2018+Continuum+of+Care+Competition

=FY 2018 Continuum of Care Application - Local Request for Proposals= Dear CoC Renewal Applicants, CoC Members, and Members of the Public:

Notice is hereby given for the release of the Fiscal Year 2018 Continuum of Care Local Request for Proposals (RFP). Please review the full RFP carefully for the local timeline and pertinent deadlines. Approximately $193,365 in annual bonus funding is competitively available for one (1) or more permanent supportive housing/rapid re-housing projects, and approximately $124,964 is competitively available for one (1) or more bonus projects serving victims of domestic violence.

The local deadline for new and renewal projects is August 15, 2018 at 11:59pm PST. A mandatory bidder’s conference for new project funding is scheduled for Wednesday, July 11, 1:30pm-3:00pm at the Sonoma County Community Development Commission, 1440 Guerneville Road, Santa Rosa, CA. Applicants new to the Continuum of Care funding stream are strongly encouraged to apply.

FY 2018 Continuum of Care Local RFP"

= = =FY 2018 Continuum of Care NOFA Released!= The FY 2018 Continuum of Care Competition opened on July 18, 2018. The full application is due on September 18, 2018 by 4:59pm Pacific Standard Time. New and renewal applications are due by August 15, 2018 at 11:59pm Pacific Standard Time. The Local RFP for new funding is scheduled for release during the week of July 2, 2018. []

Continuum of Care Process for Making Cuts
The Continuum of Care's policy for making cuts in the reallocation process is below. This will be updated at the July 31, 2018 Continuum of Care Board Meeting and finalized with 2018 reallocation information at the August Board meeting.

==Continuum of Care Pre liminary Project Rating and Rankings (as of June 1st, 2018) ==

The Continuum of Care Board approved final recommendations on CoC Renewal Project Rankings at its May 29, 2018 meeting. At this point, all renewal projects are approved for renewal in the FY 2018 CoC Competition. However, the CoC Board will make final determinations upon release of the FY 2018 Continuum of Care NOFA on Tier 2 recommendations and possible reallocated funding.. All Coordinated Entry and Homeless Management Information System projects are automatically approved for renewal as well as new projects awarded in the FY 2017 CoC Competition and will be placed in Tier 1 when the NOFA is submitted.

The threshold for unconditional renewal remained 80% of the top score. In 2018, the top score was 80.38, setting the 80% threshold at 64.3. Projects scoring below the 80% threshold are required to discuss their situation with the Evaluation Committee. The CoC Evaluation Committee typically works on corrective action with lower-performing projects for a year; if problems continue, projects may be reallocated in the following cycle. Initial scores are listed on the following page and will be posted on the CoC wiki after finalization with the Evaluation Committee.

In 2018 all 11 projects scored above the threshold and are approved for renewal without conditions.

The Evaluation Committee directed staff to discuss scores in depth during required site visits that took place May 7th – May 24th. Any scoring potential scoring discrepancies were reviewed with the Committee, and agencies were allowed to appeal specific possible discrepancies.

Continuum of Care Evaluation Memo Prior to Release of NOFA: 

Continuum of Care Project Scoring: 

__Site Visits __

Site visits were conducted with all agencies. In addition to reviewing project scoring and receiving feedback from agencies, CoC staff reviewed the following items:
 * Match Documentation
 * Environmental Reviews
 * Lead Paint Disclosures
 * Client Files
 * Homeless Documentation & Disability Verification
 * Client Leases & House Rules
 * Evidence of collaboration with Coordinated Entry
 * <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Housing First practice
 * <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Clients exited due to eviction

<span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">CoC Preliminary Scoring FY 2018


 * **<span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;">Priority ** ||  **<span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;">Score **  || **<span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;">Agency ** || **<span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;">Project ** ||
 * <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">1 || <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">80.38  || <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;">West County Community Services || <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;">Mill Street Supportive Housing ||
 * <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">2 || <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">78.22  || <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;">Catholic Charities || <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;">Santa Rosa PSH 2 ||
 * <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">3 || <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">77.71  || <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;">CSN || <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;">Stony Point Commons ||
 * <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">4 || <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">77.54  || <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;">Catholic Charities || <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;">Santa Rosa PSH 3 ||
 * <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">5 || <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">77.50  || <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;">SCCDC || <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;">Chronically Homeless Persons with Mental Illness ||
 * <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">6 || <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">76.49  || <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;">COTS || <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;">Community Based PSH ||
 * <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">7 || <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">74  || <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;">SAY || <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;">Sponsor Based Rental Assistance ||
 * <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">8 || <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">73.74  || <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;">Buckelew Programs || <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;">Samaritan FACT ||
 * <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">9 || <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">70.42  || <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;">SCCDC || <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;">Persons with HIV/AIDS ||
 * <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">10 || <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">69.11  || <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;">SCCDC || <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;">Youth with Disabilities ||
 * <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">11 || <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">67.76  || <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;">Buckelew Programs || <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;">Sonoma SCIL ||
 * <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">N/A || <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">N/A  || <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;">SCCDC || <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;">Homeless with Chronic Health Conditions ||
 * <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">N/A || <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">N/A  || <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;">SAY || <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;">Sponsor Based Rental Assistance ||
 * <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">N/A || <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">N/A  || <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;">SCCDC || <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;">Coordinated Intake Project ||
 * <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">N/A || <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">N/A  || <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;">SCCDC || <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;">Coordinated Intake Expansion Project ||
 * <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">N/A || <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">N/A  || <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;">SCCDC || <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;">HMIS Project ||
 * <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">N/A || <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">N/A  || <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;">SCCDC || <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;">HMIS Expansion Project ||

<span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">No major deficiencies were noted during site visits. Minor adjustments were made to the following scores after review with the Evaluation Committee.

FY 2018 Continuum of Care Renewal Project Evaluations
HUD has yet to release information on the opening of its application period for the FY 2018 Continuum of Care Competition. However, we anticipate a similar timeline to last year's opening in July 2017. The local evaluation process started in March 2018 using the CoC Board approved process from 2017.

<span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">In 2018, seventeen (17) projects with contract end dates in 2018 will be up for renewal in the Continuum of Care competition. A list of renewal projects is attached. We anticipate that all of these projects will be conditionally awarded for the 2019-2020 contract year. Project scoring will take place in two phases:


 * 1) **<span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Collection and Scoring **<span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"> of performance data, background documents, project and agency monitoring questionnaires.

2. **<span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Site Visits **<span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"> **and Interviews** will be scheduled for all CoC-funded agencies in 2018. As in years past, focus will be based on: <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"> a. Concerns following review of documentation and scoring; <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"> b. Concerns or corrective action plans in 2015-2017; or <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"> c. Projects renewing for the first time.

<span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">**__<span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Phase One: Collection and Scoring (April 6th – April 20th) __**


 * <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Please see the attached checklist of required documents to be submitted byApril 6th, 2018. **

<span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Scoring for 2018 renewal projects is similar to 2017; the scoring schema is attached to this memo. Projects are scored on:
 * <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Performance on outcomes we report to HUD (54 points)
 * <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Alignment with local priorities (10-Year Plan goals) (6 points)
 * <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Agency Capacity (40 points)

<span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Scores will be derived from the project’s most recent Annual Performance Report (APR), mid-year APRs where appropriate, review of HMIS and other compliance (including HUD monitoring or audits), and responses to monitoring questionnaires. __In 2018, there are updated questionnaires for Housing First approach, cultural competency, and disability access.__

<span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">The Evaluation Committee will meet the week of April 23, 2018, to review preliminary scores and finalize the schedule of site visits.


 * __<span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Phase Two: Interviews and Site Visits to Selected Projects (April 30h- May 18th) __**

<span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">All agencies will receive site visits in 2018.

<span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">You and your staff will be invited to an additional interview with the Evaluation Committee, tentatively scheduled for the week of May 15th to discuss concerns that may have arisen through the review process and site visits. Both interviews and site visits will enable providers to discuss project and agency monitoring forms and address any questions that have arisen with committee members. **Please have the following staff present at site visits as well as any follow-up interviews:**
 * **<span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Program manager **
 * **<span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Direct service staff **
 * **<span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Staff in charge of financial and grants management **

<span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">On **May 29, 2018** the CoC Board will receive an initial report on the projects. The CoC Board will make finalize a preliminary priority ranking at its June 26, 2018 meeting.


 * <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Conditional vs. Unconditional Renewal **

<span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Policies for conditional vs. unconditional renewal are as follows: once projects have been scored, **a threshold for unconditional renewal will be established** __at 80%__ of the top score. Projects scoring below the threshold will be asked to develop a plan to address performance issues before the release of the 2018 Notice of Funding Availability, or to voluntarily give up award moneys to be reallocated to a new project. Determination of any conditions to renewal will be made by May 22nd, 2018. Any required Corrective Action Plans must be submitted for approval by June 22n, so that a final determination can be made as to whether the project goes forward for renewal, via the CoC Coordinator’s recommendation to the CoC Board. A final list of renewal projects will be presented to the CoC Board on June 26, 2018.


