CDBG Funding Application Best Practices City of St. Louis CDBG Funding Application Best Practices

Background In 2012, the City of St. Louis embarked on a drastic change to the way it awarded CDBG and HOME funds. Changed a system that had been in place for 20+ years. Technical assistance offered by the HUD St. Louis Field Office through OneCPD. Basic reasons for change: to ensure that HUD-allocated CDBG and HOME funds achieved maximum community and housing impact and benefit. Very political process that involved Mayor's Office, Board of Aldermen and other elected officials.

Reason for Change... Political Subrecipient Per HUD, too much Aldermanic control of use (or nonuse) of CDBG and HOME Funds. The transfer of funds between activities/entities/subrecipients was done without either use of the substantial amendment or citizen participation process. The City annually funded the same organizations without significant attention to capacity and the ability to leverage funds.

Getting to Work - CORE OBJECTIVES Redesign the process for awarding CDBG and HOME funds Remove political influence from funding process Use data as a tool to assist with setting priorities and allocating funds

Role Of HUD Consultants Facilitate the City's political leaders in moving toward compliance Complete a Market Value Analysis that would be used as a tool to determine areas of future investment Assist CDA with revamping its Request for Proposal (RFP) Process

HUD Consultants’ Recommended Changes To RFP Detail in RFP-specific entities that do not have to compete for funding. City Departments and Quasi-Governmental Entities (e.g. LRA, SLDC) Utilize a completeness review when screening proposals Include specific priorities/activities that are eligible for funding Include any specific set asides or special initiatives in the RFP

Additional Enhancements Proposed and Implemented by CDA Use of Frequently Asked Questions during the RFP acceptance period Created a separate and distinct email for questions pertaining to RFP and funding cycle CDBG@stlouis-mo.gov Enhanced use of the CDA website RFP Available FAQ References and Resources (including presentations from workshops) Rating Sheets Public Hearing Notices, etc. Debriefings provided to applicants not selected for funding

Post HUD Technical Assistance Started utilizing outside professionals (in addition to some City staff) to rate CDBG/HOME proposals Instituted Non-Profit Capacity Building workshops In 2014, held an average of two workshops per month on various topics such as legal issues, leveraging funds, and volunteerism

Post HUD Technical Assistance Now, offer specific sessions pertaining to CDBG such as how to design a CDBG-eligible program financial management of CDBG programs workshops on national objectives and eligible activities (4-6 workshops per year) Instituted an online grants management system that allows applicants to submit proposals online Also allows raters to review and rate applications online 9

Post HUD Technical Assistance Issue annual priorities for public comment prior to issuance of RFP Specific mailing to Aldermen to allow the opportunity to assist with setting priorities during the citizen engagement process Present process and funding recommendations to the Board of Aldermen's HUDZ Committee to allow for comment and questions Revamped housing production project selection process using technical assistance guidance from 2013

Application Best Practices 11

2017 CDBG Funding Cycle Information Funding cycle began in June, 2016 and will end with the submission of the Annual Action Plan (once allocations are announced) Applicants had 30 days to complete the application in the grants management system Estimated CDBG Allocation (plus program income): $16 Million 55 subrecipient activities funded Approximately 35 are public service activities 13 intergovernmental activities funded 12

BEST PRACTICE: Requiring Measurable Outcomes/Outputs The City’s RFP requires each applicant to specifically detail outputs and outcomes Outputs must be measurable Continuing activities must describe outcomes from previous year’s activity; new activity’s must describe proposed measurable outcomes Helps to determine reasonableness of funding request Streamlines the completion of the City’s Annual Action Plan to HUD 13

BEST PRACTICE: Budget Requirements In addition to audit, financial management and internal control details, the City requires the following budget information (same form): Current Operating Budget (entire organization) Proposed Operating Budget for upcoming year (entire organization) CDBG Budget (per CDBG activity) Used to determine reasonableness of request, leverage, and ability to produce financial reports (CAPACITY) 15

BEST PRACTICE: Completeness Reviews Immediately after submission deadline, City staff reviews each application for completeness Proactive approach to determining whether there are any issues prior to the award of funds Sam.gov review for debarment/tax issues Review of 990 and Federal audit, if applicable Lack of completeness often foreshadows an organization’s inability to administer a CDBG-funded program. 17

18

Completeness Review: Example Community Health in Partnership Services Delinquent Federal Debt listed on SAM.gov report Worked with organization to include special conditions in contract to allow them to be funded after delinquent debt issue is resolved 19

BEST PRACTICE: National Objective Review Process allows City staff to complete a National Objective analysis up front Eliminate ineligible proposals prior to rating 20

National Objective Review: Example of Effectiveness Organization applies for job creation under economic development priority category. In the application, the organization states that it cannot guarantee the creation of jobs, but would offer job training, workforce readiness, etc. Completeness review allowed the City to categorize the request as a public service activity and it was reviewed with the public service cap in mind. 21

BEST PRACTICE: Rating Sheets The City publishes its rating sheet in conjunction with the issuance of the CDBG RFP Manages expectations Allows an applicant to rate themselves prior to submission 22

BEST PRACTICE: Use of Outside Raters The goal of the CDBG application rating process is to yield an objective evaluation of grant proposals through a competitive process which results in funding and subsequently delivering the best projects and programs to City residents. Proposal Evaluation Committee formed each year (may vary from year to year) The role of the evaluation committee is to award points to proposed CDBG activities so that they may be ranked. Members of the committee must sign a conflict of interest certification 26

Committee Members Community Reinvest Act Officers Foundation Staff Police Officers University Professors/Staff CDBG Staff from Neighboring Municipalities City staff Business Leaders 27

Committee Responsibilities 1. Read and become familiar with supplementary materials provided with the Guidebook prior to the commencement of review 2. Recuse themselves from the review of proposals/activities where an actual or apparent conflict of interest may be present 3. Consider, review and score each proposal/activity in relation to the review and scoring criteria approved by CDA 4. Refer all applicant contact to CDA staff 5. Complete their review on or before the deadline and return any materials to CDA upon completion of the review, if applicable 29

Effectiveness of Outside Raters Enhances citizen participation Enhances objectivity in the awarding of CDBG funds Reduces staff time involved in the rating process 30

More Information on St. Louis CDBG Funding Cycle: www.stlouis-mo.gov/cda Click on “CDBG Funding Cycle” link