SSVF Authorization

1. Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF)Review of Grant Applications for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013

2. SSVF Authorization • 319 grantees awarded nearly $300 million • 146 of 151 current grantees renewed ($155 million). • 173 of 417 new applicants funded ($145 million). • Statutory requirement: “The Secretary shall ensure that, to the extent practicable, financial assistance under this subsection is equitably distributed across geographic regions, including rural communities and tribal lands.” • Grantees now in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, District of Columbia, and Virgin Island • 46 states have multiple grantees

3. II. Summary of Grant Applications and Awards FY 2013 Proposed Award Sites NH 3 WA 9 VT 2 ME 3 MT 1 ND 1 MN 2 OR 8 MA 8 ID 4 WI 5 NY 23 SD 1 MI 13 RI 2 WY 3 CT 5 IA 5 PA 16 NE 4 NJ 8 NV 5 OH 15 IN 7 UT 2 IL 12 DE 1 CO 2 MD 10 WV 6 CA 37 VA 12 KS 2 MO 8 KY 6 DC 5 NC 8 TN 9 AZ 7 OK 3 NM 4 AR 2 SC 2 GA 6 AL 5 MS 6 LA 6 TX 15 FL 23 AK 2 PR 1 VI 1 Number of Grant Awards NOTE: Some grantees serve multiple states, adding 39 grantees to total of state grantee count GU HI 2 0 - 4 5 - 9 10 +

4. SSVF Grantee Scoring - New Applicants New applications are scored on the following five categories: • Section A: Background, Experience, Qualifications, and Past Performance (35 points) • Section B: Program Concept and Supportive Services Plan (25 points) • Section C: Quality Assurance and Evaluation Plan (15 points) • Section D: Financial Capability and Plan (15 points) • Section E: Community Linkages and Relations (10 points)

5. SSVF Grantee Scoring General Comments: • Important to answer the question that is asked • Stronger applications offered focused, specific information • Philosophical, theoretical discussions not as helpful • Consistency important throughout grant, relating responses to program design and overall SSVF goals

6. SSVF Grantee Scoring – Section A A. Background and Organizational History • Limited or no experience in providing supported housing and/or homelessness prevention • Limited or no experience working with homeless Veterans • Agency new to area being served • Heavy reliance on sub-contractors with little information on their background or experience • Limited or no experience employing Housing First model B. Organizational Qualifications & Past Performance • Relying on new staff to lead program • Qualifications for staff not presented or vague, i.e. no PD’s for planned staff • Role of sub-contractor staff not clear • Lack specific results, focusing of years of operations and/or number served • Unclear how sub-contractor experience appropriate to described role

7. SSVF Grantee Scoring – Section B A. Need for Program and Outreach/Screening Plan • Grant indicates sub-populations to be served, but no data included to support • Failed to use specific reliable data, described need in philosophical and/or anecdotal terms • No description of unmet need, only of overall need • Screening target not included, or does not clearly target those at imminent risk of homelessness B. Collaboration and Service Delivery Plan • Overreliance on VA • Conversely, no clear plan of coordination with VA • Links to community unclear for outreach and referrals (even for unaccepted) • Not connected to identified sub-populations • Optional services (i.e., TFA) not provided or capacity to provide unclear C. Timeline • Agency does not demonstrate capacity to begin services quickly • Unclear what sub-contractor will provide and how quickly their service elements can begin in coordinated manner • Too many major start up issues left unresolved or not addressed (i.e., contracting, hiring, MOAs with other community partners)

8. SSVF Grantee Scoring – Section C A. Program Evaluation • Goals need to be measurable • Evaluation tied to program concept and targeted sub-populations • Demonstrate understanding of challenges in housing stability with different populations B. Monitoring & Remediation • Plan must include sub-contractors • How are staff supervised and trained and is this related to function • How are decisions on program acceptance, TFA, referrals reviewed • What are your remediation plans - how will you address outcomes missing goals

9. SSVF Grantee Scoring – Section D A. Financial Controls • Agency viability dependent on SSVF • Strong financial history • Evidence of oversight B. Summary of Sources of Program Funds • Participant cost too high • Budget should match program concept, i.e. strong focus on employment, would expect voc rehab staff or contract

10. SSVF Grantee Scoring – Section E A. Area or Community Linkages • Specific examples (with names) of collaborating agencies • MOUs/MOAs are specific and related to application • General, non-specific letters of support less powerful • Partners, along with grantee, are able to deliver all required services and applicant identified optional services B. Coordination with Local Continuum(s) of Care • Results obtained through community linkages • Existing relationships and knowledge are related to program goals • How do partners support SSVF goals, rather than more general social service needs • Specifics on how partner efforts are integrated with program concept (not just refer and forget)

11. FY 2014 Plans • New NOFA would be released first quarter FY 2013; no details yet available on content. • NOFA education and training will begin after announcement.

12. Supportive Services for Veteran Families Thank you! Please monitor the SSVF webpage for announcements of the Notice of Funding Availability www.va.gov/homeless/ssvf.asp