U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING

Special Attention of: Notice PIH 96-31 (HA)

Directors, Office of Public Housing;

Administrators, Area Offices of Issued: May 22, 1996

Native American Programs; Executive

Directors, Public and Indian Housing Expires: May 31, 1997

Authorities Cross References:

Subject: PROCESSING OF GRANT APPLICATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR (FY)

1996 PUBLIC HOUSING DRUG ELIMINATION PROGRAM (PHDEP)

1\. PURPOSE. This notice provides instructions for processing

grant applications submitted for funding under the FY 1996

PHDEP.

2\. APPLICABILITY.

A. This notice is applicable ONLY to those public housing

authorities (PHAs) and Indian housing authorities (IHAs)

submitting grant applications for FY 96 PHDEP grant

program.

B. The term housing authority (HA) SHALL include PHAs and

IHAs. The term Field Office (FO) shall refer to local

HUD Field Offices or Area Office of Native American

Programs (AONAPs).

3\. BACKGROUND. A Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA)

announcing HUD\'s FY 96 funding was published in the Federal

Register (Docket No. 4003-N-01) on Monday, April 8, 1996.

4\. FUND ASSIGNMENT PLAN. The fund assignment plan for

distributing grant funds to be awarded under the FY 96 PHDEP

will be in accordance with Handbook 1830.4, REV-2, dated July

31, 1986.

5\. DEFINITIONS. The definitions for the PHDEP program are

contained in 24 CFR 761 of the \"Streamlined\" Consolidated

Public and Assisted Housing Drug Elimination Program final

rule dated March 28, 1996.

PR: Distribution: W-3-1, R-3-1(PIH), R-6, R-7, R-9, 138-2, 138-7

6\. GRANT APPLICATION ELIGIBLE AND INELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES.

A. Eligible and ineligible activities under the FY 96 PHDEP

are described in Section I of the NOFA. Funding is

available only for public housing agencies and Indian

housing authorities.

B. An applicant may submit ONLY one application under each

NOFA.

C. In accordance with the FY 96 PHDEP NOFA joint

applications ARE NOT permitted under this program with

the following exception: housing authorities under a

single administration (such as housing authorities

managing another housing authority under contract; or

Housing authorities sharing a common executive director)

may submit a single application, even though each HA has

its own operating budget.

7\. GRANT APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS.

A. To receive funding, housing authorities MUST submit a

grant application to HUD using a FY 96 PHDEP application

kit as described in Section II (Application Process) of

the NOFA.

B. The NOFA provides information concerning the purpose,

applicant eligibility, available amounts, selection

criteria, financial requirements, management, and

application processing, including how to apply, how

selections will be made, and how applicants will be

notified of results.

C. The application kit contains information on all exhibits

and certifications required under the NOFA.

8\. GRANT APPLICATION SELECTIVE RATING CRITERIA.

A. The number of points that an applicant receives will

depend on the extent to which the grant application is

responsive to the information requested in the selection

criteria. An applicant must receive a score of 70 points

or more out of the maximum of 100 points awarded under

this competition to be eligible for funding.

B. After applications have been scored, Headquarters WILL

rank the applications on a national basis. Awards WILL

be made in ranked order until all funds are expended.

2

9\. GRANT DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS.

A. HUD is distributing grant funds under the FY 96 PHDEP

NOFA on a national competition basis. Maximum grant

award amounts are computed on a sliding scale, using an

overall maximum cap, depending upon the number of public

housing agency (PHA) or Indian housing authority (IHA)

units. For specific guidance refer to Section 1(b) (2)

of the NOFA and/or the FY 96 PHDEP Application Kit.

B. The unit count includes rental, Turnkey III

Homeownership, Mutual Help Homeownership and Section 23

leased housing bond-financed projects. Units in the

Turnkey III Homeownership, Mutual Help Homeownership and

Section 23 bond-financed programs are counted IF they

have not been conveyed.

C. Eligible projects must be covered by an annual

contributions contract (ACC) or annual operating

agreement (AOA) during the period of the grant award.

\(1\) Public housing agencies.

\(a\) PHA-Owned Rental Housing Program. In

accordance with Notice 94-66 (PHA), Low Rent

Public Housing Program - Streamlined Operating

Budget and Financial Reporting Procedures,

PHAs with fiscal years beginning January 1,

1995 and after, ARE NOT REQUIRED to submit an

Operating Budget (Form HUD-52564) IF they have

been determined, by HUD, to be High or

Standard performers under Public Housing

Management Assessment Program (PHMAP) and HAVE

NOT FAILED the PHMAP financial indicators.

\(b\) Those requesting subsidy must, however, submit

Form HUD-52723, Calculation of Performance

Funding System (PFS) Operating Subsidy and

units are in the header.

\(c\) PHAs (rental program) that are NOT REQUIRED to

submit a budget under the PHMAP criteria in

Section I(b)(2)(ii)(A) above AND not

requesting operating subsidy ARE NOT REQUIRED

to submit Form HUD-52723.

\(d\) Unit counts MUST be confirmed with the local

Field Office prior to submission of the FY 96

PHDEP application.

3

\(e\) For PHA-Owned Turnkey III Homeownership

Program and Section 23 Leased Housing

Programs, PHAs ARE REQUIRED to submit Form

HUD-52564, in accordance with Notice PIH 94-66

(PA), and units in the header.

\(f\) For purposes of the FY 96 PHDEP NOFA, PHAs ARE

REQUIRED to validate their unit counts with

the local Field Office as of April 1, 1996.

Units identified after this date will not be

accepted.

\(2\) Indian housing authorities.

