENT NUMBERS IN THEIR APPLICATION THAN WHAT
WAS SUBMITTED IN THE HDX. COCs WERE TO REPORT ON HOUSING
PERFORMANCE AND ENROLLMENT IN MAINSTREAM PROGRAMS BASED ON ALL
OF THE APRs SUBMITTED WITHIN THE COC REGARDLESS OF WHETHER A
PROJECT SUBMITTED A PROJECT APPLICATION IN THE FISCAL YEAR
2012 COMPETITION. SUCCESSFUL TRANSITIONAL HOUSING
PROGRAMS HAD AT LEAST 65% OF THEIR EXITING PARTICIPANTS MOVE
INTO PERMANENT HOUSING AND SUCCESSFUL PERMANENT HOUSING
PROGRAMS HAD AT LEAST 77% OF THEIR PARTICIPANTS REMAINING IN
THE HUD COC-FUNDED PROGRAM FOR SIX MONTHS OR LONGER.
COCs SHOULD MONITOR THE PROJECT APRs ANNUALLY IN AN EFFORT TO
ASSIST LOW-PERFORMING PROJECTS IN MEETING OR EXCEEDING THE
OVERALL PERFORMANCE. THE ENROLLMENT IN MAINSTREAM
PROGRAMS AND EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION CHART MEASURED THE
SUCCESS OF EXITING PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS IN COC-FUNDED
HOUSING AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES PROGRAMS WHO OBTAINED THE
VARIOUS MAINSTREAM RESOURCES AVAILABLE IN THE COMMUNITY, AS
WELL AS DETERMINING THE PROGRAM'S SUCCESS IN ASSISTING
PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS OBTAINING EMPLOYMENT.
THE COC-WIDE GOAL IS 20% OR MORE OF PARTICIPANTS EXITING THESE
PROGRAMS WITH EMPLOYMENT INCOME FROM THE COC-FUNDED PROJECTS
BASED ON THE MOST CURRENT APR SUBMITTED TO HUD.
IF A COC FELL BELOW THE HOUSING OR INCOME PERFORMANCE GOALS,
THERE WAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THE REASON OR REASONS
ASSOCIATED WITH NOT BEING ABLE TO OBTAIN OR MAINTAIN ONE OR
MORE OF THE PERFORMANCE MEASURES.
COCs THAT DID NOT HAVE PROJECTS FOR ONE OF THE TYPES OF PROGRAMS
LISTED, PERMANENT HOUSING, TRANSITIONAL HOUSING, OR
NON-HMIS SUPPORTIVE SERVICES WERE NOT PEOPLIZED.
COCs -- PENALIZED. COCs WITH PROJECTS THAT DID NOT
SUBMIT AN APR TIMELY, WERE TO INCLUDE THE MISSING APR.
NEW QUESTIONS ADDED THIS YEAR DEALING WITH PERFORMANCE
INCLUDED HOW THE COC MONITORS THE RECIPIENT'S PERFORMANCE, HOW
THE COC ASSISTS THE PROJECT APPLICANTS IN REACH THE
HUD-ESTABLISHED PERFORMANCE GOALS, AND HOW THE COC ASSISTS
THE POOR PERFORMERS TO INCREASE THEIR CAPACITY.
SO SECTION FIVE WAS LEVERAGING AND THE AVERAGE SCORE WAS 2.06
OUT OF SIX POINTS. IN ORDER TO GET THE FULL POINTS,
100% OF ALL PROJECTS NEEDED TO HAVE 150% LEVERAGING AMOUNT IN
ORDER FOR THE COC TO GET THE FULL POINTS.
NOW I WILL TURN IT OVER TO MATTHEW WHO WILL TALK ABOUT THE
PROJECT APPLICATION. >> THANK YOU, LISA.
SO THE PROJECT APPLICATION PRESENTED SEVERAL CHALLENGES FOR
OUR APPLICANTS THIS YEAR. FIRST AND FOREMOST, AS MENTIONED
EARLIER, FISCAL YEAR 2012 WAS THE FIRST COMPETITION UNDER THE
NEW COC PROGRAM INTERIM RULE. AS SUCH, EVEN RENEWAL APPLICANTS
WERE REQUIRED TO FILL OUT FORMS IN GREAT DETAIL WITH NEW FIELDS
AND LITTLE PREPOPULATED INFORMATION.