 * <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Looking Forward to the 2018 CoC Application Period **

<span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">We anticipate the 2018 application period may open as early as July and that the evaluation process could potentially overlap into the application period. If the application is delayed 30 days or more following completion of the evaluation process, staff will distribute a Reallocation Questionnaire by which CoC-funded agencies must inform the CoC if they do **//not//** intend to submit a project for renewal, or if they expect to **//reduce//** their request. We will also release a local RFP for possible new projects after the 2018 application is released.

**<span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 18.66px;">Checklist of REQUIRED Documents ** **//<span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">for Sonoma County Continuum of Care 2018 Renewal Project Evaluations //** **<span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">All documents must be received by 5:00 pm, April 6th, 2018 ** //<span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Points will be deducted for late submissions. **Please read carefully for changes from last year.** //
 * <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Most recent submitted APR with complete reported financials. If a new APR is in process, please submit the submitted one and a draft of the new one.
 * <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">1-page letter, signed by the agency’s CEO, giving HUD staff consent to discuss its Continuum of Care projects with the Sonoma County Continuum of Care Coordinator. Each project should be named with the contract reference number for the current contract year.
 * <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Completed Agency Monitoring Questionnaire (1 for the entire agency) and Project Monitoring Questionnaire (1 for each project), enclosed with this memo.
 * <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Completed HMIS Questionnaire, required only if your agency does __not__ receive funding from the Sonoma County Community Development Commission.
 * <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Copies of any audit and monitoring communications received **in the past 3 years** from HUD, Department of Housing and Community Development, Cities, County, United Way, or Community Foundation.
 * <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Most recent agency financial audit //including auditor’s management letter//. Any concerns or findings must be included.
 * <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Most recent Board of Directors packet (if your agency does not regularly copy the Continuum of Care Coordinator). Include agenda, minutes, and supplemental materials from the most recent Board meeting.
 * <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Organizational charts for each renewal project, and for the agency.
 * <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Completed Threshold Criteria Form, Housing First Questionnaire, Housing First Assessment Tool (electronic submission), Cultural Competency Questionnaire, and relevant attachments listed in questionnaires.
 * <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Contact information for your agency’s 5 largest funders.
 * <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">All documents must be received as individual electronic files. **<span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Individual documents may be scanned but must be submitted as individual files. If all documents are scanned together, they will be returned, with points deducted for late submission. The following are acceptable means of delivery:


 * <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">By e-mail or ftp service to Michael.Gause@sonoma-county.org (preferred); **OR**
 * <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">A CD or thumb drive, hand-delivered to Continuum of Care Coordinator, c/o Sonoma County Community Development Commission, 1440 Guerneville Road, Santa Rosa, CA 95403.

**<span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Local Scoring for the 2018 CoC Competition (Renewal Projects) **
 * <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">Project Performance Measurement and Local Priorities **

<span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">Ex: 89% = 5 pts <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">67% = 3.75 pts <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">50% = 2.5 pts || <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">Ex: 100% =5 pts <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">50% = 2.5 pts || <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">80% = 5 pts <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">40% = 2.5 pts <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">20% = 1.25 pts || <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">Ex: 100% =5 pts <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">50% = 2.5 pts || <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">Ex: 100% =5 pts; 50% =2.5 pts || <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">Ex: 100% = 5pts; 50% = 2.5 pts || <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">Ex: 100% = 5pts; 50% = 2.5 pts || <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">Ex: 100% = 5pts; 50% = 2.5 pts || <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">3pts: collaboration, referrals planned <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">1-2 pts: Limited collaboration; no plan for referrals ||
 * **<span style="color: #000000; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">Performance Measurement ** || **<span style="color: #000000; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">Scoring Methodology ** || **<span style="color: #000000; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">Points **  ||  **<span style="color: #000000; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">Scoring Key **  ||
 * //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">1. Housing performance // ||  ||
 * <span style="color: #000000; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">1a. PSH Housing Outcome: % of leavers + stayers stably housed at contract year end || <span style="color: #000000; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">From APR: (Q7, total number of clients - (Q29a1 + Q29a2 subtotal temporary + institutional + Other destinations)) ÷ Q7, total number of clients. Prorated up to 5 points for 89% or higher. || <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px; text-align: center;">5 || <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">Pro-rated by % stably housed
 * <span style="color: #000000; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">1b. % of PSH beds dedicated to chronically homeless people || <span style="color: #000000; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">From APR Q5, Actual Bed & Unit Inventory, CH beds ÷ (total) Beds. Prorated up to 5 points for 100% of beds. || <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px; text-align: center;">5 || <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">Pro-rated by % CH dedication
 * <span style="color: #000000; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">1c. % of PSH turnover beds prioritizing CH || <span style="color: #000000; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">Based on all CoC-funded bed . Prorated up to 5 points or 80% or higher. || <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px; text-align: center;">5 || <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">Pro-rated by % of turnover beds
 * //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">2. Income performance // ||  ||
 * <span style="color: #000000; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">3a. Clients exiting with earned income || <span style="color: #000000; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">From APR Q25a1 Cash Income sources - leavers, number of adults with Earned Income ÷ Q7, total number of adults. || <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px; text-align: center;">5 || <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">Pro-rated by % exiting with earned income
 * <span style="color: #000000; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">3b1. % who increased income from employment from program entry to exit || <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">From HMIS APR:(Q24b Number of Adults with Earned Income: Retained Income Category and Increased $ at Follow-Up/Exit + Did Not Have the Income Category at Entry and Gained the Income Category at Follow-Up/Exit) ÷ Q24b Total Adults || <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px; text-align: center;">5 || <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">Pro-rated by % exiting w/ increased income
 * <span style="color: #000000; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">3b2. % who increased income from sources other than employment || <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">From HMIS APR:(Q24b Number of Adults with Other Income: Retained Income Category and Increased $ at Follow-Up/Exit + Did Not Have the Income Category at Entry and Gained the Income Category at Follow-Up/Exit) ÷ Q24b Total Adults || <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px; text-align: center;">5 || <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">Pro-rated by % increased other income
 * <span style="color: #000000; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">4. Mainstream resources: % of clients accessing mainstream resources || <span style="color: #000000; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">From APR: (1 - (Q26b1 + Q26b2 Number of Non-Cash Benefit Sources, Adults with No sources) ÷ Q7, total number of adults. || <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px; text-align: center;">5 || <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">Pro-rated by % #of sources gained
 * <span style="color: #000000; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">5. Year-end Utilization || <span style="color: #000000; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">From APR Q10-11, prorated up to 5 points. || <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px; text-align: center;">5 || <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">Pro-rated by % #of beds utilized
 * <span style="color: #000000; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">6. Housing First Practice and Implementation || <span style="color: #000000; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">Full points awarded for compliance with responses to Housing First Questionnaire and Fidelity Tool || <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px; text-align: center;">10 || <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">.5 pts awarded per question (10 total questions); 5 pts for Housing First Fidelity Tool  ||
 * <span style="color: #000000; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">7. Collaboration with Coordinated Entry || <span style="color: #000000; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">Full points awarded for participation in Coordinated Entry Advisory Group/evidence of accepting referrals from Coordinated Entry || <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px; text-align: center;">4 || <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">4 pts: Collaboration; referrals accepted
 * **//<span style="color: #000000; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">Local Priorities //** ||  ||
 * <span style="color: #000000; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">1. Alignment with 10-year plan goals || <span style="color: #000000; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">1.5 points for each goal that is a focus of the project, up to 6 points. Goals may include: || <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px; text-align: center;">6 || <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">Full pts for detailed examples of collaboration in each component  ||
 * * <span style="color: #000000; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">Evidence of Project’s collaborations with corrections partners
 * <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif;">Evidence of SSI/SSDI Outreach Access & Recovery (SOAR) benefits advocacy. ||  ||^   ||   ||
 * * <span style="color: #000000; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">Evidence of current practice to prioritize chronically homeless or otherwise medically compromised for permanent housing. (Ex: linkage to HOST)
 * <span style="color: #000000; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">Alignment with Upstream Investments, Health Action as evidenced by agency practices on the Upstream portfolio, or other evidence-based practice databases ||  ||^   ||   ||
 * **<span style="color: #000000; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">Total Points for Performance/Local Priorities ** || **<span style="color: #000000; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">60 **  ||   ||


 * <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">Agency Management and Capacity **