\(a\) As of January 1, 1995 Indian housing

authorities ARE NOT REQUIRED to submit Form

HUD-52564, UNLESS a corrective action order

has been issued in accordance with Notice PIH

94-72 (IA) extended by Notice PIH 95-65.

\(b\) For purposes of this NOFA, Indian housing

authorities ARE REQUIRED to validate their

unit counts with the local AONAP, prior to

submission of the PHDEP application, to ensure

the unit count matches the data in the

Management Information Retrieval System (MIRS)

for units in management as of April 1, 1996.

Units identified after this date will not be

accepted.

D. The amount computed above MUST be compared with the

dollar amount requested in the PHA/IHA application to

make certain the amount requested does not exceed the

maximum grant award.

E. BASED ON THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION I(b) (2) (i) THROUGH

\(iii\) OF THE FY 96 PHDEP NOFA, APPLICANTS THAT REQUEST

FUNDING THAT EXCEED THE ESTIMATED MAXIMUM GRANT AWARD

AMOUNT PERMITTED WILL BE REJECTED AND WILL NOT BE

ELIGIBLE FOR ANY FUNDING.

10\. HUD REFORM ACT PROVISIONS.

A. The HUD Reform Act of 1989 prohibits any applicant from

gaining an advantage in the competition as a result of

receiving confidential information. The final rule, (24

CFR part 4) \"Prohibition of Advance Disclosure of Funding

Decisions,\" which implements section 103 of the Reform

Act, specifically prohibits advance disclosure of the

following:

4

\(1\) Information regarding an applicant\'s relative

standing;

\(2\) The amount of assistance requested by any other

applicant;

\(3\) The identity of any other applicant;

\(4\) The number of applications; and

\(5\) Any other information contained in another

application.

B. HUD employees who have SPECIFIC program questions, such

as whether particular subject matter can be discussed

with persons outside the Department, should contact Field

Office counsel, or Headquarters counsel for the program

to which the question pertains.

II\. FY 96 PHDEP GRANT APPLICATION OPTION REVIEW PROCESS.

A. The Office of Resident Initiatives (ORI) Grants

Management Handbook 7490.01 allows in situations where

the Field Office workload exceeds the resources available

for a manageable and efficient review process, an

optional review process may be used.

B. Headquarters has determined that an optional review

process will be used for processing FY 96 PHDEP grant

applications.

\(1\) Public housing authorities FY 96 PHDEP applications

WILL be reviewed and scored by panel members

located at the grant application center processing

site, Office of Public Housing, New York City, NY.

\(2\) Indian housing authorities (IHA) FY 96 PHDEP

applications WILL be reviewed and scored by panel

members located at the grant application center

processing site, AONAPs, Denver, CO.

C. Screening and scoring the PHDEP grant application\'s

Selection Criteria 3.

\(1\) Prior to transmitting applications to the

processing center sites Field Offices/AONAPs WILL

screen and score each PHDEP grant application\'s

Selection Criteria 3.

5

\(2\) Due to workload requirements/staffing Field Office,

Directors, Office of Public Housing and

Administrators, AONAPs ARE AUTHORIZED to conduct

one review per application.

D. Training materials WILL be provided by the Office

Community Relations and Involvement (OCRI), Crime

Prevention and Security Division (CPSD), and ONAPs to

local Field Offices/AONAPs.

E. Grant applications WILL be forwarded to the appropriate

grant application processing site.

F. Selection Criteria 1, 2 and 4 of the grant applications

WILL be scored at the designated grant application

processing site.

G. Grant applications WILL be shipped to the processing

sites, to include applications that are late, and

applications that were determined to be ineligible FOR

WHAT EVER REASON.

H. All tasks in this notice MUST be executed in accordance

with the schedule set forth in paragraph 22 of this

notice.

12\. HEADQUARTERS RESPONSIBILITIES.

A. Headquarters, OCRI, CPSD, WILL provide in this notice

attachments with FY 96 PHDEP grant application screening

instructions and other related documents to be used by

the Field Offices/AONAPs to complete the grant

application screening process.

B. Training for the reviewers at the grant application

processing center site WILL be conducted by Headquarters,

OCRI, and ONAPs staff.

C. Headquarters, OCRI, CPSD and ONAPs WILL provide technical

assistance and guidance to the Grant Administrators (GA)

at grant application processing center sites located at

the Office of Public Housing, New York City, NY, AONAPs,

Denver, CO, and Field Offices/AONAPs Grant Administrators

(FOGAs) throughout the grant application process. Refer

to paragraph 22 of this notice for guidance.

6

13\. FY 96 PHDEP GRANT APPLICATION PROCESSING REQUIREMENTS.

A. Field Office, Directors, Office of Public Housing and

Administrators, AONAPs, WILL ASSURE that the FY 96 PHDEP

grant application process is conducted in accordance with

the procedures set forth in this processing notice, ORI

Grants Management Handbook 7490.01, and related HUD

regulations, such as the PHDEP Final Rule (24 CFR 761),

FY 1996 NOFA, notices, OMB Circular, handbooks, and

additional written guidance provided by Headquarters.

B. Chapter 2 of ORI Grants Management Handbook 7490.01

describes the actions required in processing PHDEP grant

applications by the receiving Field Office/AONAPs.

\(1\) The handbook contains instructions for the

administration of grants awarded by the Assistant

Secretary, Office of Public and Indian Housing.

\(2\) The handbook provides specific instructions on the

grant application processing, grant agreement

execution process, payment procedures, required

reporting, monitoring, grant extensions, grant

closeout procedures, etc.