THE FY 2012 NOFA ALSO COMMUNICATED UNIQUE PROGRAM
REQUIREMENTS THAT WERE NEW FOR RENEWAL APPLICANTS.
THERE WAS ALSO THE FIRST YEAR THAT INCLUDED CERTAIN PROJECT
TYPES SUCH AS COC PLANNING, COORDINATED ASSESSMENT,
SUPPORTIVE SERVICE PROJECTS, AND RAPID REHOUSING.
AS SUCH, HUD EXPECTED THAT ALL PROJECT APPLICANTS THOROUGHLY
READ THE COC PROGRAM INTERIM RULE, THE GENERAL SECTION NOFA,
THE COC PROGRAM NOFA, THE PROJECT APPLICATION DETAILED
INSTRUCTIONS, AND THE PROJECT APPLICATION TRAINING MODULES.
OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL SLIDES, I WOULD LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT SPECIFIC
AREAS OF THE APPLICATION THAT WERE MOST CHALLENGING FOR OUR
APPLICANTS. THEY INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING.
THE FF 424 AND AAA, WHICH I'LL EXPLAIN.
THRESHOLD REVIEW, EDUCATIONAL ASSURANCES, REALLOCATION, BUDGET
INFORMATION, CATEGORY TWO AT EMINENT RISK OF HOMELESSNESS,
CATEGORY THREE OF HOMELESS UNDER OTHER FEDERAL STATUTES.
MAKE SURE THE NUMBERS MATCH AND PERMANENT HOUSING AND SAMARITAN
BONUS PROJECTS. THE SF-424 IS A HUD STANDARD
FORM THAT IS BUILT INTO OUR ONLINE APPLICATION IN E-SNAP.
IT IS REQUIRED FOR ALL APPLICANTS.
MOST IMPORTANTLY FOR RENEWAL GRANTS, THE SF-424 MUST BE
COMPLETED BY THE CURRENT RECIPIENT AND MUST NOT BE
COMPLETED BY A PROJECT SUBRECIPIENT.
UNFORTUNATELY, THIS YEAR, SEVERAL GRANTS CAME IN FOR HUD
REVIEW, HAVING BEEN COMPLETED BY THE SUBRECIPIENT WITH
SUBRECIPIENT INFORMATION ON THE SF-424 RATHER THAN THE CURRENT
RECIPIENT. AAA STANDS FOR ALL PROJECT
APPLICANTS MUST ATTACH ALL REQUIRED DOCUMENTS ACCURATELY.
THE STANDARD HUD ATTACHMENTS THAT THIS INCLUDE CAN BE FOUND
IN THE PROJECT APPLICANT PROFILE IN E-SNAPS.
THERE ARE LINKS TO UPLOAD THE HUD 2880, THE CODE OF CONDUCT,
DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE, AND IF APPLICABLE, DOCUMENTATION OF
NONPROFIT STATUS. THE SURVEY FOR EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
AND DISCLOSURE OF LOBBYING ARE ALSO IMPORTANT, AND OF
PARTICULAR NOTE, THE HUD 2880 WHICH WOULD 2012 WAS REQUIRED TO
BE UP TO DATE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR, MANY APPLICANTS SUBMITTED
OLD HUD 2880s THAT REQUIRED A CONDITION TO BE PLACED ON THE
GRANT AWARD BEFORE GRANT AGREEMENT.
THE NEW PROJECT APPLICATION REQUIRES MORE DETAILED
INFORMATION THAN THE RENEWAL PROJECT APPLICATION TO ALLOW HUD
TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PROJECT MEETS THE NEW PROJECT
ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS. NEW PROJECTS WERE ELIGIBLE FOR A
VARIETY OF COMPONENT TYPES AND GRANT TERMS, EACH WITH THEIR OWN
UNIQUE SET OF REQUIREMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS AS LISTED IN THE
FISCAL YEAR 2012 NOFA. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT COC
PLANNING, BONUS, AND REALLOCATED PROJECTS ARE CONSIDERED NEW
PROJECTS AND REVIEWED BY HUD USING THE CRITERIA FOR NEW
PROJECTS ESTABLISHED IN THE NOFA.