<span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">2-3 pts: Findings in past 3 years, late audit <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">0-1 pts: Lack of audit || <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">CoC APR Review – accuracy and timeliness of reporting. || <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">Review of APR by CoC Coordinator || <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px; text-align: center;">5 || <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">5 pts: timely submission & no inaccuracy of reporting <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">3-4 pts: 2-3 errors in submission <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">0-2 pts: late submission 3+ errors || <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">4pts: 85-99% spend <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">3 pts: 75-84% spend <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">2 pts: 65-74% <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">0-1pts: < 65% || <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">4 pts: Participation in 3-4 work groups <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">3 pts: Participation in 50% of Quarterly Mtngs and 2 workgroups <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">1-2 pts: Less than 50% QM and 1 workgroup or less || <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">Full pts for meeting all 3 criteria; pro-rated pts for missing one or more criteria ||
 * **<span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">Performance Measurement ** || **<span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">Scoring Methodology ** || **<span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">Points **  ||  **<span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">Scoring Key **  ||
 * <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">Financial/Audit: process, timeliness; findings/management letter, overall fiscal health || <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">Review of financial documents by CoC Coordinator/SCCDC Accounting staff/Agency Monitoring Questionnaire || <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px; text-align: center;">5 || <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">4-5 pts: No findings, timely audit, etc
 * <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">Contract administration:
 * <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">Spend down of funds/match || <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">Review of APR by CoC Coordinator || <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px; text-align: center;">5 || <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">5 pts: full spenddown
 * <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">Review of monitoring from past 3 years, & performance in last 3 CoC competitions || <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">Full points only if monitoring for past 3 years is submitted and no issues are found/review of ranking in previous CoC competitions || <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px; text-align: center;">2.5 || <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">Full pts for no findings  ||
 * <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">Cultural Competency and Client Feedback Process || <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">Review of cultural competency questionnaire || <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px; text-align: center;">2.5 || <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">Full pts for having a client advisory board, full explanation on procedures, all forms submitted  ||
 * <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">Data-informed program research; use of HMIS & other local data to guide program development & delivery. Use of documented best practices; outcomes information is used as an indicator of how well the project is accomplishing its goals || <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">Program & Agency Monitoring Questionnaire responses || <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px; text-align: center;">5 || <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">Full pts for complete description of data informed practices  ||
 * <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">Change Management & Institutionalization of Knowledge: Procedures are in place to ensure transmission of program and grants management knowledge when staff changes take place. || <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">Program & Agency Monitoring Questionnaire responses || <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px; text-align: center;">5 || <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">Full pts for plan and procedure for management change and turnover and evidence of Interim Rule training; Pro-rated pts for lack of formal procedures  ||
 * <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">Collaborative effort: CoC & Count participation || <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">Based on attendance records, up to 5 points for full participation || <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px; text-align: center;">5 || <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">5 pts: attendance at all Quarterly Meetings, count participation, participation in 4 or more work groups
 * <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">High data quality, timeliness and coverage of all programs serving homeless || <span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">HMIS Coordinator analysis & report || <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px; text-align: center;">5 || <span style="display: block; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px; text-align: center;">There are 3 criteria: 1) Universal Data Elements (Name, SSN, DOB, gender, race & ethnicity) are at least 95% complete; 2) Assessment data is entered in HMIS 5 days or less after assessments are administered; 3) Data Validation Reports from HMIS are clean
 * **<span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">Total Agency & Management Capacity points ** || **<span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">40 **  ||   ||
 * **<span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">Total Possible Points ** || **<span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.66px;">100 **  ||   ||

FY 2017 Sonoma County Continuum of Care Consolidated Application and Priority List - Public Review
The Fiscal Year 2017 Sonoma County Continuum of Care Consolidated Application and Priority List have been posted for public review and comment. The full application and priority list is due to HUD by September 28, 2017 at 4:59 PM PST. However, we anticipate submitting the application in advance of the deadline. Feedback and comments are highly encouraged. Please submit all comments or questions to the Continuum of Care Coordinator, Michael Gause, at Michael.Gause@sonoma-county.org or at (707) 565-1977. Comments and questions should be made by Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 5:00pm. The full application and priority list are below:

FY 2017 Sonoma County Continuum of Care Consolidated Application Final Submission:

FY 2017 Sonoma County Continuum of Care Priority Listing Final Submission:



= = = = = = = = = = =**FY 2017 Continuum of Care Final Priority Listing and Rankings of all Renewal and New Projects**=

On September 5, 2017, the Sonoma County Continuum of Care Board made final determinations on new and renewal project rating and rankings for the FY 2017 Continuum of Care Competition. In addition to renewal projects, applications were received for two (2) new Permanent Supportive Housing Bonus Projects and two (2) new projects created through reallocated funding. The CoC Board voted unanimously (9-0) to recommend all 4 new projects for funding and ranking on the Priority Listing.

Projects recommended for funding through the Permanent Supportive Housing Bonus Project include: 1) Social Advocates for Youth - Sponsor Based Rental Assistance Expansion Project in the amount of $97,444 to serve transition aged-youth experiencing chronic homelessness and 2) The YWCA of Sonoma County in the amount of $81,760 to serve families and individuals who are survivors of domestic violence in a rapid re-housing project.

Projects recommended for new project funding through reallocation include: 1) Sonoma County Community Development Commission (via the Sonoma County Housing Authority and Federally Qualified Health Centers) in the amount of $200,894 to serve individuals experiencing chronic homelessness with chronic health conditions in a permanent supportive housing rental assistance project and 2) West County Community Services in the amount of $79,856 to serve chronically homeless individuals in a permanent supportive housing project.

The full FY 2017 Priority Listing, including Tier 1 and Tier 2 funding is attached here and below:

FY 2017 Priority Listing Final FY 2017 CoC Competition Priority List Approved September 5, 2017 by the Continuum of Care Board Tier 1

Tier 2
 * ** Priority ** ||  ** Score **  || ** Agency ** || ** Project ** || ** New/Renewal ** || ** Amount ** ||
 * 1 ||  87.28  || Community Support Network || Stony Point Commons (Renewal Project) || Renewal ||  $47,694  ||
 * 2 ||  81.59  || Committee on the Shelterless || Community Based Permanent Supportive Housing || Renewal ||  $218,332*  ||
 * 3 ||  80.00  || Catholic Charities || Permanent Supportive Housing Santa Rosa 3 || Renewal ||  $239,943  ||
 * 4 ||  79.77  || Sonoma County Community Development Commission || Renewal Rental Assistance – Chronically Homeless Persons with Mental Illness || Renewal ||  $85,233  ||
 * 5 ||  78.37  || Catholic Charities || Permanent Supportive Housing Santa Rosa 2 || Renewal ||  $256,121  ||
 * 6 ||  74.48  || Buckelew Programs || Samaritan (FACT) || Renewal ||  $81,987  ||
 * 7 ||  74.05  || Sonoma County Community Development Commission || Renewal Rental Assistance – Youth with Disabilities || Renewal ||  $58,058  ||
 * 8 ||  73.21  || Sonoma County Community Development Commission || Renewal Rental Assistance – Persons with HIV/AIDS || Renewal ||  $804,182  ||
 * 9 ||  72.17  || Social Advocates for Youth || Sponsor Based Rental Assistance || Renewal ||  $97,444  ||
 * 10 ||  69.92  || Buckelew Programs || Sonoma SHP || Renewal ||  $205,167  ||
 * 11 ||  N/A  || Sonoma County Community Development Commission || Coordinated Intake || Renewal ||  $102,198  ||
 * 12 ||  N/A  || Sonoma County Community Development Commission || Homeless Management Information System || Renewal ||  $137,907  ||
 * 13 ||  N/A  || Sonoma County Community Development Commission || Coordinated Intake Expansion || Renewal ||  $247,793  ||
 * 14 ||  N/A  || Sonoma County Community Development Commission || Homeless Management Information System || Renewal ||  $50,000  ||
 * 15 ||  68.39  || West County Community Services || Mill Street Supportive Housing || Renewal ||  $73,925  ||
 * 16 ||  82.50  || Social Advocates for Youth || Sponsor Based Rental Assistance || New- Bonus Project ||  $97,444  ||
 * 17 ||  80.5  || Sonoma County Community Development Commission || Rental Assistance – Homeless with Chronic Health Problems || New - Reallocation ||  $4,102*  ||

Notes: COTS’ Project, Community Based Permanent Supportive Housing, reflects the consolidation of two projects prior to the FY 2017 Continuum of Care Competition. The contracts have been combined into the full eligible amount Projects 1-15 were scored and ranked prior to the opening of the Continuum of Care Competition. Projects 11-14 are not scored as they are required system components. The Sonoma County Community Development Commission’s new project through reallocation, “Rental Assistance – Homeless with Health Problems” is prioritized for the full amount of $200,894. However, this project straddles the tiers; $4,102 is in Tier 1 funding and the balance ($196,792) is in Tier 2. Voluntary Reallocation The following projects were eligible to renew CoC grants in 2016, but elected not to submit renewal applications. This made renewal funding available for reallocation to new projects: The following projects also voluntarily reduced their eligible funding amount in order to make additional renewal funding available for reallocation to new projects: = = = = = = =**Notice of Meeting for New Project Selection in FY 17 CoC Competition**= On September 5, 2017, the Continuum of Care Board will consider new Permanent Supportive Housing Bonus Projects and new projects created through reallocation. The CoC Board will make final selections for new projects at this meeting as well as finalize the Project Rating and Ranking List for the FY 2017 CoC Competition.
 * ** Priority ** ||  ** Score **  || ** Agency ** || ** Project ** || ** New/Renewal ** || ** Amount ** ||
 * 17 ||  80.5  || Sonoma County Community Development Commission || Rental Assistance – Homeless with Chronic Health Problems || New – Reallocation ||  $196,792  ||
 * 18 || 75.35 || YWCA of Sonoma County || YWCSA PSH/RRH || New – Bonus Project ||  $81,760  ||
 * 19 ||  66.50  || West County Community Services || PSH Plus || New – Reallocation ||  $79,856  ||
 * West County Community Services, Cherry Creek Village - $53,243
 * Sonoma County Community Development Commission, Renewal Rental Assistance – Persons with Disabilities - $192,088
 * Sonoma County Community Development Commission, Renewal Rental Assistance – Youth with Disabilities – Reduced project from $71,018 to $58,058
 * Sonoma County Community Development Commission, Renewal Rental Assistance – Chronically Homeless Persons with Mental Illness – Reduced project from $107,692 to $85,233

Members of the public are welcome to attend.

