SNAPS In Focus: FY 2015 CoC Program Competition Recap

Is this email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development HUD Exchange Mailing List

SNAPS In Focus: FY 2015 CoC Program Competition Recap

As we move into the FY 2016 Competition, I want to take a moment to reflect back on the FY 2015 Competition to explain the results and describe why we made some of the policy decisions we did.

The FY 2015 NOFA process was challenging for all Continuums of Care (CoCs), but especially for the CoCs and projects that lost funding. Although renewal funding has never been guaranteed, this year, CoCs had much more at stake, with both the possibility of increased funding for new projects and the risk of losing funding for renewals. I know many of our partners in communities had to make difficult decisions about which projects to prioritize. Those providers with projects that did not get renewed are going to face the extremely challenging task of finding alternative funding, downsizing, or closing and working to ensure that people currently served by those projects are not harmed. We will provide guidance and technical assistance resources to help CoCs and providers.

Factors That Informed the FY 2015 Competition

Our approach to the past several Competitions, including the FY 2015 Competition, has been informed by many factors, including:
  • Policy Goals - In 2010, the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) published Opening Doors: Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness, which relied on input from an unprecedented number of stakeholders, including practitioners, researchers, public officials, and most importantly, people with lived experience. Since then, we have worked to align the CoC program with the goals and strategies in that plan.
  • Congressional Directive - In our recent appropriations bills, Congress has directed HUD to make the CoC program more competitive and ensure that lower performing projects were not automatically renewed. These directives complement the HEARTH Act’s focus on outcomes and system performance.
  • Research on Homelessness – much of the research, including the Family Options Study, have clearly indicated that permanent housing strategies, such as permanent supportive housing and rapid re-housing, are more cost effective and achieve the same or better outcomes than other types of homeless assistance. We work to support these research-based strategies through the Competition and encourage communities to adopt them.
Over the past several years, thanks in part to increases in funding for veteran homelessness programs, we have witnessed important progress on ending homelessness. Overall, the number of people experiencing homelessness has steadily declined and that progress was concentrated among the most vulnerable populations, including people living unsheltered, those who have disabilities, and families with children. However, when we look at the progress made at ending homelessness for non-veterans, this progress has been much slower, and in recent years, appears to have tapered off.

During this same period of time, funding for the CoC Program has been just enough to continue existing levels of assistance. It has become clear that we need to more efficiently prioritize our CoC Program resources to make significant strides in ending homelessness. Research and the experience of leading communities is telling us that prioritizing people with the greatest needs, focusing on data and performance, and relying on permanent housing strategies are key to ending homelessness. While communities have used the CoC program and the CoC application process to greatly improve homeless assistance, we also continue to fund many lower-performing projects and ones using outdated program models.

Increasing Progress on Ending Homelessness

Those of us working in the federal government on homelessness programs have a deep commitment to ending homelessness. It is the reason I entered public service, and it is what motivates everyone in the SNAPS office and our friends working on homelessness here at HUD and throughout the federal government. It is what leads us to constantly try to improve our programs and make them more effective. For the FY 2015 CoC Competition, we made several changes to the CoC Competition that we hoped would accelerate progress to end homelessness. We had several goals in mind:
  • Increase the focus on data and performance;
  • Increase the capacity of coordinated entry systems to prioritize people who most needed assistance;
  • Allocate resources to the types of projects that were most likely to reduce homelessness;
  • Encourage CoCs to more actively manage and oversee the projects in their geographic areas to ensure that they are effective and efficient; and
  • Ensure that homelessness programs are using housing first approaches to serve people who most need assistance and are doing so using client-driven approaches.
To better achieve these goals, we implemented numerous changes in the FY 2015 Competition:
  • The CoC application focused even more on improving outcomes, lowering barriers, and developing partnerships with key mainstream partners.
  • We significantly increased resources for CoC planning to the maximum allowed. These resources will enable CoCs to better analyze performance data and more actively manage their communities’ response to homelessness. (See more on this topic in the SNAPS In Focus: CoC Planning message.)
  • We set a Tier 1 threshold of 85% of each CoC’s Annual Renewal Demand (ARD) amount to ensure that CoCs had the opportunity to protect the highest priority projects in their communities.
  • We created a robust competition among Tier 2 projects to encourage more reallocation to permanent housing, Homeless Management Information Systems (HMIS), and coordinated entry projects; encourage projects to use a housing first approach; and reward CoCs that were performing better at reducing homelessness and implementing strategies that would lead to further progress.
As a result of the steps we implemented in this Competition, many communities will receive funding for new projects that will house tens of thousands of people experiencing homelessness. At the same time, many renewal projects were not funded and face the difficult task of finding alternative funding for, downsizing, or closing down longstanding programs. I believe the most important outcome of the Competition is that CoCs, even some who lost funding this year, made very hard choices that will position them to make more progress in the future. I have been impressed with the way so many CoCs carefully evaluated projects and prioritized the ones that are higher performing and will ultimately lead to better outcomes. Homelessness systems will be more efficient and effective because of these efforts.

