PUBLIC COMMENTS ON PROPOSED 2021 MONROE/NELA COMPETITION METHODOLOGY (Public Comment Period Now Closed)

THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC COMMENTS ON PROPOSED SCORE SHEETS WITHIN THE PUBLIC COMMENTS PERIOD:

These questions were submitted about the Equity/Access checklist. An updated version was developed reflecting the valid points raised. This version (updated 10-1-21) is posted on the Grant Competition page with the final score sheets.

Q: We have a few questions regarding the equality access checklist provided this week.  As you are aware, many large applicant agencies have multiple CoC projects.  After reviewing the form, we are needing to know if this needs to be completed per project or by the agency as a whole.

A: The form has been amended to more clearly indicate which questions apply to the applicant agency as a whole and which are specific to the project the application is addressing.

Q: For example on question 2 (Outreach) check number 4, discusses the advertisement of services. Each project budget does not have funds available for expensive forms of advertisement.  However, the agency as a whole does have funds to provide advertising for things such as veterans commercials, DV commercials, billboards, etc.. that do cover the service area.

A: The form has been amended to show that Question 2 is to be answered from the perspective of the applicant agency as a whole. “Advertising” is not limited to paid media; PSAs (donated ads) are also advertising as are sponsorships as long as they are acknowledged by name.

Q: Additionally, one of the main ways of advertising is social media that is not addressed on the form.

A: A check item has been added to Question 2 specifically addressing social media which should not have been omitted.

Q: Question 2 check number 7 (staff representation):  While the agency has employees on staff from targeted populations, the agency allows staff to self- identify if they wish to share this info with others.  We cannot and do not require staff to reveal histories of abuse, trauma, mental illness, etc…

A: This check item has been removed as it is indeed unclear (no one expects victims of trauma, etc., to be required to disclose that). The topic of inclusion is addressed more appropriately in the questions about racial equity and input from persons with lived experience.

Q: Question number 6 discusses Board and committee assignments of subpopulations.  Many nonprofit Boards and advisory boards include representations from subpopulations.  However, requiring individuals representing each of multiple CoC projects would impact a Board’s diversity matrix. 

A: This question has been clarified to indicate it is from the perspective of the applicant agency as a whole vs. from the individual program.

Q The 4th check number indicates a time frame of the last 7 years.  However, the 5th check number does not include a time frame.

A: The wording of this item was taken directly from the NOFO. While the NOFO’s wording is not clear, we assume that they meant the persons with lived experience homeless in the last 7 years, so the question has been edited to clarify that.

The following question was submitted during the public comment period regarding the Bonus Points optional checklist. Because it was a technical question best answered by HUD, it was submitted to HUD to address. Their answer is below:

Q: Regarding NOFO p. 77 item 6. Coordination with Housing and Healthcare Bonus Points (below) –

  1. Item 6a. reads that the points are available for “CoCs that apply for at least one new PSH or RRH project … “ But in 6b. it reads “points are available for CoCs that apply for at least one PSH or RRH that utilizes….”  DOES THE B. PART OF THAT ITEM 6 APPLY TO COCS THAT APPLY FOR NEW PROJECTS ONLY OR DOES THE B. PART ALSO APPLY TO COCS WHO SUBMIT ANY PSH OR RRH, NEW OR RENEWAL, THAT FIT THAT CRITERIA?
  2. On p. 78, that 6b item continues “Acceptable forms of commitment are formal written agreements and must include: * value of commitment, and * dates the healthcare resources will be provided.” IS THE VALUE OF IN KIND SERVICES AND/OR SPACE PROVIDED BY A HEALTHCARE PROVIDER CONSIDERED AN APPROPRIATE VALUE TO INCLUDE IN THE COMMITMENT?  

A: Answer from HUD below. Based on the answer, the Monroe-NELA Competition Bonus Points form was revised on 10-1-21 and the updated form posted on the Grant Competition website clarifying it is applicable only to new project applications.

RECEIVED Sept. 28, 2021, FROM HUD SNAPS PROGRAM: “Thank you for your questions, to reply:

  1. Sections VII.B.6.a and b only apply if the CoC submits at least one new permanent supportive housing and rapid rehousing project application.
  2. Yes, the value of in-kind services that includes the value is appropriate for the commitment; however, while you can use the space provided by a healthcare provider as leverage, it does not meet the criteria.  To meet the criteria you must demonstrate actual services being provided.”