All project applicants, both new and renewal, will be notified outside of e-snaps of acceptance or rejection by Wednesday, September 7, 2017. = = = = =**2017 Continuum of Care Competition - Local Request for Proposals Addendums**= On July 21, 2017, the Sonoma County Continuum of Care released its local Request for Proposals (RFP) for the 2017 Continuum of Care Competition. The Request for Proposals included information about both new Permanent Supportive Housing Bonus projects and renewals of existing projects. As of the bidder’s conference on July 27, 2017, additional funding was made available through strategic reallocations of existing funding to create new projects. A total of **$280,925** is now available for new projects through reallocation.

New projects created with reallocated dollars are limited to __Permanent Supportive Housing Projects serving 100% chronically homeless individuals and families__. All other terms for new projects are the same as those in the original RFP, and were reviewed at the mandatory bidder’s conference. Please note that scoring for funding for permanent supportive housing bonus projects and new projects through reallocation is different.

Please review the addendums below for full information on new funding through reallocation as well as __updated scoring for new projects through reallocated dollars in the FY 2017 CoC Competition. Scoring for the PSH Bonus Project is unchanged.__ = = = = =**2017 Continuum of Care Competition - Local Request for Proposals**= Notice is hereby given for the release of the Fiscal Year 2017 Continuum of Care Local Request for Proposals (RFP). Please review the full RFP carefully for the local timeline and pertinent deadlines. Approximately $179,204 in annual bonus funding is competitively available for one (1) or more permanent supportive housing projects.

The local deadline for new and renewal projects is August 28, 2017 at 11:59pm PST. A mandatory bidder’s conference for new project funding is scheduled for Thursday, July 27, 2017, 2pm-3:30pm at the Sonoma County Community Development Commission, 1440 Guerneville Road, Santa Rosa, CA. Applicants new to the Continuum of Care funding stream are encouraged to apply.

Please refer to the local timeline below for full details on the schedule of events: 2:00pm -3:30pm, at Sonoma County Community Development Commission,1440 Guerneville Road, Santa Rosa || 3:30pm – 5:00pm, at Sonoma County Community Development Commission,1440 Guerneville Road, Santa Rosa // This is a collaborative application. Those with e-snaps experience are expected toassist newer applicants. New applicants should obtain a DUNS number and SAMregistration prior to the session if possible ////. // || 1:00pm – 3:00pm at Sonoma County Community Development Commission, 1440 Guerneville Road, Santa Rosa ||
 * ** Date ** || ** Action ** ||
 * July 14 || NOFA for FY 2017 Funds Released ||
 * July 21 || Local Request for Proposals issued, including new funding availability and Renewal/Reallocation forms. ||
 * ** July 26 ** || ** Renewal and Reallocation Questionnaire Due to CoC Coordinator by 5pm ** ||
 * ** July 27 ** || ** MANDATORY Bidder’s Conference for NEW Projects **
 * ^  || ** Technical Assistance Session for Applicants: Introduction to //e-Snaps// **
 * ** August 7 ** || ** Technical Assistance Session for All Applicants: Project Applications in //e-snaps// **
 * ** August 28 ** || ** New and Renewal Project Application(s) and Supplemental Questionnaire due in e-Snaps, 11:59pm ** ||
 * August 30 || CoC Rating and Ranking Committee Review of New Project Applications ||
 * September 5 || CoC Board Final Approval of New Projects and Ranking and Ratings ||
 * September 7 || Publication of new project selections and Priority Listings//(earlier if possible)// on the CoC wiki at: http://sonoma-county-continuum-of-care.wikispaces.com/2017+Continuum+of+Care+Competition ||
 * September 7- Sept 21 || Technical review/corrections, priority ranking & Consolidated Plan certifications ||
 * Sept 28 || Final Submission Due in e-snaps ||

= = = = = = =**2017 Continuum of Care NOFA Released on July 14th, 2017!**= The FY 2017 Continuum of Care Competition opened on July 14, 2017. The full application is due on September 28, 2017 by 4:59pm Pacific Standard Time. New and renewal applications are due by August 28, 2017 at 11:59pm Pacific Standard Time. The Local RFP for new funding is scheduled for release on July 21, 2017. [] = = =**2017 Continuum of Care Evaluation Process**= The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires that local CoC’s prioritize the projects submitted in our consolidated application. As in past years, project priorities will be generated by a scoring system, site visits and interviews by an impartial Evaluation Committee made up of local funders and former funder volunteers.

Continuum of Care Pre liminary Project Rating and Rankings (as of July 2017)
The Continuum of Care Board approved final recommendations on CoC Renewal Project Rankings at its June 27, 2017 meeting. During this meeting, conditions were released on projects not meeting the 80% renewal threshold for unconditional renewal. At this point, all renewal projects are approved for renewal in the FY 2017 CoC Competition. However, the CoC Board will make final determinations upon release of the FY 2017 Continuum of Care NOFA. All Coordinated Entry and Homeless Management Information System projects are automatically approved for renewal and will be placed in Tier 1 when the NOFA is submitted.

Final CoC Evaluation Report Prior to Release of CoC NOFA:

Corrective Action Plan Response and Approval

Raw Scoring for CoC Renewal Projects




 * **Priority** ||  **Score**  || **Agency** || **Project** ||
 * 1 ||  87.28  || Community Support Network || Stony Point Commons ||
 * 2* ||  82.68  || COTS || Community Based PSH 2 ||
 * 3* ||  80..50  || COTS || Community Based PSH 1 ||
 * 4 ||  80.00  || Catholic Charities || Santa Rosa PSH 3 ||
 * 5 ||  79.77  || SCCDC || Chronically Homeless Persons with Mental Illness ||
 * 6 ||  78.37  || Catholic Charities || Santa Rosa PSH 2 ||
 * 7 ||  74.48  || Buckelew Programs || Samaritan Project ||
 * 8 ||  74.05  || SCCDC || Youth with Disabilities ||
 * 9 ||  73.21  || SCCDC || Persons with HIV/AIDS ||
 * 10 ||  72.17  || Social Advocates for Youth || Sponsor Based Rental Assistance ||
 * 11 ||  69.92  || Buckelew Programs || Sonoma SHP ||
 * 12 ||  68.39  || West County Community Services || Mill Street Supportive Housing ||
 * 13 ||  62.12  || SCCDC || Persons with Disabilities ||
 * 14 ||  62..00  || West County Community Services || Cherry Creek Village ||
 * N/A ||  N/A  || SCCDC || Coordinated Intake Project ||
 * N/A ||  N/A  || SCCDC || Coordinated Intake Expansion Project ||
 * N/A ||  N/A  || SCCDC || HMIS Project ||
 * N/A ||  N/A  || SCCDC || HMIS Expansion Project ||

** 2017 Sonoma County Continuum of Care – Process for Reallocation and Making Cuts ** To create a pool of reallocated funds from which to create new projects, the Sonoma County Continuum of Care works through its Renewal Project Evaluation Process to make voluntary and involuntary cuts; and makes additional voluntary cuts during the NOFA period if new opportunities emerge. ** 1) ** ** Reallocation via Renewal Project Evaluations ** The Sonoma County CoC Evaluation Committee both prioritizes renewal projects for the CoC application, and identifies projects with capacity concerns for corrective action and technical assistance. Scoring is based on unmet housing need, alignment with 10-year plan goals, performance on HUD measurements, and grant management. Because of the scoring schema’s weighting by unmet housing need (a need which is overwhelmingly for permanent supportive housing), SSO and TH projects must perform exceedingly well to be approved for renewal. Projects are scored by the CoC Coordinator on a preliminary basis. The CoC Evaluation Committee meets to review preliminary scores and conduct a risk assessment to guide evaluation. A threshold for unconditional renewal is set at 80% of top score; projects scoring above the line are scheduled for monitoring visits only. Projects scoring below that line are invited to a meeting of the full CoC Evaluation Committee to discuss the challenges faced by the project and design a Corrective Action Plan. Known problems are described in the invitation and applicants are asked to address them and bring any other concerns to the Committee’s attention; under-spent contracts and other issues are noted for discussion and possible follow-up. At the meeting, applicants and the Committee together identify areas of improvement and what resources are needed to help the project improve its performance. Grantees have the opportunity to provide new information that sometimes raises their score above the unconditional renewal threshold. Through a summary letter recording the conversation and follow-up communications, over the course of 6 weeks each applicant is guided through a process of determining whether to submit additional documentation to revise scoring, undertake Corrective Action or to voluntarily release the project funding for reallocation. If corrective action plans and technical assistance are unsuccessful in improving project performance to the expected level over several years, or in particularly egregious cases (for example, serious concerns about grant management), the Committee has recommended reallocating funds without further corrective action. The Committee’s work is followed by a full report to the CoC Board, which reviews its work both in process and at the end of the designated period to develop Corrective Action Plans. The CoC Board makes the final decision regarding renewal with or without conditions vs. reallocation. // Note: // Since publication of the CoC Interim Rule in 2011, the Evaluation Committee has also reviewed each project’s continued eligibility under the new CoC regulation. If eligibility concerns emerge, these are discussed with the grantee even if the project scores above the threshold for unconditional renewal. Reallocations are made in the following situations:


 * ** Voluntary Cuts: ** Following discussion of performance and/or continued project eligibility, and applicant consideration of corrective action needed, the applicant may voluntarily opt not to renew and/or to seek continued funding from non-CoC sources.
 * ** Involuntary Cuts: ** In cases where the CoC Evaluation Committee records major concerns over several years, the Committee may recommend cutting the project without further corrective action. This decision must be confirmed by CoC governing body. Applicants may appeal the decision, and the appeal must be considered by the CoC governing body.
 * 2) ** ** Reallocation based on new opportunities identified during the NOFA Period: ** Upon HUD’s release of the annual NOFA, all provisions of the NOFA are reviewed. If the NOFA indicates further ways to maximize Annual Renewal Demand, renewal grantees are polled with a Renewal Intent to Apply Questionnaire, to confirm that they intend to apply for the full approved amount, or to indicate they are open to a reduction. Continuing discussion takes place with those agencies to ensure the reduction makes sense. **All cuts at this phase are voluntary**

=Continuum of Care Renewal Project Preliminary Rankings=

On April 17, 2017, the Continuum of Care Evaluation Committee held its first meeting to conduct preliminary rating and rankings of CoC Renewal Projects. Members of the Evaluation Committee include:
 * Gale Brownell, Advocacy Representative of CoC Board
 * Sue Castellucci, City of Petaluma & CoC Board Chair
 * Eleanor Grogan, Community Foundation Sonoma County & CoC Board Member
 * Jed Heibel, West County Health Centers & CoC Board Member
 * Kelli Kuykendall, City of Santa Rosa & CoC Board Member
 * Mark Krug, Burbank Housing
 * Joni Thacher, Sonoma County Department of Human Services

The Committee was staffed by the CoC Coordinator, Michael Gause, and HMIS Coordinator Chris Alexander.

In 2017, 18 projects were eligible for renewal. Prior to the 2016 competition, Catholic Charities’ Santa Rosa Permanent Supportive Housing #1, was consolidated with another Catholic Charities project, resulting in one fewer project than the previous year, but the same total amount of funding.

The Coordinated Intake Project, Coordinated Intake Expansion Project, Homeless Management Information System (HMIS), and HMIS Expansion Project are all mandated projects for which the Sonoma County Community Development Commission (SCCDC) is the grantee. Because these are mandated activities, these projects were not scored as part of the evaluation process. The remaining 14 projects were scored by the CoC Coordinator and HMIS Coordinator using 2017 Scoring Criteria and following the 2017 Renewal Process, both of which were approved at the February 2017 CoC Board Meeting. SCCDC accounting staff assisted the CoC Coordinator with reviewing agency audits and monitoring questions.

Of these 14 contracts, all submitted all required documents; however, two projects submitted Annual Performance Reports (APRs) late. The projects with late APRs were the Sonoma County Community Development Commission’s Rental Assistance for Youth with Disabilities and West County Community Services’ Mill Street Supportive Housing. These late submissions impacted the scoring of these two projects.

HUD has yet to release guidance on when the 2017 Notice of Funding Availability will be released, but based on past experience, this could happen as early the summer of 2017. HUD has released its annual Grants Inventory Worksheet, which shows our Annual Renewal Demand (ARD) for the 2017 competition to be $2,986,734.

__Unconditional and Conditional Renewal__

Due to the increased emphasis on project performance by HUD, the CoC Board approved raising the threshold for unconditional renewal from 75% (our practice for a decade) to //80%// in 2017. In 2017, the top score was 87.28, setting the 80% threshold at 69.82. Eleven (11) projects scored above the threshold and are approved for renewal without conditions. These are listed on the next page.

Three projects scored below the threshold criteria:


 * Mill Street Supportive Housing (West County Community Services): 68.39
 * Renewal Rental Assistance – Persons with Disabilities (SCCDC): 62.12
 * Cherry Creek Village (West County Community Services): 62.00

Projects scoring below the 80% threshold are required to discuss their situation with the Evaluation Committee. The CoC Evaluation Committee typically works on corrective action with lower-performing projects for a year; if problems continue, projects may be reallocated in the following cycle. Initial scores are listed on the following page and will be posted on the CoC wiki after finalization with the Evaluation Committee.

__Site Visits__

In years past, the CoC Evaluation Committee has visited sites on a three year rotation. However, given HUD’s increasing focus on monitoring, we are scheduling meetings with all agencies in FY 2017. Some of these will be site visits and others will be meetings held at the SCCDC for agencies that did not meet threshold criteria. A full schedule will be announced shortly.

=Continuum of Care Renewal Project Evaluations - March 2017= HUD has yet to release information on the opening of its application period but has indicated it would like to open the competition on a similar timeline to last year’s opening in July 2016. In keeping with last year’s timeline, we will begin rating and ranking projects immediately.


 * Please read the following instructions carefully:**

In 2017, nineteen (19) projects with contract end dates in 2018 will be up for renewal in the Continuum of Care competition. A list of renewal projects is attached. We anticipate that all of these projects will be conditionally awarded for the 2018-2019 contract year. Project scoring will take place in two phases:


 * 1) **Collection and Scoring** of performance data, background documents, project and agency monitoring questionnaires.

2. **Site Visits** **and Interviews** will be scheduled for all CoC-funded agencies in 2017. As in years past, focus will be based on:
 * 1) Concerns following review of documentation and scoring;
 * 2) Concerns or corrective action plans in 2015 or 2016; or
 * 3) Projects renewing for the first time.
 * __Phase One: Collection and Scoring (March 27th – April 14th)__**
 * __Phase One: Collection and Scoring (March 27th – April 14th)__**


 * Please see the attached checklist of required documents to be submitted byMarch 27th, 2017.**

Scoring for 2017 renewal projects has changed from 2016; the scoring schema is attached to this memo. Projects are scored on:
 * Performance on outcomes we report to HUD (54 points)
 * Alignment with local priorities (10-Year Plan goals) (6 points)
 * Agency Capacity (40 points)

Scores will be derived from the project’s most recent Annual Performance Report (APR), mid-year APRs where appropriate, review of HMIS and other compliance (including HUD monitoring or audits), and responses to monitoring questionnaires. __In 2017, there are new questionnaires for Housing First approach, cultural competency, and disability access.__

The Evaluation Committee will meet the week of April 17, 2017, to review preliminary scores and finalize the schedule of site visits.


 * __Phase Two: Interviews and Site Visits to Selected Projects (April 24th- May 19th)__**

All agencies will receive site visits in 2017.

You and your staff will be invited to an additional interview with the Evaluation Committee, tentatively scheduled for the week of May 15th to discuss concerns that may have arisen through the review process and site visits. Both interviews and site visits will enable providers to discuss project and agency monitoring forms and address any questions that have arisen with committee members. **Please have the following staff present at site visits as well as any follow-up interviews:**
 * **Program manager**
 * **Direct service staff**
 * **Staff in charge of financial and grants management**

On **April 25, 2017** the CoC Board will receive an initial report on the projects. The CoC Board will make finalize a preliminary priority ranking at its May 30, 2017 meeting.


 * Conditional vs. Unconditional Renewal**

Policies for conditional vs. unconditional renewal are as follows: once projects have been scored, **a threshold for unconditional renewal will be established** __at 80%__ of the top score. Due to the increased competitiveness of the CoC Competition, this threshold has been raised for 2017. Projects scoring below the threshold will be asked to develop a plan to address performance issues before the release of the 2017 Notice of Funding Availability, or to voluntarily give up award moneys to be reallocated to a new project. Determination of any conditions to renewal will be made by May 19th, 2017. Any required Corrective Action Plans must be submitted for approval by May 29th, 2017, so that a final determination can be made as to whether the project goes forward for renewal, via the CoC Coordinator’s recommendation to the CoC Board. A final list of renewal projects will be presented to the CoC Board on May 30th, 2017.


 * Looking Forward to the 2017 CoC Application Period**

We anticipate the 2017 application period may open as early as July and that the evaluation process could potentially overlap into the application period. If the application is delayed 30 days or more following completion of the evaluation process, staff will distribute a Reallocation Questionnaire by which CoC-funded agencies must inform the CoC if they do **//not//** intend to submit a project for renewal, or if they expect to **//reduce//** their request. We will also release a local RFP for possible new projects after the 2017 application is released.