C. Grant applications MUST be received at each designated

Field Office, ATTN: Director, Office of Public Housing

and/or Administrator, AONAPs, in accordance with Chapter

2 of ORI Resident Initiatives Grants Management Handbook

7490.01 with the following exceptions and WITH THE

FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE.

\(1\) Following receipt of grant applications and

completing the Application Master Log (Appendix A)

the Director, Office of Public Housing and

Administrator, AONAPs will fax the FY 1996 PHDEP

Application Master Log to Headquarters as follows:

\(a\) PHA APPLICATIONS: Office of Public Housing fax

the log to Headquarters, CPSD, Room 4112, fax

number (202) 401-7965, ATTN: Malcolm E. Main,

telephone (202) 708-1197, ext 4232 (CC mail

address for Malcolm E. Main is PIHPOST2).

7

\(b\) IHA APPLICATIONS: AONAPs fax the log to

Headquarters, East L\'enfant Plaza, Suite 8204,

fax number (202) 755-0182, ATTN: Tracy Outlaw.

(CC mail address for Tracy Outlaw is

PIHPOST2). ONAPs must:

\(1\) Review and verify that the FY 96 PHDEP

Application Log Information is correct

prior to submission to Headquarters CPSD;

and

\(2\) Fax the final FY 1996 PHDEP Application

Log to Headquarters, CPSD, ATTN: Malcolm

E. Main, Room 4112, fax number (202) 401-

7965, telephone (202) 708-1197, ext 4232.

\(c\) FY 96 PHDEP grant application validation

process.

\(1\) In order to validate grant application

information Headquarters, OCRI, CPSD will

request, via cc:mail, verification of the

Application Master Log information

(Appendix A of this notice) from each

Director, Office of Public Housing and

Administrator, AONAPs.

\(2\) Field Offices/AONAPs should refer to

paragraph 22 for guidance regarding this

process.

\(2\) IF a Field Office/AONAPs receives an application

not in their jurisdiction by the application

deadline date, the Field Office/AONAPs WILL ensure

the following actions take place:

\(a\) Log the date and time of receipt in the master

log;

\(b\) Transfer the application to the appropriate

Field Office/AONAPs within 24 hours of receipt

of the application; and

\(c\) Notify the Field Office/AONAPs by telephone

that the application is being forwarded. Send

designated Field Office(s), via cc mail, \"what

actions were taken\" with a copy to the

appropriated personnel as follows:

9

\(1\) CC:mail point of contact for Office of

Public Housing New York City, NY, is Jed

Abrams (CC:mail address for Jed Abrams is

NYCPOST1); and/or

\(2\) CC:mail point of contact for AONAPs,

Denver, CO, is Robert Harris (CC:mail

address for Robert Harris is DENPOST2).

\(3\) In all cases provide a copy of all

communication to Headquarters PHDEP

Coordinator Malcolm E. Main (CC:mail

address for Malcolm E. Main is PIHPOST2).

\(d\) The application is to be forwarded via

OVERNIGHT MAIL WITH A TRANSMITTAL MEMO to the

Director, Office of Public Housing and/or

Administrator, AONAPs as appropriate, ATTN:

PHDEP Grants Administrator (Refer to paragraph

11.C. of this notice for guidance).

\(e\) The Field Office/AONAPs receiving the

application WILL:

\(1\) Per instructions in this notice log in

the application according to the prior

Field Office/AONAPs receipt date and

time.

\(2\) The Field Office/AONAPs shall attach any

appropriate documentation to the log.

D. In accordance with the NOFA, applicants that deliver

applications to Field Offices/AONAPs after the deadline

date and hour (FRIDAY, JUNE 14, 1996, AT 3:00 PM, LOCAL

TIME) are ineligible applicants and will be immediately

notified that their applications will not be processed.

E. Grant applications SHALL be screened in accordance with

Chapter 2 of ORI Resident Initiatives Grants Management

Handbook 7490.01 for curable deficiencies and eligibility

with the following additional guidance.

\(1\) The basic procedures require the receiving Field

Office/AONAPs to screen, using Appendix B of this

notice, each application. Headquarters, OCRI, CPSD

will provide a FOGA application checklist and

reviewer instructions, via cc mail, to each Field

Office/AONAPs.

9

\(2\) Selection Criteria 3 of the PHDEP application shall

be scored, using Appendix E of this notice, by the

Field Office/AONAPs having jurisdiction over the

HA. The screening and scoring (Selection Criteria

3 of the PHDEP application) WILL be supervised and

validated by each Field Office and AONAPs FOGA.

\(3\) Due to workload and staffing requirements Field

Office, Directors, Office of Public Housing and

Administrators, AONAPs ARE AUTHORIZED to conduct

one review per application for Selection Criteria

3\.

\(4\) Field Office/AONAPs staff validating any of the

screening process SHALL NOT be the same person who

scores a grant application. Scoring information

MUST be posted on both scoring sheets.

\(5\) Field Offices/AONAPs WILL acknowledge receipt of

all grant applications received with a letter to

the applicant as outlined in ORI Resident

Initiatives Grants Management Handbook 7490.01,

Chapter 2-4. This letter must also include a

required response date.

F. In connection with ORI Resident Initiatives Grants

Management Handbook 7490.01, the SMIRPH/MIRS Grants

Management Module will be used in the FE 96 PHDEP grant

cycle/process. The FOGA receiving the grant application

WILL be responsible for:

\(1\) Assuring initial grant application information (See

Tab 1 of PHDEP application kit) on all applications

is entered into the computer system; and

\(2\) Information, is entered for screens 1, 2, and 7 in

the Grants Management Module.