ONE IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE IS THAT REALLOCATED NEW PROJECTS WERE
NOT SUBJECT TO THE COC SCORE THRESHOLD, WHILE COC PLANNING,
BONUS, AND OTHER NEW PROJECTS WERE SUBJECT TO THE SCORE.
HUD FURTHER DIFFERENTIATED NEW PROJECT TYPES BY CREATING AN
ORDER IN WHICH THEY WOULD BE CONDITIONALLY SELECTED AND TO
LEARN MORE ABOUT CONDITIONAL SELECTION, PLEASE REFER TO
SECTION VB-1-B OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 NOFA.
RENEWAL PROJECT APPLICATIONS WERE ALSO EXPECTED TO MEET
PROJECT ELIGIBILITY, CAPACITY, TIMELINESS OF EXPENDITURE AND
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS PROVIDED IN THE COC PROGRAM NOFA.
MANY PROJECTS, UNFORTUNATELY, CAME IN EITHER WITH THE
EXPECTATION TO SERVE INELIGIBLE POPULATIONS, INSUFFICIENT BUDGET
INFORMATION, OR ONE OF A NUMBER OF OTHER DEFICIENCIES THAT MAY
HAVE RESULTED IN A REJECTION RECOMMENDATION OR REQUIRED THAT
THE PROJECT BE SIGNIFICANTLY CONDITIONED BEFORE BEING ALLOWED
TO GO TO GRANT AGREEMENT. IT IS VITAL FOR RENEWAL GRANT
APPLICANTS TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS BOTH A NEW GRANT PROGRAM
AND THAT IT IS A COMPETITIVE GRANT PROGRAM.
EVEN GRANTS THAT HAVE RECEIVED FUNDING FOR MORE THAN A DECADE
MUST TAKE THE APPLICATION SERIOUSLY AND MAKE SURE THAT IT
IS COMPLETED TO THE BEST OF THEIR ABILITY AND ACCORDING TO
THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COC PROGRAM INTERIM RULE AND THE COC
NOFA. FOR THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS, THE
APPLICATION HAS INCLUDED TWO QUESTIONS REGARDING EDUCATIONAL
ASSURANCES. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT
THIS IS A STATUTORY REQUIREMENT WRITTEN INTO THE McKINNEY ACT,
AND THAT EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE ONLY BEEN ASKING THESE QUESTIONS
FOR A LIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME, THEY HAVE BEEN STATUTORY SINCE
THE BEGINNING OF THE PROGRAM. THESE QUESTIONS ARE APPLICABLE
FOR ANY PROGRAM THAT SERVES PERSONS UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE.
HOWEVER, PROGRAMS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR UNDERSTANDING
THEIR STATE AND LOCAL EDUCATION LAWS AND FOR KNOWING UP TO WHAT
AGE AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES THOSE GUARANTEE PUBLIC EDUCATION
SERVICES TO PERSONS OVER 18. IF PUBLIC EDUCATION IN YOUR
COMMUNITY IS GUARANTEED UNTIL THE AGE OF 24, THEN YOUR PROGRAM
MUST COMPLY WITH THESE TWO EDUCATIONAL ASSURANCES TO ENSURE
THAT EACH OF YOUR PARTICIPANTS RECEIVE THE SAME PUBLIC
EDUCATION SERVICES THAT ALL PERSONS IN THE COMMUNITY HAVE
ACCESS TO. THIS ALSO INCLUDES ACCESS TO
EARLY CHILD CARE PROVIDED TO CHILDREN FROM BIRTH TO 5.
THE REALLOCATION PROCESS HAS EXISTED NOW FOR SEVERAL YEARS
AND IS A WAY FOR COCs TO SHIFT FUNDS FROM EXISTING RENEWAL
PROJECTS TO NEW PROJECT APPLICATIONS WITHOUT DECREASING
THE COC'S ANNUAL RENEWAL DEMAND. IT IS VITAL THAT THE
REALLOCATION DECISIONS MADE AT THE COC LEVEL ARE DISCUSSED AND
COMMUNICATED WELL TO THE PROJECT APPLICANTS.