**Checklist of REQUIRED Documents** **//for Sonoma County Continuum of Care 2017 Renewal Project Evaluations//** **All documents must be received by 5:00 pm, March 27th, 2017** //Points will be deducted for late submissions. **Please read carefully for changes from last year.**//
 * Most recent submitted APR with complete reported financials. If a new APR is in process, please submit the submitted one and a draft of the new one.
 * 1-page letter, signed by the agency’s CEO, giving HUD staff consent to discuss its Continuum of Care projects with the Sonoma County Continuum of Care Coordinator. Each project should be named with the contract reference number for the current contract year.
 * Completed Agency Monitoring Questionnaire (1 for the entire agency) and Project Monitoring Questionnaire (1 for each project), enclosed with this memo.
 * Completed HMIS Questionnaire, required only if your agency does __not__ receive funding from the Sonoma County Community Development Commission.
 * Copies of any audit and monitoring communications received **in the past 3 years** from HUD, Department of Housing and Community Development, Cities, County, United Way, or Community Foundation.
 * Most recent agency financial audit //including auditor’s management letter//. Any concerns or findings must be included.
 * Most recent Board of Directors packet (if your agency does not regularly copy the Continuum of Care Coordinator). Include agenda, minutes, and supplemental materials from the most recent Board meeting.
 * Organizational charts for each renewal project, and for the agency.
 * Completed Threshold Criteria Form, Housing First Questionnaire, Cultural Competency Questionnaire, and relevant attachments listed in questionnaires.
 * Contact information for your agency’s 5 largest funders.
 * All documents must be received as individual electronic files.** Individual documents may be scanned but must be submitted as individual files. If all documents are scanned together, they will be returned, with points deducted for late submission. The following are acceptable means of delivery:


 * By e-mail or ftp service to Michael.Gause@sonoma-county.org (preferred); **OR**
 * A CD or thumb drive, hand-delivered to Continuum of Care Coordinator, c/o Sonoma County Community Development Commission, 1440 Guerneville Road, Santa Rosa, CA 95403.

**Scoring for the 2017 CoC Competition**
 * Questions?** You may contact Michael Gause, the Continuum of Care Coordinator, for clarification of any item at Michael.Gause@sonoma-county.org, and by phone at (707) 565-1977.
 * Project Performance Measurement and Local Priorities**

Ex: 89% = 5 pts 67% = 3.75 pts 50% = 2.5 pts || Ex: 100% =5 pts 50% = 2.5 pts || 80% = 5 pts 40% = 2.5 pts 20% = 1.25 pts || Ex: 100% =5 pts 50% = 2.5 pts || Ex: 100% =5 pts; 50% =2.5 pts || Ex: 100% = 5pts; 50% = 2.5 pts || Ex: 100% = 5pts; 50% = 2.5 pts || Ex: 100% = 5pts; 50% = 2.5 pts || 3pts: collaboration, referrals planned 1-2 pts: Limited collaboration; no plan for referrals ||
 * ** Performance Measurement ** || ** Scoring Methodology ** || ** Points **  ||  ** Scoring Key **  ||
 * // 1. Housing performance // ||  ||
 * 1a. PSH Housing Outcome: % of leavers + stayers stably housed at contract year end || From APR: (Q7, total number of clients - (Q29a1 + Q29a2 subtotal temporary + institutional + Other destinations)) ÷ Q7, total number of clients. Prorated up to 5 points for 89% or higher. || 5  ||  Pro-rated by % stably housed
 * 1b. % of PSH beds dedicated to chronically homeless people || From APR Q5, Actual Bed & Unit Inventory, CH beds ÷ (total) Beds. Prorated up to 5 points for 100% of beds. || 5  ||  Pro-rated by % CH dedication
 * 1c. % of PSH turnover beds prioritizing CH || Based on all CoC-funded bed . Prorated up to 5 points or 80% or higher. || 5  ||  Pro-rated by % of turnover beds
 * // 2. Income performance // ||  ||
 * 3a. Clients exiting with earned income || From APR Q25a1 Cash Income sources - leavers, number of adults with Earned Income ÷ Q7, total number of adults. || 5  ||  Pro-rated by % exiting with earned income
 * 3b1. % who increased income from employment from program entry to exit || From HMIS APR:(Q24b Number of Adults with Earned Income: Retained Income Category and Increased $ at Follow-Up/Exit + Did Not Have the Income Category at Entry and Gained the Income Category at Follow-Up/Exit) ÷ Q24b Total Adults || 5  ||  Pro-rated by % exiting w/ increased income
 * 3b2. % who increased income from sources other than employment || From HMIS APR:(Q24b Number of Adults with Other Income: Retained Income Category and Increased $ at Follow-Up/Exit + Did Not Have the Income Category at Entry and Gained the Income Category at Follow-Up/Exit) ÷ Q24b Total Adults || 5  ||  Pro-rated by % increased other income
 * 4. Mainstream resources: % of clients accessing mainstream resources || From APR: (1 - (Q26b1 + Q26b2 Number of Non-Cash Benefit Sources, Adults with No sources) ÷ Q7, total number of adults. || 5  ||  Pro-rated by % #of sources gained
 * 5. Year-end Utilization || From APR Q10-11, prorated up to 5 points. || 5  ||  Pro-rated by % #of beds utilized
 * 6. Housing First Practice and Implementation || Full points awarded for compliance with responses to Housing First Questionnaire and Narrative || 10  ||  .5 pts awarded per question (10 total questions); 5 pts for narrative addressing specific implementation of HF  ||
 * 7. Collaboration with Coordinated Entry || Full points awarded for participation in Coordinated Entry Advisory Group/evidence of accepting referrals from Coordinated Entry || 4  ||  4 pts: Collaboration; referrals accepted
 * **// Local Priorities //** ||  ||
 * 1. Alignment with 10-year plan goals || 1.5 points for each goal that is a focus of the project, up to 6 points. Goals may include: || 6  ||  Full pts for detailed examples of collaboration in each component  ||
 * * Evidence of Project’s collaborations with corrections partners
 * Evidence of SSI/SSDI Outreach Access & Recovery (SOAR) benefits advocacy. ||  ||^   ||   ||
 * * Evidence of current practice to prioritize chronically homeless or otherwise medically compromised for permanent housing. (Ex: linkage to HOST)
 * Alignment with Upstream Investments, Health Action as evidenced by agency practices on the Upstream portfolio, or other evidence-based practice databases ||  ||^   ||   ||
 * ** Total Points for Performance/Local Priorities ** || ** 60 **  ||   ||


 * Agency Management and Capacity**

2-3 pts: Findings in past 3 years, late audit 0-1 pts: Lack of audit || CoC APR Review – accuracy and timeliness of reporting. || Review of APR by CoC Coordinator || 5  ||  5 pts: timely submission & no inaccuracy of reporting 3-4 pts: 2-3 errors in submission 0-2 pts: late submission 3+ errors || 4pts: 85-99% spend 3 pts: 75-84% spend 2 pts: 65-74% 0-1pts: < 65% || 4 pts: Participation in 3-4 work groups 3 pts: Participation in 50% of Quarterly Mtngs and 2 workgroups 1-2 pts: Less than 50% QM and 1 workgroup or less || Full pts for meeting all 3 criteria; pro-rated pts for missing one or more criteria ||
 * **Performance Measurement** || **Scoring Methodology** || **Points**  ||  **Scoring Key**  ||
 * Financial/Audit: process, timeliness; findings/management letter, overall fiscal health || Review of financial documents by CoC Coordinator/SCCDC Accounting staff/Agency Monitoring Questionnaire || 5  ||  4-5 pts: No findings, timely audit, etc
 * Contract administration:
 * Spend down of funds/match || Review of APR by CoC Coordinator || 5  ||  5 pts: full spenddown
 * Review of monitoring from past 3 years, & performance in last 3 CoC competitions || Full points only if monitoring for past 3 years is submitted and no issues are found/review of ranking in previous CoC competitions || 2.5  ||  Full pts for no findings  ||
 * Cultural Competency and Client Feedback Process || Review of cultural competency questionnaire || 2.5  ||  Full pts for having a client advisory board, full explanation on procedures, all forms submitted  ||
 * Data-informed program research; use of HMIS & other local data to guide program development & delivery. Use of documented best practices; outcomes information is used as an indicator of how well the project is accomplishing its goals || Program & Agency Monitoring Questionnaire responses || 5  ||  Full pts for complete description of data informed practices  ||
 * Change Management & Institutionalization of Knowledge: Procedures are in place to ensure transmission of program and grants management knowledge when staff changes take place. || Program & Agency Monitoring Questionnaire responses || 5  ||  Full pts for plan and procedure for management change and turnover and evidence of Interim Rule training; Pro-rated pts for lack of formal procedures  ||
 * Collaborative effort: CoC & Count participation || Based on attendance records, up to 5 points for full participation || 5  ||  5 pts: attendance at all Quarterly Meetings, count participation, participation in 4 or more work groups
 * High data quality, timeliness and coverage of all programs serving homeless || HMIS Coordinator analysis & report || 5  ||  There are 3 criteria: 1) Universal Data Elements (Name, SSN, DOB, gender, race & ethnicity) are at least 95% complete; 2) Assessment data is entered in HMIS 5 days or less after assessments are administered; 3) Data Validation Reports from HMIS are clean
 * **Total Agency & Management Capacity points** || **40**  ||   ||
 * **Total Possible Points** || **100**  ||   ||


 * End*

FY 2016 Sonoma County Continuum of Care Consolidated Application and Priority List - Public Review
The Fiscal Year 2016 Sonoma County Continuum of Care Consolidated Application and Priority List has been posted for public review and comment. The full application and priority list is due to HUD by September 14, 2016 at 4:59 PM PST. However, we anticipate submitting the application in advance of the September 14, 2016 deadline.