NOTE: FOR PURPOSES OF THIS PROCESS DO NOT DELETE ANY

INELIGIBLE APPLICATIONS FROM THE DATABASE AS

INSTRUCTED IN THE ORI GRANTS MANAGEMENT

HANDBOOK AT CHAPTER 2, 2-5.

G. The FOGA WILL validate the correctness of all information

entered into each of the required screens of the Grants

Management Module.

10

\(1\) If the databases ARE NOT complete the FOGA WILL be

required, in a timely manner, to make appropriate

corrections and resubmit the database to the

processing panel.

\(2\) The database MUST include the project summary on

screen 7 at F3 and be no more than 4 to 5 brief

sentences describing the activities supported by

the award.

\(3\) The summary WILL be taken from the DRUG\*\*\*\*.DBF and

used in Congressional notification. The FOGA will

ensure that the summary contains complete

sentences.

K. For administrative purposes Field Offices/AONAPs WILL

retain one original FY 96 PHDEP grant application and

send 2 (TWO) IDENTICAL COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION

with one score sheet attached to each copy and related

documents to the appropriate processing site guaranteeing

arrival by JULY 12, 1996. An identical Selection Criteria

Score should be entered on each score sheet.

\(1\) The box being shipped WILL (but not limited to)

contain the following items:

\(a\) Transmittal letter. The transmittal letter

shall include a list of grant applications:

\(1\) Prepared for scoring; and

\(2\) Those not to be scored for whatever

reason.

NOTE: EACH FIELD OFFICE/AONAPs MUST STATE

AND JUSTIFY WHY THE GRANT

APPLICATION(S) WERE NOT SCORED AND

PROVIDE ALL DOCUMENTATION RELATED TO

THE APPLICATION(S).

\(b\) Grant application master log.

\(c\) Grant applications (Organized by HA Code).

\(d\) Copies of the grant application acknowledgment

and curable deficiency letters (Attached to

each application).

11

\(e\) Grant application screening checklist and

Score Sheets with Selection Criteria 3 score

entered on score sheets. (Attached to each

application)

\(f\) Grant application correctable deficiency

master log.

\(g\) Diskette with the SMIRPH/MIRS Grants

Management databases (DRUG\*\*\*\*.DBF and

DRUG\*\*\*\*.DBT (\*\*\*\* = Field Office Code) with

the application information for screens 1, 2,

and 7 in the ORI, Grants Management Module

completed.

\(h\) Contact the Field Office/AONAPs Data Base

Administrator (DBA) for additional guidance.

I. Grant applications WILL be sent to the below processing

center sites for processing. Addresses and point of

contacts are as follows:

\(1\) Public housing authority FY 96 PHDEP grant

applications WILL be sent to:

HUD - New York State Office

Director, Office of Public Housing

ATTN: Grants Administrator: Jed Abrams

26 Federal Plaza, Suite 3237

New York, NY 10278-0068

Telephone Number (212) 264-6500

Office hours: 8:30am - 5:00pm local time

\(2\) Indian housing authority FY 96 PHDEP grant

applications WILL be sent to:

HUD - Northern Plains Office of Native American

Programs Administrator, AONAPs,

ATTN: Grants Administrator: Tracy Outlaw

First Interstate Tower North, 633 17th Street

Denver, CO 80202-3607

Telephone Number (303) 672-5457

Office hours: 8:15am - 4:45pm local time

NOTE:

\(1\) GRANT APPLICATIONS MUST BE CONTROLLED AND

ACCOUNTED FOR AT ALL TIMES DURING THIS

PROCESS.

12

\(2\) ALL APPLICATIONS WILL BE SENT \"OVERNIGHT MAIL\"

TO THE APPLICATION PROCESS SITE. FIELD

OFFICES/AONAPs MUST CHECK WITH THEIR

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AND MAIL ROOM

SUPERVISOR FOR GUIDANCE REGARDING THIS MATTER.

J. Field Offices/AONAPs WILL monitor and track grant

applications by sending a urgent cc:mail to the

appropriate grant application processing site that states

\"when\" and \"how\" the applications were shipped and

\"expected arrival date.\" The following personnel are

points of contact regarding this matter:

\(1\) Jed Abrams, Office of Public Housing, NYC, NY

(CC:mail address for Jed Abrams is NYCPOST1);

and/or

\(2\) Robert Harris, AONAPs, Denver, CO (CC:mail address

for Robert Harris is DENPOST2).

K. Coordination and oversight of the PHDEP grant application

process:

\(1\) Field Offices and AONAPs SHALL send a copy of all

cc:mails regarding this process to MALCOLM E. MAIN

(CC:mail address for Malcolm E. Main is PIHPOST2).

\(2\) Any violation in carrying out this notice may

result in funding delays or repeating the scoring

and ranking procedures.

\(3\) HUD Headquarters, in conjunction with the Office of

public and Indian housing comptroller, WILL audit a

sample of Field Offices to validate the review

process.

14\. SCORING OF FY 96 PHDEP GRANT APPLICATIONS.

A. Assignment of the Grant Administrator. Two grant

application processing center site grant administrators

(GAs) WILL be assigned to oversee the review process. One

GA WILL be assigned to each selected site. The GAs WILL:

\(1\) Receive all grant applications and validate receipt

based on the application print-out from the Grants

Management Module reports and the hard copy of the

PHDEP Application Log.

13

\(2\) Coordinate and manage the FY 96 PHDEP grant

application review process.

\(3\) Identify reviewers for applications. Reviewers

WILL be selected from HUD staff from local and

other Field Offices/AONAPs.

\(4\) Work with data entry person at the processing panel

entering data in the Grants Management Module.

