Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs - Building Homes and Strengthening Communities
Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs
Sign up Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
Naomi Cantu

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 33
 #1 

A score will be determined for each Program Participant service proposed. An Application would receive a score for the uniform selection criteria and a separate score for each service proposed: street outreach, emergency shelter, homelessness prevention, and/or rapid re-housing (see Topic: ESG Application Criteria for a description of the Application sections). Each Program Participant service has the potential to receive the same number of points. The uniform selection criteria and score for Program Participant service would be added together to create a combined score for each service.

For example, if Applicant ABC applied for street outreach and emergency shelter the Applicant would receive a separate score for each service that would be added to the uniform selection criteria. If Applicant ABC had a uniform selection criteria score of 50 points, and a score of 30 points for street outreach, and a score of 20 points for emergency shelter, then the scores for this Applicant would be 80 points for street outreach and 70 points for street outreach; each of which will compete separately.

An Applicant’s combined score for each Program Participant Service will compete with other Applicants’ combined scores. For example, Applicant ABC may compete with Applicant XYZ, which had a combined score of 90 points for rapid re-housing and combined score of 50 points for homelessness prevention. In this scenario, the ranking of Applications would be:

A. Applicant XYZ rapid re-housing: 90 points
B. Applicant ABC street outreach: 80 points
C. Applicant ABC emergency shelter: 70 points
D. Applicant XYZ homelessness prevention: 50 points

Applicants would have access to available funding through their rank. This scoring is different than the 2017/2018 ESG Application process in which the Application received one score that included all services and, if the Application was funded, all the services in that Application were funded. In the 2019/2020 ESG Application process, an Applicant may propose several different Program Participant services and be funded for none, some or all of those services.

  1. What are the benefits or challenges to have each Program Participant service compete with other Program Participant services?
  2. What are the benefits or challenges of an Applicant potentially receiving funding for some but not all of their Program Participant services?
  3. If ESG did not have each Program Participant service compete with other Program Participant services, what would be an alternate method for competition, not including collaborative applications?
Wabrams

Registered:
Posts: 1
 #2 
We have the following questions regarding the ESG application scoring process going forward:

How will you ensure that self-assessment is fair for all applicants? If underperformance has occurred, will the previous lead and subgrantee both be penalized, or will points be assessed based on the independent programmatic responsibility of each organization?

How will you handle the competitive edge that former lead applicants will have over their previous sub-recipients in terms of grant management, performance outcomes, and selection of service categories now that all entities will apply for funding separately? 
Naomi Cantu

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 33
 #3 

Here is some clarification to the questions from Ms. Abramson:

We are unclear what you mean by “self-assessment.” If you are referring to the self-score process for each Applicant, then TDHCA will work to ensure that there is guidance as to how the Applicant may score its Application before submission to TDHCA.

The 2018 ESG awards are changing from Subrecipients with subgrantees to direct contracts with the ESG providers (unless the providers were procured). During the 2018 ESG contract preparation, the Department is requesting former subgrantees to confirm or make changes to the performance and budgets submitted by the lead agency. The former subgrantees will become direct Subrecipients which will then have an ESG contract for which they agreed on the performance and budgets. The performance or under-performance will be a reflection of the contracts with the Subrecipient; there will not be lead agencies for 2018 ESG awards. Each Subrecipient will be held to the performance reflected in their contract and reported in the Contract System.

It is not assumed that former lead agencies will have a competitive edge over the former subgrantees. In addition, subgrantees were held to the grant management and reporting requirements that the Subrecipients were required to meet.

danishaw

Registered:
Posts: 4
 #4 
  1. What are the benefits or challenges to have each Program Participant service compete with other Program Participant services?
  2. What are the benefits or challenges of an Applicant potentially receiving funding for some but not all of their Program Participant services?
  3. If ESG did not have each Program Participant service compete with other Program Participant services, what would be an alternate method for competition, not including collaborative applications?


Just as a general comment, this new application and contracting process is a step backwards. From coordinated entry to system wide solutions to this complex problem, these are now being pushed aside and reinforcing silos. Even taking into account a single agency that runs multiple program participant services, there is a chance that only one service area may be funded resulting in an inability to met performance outcomes without funding for multiple services. TDHCA could still allow for collaborative applications and contract separately with each agency.

kate.bennett

Registered:
Posts: 4
 #5 

We agree that collaborative applications in which each agency directly contracts with TDHCA would be the best solution to ensure collaborations across communities. We also worry that the proposed application structure will dilute funding and create silos in communities. 

If multi-agency collaborative applications are not an option, could agencies submit consolidated applications that will be an umbrella for multiple project types? Does TDHCA see any advantages in agencies providing more than one ESG service (we do) and could that be considered when scoring applications? We believe that HMIS project applications should be paired/consolidated with ES, SO or RRH project applications. 

If consolidated applications are an option, TDHCA would need to create criteria for how to score and rank consolidated multi-service applications vs. individual project applications. One possible method to do this could be:

  1. Allow agencies to submit consolidated applications as well as individual project applications
  2. TDHCA adopts some sort of threshold criteria (i.e. high performance) and reviews each project application. For agencies who submitted consolidated applications, all their project applications must pass criteria for their application to move forward as a consolidated project – so they will receive one score and opportunity to be funded for all services proposed (one contract for multiple services).
  3. For agencies who submitted consolidated applications whose application included projects that did not meet criteria, their projects will each be reviewed and scored individually (could possible mean multiple contracts for services)
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.