Feedback and comments are highly encouraged. Please submit all comments or questions to the Continuum of Care Coordinator, Michael Gause, at Michael.Gause@sonoma-county.org or at (707) 565-1977. Comments and questions should be made by Friday, September 9, 2016 at 12:00pm.

The full application and priority list are below:

CoC Consolidated Application for Public Review

CoC Priority List:

FY 2016 Continuum of Care Final Priority Ranking for CoC Competition
On August 23, 2016 the Sonoma County Continuum of Care Board made final determinations on rating and ranking of all new and renewal projects for the FY 2016 CoC Competition. Two (2) projects were initially submitted for the Permanent Supportive Housing Bonus Project in the full amount of $149,336. During CoC Board deliberations, one of the project applicants, Committee on the Shelterless (COTS) voluntarily withdrew their project application. The CoC Board then voted unanimously 8-0 with two abstentions to approve the Guerneville Permanent Supportive Housing Bonus Project with the Sonoma County Community Development Commission in the full amount of $149,336. This project was placed by the CoC Board at the bottom of Tier 2.

The full Priority List is attached here:

Final FY 2016 CoC Competition Priority List

*58,484 of this project will be placed into Tier 2; **Project did not have signed contract during the initial renewal evaluation period and had incomplete information during the NOFA period.
 * Priority || Score || Agency || Project || Amount ||
 * 1 || 82.67 || COTS || Community Based PSH 2 || $135,960 ||
 * 2 || 82.22 || COTS || Community Based PSH 1 || $82,372 ||
 * 3 || 81.85 || CSN || Stony Point Commons || $47,694 ||
 * 4 || 79.33 || West County Community Services || Mill Street Supportive Housing || $73,925 ||
 * 5 || 78.31 || SCCDC || Renewal Rental Assistance – CH Persons with Mental Illness || $107,692 ||
 * 6 || 75.66 || Buckelew Programs || Samaritan (FACT) || $81,987 ||
 * 7 || 75.00 || SCCDC || Renewal Rental Assistance – Youth With Disabilities || $71,018 ||
 * 8 || 74.45 || Catholic Charities || PSH 3 || $239,943 ||
 * 9 || 72.42 || Buckelew Programs || Sonoma SHP || $205,167 ||
 * 10 || 70.80 || SCCDC || Renewal Rental Assistance – Persons with HIV/AIDS || $804,182 ||
 * 11 || 69.22 || Catholic Charities || PSH 2 || $256,121 ||
 * 12 || N/A || SCCDC || Coordinated Intake || $102,198 ||
 * 13 || N/A || SCCDC || HMIS || $137,907 ||
 * 14 || N/A || SCCDC || Coordinated Intake Expansion || $247,793 ||
 * 15 || N/A || SCCDC || HMIS Expansion || $50,000 ||
 * Tier 2 ||  ||   ||   ||   ||
 * 16* || 67.49 || SCCDC || Renewal Rental Assistance – Persons with Disabilities || $192,088 ||
 * 17 || N/A || Social Advocates for Youth || Sponsor Based Rental Assistance || $97,444 ||
 * 18 || N/A || West County Community Services || Cherry Creek Village || $53,243 ||
 * 19 || 71.38 || Guerneville Permanent Supportive Housing Bonus Project || Sonoma County Community Development Commission || $149,336 ||

FY 2016 CoC Competition Reallocation Process
====The CoC Reallocation Process for the FY 2016 is now complete. No funds will be reallocated for new projects in the FY 2016 CoC Competition. Please see the attached document for more information on the process for reallocation in 2016 as well as full details on the CoC Board's recommendations.====

The Sonoma County Continuum of Care released its Local Request for Proposals (RFP) on Monday, July 11, 2016. The full RFP can be found here:
Sonoma County agencies are eligible for approximately $3.2 million in funding through the Continuum of Care Competition. Please refer to the Schedule of Events below as well as the Local RFP for full details on the 2016 process.

== Notice is hereby given that the Sonoma County Continuum of Care Local Request For Proposals (RFP) for the FY 2016 Continuum of Care Competition will be released on July 11, 2016. The Local RFP will include information on funding for new Permanent Supportive Housing Bonus Projects as well as other important information in the 2016 CoC Competition. == 2016 Sonoma County Continuum of Care Competiton Schedule of Events 10:00 am-12:00 pm, at Sonoma County Community Development Commission, 1440 Guerneville Road, Santa Rosa || 3:00pm – 5:00pm, at Sonoma County Community Development Commission, 1440 Guerneville Road, Santa Rosa // This is a collaborative application. Those with e-snaps experience are expected to assist newer applicants. New applicants should obtain a DUNS number and SAM registration prior to the session if possible ////. // || 10:00am – 12:00 pm at Sonoma County Community Development Commission, 1440 Guerneville Road, Santa Rosa || 5-Sept || Technical review/corrections, priority ranking & Consolidated Plan certifications ||
 * ** Date ** || ** Action ** ||
 * 28-June || NOFA for FY 2016 Funds Released ||
 * 11-July || Local Request for Proposals issued, including new funding availability and Renewal/Reallocation forms. ||
 * ** 15-July ** || ** Renewal and Reallocation Questionnaire Due to CoC Coordinator by 5pm ** ||
 * ** 18-July ** || ** MANDATORY Bidder’s Conference for NEW Projects **
 * ^  || ** Technical Assistance Session for Applicants: Introduction to //e-Snaps// **
 * ** 1-August ** || ** Technical Assistance Session for All Applicants: Project Applications in //e-snaps// **
 * ** 12-August ** || ** New and Renewal Project Application(s) and Supplemental Questionnaire due in e-Snaps, 11:59pm ** ||
 * 22-August || CoC Rating and Ranking Committee Review of New Project Applications ||
 * 23-August || CoC Board Final Approval of New Projects and Ranking and Ratings ||
 * 24-August || Publication of new project selctions and Priority Listings //(earlier if possible)// on the CoC wiki at: http://sonoma-county-continuum-of-care.wikispaces.com/2015+Continuum+of+Care+Competition ||
 * 24-Aug-
 * 14- Sept || Final Submission Due in e-snaps ||

** 2016 Sonoma County Continuum of Care – Process for Reallocation and Making Cuts ** To create a pool of reallocated funds from which to create new projects, the Sonoma County Continuum of Care works through its Renewal Project Evaluation Process to make voluntary and involuntary cuts; and makes additional voluntary cuts during the NOFA period if new opportunities emerge.
 * 1) ** ** Reallocation via Renewal Project Evaluations ** The Sonoma County CoC Evaluation Committee both prioritizes renewal projects for the CoC application, and identifies projects with capacity concerns for corrective action and technical assistance. Scoring is based on unmet housing need, alignment with 10-year plan goals, performance on HUD measurements, and grant management. Because of the scoring schema’s weighting by unmet housing need (a need which is overwhelmingly for permanent supportive housing), SSO and TH projects must perform exceedingly well to be approved for renewal. Projects are scored by the CoC Coordinator on a preliminary basis. The CoC Evaluation Committee meets to review preliminary scores and conduct a risk assessment to guide evaluation. A threshold for unconditional renewal is set at 75% of top score; projects scoring above the line are scheduled for monitoring visits only. Projects scoring below that line are invited to a meeting of the full CoC Evaluation Committee to discuss the challenges faced by the project and design a Corrective Action Plan. Known problems are described in the invitation and applicants are asked to address them and bring any other concerns to the Committee’s attention; under-spent contracts and other issues are noted for discussion and possible follow-up. At the meeting, applicants and the Committee together identify areas of improvement and what resources are needed to help the project improve its performance. Grantees have the opportunity to provide new information that sometimes raises their score above the unconditional renewal threshold. Through a summary letter recording the conversation and follow-up communications, over the course of 6 weeks each applicant is guided through a process of determining whether to submit additional documentation to revise scoring, undertake Corrective Action or to voluntarily release the project funding for reallocation. If corrective action plans and technical assistance are unsuccessful in improving project performance to the expected level over several years, or in particularly egregious cases (for example, serious concerns about grant management), the Committee has recommended reallocating funds without further corrective action. The Committee’s work is followed by a full report to the CoC Board, which reviews its work both in process and at the end of the designated period to develop Corrective Action Plans. The CoC Board makes the final decision regarding renewal with or without conditions vs. reallocation. // Note: // Since publication of the CoC Interim Rule in 2011, the Evaluation Committee has also reviewed each project’s continued eligibility under the new CoC regulation. If eligibility concerns emerge, these are discussed with the grantee even if the project scores above the threshold for unconditional renewal. Reallocations are made in the following situations:
 * ** Voluntary Cuts: ** Following discussion of performance and/or continued project eligibility, and applicant consideration of corrective action needed, the applicant may voluntarily opt not to renew and/or to seek continued funding from non-CoC sources.
 * ** Involuntary Cuts: ** In cases where the CoC Evaluation Committee records major concerns over several years, the Committee may recommend cutting the project without further corrective action. This decision must be confirmed by CoC governing body. Applicants may appeal the decision, and the appeal must be considered by the CoC governing body.
 * 2) ** ** Reallocation based on new opportunities identified during the NOFA Period: ** Upon HUD’s release of the annual NOFA, all provisions of the NOFA are reviewed. If the NOFA indicates further ways to maximize Annual Renewal Demand, renewal grantees are polled with a Renewal Intent to Apply Questionnaire, to confirm that they intend to apply for the full approved amount, or to indicate they are open to a reduction. Continuing discussion takes place with those agencies to ensure the reduction makes sense. **All cuts at this phase are voluntary**