IN MANY CASES, THE REALLOCATED AMOUNT LISTED ON THE COC
APPLICATION DID NOT MATCH THE AMOUNT THAT PROJECT APPLICANTS
WERE APPLYING FOR. IN SOME CASES, PROJECTS
IDENTIFIED THEMSELVES AS REALLOCATED PROJECTS WHEN IN
FACT THEY DID NOT APPEAR TO THE COC APPLICATION.
IN OTHER CASES, PROJECTS DID NOT IDENTIFY AS REALLOCATED
PROJECTS, EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE INDEED ON THE COC APPLICATION AS
BEING REALLOCATED IN PART OR IN WHOLE.
COMMUNICATION IS KEY HERE, AS HUD WILL DEFAULT TO THE
COMMUNITY DECISION LISTED ON THE COC APPLICATION AFTER VERIFYING
PROJECT ELIGIBILITY AND ARA ON THE GIW.
PLEASE REMEMBER THAT REALLOCATED PROJECTS ARE NEW PROJECTS AND
ARE NOT CONTINUATIONS OF ANY RENEWAL PROJECTS.
IT APPEARS THAT SOME COCs ERRONEOUSLY THOUGHT THAT THEY
WERE SIMPLY AMENDING RENEWAL GRANT OR,S OR CONSOLIDATING
RENEWAL PROJECTS. THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT ERROR AS
REALLOCATE THE PROJECTS ARE NEW PROJECTS WITH NEW START DATES
AND A NEW FOCUS. THE BUDGET FORM IS COMPRISED OF
SEVERAL ELIGIBLE BUDGET LINE ITEMS THAT INCLUDE NEW
CONSTRUCTION, ACQUISITION, AND REHABILITATION, LEASED UNITS,
LEASED STRUCTURES, RENTAL ASSISTANCE, SUPPORTIVE SERVICES,
OPERATING, HMIS, AND COC PLANNING COSTS.
THE AVAILABILITY OF THESE FORMS DEPENDED ON THE TYPE OF PROJECT
THAT WAS SELECTED BY THE APPLICANT AND WHICH IS DESCRIBED
IN DETAIL IN THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 NOFA.
FOR RENEWAL PROJECTS, IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT THAT THE AMOUNT
REQUESTED ON THE APPLICATION WAS EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT LISTED ON
THE FINAL GIW. IF THE AMOUNT REQUESTED FOR A
BUDGET LINE ITEM OR IF THE TOTAL UNITS FOR RENTAL ASSISTANCE WAS
HIGHER ON THE APPLICATION THAN ON THE GIW, THE PROJECT BUDGETS
WERE REDUCED ACCORDINGLY. HUD DID NOT RAISE AN AWARD
AMOUNT IF AN APPLICANT REQUESTED LESS MONEY THAN WAS LISTED ON
THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 GIW. AS HAD BEEN THE CASE FOR SOME
TIME, BUDGET SHIFTS BETWEEN ELIGIBLE LINE ITEMS OF GREATER
THAN 10% WERE NOT ALLOWED FOR THE APPLICATION.
HUD USED THE GIW TO MATCH OF THE PREVIOUS AWARD WITH THE
REQUESTED AMOUNTS AND MADE THE CHANGES AS NECESSARY.
THE 10% IS CALCULATED ON THE LINE ITEM THAT IS BEING REDUCED
AND NOT THE LINE ITEM THAT IS BEING INCREASED.
IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT AS A RESULT OF
RECATEGORIZATION OF SOME COSTS, CERTAIN SHIFTS WERE ACTUALLY
ALLOWED WITHOUT BEING CALCULATED WITH THE 10%.
THE MOST PROMINENT EXAMPLE OF WHICH WAS FOOD MOVING FROM
OPERATING TO SUPPORTIVE SERVICES.
THE PARTICIPANT ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR OUR PROGRAMS
ARE DISCUSSED IN GREAT DETAIL IN THE COC PROGRAM INTERIM RULE AND
THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 NOFA. HOWEVER, I DO WANT TO MENTION
TWO COMMON ISSUES THAT WE OBSERVED THIS YEAR.
