Translate
1. Summary and Background
Purpose of the Rating and Ranking Process
The Clackamas County Continuum of Care conducted a local rating and ranking process to evaluate projects seeking funding through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Continuum of Care (CoC) Program Competition. The process was designed to support a fair, transparent, and consistent review of proposed projects; identify projects that best aligned with HUD requirements and priorities for the competition; consider local homelessness response system needs; and develop the CoC’s final project priority listing.
The local applications and scorecards provided the primary framework for evaluating project quality, applicant capacity, project performance, alignment with HUD criteria, and contribution to local system objectives. The results of the review informed project funding recommendations and the order in which projects were included on the CoC’s project priority listing
Context for the 2026 Competition
The CoC had last conducted a competition and comprehensive rating and ranking process in 2024. The 2024 process used six separate scorecards for different applicant and project circumstances, including new applicants, new project renewals, first-year renewals, established renewals, youth new projects, and youth renewals.
For the 2026 competition, the CoC substantially revised the local applications and scoring approach. The revisions responded to changes in HUD’s funding priorities, including an increased emphasis on supportive services, required participation in services, on-site substance use treatment, participant self-sufficiency, a focus on development of new Transitional Housing and Supportive Services Only projects, and emphasis on objective scoring criteria. The revised materials also reflected local priorities and the need to assess how proposed projects would address current system gaps and contribute to the performance of the homelessness response system.
Overall Changes to the Applications and Scorecards
The 2026 process consolidated the six scorecards used in 2024 into two primary applications and scoring tools:
- a New Project Application and Scorecard; and
- a Renewal Project Application and Scorecard.
Transition projects, expansion projects, and Youth Homeless Demonstration Projects (YHDP) replacement projects were required to complete both applications. This allowed the CoC to evaluate the performance and status of the existing project as well as the design of the proposed new, expanded, replacement, or transitioned project. There were no transition projects submitted in this competition.
The Renewal Project Application also incorporated first-year renewals. When a first-year renewal did not have a complete year of performance data, criteria that could not yet be evaluated were marked not applicable rather than requiring a separate scorecard. Renewal Coordinated Entry and Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) projects were reviewed with consideration for their role in supporting overall system performance and were evaluated primarily based on system need, compliance, and expenditure performance.
The 2026 applications placed greater emphasis on objective and verifiable information. Applicants were required to submit supporting documentation for certain criteria, including participation agreements and documentation of grant drawdowns. The applications also collected information about supportive-services funding, match, and other leveraged resources. Renewal project performance was assessed using sources such as each project’s most recently completed Annual Performance Report (APR), HMIS data, HUD monitoring information, and expenditure records.
The scoring criteria were restructured to more directly reflect HUD and local priorities for the 2026 competition. Significant changes included:
- Awarded points to projects that required participation in supportive services and documented that requirement through a current or proposed participation agreement;
- Evaluated housing projects based on whether they provided or proposed to provide on-site substance use treatment;
- Considered whether the project budget, match, or other leveraged resources included funding for supportive services;
- Evaluated the project’s plan to support participant stability, independence, and self-sufficiency;
- Emphasized performance related to permanent housing outcomes, returns to homelessness, earned income, utilization, expenditures, and timely grant administration;
- Evaluated how new projects would advance local system objectives, including reducing homelessness and encampments, preventing first-time homelessness, and reducing the length of time people remained homeless; and
- Prioritized eligible new Transitional Housing and Supportive Services Only projects in accordance with the federal funding opportunities and priorities established for the competition.
- Awarded renewal Permanent Supportive Housing projects bonus points for alignment with the local priority of maintaining housing for people experiencing chronic homelessness and with the most significant service needs.
Rating and Ranking Committee
The Rating and Ranking Committee consisted of seven reviewers representing a wide cross-section of the community and perspectives relevant to the Continuum of Care. All committee members were active participants on the CoC Steering Committee.
Committee members were required to disclose any actual or perceived conflicts of interest prior to reviewing applications. Individuals representing applicant organizations, organizations serving as subrecipients, or organizations with another direct financial interest in an application did not participate in the discussion or scoring of that application. Any committee member with a conflict recused themselves from the reviewing, scoring, and ranking process.
2. Rating and Ranking Criteria
The CoC evaluated new and renewal project applications using standardized scorecards developed specifically for the 2026 competition. Separate scorecards were used for new and renewal projects to recognize the different information available for each project type while ensuring that all applications were evaluated consistently and transparently.
The scorecards included a combination of objective criteria, which were based on documented performance data or yes/no responses, threshold requirements, and subjective criteria, which evaluated the quality of project design, organizational capacity, and narrative responses. Renewal project applications emphasized historical project performance, grant administration, and compliance with HUD and local priorities, while new project applications focused on project design, organizational readiness, system impact, and alignment with HUD and local funding priorities.
