Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved FY26 Scoring Criteria FY26 Aid to Agencies Scoring Criteria Agency: Amount Requested: Note: A high score on the rating sheet is not a guarantee of funding. City staff and the Housing and Community Development Commission considers the rating sheet one of many tools to help make funding recommendations to the City Council. The City will use other information and sources including but not limited to: needs identified through City planning processes, prior year reports, consistency with goals and priorities in the Consolidated Plan (City Steps), public input, working knowledge of the organization, and availability of funds, to assist in funding recommendations. Need and Priority (20 Points) Community Need Unscored yes or no by staff Services Provided (Narrative Q3) 20 Impact and Delivery (40 Points) Benefit to Low Income Persons (Narrative Q6, Narrative Q9, Form B) 15 Racial Equity and Inclusivity for Marginalized Populations (Narrative Q7 and Form B) 5 Proposed Outcome Measures (Form D) 5 Completed Outcome Measures (Form D and staff summary) 10 Persons to Benefit (staff to provide calculation based on application) 5 Evidence of Financial Capacity (20 Points) Collaboration/Operations Plan (Narrative Q8 and Form C) 10 Agency Financials (Narrative Q9 and Form C) 5 Leveraging Funds (Narrative Q10 and Form C) 5 Evidence of Administrative Capacity (20 Points) Quality of Application (Overall App) 5 Experience and Success (Staff input on past performance, Form A, and Overall App) 15 Total 100 2 NEEDS AND PRIORITIES (20 Points) Community Need (Agency Profile and Iowa City Funding Priorities) This item is not part of the total score but will be reviewed by city staff to determine eligibility. Agencies funded by the City of Iowa City must address a community need that is consistent with City Steps. The applicant must clearly and completely describe the significance of the need and provide supporting documentation and statistics fully substantiating this need. The applicant must address the described need and successfully work to resolve the problem through realistic and reasonable actions. Services Provided (Primarily Narrative Question 3) 20 pts Services are consistent with City Steps. They support a strategic goal, address the problem/ need in Iowa City, and are identified activities. Information provided in the application is comprehensive and provides reasonable and clear indication that funding will help satisfy an unmet strategic goal and activity and will fully generate the expected outcome(s) as identified in City Steps. Services identified reach Iowa City residents proportionate to the funding request. 15 pts Services are consistent with City Steps. They support a strategic goal, address the problem/ need in Iowa City, and are identified activities. Information provided in the application is not as clear and comprehensive, but it appears probable that funding will help satisfy an unmet strategic goal and activity and will generate the expected outcome(s) as identified in City Steps. Services identified reach Iowa City residents proportionate to the funding request. 10 pts Services are consistent with City Steps. They support a strategic goal, address the problem/ need in Iowa City, and are identified activities. Information provided in the application is minimally sufficient; however, it also appears that funding will only somewhat help address, and it is unclear as to the degree of which it will satisfy, an unmet strategic goal and activity and generate the expected outcome(s) as identified in City Steps. Services identified do not reach Iowa City residents proportionate to the funding request. 5 pts Services are consistent with City Steps. They support a strategic goal, address the problem/ need in Iowa City, and are identified activities. Information is incomplete, inaccurate or contradictory to the need it proposes to address OR the City Steps goal and expected outcome has already been fulfilled and/or the problem/ need has already been addressed. Services identified do not reach Iowa City residents proportionate to the funding request. 3 IMPACT AND DELIVERY (40 Points) Benefit to Low Income Persons (Primarily Question 6, Question 9, and Form B) 15 pts Direct benefit will primarily serve extremely low-income persons (<30% AMI) or those at a similar standard income level (such as the poverty line). 12 pts Direct benefit will primarily serve very low-income persons (<50% AMI) or those at a similar standard income level (such as the approximately 150% of the poverty line). 9 pts Direct benefit will primarily serve low-income persons (<80% AMI) or those at a similar standard income level (such as the approximately 250% of the poverty line). 0 pts Direct benefit will not primarily serve low-income persons or those at a similar standard income level Racial Equity and Inclusivity for Marginalized Populations (Primarily Questions 7 and Form B; specifically disabled, 65+, non-white, LGBTQ+, or other populations) 5 pts Applicant documents that it actively and robustly promotes racial equity and inclusivity for marginalized populations. 