Initial Outcomes of the FY 2015 Competition

Here are some of our early estimates of the changes in projects that we funded nationally:
  • Funding for permanent supportive housing projects increased by approximately $165 million to $1.41 billion. Of this, approximately $115 million represents 7,500 additional permanent supportive housing units, and the rest is a result of increases needed to keep up with rising housing costs.
  • Funding for rapid re-housing projects doubled to $197 million. We estimate that this funding will serve approximately 30,000 more households experiencing homelessness than if there had been no increase.
  • Funding for transitional housing projects declined by $155 million to $171 million. As a result, CoC Program-funded transitional housing will serve approximately 15,000 fewer households than the previous year.
We have done some analysis of these changes, especially for unaccompanied youth and families with children. Overall, funding for projects serving unaccompanied youth will rise by over 50 percent. Permanent supportive housing, rapid re-housing, and transitional housing projects combined will serve twice as many youth as the previous year. CoCs created many new youth rapid re-housing projects. The CoC Program will also provide more funding for projects serving families with children. While we will serve fewer families in transitional housing, many more will receive rapid re-housing. As a result, The CoC Program will serve approximately 20,000 more families with children in permanent supportive housing, rapid re-housing, and transitional housing combined. CoCs also dedicated more of their existing permanent supportive housing to people experiencing chronic homelessness. While the number of units of permanent supportive housing will increase by about 7,500 (containing approximately 10,000 beds), the number of dedicated permanent supportive housing beds will rise by about 15,000.

The decreases in transitional housing and other projects will create hardships for many communities. However, in looking at the net impact of these changes, it is clear that these changes will result in the CoC Program serving more people experiencing homelessness and serve them better than ever before.

Preliminary CoC and Project Score Observations

I know many of our partners are interested in knowing what factors made CoCs more or less competitive and why certain projects did not receive funding. We will be providing debriefing resources in the next few weeks that will explain each CoC’s score, but here are a few preliminary observations.

The range of CoC scores was very large. The highest possible score was 203, and the weighted median was 158.25. Congratulations to Houston, Pasadena/Harris, Fort Bend Counties CoC, who received the highest score in this Competition of 188. Meanwhile, the lowest scoring CoC received a score of 49.5. There were many factors that influenced a CoC’s score, but the most important one was improving the performance of the CoC, especially in areas such as reducing the number of people experiencing homelessness in the community and improving permanent housing outcomes. Other priorities, such as engaging partners such as Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) and Domestic Violence (DV) and youth-serving organizations, and a high level of data coverage and quality were also very important.

CoC score was a large part of the Tier 2 project score, however, there were three other reasons that affected whether individual projects received funding aside from the CoC’s score.
  • Reallocation - One of the most important factors in a project’s score was whether CoCs reallocated projects. Transitional housing projects (except for those that serve youth) and supportive services only (SSO) projects (except for those for coordinated entry) received fewer points than other project types. This provided a strong incentive for CoCs to reallocate from those project types to create new permanent housing, HMIS, and SSO-coordinated entry projects. CoCs that reallocated received more funding, and those that did not were much more likely to lose funding. About 270 projects totaling $44 million were not awarded because of a combination of the project type and the fact that they were not fully using housing first practices. CoCs would have received this funding if they had reallocated to permanent housing projects using housing first practices, new HMIS projects, or new projects for coordinated entry.
  • Project Ranking - A project that was ranked at the top of Tier 2 was much more likely to be funded than one at the bottom of Tier 2. The local CoC ranking process mattered not just to determine which projects were placed in Tier 1, but to determine which ones were higher ranked within Tier 2, and thus more likely to be funded.
  • Housing First Practices - Projects that committed to using housing first practices received more points and were more likely to be funded than those that did not. Over 80 projects totaling nearly $9 million were not funded, but would have been if they had committed to using housing first practices.
I want to close by thanking our many partners in communities. You make very challenging decisions that affect many people’s lives. Your work to end homelessness has resulted in very large declines in homelessness over the past 6 years, and it has positioned us to continue that progress in the future. There is much more work ahead, but together, I am confident that we can finally and forever end homelessness.

Thank you.

Norm Suchar
Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs

Download this SNAPS In Focus: FY 2015 CoC Program Competition Recap
View SNAPS In Focus messages

Spirit of Occupy Lives On

In this issue: Election 2016, What Would Jane Jacobs Say? ● Rural & Urban Developers Find Common Cause ● A Voyeur's View ● Voices From the Field
Tuesday, May 17, 2016

Help support the voice of community development 

Donate Button
Your Voice!

Subscribe to
It's free! Click here! 