THE FIRST INVOLVED CATEGORY TWO, OR PERSONS AT EMINENT RISK OF
HOMELESSNESS. PERMANENT HOUSING PROJECTS ARE
NOT PERMITTED TO SERVE PERSONS THAT FALL UNDER CATEGORY TWO OF
THE HOMELESS DEFINITION. UNFORTUNATELY, MANY PROJECTS
INDICATED THEIR INTENT TO SERVE PERSONS AT IMMINENT RISK OF
HOMELESSNESS ON THE APPLICATION. SUPPORTIVE SERVICE ONLY INTERIM
HOUSING PROJECTS MAY SERVE CATEGORY TWO, BUT THEY SHOULD
HAVE PROVIDED AN EXPLANATION TO VERIFY THAT THEY WOULD ADHERE TO
THE 14-DAY EVICTION REQUIREMENT. ON A RELATED NOTE, PERSONS
EXITING INSTITUTIONS AFTER MORE THAN 90 DAYS NO LONGER FALL
UNDER THE CATEGORY AND THEREFORE ARE NO LONGER ELIGIBLE.
THE SECOND I WANT TO DISCUSS INVOLVES CATEGORY THREE, WHICH
ALLOWS A PROJECT UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES SPECIFIED IN THE
COC PROGRAM INTERIM RULE TO SERVE PERSONS DEFINED AS
HOMELESS UNDER OTHER FEDERAL STATUTES.
TO SERVE CATEGORY THREE PERSONS, A COC FIRST MUST REQUEST AND
RECEIVE PERMISSION FROM HUD. IN FISCAL YEAR 2012, NO COC WAS
GRANTED PERMISSION, AND SO THEREFORE, NO PROJECTS ARE
PERMITTED TO SERVE THIS POPULATION THIS YEAR.
HUD OBSERVED INCONSISTENT NUMBERS IN A VAST MAJORITY OF
PROJECT APPLICATIONS THAT WE RECEIVED.
IN SOME CASES, THE INCONSISTENCIES MAY HAVE BEEN
JUSTIFIED, BUT IN MOST CASES, THE NUMBERS JUST DIDN'T MAKE
SENSE. IT IS VITAL THAT PROJECT DETAILS
SUCH AS UNITS, PERSONS SERVED, PERFORMANCE MEASURE UNIVERSE,
HMIS PARTICIPATION, THE BUDGETS, AND ALL OTHER FORMS MAKE SENSE
IN CONTEXT SO THAT HUD CAN APPROPRIATELY REVIEW AND AWARD.
FINALLY, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY A QUICK WORD ABOUT BONUS PROJECTS.
APPLICANTS WERE ASKED TO INDICATE WHETHER THE PROJECT HAD
ORIGINALLY BEEN AWARDED UNDER OR WAS APPLYING FOR THE FIRST TIME
UNDER A SPECIAL HOUSING INITIATIVE.
MOST IMPORTANTLY FOR RENEWAL PROJECTS, THE DETAILED
INSTRUCTIONS ASKED APPLICANTS TO REFER TO THEIR ORIGINAL GRANT
AGREEMENTS AND DETERMINE WHETHER THEY WERE AWARDED AS PH OR
SAMARITAN BONUS PROJECTS. THESE PROJECTS WERE AWARDED WITH
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS, AND SO HUD
REVIEWED ALL PROJECTS BASED ON THE SELF-IDENTIFICATION TO
ENSURE THAT PROJECTS CONTINUED TO ADHERE TO THOSE RESTRICTIONS.
MANY PROJECTS INAPPROPRIATELY SELF-IDENTIFIED AS A BONUS
PROJECT, EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE NOT AWARDED AS A SPECIAL HOUSING
INITIATIVE. SOME OF THESE PROJECT
APPLICATIONS WERE ADJUSTED THROUGH THE HUD AWARD PROCESS TO
ACCOUNT FOR THE BONUS RULES AND REGULATIONS AND MAY NEED TO BE
AMENDED TO CORRECT THE ADJUSTMENT.
AND NOW, TO TAKE US BEYOND FISCAL YEAR 2012, I WILL TURN
THE PRESENTATION OVER TO MY COLLEAGUE EBONY WHO WILL WALK US
THROUGH THE FISCAL YEAR 2013 GIW AND COC REGISTRATION.