90-100% of clients are from a disadvantaged class or otherwise demonstrated. 4 pts Applicant documents that it actively promotes racial equity and inclusivity for marginalized populations. 70-89% of clients are from a disadvantaged class or otherwise demonstrated. 2 pts Applicant documents that it promotes racial equity and inclusivity for marginalized populations. 30-69% of clients are from a disadvantaged class or otherwise demonstrated. 0 pts Applicant documents that it does not promote racial equity and inclusivity for marginalized populations. <30% of clients are from a disadvantaged class or otherwise demonstrated. Proposed Outcome Measures (Agency Selected Performance Measures, Form D) 5 pts Applicant identified outcomes/metrics that will be strong indicators of service success. Outcomes are measurable and able to demonstrate maximum impact and benefit for those served. 3 pts Applicant identified outcomes/metrics that will be moderate indicators of service success. Outcomes are somewhat measurable and able to demonstrate maximum impact and benefit for those served. 0 pts Applicant did not identify outcome/metrics or identified metrics that are unrealistic or poor indicators of service success. Completed Outcome Measures (Form D and staff summary based on prior year reporting) 10 pts Applicant met or exceeded the outcome objectives identified. Measures showed maximum impact and benefit for those served. 8 pts Applicant was close to meeting its outcome objectives identified. Measures showed substantial impact and benefit for those served. 5 pts Applicant did not meet their outcome objectives identified. Measures showed a moderate impact on those served. 2 pts Applicant met some outcome objectives identified. Measures showed minimal impact on those served. 0 pts Applicant met few or none of the outcome objectives identified and/or measures showed no impact on those served. 4 Persons to Benefit (Staff to provide) 5 pts Cost of $1-$19.99 in total Iowa City Funding per Iowa City resident OR provides strong evidence that the cost for the number served are highly cost effective for the extent of services. 3 pts Cost of $20.00-$49.99 in total Iowa City Funding per Iowa City resident OR provides strong evidence that the cost for the number served are cost effective for the extent of services. 2 pts Cost of $50.00-$149.99 in total Iowa City Funding per Iowa City resident OR provides evidence that the cost for the number served are cost effective for the extent of services. 1 pt Cost of greater than $150.00 in total Iowa City Funding per Iowa City resident OR provides minimal evidence that the cost for the number served are somewhat cost effective for the extent of services. EVIDENCE OF FINANCIAL CAPACITY (20 Points) Collaboration & Operations Plan (Primarily Question 8 and Form C) 10 pts Application shows strong evidence of collaborating with numerous other service providers in the community. Application fully and thoroughly describes how partnerships are cultivated and prioritized to reduce costs, increase operational efficiencies, and enhance services for consumers. 7 pts Application shows evidence of collaborating with other service providers in the community. to reduce costs and of utilizing community partnership to further goals. Application describes how partnerships are cultivated and prioritized to reduce costs, increase operational efficiencies, and enhance services for consumers. 4 pts Application shows limited evidence of collaborating with other service providers in the community. to reduce costs and of utilizing community partnership to further goals. Application somewhat describes how partnerships are cultivated and prioritized to reduce costs, increase operational efficiencies, and enhance services for consumers. 0 pts Application shows no evidence of collaborating with other service providers in the community. Application fails to describe how partnerships are cultivated and prioritized to reduce costs, increase operational efficiencies, and enhance services for consumers. Agency Financials (Question 9, Form C, and applicant financial statements) 5 pts Based on agency revenues and expenses, budget appears accurate, comprehensive and detailed. Costs appear reasonable and justified. 3 pts Based on agency revenues and expenses, budget appears reasonable, but not clear, comprehensive, or detailed. The budget is substantively mathematically accurate (i.e. minor errors noted), and/or does not appear complete 0 pts Based on agency revenues and expenses, budget appears questionable and/or unreasonable. The budget is substantively mathematically incorrect. 5 Leveraging (Staff to provide) 5 pts Other sources of funds have been secured and maximized. Aid to Agencies request is less than 25% of total budget. 3 pts Plans to secure or leverage other sources of funds are underway and information is presented to conclude that it is probable other sources of funding will be obtained. Aid to Agencies request is between 26% and 50% of total budget. 