Tables 1 and 2 summarize the scoring criteria used for each application.
| Score Card Criteria | Total Points Available | Criteria Type |
|---|---|---|
| Compliance | ||
| Does the project have current unresolved HUD monitoring findings? Y/N | 5 pts. | Objective |
| Was the APR for the most recently completed program year submitted to HUD on time? Y/N | 5 pts. | Objective |
| Expenditures/Drawdowns | ||
| Project spent all CoC funds in the most recent contract year. | Up to 6 pts. | Objective |
| Project drew down funds from LOCCS at least quarterly. | Up to 6 pts. | Objective |
| Data Quality | ||
| Had 0% null/missing on all HMIS data elements on (Data Quality (Local 0260) v12.1.) | Up to 5 pts. | Objective |
| Performance | ||
| Utilization: At the end of last operating year, did you serve the number of households indicated in your grant agreement? | Up to 8 pts. | Objective |
| Ending Homelessness:* Program participants remain in permanent housing placement or exited to permanent housing. | Up to 10 pts. | Objective |
| Avoiding Returns to Homelessness:* Participants who exited the renewal project did not experience returns to homelessness in the six months after exit. | Up to 10 pts. | Objective |
| Increased or Maintained Income: Adult participants having increased or maintained earned income at the end of the operating year or at exit. | Up to 10 pts. | Objective |
| HUD Criteria | ||
| Project requires or will require participation in services andprovides a participation agreement to demonstrate the services are, or will be, required. Y/N | 10 pts. | Objective |
| Project provides or will provide on-site substance use treatment services.** Y/N | 5 pts. | Objective |
| The project’s CoC budget and/or Match or other leverage includes funds in the supportive services line. Y/N | 10 pts. | Objective |
| Description of organization's strategies to support participants' self-sufficiency in this CoC project | Up to 10 pts. | Subjective |
| Local Priority | ||
| Project provides Permanent Supportive Housing. Y/N | 10 pts | Objective |
*N/A for YHDP Diversion Project
**N/A for non-housing projects
| Score Card Criteria | Total Points Available | Criteria Type |
|---|---|---|
| Threshold Review | ||
| Commitment to participant in CE and HMIS; Certification that the project will meet the minimum HUD Project Threshold Score required for its project type | Not Scored/ Threshold Criteria | Not Scored |
| Project and Applicant Capacity | ||
| Agency administrative capacity to administer the program | Up to 5 pts. | Subjective |
| Agency’s experience and documented success working with complicated federal grants | Up to 5 pts. | Subjective |
| As of the application submission date, applicant and the proposed project currently meet all applicable HUD Project Quality Threshold requirements for new projects and the specific project type, as described in the FY 2026 CoC NOFO, Project Threshold Requirements (pp. 62–69) Y/N | 5 pts | Objective |
| Advancing System Performance | ||
| Applicant describes how the project will contribute to key system performance outcomes including (1) successful exits to permanent housing, (2) reducing returns to homelessness, and (3) increasing employment income for participants. | Up to 10 pts. | Subjective |
| Applicant describes the community need this project will address and how the project will advance one or more local homelessness system objectives including (1) reducing the number of people experiencing homelessness, (2) reducing encampments, (3) preventing first-time homelessness, and (4) reducing the length of time people remain homeless. | Up to 10 pts. | Subjective |
| Applicant Experience | ||
| Applicant describes agency's experience (and the experience of any subrecipient) providing housing and/or services to people experiencing homelessness and with the project type for which they are applying. | Up to 8 pts. | Subjective |
| Supportive Services and Addressing Barriers | ||
| Applicant describes the supportive services that will be provided through the project and explain how the type, scale, and location of services are designed to meet participant needs, reduce barriers, and support positive outcomes. | Up to 8 pts. | Subjective |
| Project is requesting CoC funding to provide supportive services to households? Y/N | 10 pts. | Objective |
| Does the project match or leverage any public or private non-CoC resources that will be used to provide supportive services to households? | Up to 12 pts. | Objective |
| Will the project require participation in supportive services as a condition of receiving assistance? Y/N | 12 pts. | Objective |
| Budget | ||
| Proposed project budget is reasonable and cost effective for the project type and populations served? | Up to 3 pts. | Subjective |
| Is the required 25% match met? Y/N | 10 pts. | Objective |
3. Scoring Process
Each eligible application was reviewed using the approved scorecard for the applicable project type. Objective scoring criteria were calculated or verified using documented data sources and were not scored by the Rating and Ranking Committee. Clackamas County staff extracted HMIS performance measures for each renewal project, including utilization, housing outcomes, returns to homelessness, income outcomes, and data quality.