Webinar | Lessons Learned from Statewide CSA Programs | May 20, 1-2 p.m. EDT

CFED and the Campaign for Every Kid's Future host a learning series to help support and expand access to Children's Savings Accounts nationwide. This webinar will spotlight statewide CSA programs, including: how to successfully launch and operate one, who to engage in the planning process, and key program considerations.

Axel-Lute Community Development Is Urban and Rural
Miriam Axel-Lute, Shelterforce
Distressed parts of urban areas and rural areas have a lot in common. Obviously there are some very real differences, but there are enough similarities that it seems that there ought to be more potential for making common cause than currently exists. Here are five . . .  More

The Spirit of Occupy Lives On in Equitable Development
Dominic T. Moulden, ONE DC, and Gregory D. Squires, George Washington University
The status quo simply was not working for the majority of residents of DC and other large cities. The spirit of the Occupy movement clearly hung in the air, as many explicitly called for a right to the city for groups that had long been dispossessed . . . More

Election 2016: What Would Jane Jacobs Say?
Peter Dreier, Occidental College
On an assignment in Philadelphia, Jacobs noticed that the streets within an urban renewal project were deserted, whereas an older street nearby was crowded with people. She talked to the project architect, who described its wonderful aesthetics but seemed unconcerned with . . . More

A Voyeur's View
A Review of Deep South: Four Seasons on Back Roads by Paul Theroux

Robert L. Reece, Duke University
This fascination with the region's poverty becomes almost voyeuristic as epitomized by an early visit with Bernie Mazyck of the South Carolina Association of Community Development Corporations. Theroux expresses a desire to visit some of the places Mazyck works with. Mazyck asks, "Anything special?" Theroux responds, "The poorest." But Theroux's apparent voyeurism extends beyond poverty . . .  More

Voices from the Field: Mixed-Income Housing
What did you have to say about mixed-income housing?
See the results of our survey . . . More

You Said It!

On Mixing It Up

[Mixed-income housing] shouldn't come at the expense of low-income units or housing for people of color. And it shouldn't accept "mixed income" as a development where those receiving affordable housing are a minority and the majority are much higher income folks. That generally leads to management policies which are extremely prejudicial and punitive . . .
--Steve Meacham

. . . It's not all about the interaction between households, its also about social capacity and the ability to work the system upfront and behind the scenes to make things better for families in the neighborhood through better more accountable schools and government. --JTB

Looking for a Job?

Executive Vice President 
& Chief Operating Officer 
This executive senior leader provides strategic management, guidance and oversight, establishes measurable goals and priorities, identifies opportunities for collaboration and ensures that effective resources are shared across divisional lines and are implemented . . . Read Full Listing

Housing Counselor
This position will provide direct client outreach, financial fitness, and credit based one-on-one education and training with a broad range of clients. Community outreach, attendance at community events, presentations, relationship building with other agencies and recruitment of clients are a priority for this position. This individual also . . . Read Full Listing
Sawmill Community Land Trust

LIHTC Real Estate Asset Manager
The Asset Manager is responsible for the long-term viability of properties owned and operated by DHIC and its affiliates. This individual reports to the CFO and works directly with the DHIC Management team to determine . . . Read Full Listing 

Executive Director
Responsible for overall management and operations of this membership based, non-profit organization in Albuquerque, New Mexico, the Executive Director is responsible for the implementation of policies set by the Board as well as annual goals . . . Read Full Listing  

Community Organizer/Developer
The HANDS Community Organizer will work directly with senior staff, community residents, partnering organizations and businesses and municipal officials to develop and build relationships, increase participation by stakeholders and identify and nurture community leaders . . . Read Full Listing 

More Job Listings

In This Issue

 Like us on Facebook     Follow us on Twitter     View our profile on LinkedIn 

Shelterforce Weekly 
with your colleagues...

Featured Bloggers
Center for Health, Environment
& Justice

Murtaza Baxamusa
Sol Price School of Public Policy, USC

Housing Assistance Council

Michael Bodaken
National Housing Trust

Raphael Bostic
USC Price School of Public Policy

Janis Bowdler
JPMorgan Chase & Co.

HOPE Credit Union

Burlington Associates

Democracy Collaborative

Ana Garcia-Ashley
Gamaliel Foundation

Jamaal Green
Portland State University

Texas Low Income Housing Information Service

Lisa Hodges
Hodges Development, LLC

Planner, Louisa County, Va.

National CAPACD

Rick Jacobus
Street Level Advisors

Daniel Kravetz
Freelance Writer


Center for Community Progress

Alexandra Moffett-Bateau
City University of New York

Tulane University

Habitat for Humanity

National Urban League


Center on Budget and Policy Priorities  


San Francisco Community 
Land Trust

Shelterforce Weekly

Senior Editor, Lillian M. Ortiz

Associate Editor, Keli Tianga

Publisher, Harold Simon

Assistant Publisher, Terri L. Clegg