0 pts Other sources of funding appear to be minimal and the agency relies primarily on A2A funding to sustain programming. Aid to Agencies request is more than 50% of total budget. EVIDENCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY (20 Points) Quality of Application (Overall Application) 5 pts Application is logical, clear, well written, accurate and attentive to detail, but also concise with appropriate statistical information and supporting documentation provided to thoroughly support any conclusions provided. 3 pts Application is adequately written, but statistics, observation and/or conclusions are not well documented, and inconsistencies and/or errors were noted. 1 pts Application is adequately written, but statistics, observations and/or conclusions are not well documented; inconsistencies and/or errors were noted; and some application instructions were not followed. The credibility of information and statistics provided appear questionable. 0 pts Application is poorly written, statistics, observations and conclusions are not documented, and apparent and substantive internal inconsistencies and material errors were noted. Most of the application instructions were not followed. The credibility of Information and statistics provided is questionable. Experience and Success (Staff input on past performance, Form A, and overall application) 15 pts Applicant clearly shows evidence of the necessary competencies, skill set, management capacity, professional experience and qualifications to successfully manage and implement the activities listed. Applicant has extensive experience with Grant Funds and/or other City funding programs. The applicant has been directly involved in 5 or more City funded projects within the past 5 years, 4 of which have been favorably completed. This applicant has had no problems with timeliness and/or compliance for past projects. This applicant has been timely, complete and accurate with reporting requirements. 10 pts Applicant clearly shows evidence of the necessary competencies, skill set, management capacity, professional experience and qualifications to successfully manage and implement the activities listed. Applicant has adequate experience with Grant Funds and/or other City funding programs. The applicant has been directly involved in 3 or more City funded projects within the past 5 years, 2 of which have been favorably completed. Applicant has realistically identified any problem(s) relating to its application, but they appear relatively minor and the applicant exhibits the understanding and capacity to address these concerns. The applicant has had some problems with timeliness and/or compliance for past projects, but any problems were fully resolved. The applicant has been timely, complete and accurate with reporting. 5 pts Applicant appears to have most of the necessary competencies, skill set, management capacity, professional experience and qualifications to successfully manage and implement the activities listed, but it is not well documented. Applicant has some experience with Grant Funds and/or other City funding programs. The applicant has been directly involved in 1 or more City funded projects within the past five years and has favorably completed it. The applicant may have difficulty complying with program requirements. Applicant has realistically identified action(s) and/or problem(s) relating to its application or other issues may exist. The actions are somewhat complicated to resolve, but the applicant has developed and implemented a plan and is in the process of addressing these concerns. The applicant 6 may have experienced some problems in implementing past projects, but the problems were fully resolved. This applicant has had minor problems with timeliness and/or compliance for past projects. The applicant may have difficulty complying with program requirements. 3 pts Applicant appears to have some of the necessary competencies, skill set, management capacity, professional experience and qualifications to successfully manage and complete the activities listed (documentation is unclear). Applicant has little experience with Grant Funds and/or City funded projects. Applicant has realistically identified action(s) and/or problem(s) relating to its application or other issues may exist. The actions are complicated to resolve, but the applicant has developed a plan to address these concerns. The problems appear to be fully resolvable, but expending funds may be problematic. 0 pts Applicant appears to have minimal or none of the necessary competencies, skill set, and capacity to successfully manage the activities listed (documentation is unclear). Applicant appears to have no related professional experience with Grant Funds and/or other City funded projects or had extensive problems in implementing past projects timely, substantiating compliance, and/or meeting reporting requirements or requests for information by the City. Extensive actions and/or problems have been identified or pose a potential significant concern. The applicant appears unsure as to how to address the issues and/or the problems do not appear to be fully resolvable without negatively impacting implementation. The applicant does not appear knowledgeable, committed, and/or able to complete the project.