Validate data entry.

\(5\) The work load WILL be divided among panels of

reviewers with one or more grant panel leader(s)

(GPL) assisting the GA in overseeing the process.

\(6\) All reviewers WILL be trained in one training

session by Headquarters, OCRI, CPSD and ONAPs staff

at the beginning of the review process to assure

consistency.

\(7\) Each grant application WILL be independently scored

by two individuals.

\(8\) Scores WILL be posted on the FY 96 PHDEP Scoring

Sheets. The GA or the GPL(s) WILL verify that all

factors are scored, math computations are correct,

scoring sheets reflect appropriate comments for

score and are signed by reviewer, and validate all

data entry with the score sheets.

\(9\) Scores WILL be entered into the Grants Management

Module at the grant application processing site.

15\. RANKING OF FY 96 GRANT APPLICATIONS.

A. After grant applications have been processed and scored,

the GA, Office of Public Housing, NYC, NY WILL provide a

ranking of the applications on a national basis.

B. The awards WILL be made in ranked order until all funds

are awarded. In the event that two eligible applications

receive the same score, and both cannot be funded because

of insufficient funds, the application with the highest

score in selection criterion 3 \"The capability of the

applicant to carry out the plan\" will be selected.

14

C. If Selection Criterion 3, of the grant application, is

scored identically for both applications:

\(1\) The scores in Selection Criteria 1, 2, and 4 WILL

be compared in this order, one at a time, until one

grant application scores higher in one of the

factors and is selected.

\(2\) If, the grant application score is identically in

all factors, the grant application that requests

less funding will be selected.

D. All awards WILL be made to fund fully a grant

application, except as provided in section I.(b)(4)

(Reduction of Requested Grant Amounts and Special

Conditions) under the NOFA.

E. The GA, Office of Public Housing, NYC, NY WILL provide to

Headquarters, OCRI, CPSD all completed database files

with all grant application and scoring information for

the FY 96 PHDEP grant applications.

F. A grant application MUST receive a score of 70 OR MORE

POINTS OUT OF THE MAXIMUM OF 100 POINTS AWARDED under

this competition to be eligible for funding.

16\. ACTIONS REQUIRED FOR SUBMISSION OF FY 96 PHDEP GRANT

APPLICATION SELECTION DATA.

A. The FY 96 PHDEP Grants Management Module databases

DRUG\*\*\*\*.DBF and DRUG\*\*\*\*.DBT with all grant application

and scoring information completed MOST be submitted to

Headquarters through standard Procedures and guidance in

this notice for transmission of SMIRPH/MIRS databases.

B. The GA, Office of Public Housing, NYC, NY WILL assure

that data entry on screens 1 through 7 of the module are

validated to be correct and complete before the database

is sent to Headquarters, OCRI, CPSD.

C. Grant application processing site GA, AONAPs, Denver, CO:

\(1\) The FY 96 PHDEP Grants Management Module databases

DRUG\*\*\*\*.DBF and DRUG\*\*\*\*.DBT with all grant

application and scoring information MUST be

submitted to the GA Office of Public Housing, NYC,

NY.

15

\(2\) The GA, AONAPs WILL assure that data entry on

screens 1 through 7 of the module are validated to

be correct and complete before the database is

transmitted. Refer to paragraph 11.C. of this

notice for guidance.

D. After the completion of the review process, the GA,

Office of Public Housing, NYC, NY WILL through standard

procedures transmit all SMIRPH/MIRS databases to

Headquarters, OCRI, CPSD.

17\. CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATIONS.

A. Based on information in the Grants Management Module

Congressional notifications for the Office of Public

Housing and ONAPs WILL be prepared by the GA, Office of

Public Housing, New York City, NY and submitted to

Headquarters, OCRI, CPSD.

B. A memorandum will be submitted by the Assistant

Secretary, Office of Public and Indian Housing that

includes a listing of the grant awards to the Assistant

Secretary, Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations,

who will officially notify Congress.

C. After Congress has been notified the OCRI, CPSD WILL

notify Field Offices/ONAPs as to Congressional

notification release date.

18\. NOTIFICATIONS TO SELECTEES AND NON-SELECTEES.

A. Headquarters, OCRI, CPSD WILL prepare and forward, via

cc:mail, selectee awards for signature to the ONAPs, and

each Director, Office of Public Housing and

Administrator, AONAPs for distribution. THE AWARD

LETTERS WILL NOT BE SENT UNTIL:

\(1\) Field Offices/AONAPs receive the HUD-185 from

Headquarters; and

\(2\) Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations has

completed the notification of Congress.

\(3\) After Congress has been notified Headquarters,

OCRI, CPSD will notify ONAPs, Field Offices/AONAPs

as to Congressional notif- ication release date.

16

B. Applicants who were not funded WILL also be notified in

writing at the same time as funded grant applications.

The OCRI, CPSD will provide, via cc:mail, all disapproval

letters from the Grants Management Module and forward

them to the ONAPs, and each Director, Office of Public

Housing and Administrators, AONAPs for distribution.

C. An original signature copy of each award letter WILL be

provided to the Field Accounting Director (FAD) to

reserve grant funds.

19\. FY 96 PHDEP GRANT AGREEMENT PREPARATION AND PROCESS.

A. Form HUD-1044 with grant agreement and related forms will

be prepared in accordance with Chapter 4 of the ORI,

Grants Management Handbook 7490.01.

B. Grant Agreement.

\(1\) A standardized grant agreement WILL be provided by

Headquarters, OCRI, CPSD to Field Offices/AONAPs to

assist in this process. This agreement is provided

to Field Offices as a GUIDE.