== =**2016 Continuum of Care Evaluation Process**= The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires that local CoC’s prioritize the projects submitted in our consolidated application. As in past years, project priorities will be generated by a scoring system, site visits and interviews by an impartial Evaluation Committee made up of local funders and former funder volunteers. HUD recently indicated its intent to open its application period between April-June of 2016. **Preliminary Rating and Rankings of Renewal Projects** The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires local CoC’s to prioritize the projects submitted in our annual consolidated application. In the Sonoma County CoC, these project priorities are generated by a scoring system, site visits and interviews by an impartial Evaluation Committee. The CoC may submit all projects for renewal, or may reallocate funds from one or more projects to create new housing and supportive services projects. The full Evaluation Committee Report can be viewed here:

On March 4th, 2016, the Sonoma County Continuum of Care began its local rating and ranking process for renewal projects in the 2016 CoC consolidated application. Of the 19 renewal projects the Coordinated Intake Project and the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) are both mandated system infrastructure projects for which the Sonoma County Community Development Commission (SCCDC) is the grantee. In addition, new awards to expand each of these projects were announced in May 2016. Because they are both mandated and differ so much from projects that provide direct services, these projects were not scored as part of the evaluation process but are assumed to be a part of the 2016 renewal package.

The remaining 15 projects were scored by the CoC Coordinator and the HMIS Coordinator using 2016 Scoring Criteria. SCCDC accounting staff assisted the CoC Coordinator with reviewing agency audits and monitoring questions.

The 2016 CoC Evaluation Committee was staffed by the Continuum of Care Coordinator, Michael Gause, and was comprised of the following members:
 * Jenny Abramson, Sonoma County Community Development Commission
 * Gale Brownell, Advocacy Representative for CoC Board
 * Sue Castellucci, City of Petaluma
 * Nancy Gornowicz, City of Santa Rosa
 * Eleanor Grogan, Community Foundation Sonoma County
 * Jen Lewis, Sonoma County Department of Health Services
 * Kai Nissley, Santa Rosa Community Health Centers
 * Joni Thacher, Sonoma County Department of Human Services

__Annual Renewal Demand (ARD) for 2016 is $2,986,734.__

__Unconditional and Conditional Renewal__

The CoC’s practice is to establish a threshold for unconditional renewal at 75% of the top score. In 2016, the top score was 82.67, setting the minimum threshold at 62.00. All projects in 2016 that submitted full renewal packets scored above the threshold are approved for renewal without conditions. Projects scoring below the 75% threshold are invited to discuss their situation with the Evaluation Committee. The CoC Evaluation Committee typically works on corrective action with lower-performing projects for a year; if problems continue, projects may be reallocated in the following cycle. The Continuum of Care Evaluation Committee held its first meeting on April 11th, 2016, and reviewed the preliminary scores below:

//*Project had partial draft performance report// //**Project had no performance reporting at the time of review, but provided some information.**//
 * **Priority** || **Score** || **Agency** || **Project** || **Amount** ||
 * 1 || 82.67 || COTS || Community Based PSH 2 || $135,960 ||
 * 2 || 82.22 || COTS || Community Based PSH 1 || $82,372 ||
 * 3 || 81.85 || CSN || Stony Point Commons || $47,694 ||
 * 4 || 79.33 || Community Housing Sonoma County || Mill Street Supportive Housing || $73,925 ||
 * 5 || 78.31 || SCCDC || Renewal Rental Assistance – CH Persons with Mental Illness || $107,692 ||
 * 6 || 77.74 || Catholic Charities || PSH 1 || $98,748 ||
 * 7 || 75.66 || Buckelew Programs || Samaritan (FACT) || $81,987 ||
 * 8 || 75.00 || SCCDC || Renewal Rental Assistance – Youth With Disabilities || $71,018 ||
 * 9 || 72.42 || Buckelew Programs || Sonoma SHP || $205,167 ||
 * 10 || 70.80 || SCCDC || Renewal Rental Assistance – Persons with HIV/AIDS || $804,182 ||
 * 11 || 67.49 || SCCDC || Renewal Rental Assistance – Persons with Disabilities || $192,088 ||
 * 12* || 65.89 || Catholic Charities || PSH 2 || $261,697 ||
 * 13* || 64.13 || Catholic Charities || PSH 3 || $146,792 ||
 * 14 || N/A || Social Advocates for Youth || Sponsor Based Rental Assistance || $97,444 ||
 * 15 || N/A || West County Community Services || Cherry Creek Village || $54,499 ||
 * 16 || N/A || SCCDC || Coordinated Intake || $102,198 ||
 * 17 || N/A || SCCDC || HMIS || $137,907 ||
 * 18 || N/A || SCCDC || Coordinated Intake Expansion || $247,793 ||
 * 19 || N/A || SCCDC || HMIS Expansion || $50,000 ||

Please read the following instructions carefully: Projects that were renewed without conditions in 2015, and whose documentation presents no concerns, will continue to be visited on a 3-year rotation.
 * 1.** Collection and Scoring **of performance data, background documents, project and agency monitoring questionnaires.**
 * 2**. Site Visits and Interviews** will be scheduled for projects and/or agencies that require visits based on:
 * Concerns following review of documentation and scoring;
 * Concerns or corrective action plans in 2014 or 2015; or
 * Projects renewing for the first time.


 * __Phase One: Collection and Scoring (March 25th – April 8th)__**


 * Please see the attached checklist of required documents to be submitted byMarch 25th, 2016.**

Scoring for 2016 renewal projects has changed from 2015; the scoring schema is attached to this memo. Projects are scored on:
 * Performance on outcomes we report to HUD (48 points)
 * Alignment with local priorities (10-Year Plan goals) (6 points)
 * Agency Capacity (46 points)

Scores will be derived from the project’s most recent Annual Performance Report (APR), mid-year APRs where appropriate, review of HMIS and other compliance (including HUD monitoring or audits), and responses to monitoring questionnaires.

The Evaluation Committee will meet on Monday, April 11th, 2016 to review preliminary scores and determine which projects will receive site visits and which will be interviewed.

If your project is selected for a site visit or interview, you will be notified via email by April 13th, 2016.
 * __Phase Two: Interviews and Site Visits to Selected Projects (April 18th – May 6th)__**

You and your staff may be invited to an interview with the Evaluation Committee, tentatively scheduled for the week of May 2nd to discuss concerns that may have arisen through the review process. Alternatively, the CoC Coordinator may contact you to schedule a site visit during the period **April 18th – May 6th**. Both interviews and site visits will enable providers to discuss project and agency monitoring forms and address any questions that have arisen with committee members. **Please have the program manager and direct service staff of the program present, as well as the person in charge of financial and grants management.**

On **April 26th, 2016** the CoC Board will receive an initial report on the projects.


 * Conditional vs. Unconditional Renewal**

Policies for conditional vs. unconditional renewal are as follows: once projects have been scored, **a threshold for unconditional renewal will be established** at 75% of the top score. Projects scoring below the threshold will be asked to develop a plan to address performance issues by next year’s competition, or to voluntarily give up award moneys to be reallocated to a new project. Determination of any conditions to renewal will be made by May 6th, 2016. Any required Corrective Action Plans must be submitted for approval by May 25th, 2016, so that a final determination can be made as to whether the project goes forward for renewal, via the CoC Coordinator’s recommendation to the CoC Board. A final list of renewal projects will be presented to the CoC Board on May 31st, 2016.
 * Looking Forward to the 2016 CoC Application Period**

We anticipate the 2016 application period may open as early as May and that the evaluation process could potentially overlap into the application period. If the application is delayed 30 days or more following completion of the evaluation process, staff will distribute a Reallocation Questionnaire by which CoC-funded agencies must inform the CoC if they do **//not//** intend to submit a project for renewal, or if they expect to **//reduce//** their request. We will also release a local RFP for possible new projects after the 2016 application is released.