Rating and Selection: How the panels score Feasibility, Strategy and Impact

1
Rating and Selection How the panels score
Feasibility, Strategy and Impact
2
Overview

• Each category has up to 110 points available
  scored in five levels by the review panels
• Level One (Not Feasible/No Strategy/No
  Impact) 0.0
• Level Two (Poor) 27.5
• Level Three (Average) 55.0
• Level Four (Good) 82.5
• Level Five (Excellent) 110.0

3
Basic Rating and Selection Approaches

• Panels score Feasibility, Strategy, and Impact,
• Like applications are compared against like
  applications
• Four review panels Water Sewer,
  Buildings/Street and Drainage, Housing, ED
• Within groups of like applications, comparisons
  are made

4
Feasibility See Applicants Manual

• Verification and reasonableness of cost
• Documentation that all project financing sources
  needed for the project will be available
• Where applicable, documentation that preliminary
  engineering, architectural and or site plans have
  been prepared and support the proposed project
• Verification that any required property is
  available for the project
• Where applicable, review of any proposed
  recipients or subrecipients ability to provide
  administrative capacity or to undertake an
  approved activity
• Compliance with applicable state and federal laws
• Reasonable project timetables

5
Feasibility Level 5

• All or almost all criteria are thoroughly
  addressed and documented
• If Special Conditions are required, they are
  minor and easily cleared
• The project will be able to proceed with little
  if any impediment
• Discrepancies in budgets or beneficiary counts
  are minor, if any

6
Feasibility Level 4

• Most criteria are thoroughly addressed and
  documented
• Some impediments to implementation appear
• PER/PAR incomplete/confusing
• All applicable laws not addressed, e.g., URA,
  Section 3
• Commitments are conditional
• Maps are difficult to read
• Survey method somewhat unclear
• A number of minor discrepancies may exist and are
  beginning to add up

7
Feasibility Level 3

• Some criteria are thoroughly addressed and
  documented
• Major impediments to implementation appear
• Significant elements missing from PER/PAR
• Important laws not addressed, e.g., URA, COI,
  Lead-based paint
• Leverage/other commitments are not documented
• Major survey method issues appear, e.g., adequacy
  of surveyed, discrepancies between households
  on maps and of households surveyed, etc.
• Needed items not budgeted

8
Feasibility Level 2

• Few if any criteria are thoroughly addressed and
  documented
• Major and minor impediments to implementation
  appear
• Significant elements missing from PER/PAR
• Important laws not addressed, e.g., URA, Section
  3
• Leverage/other commitments are not documented
• Major survey method issues appear, e.g., adequacy
  of surveyed, discrepancies between households
  on maps and of households surveyed, etc.
• Needed items not budgeted

9
Feasibility Level 1

• Few if any criteria are thoroughly addressed and
  documented
• Major and minor impediments to implementation
  appear
• Other issues
• Project may be ineligible for funding, e.g.,
  ineligible activities proposed, no National
  Objective met
• PER/PAR Missing
• No clear financing plan for housing included

10
Strategy See Applicants Manual

• An analysis of alternative solutions to address
  the identified problems and the costs of those
  solutions compared to the alternative chosen
• As appropriate, an analysis of the steps taken by
  the applicant to adopt policies or ordinances to
  prevent the reoccurrence of the identified
  problem within their jurisdiction (copies of
  these local policies or ordinances should be
  included in the application when applicable to
  document local action on identified problems or
  for further explanation of local strategies)
• An analysis of the ongoing financial effort that
  the applicant has made or will make to address
  the identified problem and to maintain and
  operate the proposed project, facility or system
• The extent of benefit to persons of low- and
  moderate-income
• Multi-activity applications will also be compared
  in terms of the projects' support of
  comprehensive community or neighborhood
  conservation, stabilization, revitalization and
  the degree of residents support and involvement.

