Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF)

Review of Grant Applications for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013

1

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

2

0 - 4 5 - 9 10 +

Number of Grant Awards

AK2

AL5

AR2

AZ7

CA37

CO2

CT5

DC5

GU

GA6

DE1

FL23

HI2

ID4

IN7

IA5

IL12

KS2

KY6

LA6

MD10

TX15

MA8NY

23

PA16

ME3

MI13

MN2

MO8

MS6

MT1

NC8

ND1

NE4

NH3

NJ8

NM4

NV5

OH15

OK3

OR8

RI2

SC2

SD1

TN 9

UT2 VA

12

VT2

WA9

WI5

WV6

WY3

PR1

VI1NOTE: Some grantees serve multiple states, adding 39

grantees to total of state grantee count

II. Summary of Grant Applications and AwardsFY 2013 Proposed Award Sites

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)

4

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

5

SSVF Grantee Scoring – Section AA. 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

6

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)

7

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

8

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

9

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)

10

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.

11

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

12