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

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. Additional Enhancements Proposed and Implemented by CDA
Use of Frequently Asked Questions during the RFP acceptance period
Created a separate and distinct for questions pertaining to RFP and funding cycle
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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. Application Best Practices11

12. 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

13. 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

15. 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

17. 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. 18

19. 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

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

21. 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

22. 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

26. 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

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

29. 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

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

31. More Information on St. Louis CDBG Funding Cycle:
Click on “CDBG Funding Cycle” link