\(2\) Field Offices/AONAPs MUST verify award amount and

may place any special conditions, such as LOCCS

edits or funding or programmatic restrictions

necessary for compliance or performance of the

approved grant.

C. The FY 96 PHDEP grant agreement MUST be executed in

accordance with the schedule set forth in paragraph 22 of

this notice.

20\. APPLICATION DEBRIEFINGS.

A. After the completion of the scoring process the GA,

Office of Public Housing, New York City, NY, and AONAPs,

Denver, CO WILL provide via transmittal letter; a copy of

scoring sheets to each Field Office/AONAPs.

B. The GA, Office of Public Housing, New York City, NY and

AONAPs, Denver, CO MUST ensure, via transmittal letter,

two copies of the grant applications and scoring sheets,

and any related documents, per applicant, are sent

(OVERNIGHT MAIL) to HUD\'s DISC. The DISC will maintain

a file copy of all grant applications and score sheets

and related documents. The materials will be sent to the

following address:

17

Aspen Systems

Drug Information and Strategy Clearinghouse (DISC)

ATTN: Gary Ballinger

(For informational purposes: Gary Ballinger may be

contacted on HUD cc:mail address ASPENPOST and/or

INTERNET E-MAIL ADDRESS: GBallinger @ ASPENSYS.COM)

1600 Research Boulevard, STOP 3k

Rockville, MD 20850

Telephone Number (301) 251-5123

C. HUD\'s DISC will be available to provide feedback to those

HAs whose applications were not approved for funding.

D. This process MUST be executed in accordance with the

schedule set forth in paragraph 22 of this Notice.

21\. HUD FY 96 PHDEP GRANT APPLICATION REPORTS REQUIRED.

A. As in past years, to ensure that the program schedules

are adhered to and that applicants are not adversely

affected, the below listed monitoring/tracking report IS

REQUIRED. Field Offices/AONAPs report SHALL be, but not

limited to, submitted in the following format for the FY

96 PHDEP:

\(1\) Date Office of Public Housing/AONAPs approval

letters were transmitted to applicants;

\(2\) Date the Office of Public Housing/AONAPs

transmitted executed grant agreements to FAD;

\(3\) Date funds were obligated by the FAD;

\(4\) Date Office of Public Housing/AONAPs entered FY 96

PHDEP budget line items (BLIs) into LOCCS; and

\(5\) Any grantee that does not have access to LOCCS-VRS

for the FY 96 PHDEP as of the date of the report

and what actions were taken.

B. Each Director, Office of Public Housing and

Administrator, AONAPs, as appropriate, WILL submit this

report, via cc:mail, no later than OCTOBER 1, 1996 as

follows:

\(1\) Director, Office of Public Housing: Send cc:mail to

Headquarters, OCRI, CPSD, ATTN: Malcolm E. Main

(CC:mail address for Malcolm E. Main is PIHPOST2).

18

\(2\) Administrator, AONAPs: Send cc:mail to

Headquarters, ONAPs ATTN: Tracy Outlaw (CC:mail

address for Tracy Outlaw is PIHPOST2).

Headquarters, ONAPs, after review, MUST forward

final reports to OCRI, CPSD ATTN: Malcolm E. Main

by October 1, 1996.

22\. FY 1996 PHDEP GRANT PROCESS TIMETABLE. Headquarters, ONAPs,

Field Offices and AONAPs MUST execute this process in

accordance with the below schedule.

DEADLINE

COMPLETION

STEPS DATE

1 Director, Office of Public

Housing and Administrators,

AONAPs designates FOGAs June 07,

1996

Action for Offices of Public Housing:

Provide, via cc mail, FOGAs name,

cc:mail address and phone number

to: Malcolm E. Main (CC:mail

address PIHPOST2); and

Action for ONAPs:

ONAPs will provide a consolidated

FOGA list to OCRI, CPSD ATTN:

Malcolm E. Main (CC:mail address

PIHPOST2)

2 Headquarters provides instructions

and guidance regarding data entry

into the ORI Grants Management

Module provided to GA and FOGAs June 07,

1996

3 Headquarters, provides FO PHDEP

training materials to GA/FOGAs June 07,

1996

4 APPLICATION DEADLINE June 14,

1996

5 FOGAs fax Application Master

Log to Malcolm E. Main, (fax number

\(202\) 401-7965, CC:mail address

PIHPOST2) to Headquarters, CPSD

and/or ONAPs, as appropriate

(Refer to Appendix A) June 18,

1996

19

6 Headquarters, verifies via cc:mail

Application Master Logs June 19, 1996

7 FOGAs begin data entry of

applications in SMIRPH/MIRS Grants

Management Module June 19,

1996

8 FOGAs screen for technical

deficiencies and provide

application acknowledgement and,

if applicable, curable deficiencies

letter to HAs

(Refer to Appendix B) June 19,

1996

9 FOs start scoring of selective

criterion 3 June 24,

1996

INDEPENDENCE DAY - HOLIDAY July 04,

1996

10 END OF CURABLE PERIOD

(14 CALENDAR DAYS) July 05,

1996

11 If applicable, (Refer to Appendix D)

FOGA ensures all technical deficiency

corrections are received and

corrections made (Insert into

appropriate place in application)

to remaining application at FO

from HAs no later than: July 08,

1996

12 FOs completes scoring

Selective Criterion 3 July 10,

1996

13 FOGAs ships boxes to processing

sites containing the following items:

o Transmittal Letter

o Application Master Log

o Applications (Organized by HA Code)

o Application Screening

and Score Sheets must be

attached to each

application with selection

criteria 3 score entered on each

score sheet

o Correctable Deficiency

Log with any curable

letters attached

to applications

20

o Diskette of application

information from the

SMIRPH/MIRS Grants

Management Module

NOTE: Director, Office of Public

Housing and Administrator, AONAPs

shall send applications via overnight

mail (Check with Administrative Officer and

mail room supervisor on process) July 11,

1996

14 FOs send cc:mails to processing site

that states \"when\" and \"how\" the

applications were shipped and

\"expected arrival date\". (Refer to

paragraph 13 of this notice) July 11,

1996

15 Applications with all related

documentation must arrive at

application processing sites July 12,

1996

16 Headquarters staff and GA

grant application processing

center site administrative time:

A. GA begins organization of

grant applications for review (WEDNESDAY)

process July 17,

1996

B. GA completes organization of

grant applications for review

process. Weekend staff workload (SUNDAY)

July 20-21, 1996. July 21,

1996

17 Headquarters, staff

train reviewers July 22,

1996

18 Start review and scoring of

applications by processing panel

(July 22 - Aug 02, 1996 - 10 working

days) July 22,

1996

19 GA, AONAPs, Denver, CO transmits

application database to GA NYC August 06,

1996

ATTN: Jed Abrams, Office of Public

Housing, NYC, NY (CC:mail address

for Jed Abrams is NYCPOST1)

21

20 Data entry completed in Grants

Management Module by data entry

staff and validated by GA

August 09, 1996

21 Headquarters award documents and

HUD 185s transmitted to Headquarters,

CPSD Augus

t 09, 1996

22 CPSD prepares a decision memo

regarding award funding for the

Assistant Secretary

August 12, 1996

23 Decision memo regarding award

funding submitted

to PIH Budget Division

August 12, 1996

24 Headquarters, Assistant

Secretary, PIH makes final

approval of grant selections

August 16, 1996

25 GA ships boxes, with transmittal

letter and related documents to

include applications to DISC.

(Refer to paragraph 20 of

this notice) August 16,

1996

26 GA provides FOs with copies of

Score sheets August 16,

1996

27 Headquarters, provides list of

final grant awards to FOs

August 16, 1996

28 HEADQUARTERS\--CONGRESSIONAL

NOTIFICATIONS Augus

t 16, 1996

29 Headquarters sends HUD-185 to FOs

August 20, 1996

30 FY 96 PHDEP awards. FOs ensures

award letters (copy of award

letter to FAD to reserve funds),

disapproval letters and grant

agreements are transmitted to HAs August 23,

1996

31 FAD completes reservation of

FY 96 PHDEP grant funds

August 30, 1996

32 FY 96 PHDEP grant agreements

executed between HUD and HAs September

06, 1996

22

33 FOs enter activity budget line

items into LOCCS September

06, 1996

34 FY 96 PHDEP funds available

for grantees to draw down September

23, 1996

35 FOs submits FY 96 PHDEP Grant

Status Report to Headquarters October 08,

1996

36 DISC prepares FY 96 PHDEP analysis

to Headquarters and local FOs November 22,

1996

For further information on the Public Housing Drug Elimination

Program contact Malcolm E. (Mike) Main, Office of Community

Relation and Involvement, Crime Prevention and Security Division,

Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban

Development, 451 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 4112, Washington, D.C.

20410 on (202) 708-1197, ext 4232 and/or the Drug Information and

Strategy Clearinghouse on 1-800-578-3472.

Kevin Emanuel Marchman

Acting Assistant Secretary for

Public and Indian Housing

Attachments:

Appendix A: FY 1996 PHDEP Grant Application Master Log

Appendix B: FY 1996 PHDEP Grant Application Screening Field

Office Checklist

Appendix C: FY 1996 PHDEP Grant Application Correctable

Deficiency Master Log

Appendix D: FY 1996 PHDEP Grant Application Deficiency Letter

Appendix E: FY 1996 PHDEP Grant Application Score Sheet

Instructions

Appendix F: FY 1996 PHDEP Grant Application Scoring Sheet

23

APPENDIX A: FY 1996 PHDEP GRANT APPLICATION MASTER LOG

APPENDIX B: FY 1996 PHDEP GRANT APPLICATION FIELD OFFICE

SCREENING CHECKLIST

SECTION 1. FIELD OFFICE GRANT APPLICATION SCREENING CHECKLIST

HA
Name:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

HA Code:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Field
Office:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Requested Grant Term in Months:\_\_\_\_

SECTION 2. FIELD OFFICE GRANT APPLICATION CHECKLIST

TABS COMPLETE ACTION

YES NO

1 \_\_\_ \_\_\_ Applicant Cover Letter

2 \_\_\_ \_\_\_ Applicant Data Input Form

3 \_\_\_ \_\_\_ SF-424, Application for Federal Assistance

4 \_\_\_ \_\_\_ SF-424A Budget Information with budget

narrative(s) attached

5 \_\_\_ \_\_\_ SF-424B Assurances

6 \_\_\_ \_\_\_ First Selection Criteria

7 \_\_\_ \_\_\_ Second Selection Criteria

7A \_\_\_ \_\_\_ - Implementation Schedule/Activity

timetable

7B \_\_\_ \_\_\_ - Personnel Position Descriptions (if

applicable)

8 \_\_\_ \_\_\_ Third Selection Criteria

9 \_\_\_ \_\_\_ Fourth Selection Criteria

9A \_\_\_ \_\_\_ - Summary of Written Resident Comments

9B \_\_\_ \_\_\_ - Letters of Commitment (if applicable)