Additional objective criteria, such as expenditures, drawdowns, and other yes/no application requirements, were verified by Clackamas County staff by reviewing supporting documentation submitted with applications, where applicable.
The seven-member Rating and Ranking Committee independently reviewed and scored all subjective narrative responses using the approved scorecards. Following the independent review, the committee met to discuss applications, resolve scoring questions, and finalize scores for each proposal.
4. Development of the Final Project Priority Listing
Following completion of the scoring process, the Rating and Ranking Committee developed the FY 2026 Project Priority Listing. The final ranking was based on a combination of application scores and additional considerations necessary to develop a competitive Continuum of Care application within HUD's funding structure. These considerations included alignment with HUD priorities, preservation of critical permanent housing resources, local homelessness response system needs and identified service gaps, and the need to maximize the competitiveness of the CoC's overall application.
A total of 13 renewal project applications and 10 new project applications, including YHDP Replacement and DV Reallocation projects, were received and reviewed during the competition. Collectively, applicants requested approximately $9,716,587 in Continuum of Care funding, exceeding the funding available through the FY 2026 competition by approximately $1,405,185. As a result, not all proposed projects or requested funding levels could be accommodated within the final Project Priority Listing.
To develop a competitive package of project applications, the Committee made funding reductions to certain projects and did not recommend all proposed new projects for funding. These decisions enabled the CoC to fit the highest-priority renewal projects within HUD's prescribed Tier 1 funding amount while strategically positioning remaining projects within Tier 2.
4a. Strategy for Determining Tier 1 Project/Project Order
Because the total amount of renewal funding requested exceeded the available Tier 1 funding, the Committee made targeted funding adjustments to ensure that the highest-priority projects could be accommodated within HUD's prescribed Tier 1 limit.
In developing the Tier 1 ranking, the Committee established the following order of priority:
- Existing System Infrastructure. Existing Coordinated Entry and HMIS renewal projects were prioritized to preserve the core infrastructure necessary to operate the Continuum of Care.
- Renewal Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) Projects. Renewal PSH projects were prioritized next, recognizing the local priority of preserving permanent housing resources serving households experiencing chronic homelessness and those with the highest service needs. These projects were ranked according to their final application scores.
- Renewal Rapid Re-Housing (RRH) Projects. Renewal RRH projects were prioritized after PSH projects in order to preserve existing PH beds and were ranked according to their final application scores.
To ensure all Tier 1 priority projects fit within the available Tier 1 funding amount, the Committee made limited funding reductions where necessary.
4b. Strategy for Determining Tier 2 Project/Project Order
After establishing the Tier 1 ranking, the Committee developed the Tier 2 ranking to maximize the competitiveness of the overall CoC application while advancing HUD priorities and addressing local system needs and service gaps.
Projects were prioritized in the following order:
- New Transitional Housing (TH) Projects. Priority was given to new Transitional Housing projects and YHDP Replacement TH project in order to maximize the number of new beds that could potentially be funded in the system.
- New Supportive Services Only (SSO) Projects Providing Direct Participant Services. SSO projects (such as street outreach and day center services) providing direct services to participants were prioritized because they addressed identified service gaps and expanded participant access to the shelter and housing resources within the system. Within the Supportive Services Only (SSO) category, the YHDP Renewal SSO project was prioritized ahead of higher-scoring new SSO projects in order to preserve an existing renewal project while maintaining the Committee's overall project type priorities.
- New Supportive Services Only (SSO-CE) Projects Providing Additional System Infrastructure. Projects focused primarily on expanding CE capacity were prioritized after direct service projects in order to maximize direct services that could be potentially funded through this NOFO.
Because available funding was insufficient to support all proposed new projects, the Committee sought to develop a balanced portfolio of project types within the final Project Priority Listing. Rather than recommending projects solely in descending score order, the Committee considered application scores together with the need to fund a mix of housing and service interventions that addressed different components of the homelessness response system. The Committee also considered factors such as the cost-effectiveness of proposed projects (including cost per bed or housing unit, where applicable, and cost relative to the number of participants expected to be served), the extent to which projects addressed identified service gaps or targeted priority populations, and the overall value each project would contribute to the local homelessness response system.
Based on these considerations, the Committee recommended funding for a mix of Transitional Housing and Supportive Services Only projects while declining to recommend funding for selected projects in each category. This approach preserved a balanced portfolio of housing and service investments, protected existing project capacity, and maximized the competitiveness of the overall CoC application.