11
Strategy See Applicants Manual

• Conformance with Georgia Planning Act
• Conformance with Service Delivery Strategy
  (O.C.G.A. 36-70-20)

12
Strategy Level 5

• All or almost all criteria are thoroughly
  addressed and documented.
• Alternative solutions have been addressed and
  costed out
• For water and sewer applications, financial
  alternatives are thoroughly discussed.

13
Strategy Level 4

• Most criteria are thoroughly addressed and
  documented
• Some of strategy issues below appear
• Alternatives inadequately addressed
• Prevention is inadequately addressed
• Commitments for maintenance and operation unclear
  or are missing
• Area of benefit not drawn correctly

14
Strategy Level 4 (cont.)

• Some of strategy issues below appear (cont.)
• Compliance with Planning Act and SDS not fully
  addressed
• Not all concentration maps have been submitted
• Specific issues related to application type not
  fully addressed
• Approach to solving the problem not fully
  justified

15
Strategy Level 3

• Some criteria are thoroughly addressed and
  documented
• Major/multiple strategy concerns appear
• Alternatives, including financial, not addressed
• Area benefit not drawn correctly
• Panel unable to assess strategy due to lack of
  information/maps
• Activities dont hang together/arent
  comprehensive

16
Strategy Level 2

• Few if any criteria are thoroughly addressed and
  documented
• Major and minor strategy issues appear
• Approach to solving the problem is not coherent

17
Strategy Level 1

• Few if any criteria are thoroughly addressed and
  documented
• Major and minor strategy issues appear
• Approach to solving the problem is not coherent
• Other issues
• Project may be ineligible for funding, e.g.,
  ineligible activities proposed, no National
  Objective met

18
Impact See Applicants Manual

• The number of persons benefiting
• The cost per person benefiting (the cost per
  person is calculated by dividing the total CDBG
  grant by the total number of people benefiting,
  i.e., the total population of the target area or
  the total number of projected clientele to be
  served)
• The projects impact on the benefiting
  populations quality of life, living environment
  or opportunities for economic advancement
• An analysis of the documented severity of need
• The impact of the project on the identified need
  or problem

19
Impact Level 5

• Severity of need is extremely high
• Health and safety issues are paramount and the
  severity of need has been documented by third
  parties and/or clear photos
• People are significantly affected in their homes
• The application has documented both the
  prevalence and the frequency of the problem and
  prevalence or frequency are significant issues
• The cost per person is average or below average
  or the severity of need offsets a high cost per
  person
• The proposed project will ameliorate 100 of the
  need described

20
Impact Level 4

• Severity of need is high compared to others
• Health and safety issues are significant and the
  severity of need has been documented by third
  parties and/or clear photos
• People are significantly affected in their homes
• The application has documented both the
  prevalence and the frequency of the problem and
  prevalence or frequency are important issues
• The cost per person is average or below average
  or the severity of need offsets a high cost per
  person
• The proposed project will ameliorate 100 of the
  need described

21
Impact Level 3

• Severity of need is average compared to others
• Health and safety issues are less significant
  than in other applications
• Adequate documentation may be an issue
• People are not significantly affected in their
  homes
• Or problems described not as severe as other
  applicants
• Prevalence and the frequency are not documented
• The cost per person is above average and is not
  off-set by a high need
• The proposed project may not ameliorate 100 of
  the need described

22
Impact Level 2

• Need is not adequately described
• Severity of need is not documented
• The cost per person is above average and is not
  off-set by a high need
• The proposed project may not ameliorate 100 of
  the need described

23
Impact Level 1

• Need is not adequately described
• Severity of need is not documented
• The cost per person is above average and is not
  off-set by a high need
• The proposed project may not ameliorate 100 of
  the need described
• Other issues
• Project may be ineligible for funding, e.g.,
  ineligible activities proposed, no National
  Objective met

24
Impact - Most severe health and safety issues

• For water and sewer
• Contaminated water sewage backing up into homes
• For street and drainage
• Impassable streets, damage to homes
• For buildings
• No facility, unsafe facility, severely
  overcrowded facility
• For housing
• Documented substandard and/or dilapidated
  conditions of occupied units

25

• Questions?