>> FINALLY, WE WILL BRIEFLY DISCUSS THE FISCAL YEAR 2013
GRANT INVENTORY WORKSHEET AND COC REGISTRATION.
THE FISCAL YEAR 2013 GIW PROCESS HAS NOT CHANGED MUCH FROM FISCAL
YEAR 2012. SNAP OFFICE SENDS THE GIW TO THE
COCs AND THE CPD FIELD OFFICE. THE COC AND FIELD OFFICE REVIEW
THE GIW AND ADDRESS ISSUES AND/OR CONCERNS.
THE COC REGISTRATION NOTICE IS THEN PUBLISHED AND E-SNAPS OPENS
FOR COC REGISTRATION. THEN THE SNAP OFFICE REVIEWS THE
FINAL GIW. THE MAJORITY OF THE COLUMNS AND
FUNCTIONALITIES OF THE FY 2013 GIW ARE SIMILAR TO THE FY 2012
GIW. HOWEVER, THERE ARE NEW COLUMNS
AND FUNCTIONALITIES THAT THE COC AND PROJECT APPLICANTS MUST PAY
CLOSE ATTENTION DURING THE GIW RECONCILIATION PHASE.
THESE NEW FUNCTIONS WERE ASSIST THE PHASE WITH THE COCs, PROJECT
APPLICANTS AND YOUR LOCAL CPD FIELD OFFICES.
FOR THIS YEAR'S REGISTRATION PROCESS IN E-SNAPS,
COLLABORATIVE APPLICANTS WILL NOT BE REQUIRED TO UPLOAD THE
GIW ON BEHALF OF THE COC. HOWEVER, COLLABORATIVE
APPLICANTS WILL STILL NEED TO ENTER IN THE TOTAL COC'S ANNUAL
RENEWAL DEMAND. THE COC IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
KNOWING ITS INVENTORY, CONSULTING WITH THE PROJECT
APPLICATIONS AND LOCAL HUD CPD FIELD OFFICE IF ANY QUESTIONS OR
ISSUES ARISE, ENSURING THAT ALL ELIGIBLE RENEWAL PROJECTS ARE
LISTED, AND GETTING APPROVAL FROM THE LOCAL FIELD OFFICE
BEFORE SENDING THE GIWs BACK TO SNAPS.
THE FOLLOWING RESOURCES ARE RECOMMENDED FOR YOU TO ACCESS --
TO ASSIST IN THE GIW RECONCILIATION AND COMPLETING
THE FY 2013 COC REGISTRATION. THE FY13 GIW FACTS, THE COC
MERGER DOCUMENT, THE COC MERGER WORKSHEET, AND THE COC
REGISTRATION TRAINING MODULES. LISA?
>> THANK YOU, EBONY. SO INFORMATION FROM TODAY'S
WEBCAST WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE ON THE ONE CPD INFO WEBSITE AND
ON HUD'S WEBSITE. IT IS IMPERATIVE IF YOU HAVEN'T
DONE SO ALREADY, TO PLEASE GO TO ONE CPD AND SIGN UP FOR ONE OR
MORE OF THE LIST SERVES. THIS IS OUR PRIMARY WAY OF
COMMUNICATING WITH OUR COCs AND GRANTEES.
THERE ARE ALSO READY, SET, GO WEBINARS THAT ARE HELD AND THOSE
WILL PROVIDE VALUABLE INFORMATION AND THEY'RE
ANNOUNCED VIA HUD LIST SERVE MESSAGES.
AS WE MOVE INTO IMPLEMENTING THE COC INTERIM RULES, THESE
RESOURCES WILL PROVIDE VALUABLE INFORMATION AS WELL AS TRAINING
MATERIALS AND YOU CAN FIND THOSE ON ONE CPD.
SO THIS CONCLUDES THE SNAPS COC PROGRAM COMPETITION DEBRIEFING
BROADCAST. ON BEHALF OF MATT, EBONY AND
MYSELF, AS ALWAYS, WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMITMENT TO ENDING
HOMELESSNESS. HAVE A GOOD DAY.