10 \_\_\_ \_\_\_ Certifications

10A \_\_\_ \_\_\_ - RMC, RC and RO certification

1

10B \-\-- \-\-- - Drug treatment program certification

(Applicable only if applying for drug

treatment activities NOT prevention

activities)

10C \_\_\_ \_\_\_ - Law enforcement certification (Applicable

only if applying for law enforcement

activities)

10D \_\_\_ \_\_\_ - Form HUD-50070 drug-free work place

certification

10E \_\_\_ \_\_\_ - Chief Executive Officer (CEO)

certification

10F \_\_\_ \_\_\_ - HUD-50071 lobbying certification

10G \_\_\_ \_\_\_ - SL-LLL disclosure of lobbying activities

certification

10H \_\_\_ \_\_\_ - Debarment and Suspension Certification

10I \_\_\_ \_\_\_ - Form HUD-2880, Applicant Disclosures

SECTION 3. REVIEW OF FY 96 PHDEP GRANT APPLICATION

COMPLETE

YES NO ACTION

1\. \_\_\_ \_\_\_ A. Are all computations in the SF-424A

(budget) and budget narrative complete

and correct?

\_\_\_ \_\_\_ B. Did the FO review the SF-424A and

narrative to check for duplication of

funds with other HUD programs? ANSWER

YES OR NO.

\_\_\_ \_\_\_ C. If yes, were any duplication of funds

found? ANSWER YES OR NO. If Yes, explain

what actions were taken. (Review SF-424A

and Tab 1)

2\. \_\_\_ \_\_\_ Did the FO verify the unit count? (Review Tab

1\)

3\. \_\_\_ \_\_\_ Does the amount requested EXCEED THE MAXIMUM

GRANT AMOUNT PERMITTED? In accordance with

section I.(b)(2) of the NOFA. If an error was

identified, please explain actions taken in

specific comment section below.

2

4\. \_\_\_ \_\_\_ Did the applicant request funding for the

activities described in section I.(c)(1)

through (6) of the NOFA, to eliminate drug-

related crime in housing owned by public

housing agencies that is not public housing

assisted under the United States Housing Act

of 1937 and is not otherwise federally

assisted:

A. \_\_\_ \_\_\_ Did the applicant demonstrate that the housing

is located in a high intensity drug

trafficking area designated pursuant to

section 1005 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of

1988; and

B. \_\_\_ \_\_\_ Did the applicant demonstrate that on the

basis of information submitted in accordance

with the requirements of section I.(c)(9) of

the NOFA, that drug-related activity, and the

problems associated with it, at the housing

has a detrimental affect on or about the real

property comprising any public or other

federally assisted low-income housing.

SECTION 4. FIELD OFFICE SUMMARY OF ACTIONS

Were technical deficiencies noted:

Yes\_\_\_ No\_\_\_

Were curable technical deficiencies corrected:

Yes\_\_\_ \*\*No\_\_\_ (Explain below)

Application fully acceptable:

Yes\_\_\_ \*\*No\_\_\_ (Explain below)

Application screened by

(print):\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Signature:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Date of

screening:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Verification:

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Date:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

(FOGA Signature)

Specific comments: (Use additional paper if necessary)

3

APPENDIX C: FY 1996 PHDEP FIELD OFFICE GRANT APPLICATION

CORRECTABLE DEFICIENCIES MASTER LOG.

APPENDIX D: SAMPLE FY 1996 PHDEP FIELD OFFICE GRANT

APPLICATION DEFICIENCY LETTER

SAMPLE - ONLY

Applicant

Address

Dear Executive Director (Name):

Thank you for your recent application submission for the FY

1996 Public Housing Drug Elimination Program (PHDEP). The (Name of

Local HUD Field Office) has conducted the initial screening of your

application. Your submission was found technically deficient in

the following areas:

(SAMPLE)

1\.

2\.

3\.

Please provide the additional information and/or corrected

certification(s) for the identified deficiencies within 14 days

from the date of this letter. Please submit your corrections to:

Name of Local Field Office

Address

Name of contact person

Phone Number

Fax Number

If you have any questions, please contact (Insert contact name

and phone number).

Thank you for your interest in the Department\'s programs.

Sincerely,

APPENDIX E: FY 1996 PHDEP GRANT APPLICATION SCORE SHEET

INSTRUCTIONS

Each reviewer will receive a number of assigned Public Housing Drug

Elimination Program (PHDEP) grant applications to review and score.

These applications will be listed on the assignment sheet

accompanying the applications. Please check to verify the receipt

of all applications listed and sign the sheet as confirmation. You

are responsible for the applications in your possession at all

times. Return each application to the grant administrator or panel

leader as you complete the review and scoring of each application.

Please review the applications in the order listed on your

assignment sheet.

The applications are to be reviewed and scored according to the FY

96 NOFA, 24 CFR 961 (PHDEP Final Rule), FY 96 application

Processing Notice and any additional training instructions

provided.

You must remember that all of the documents used during the process

are official documents and are subject to review. Therefore, all

documents must be legible and scorers must document decisions

completely and accurately.

STEP 1 REVIEW AND SCORE THE APPLICATION:

A. The number of points that an application receives MUST depend

on the extent to which the application is responsive to the

information requested in the selection criteria.

B. As the reviewer scores each selective criterion they MUST post

the scores in Section 1 of the score sheet and initial the

entry.

C. All scores issued by the reviewer must be justified in

writing. The written justification MUST indicate \"WHY\" the

applicant \"DID NOT\" receive the maximum allowable points for

the particular selection criteria factor. Appropriate

entries/comments MUST be made on any factor requiring a score.

D. The reviewer can use additional paper if necessary. All

scores MaST be justified and verified by a supervisor.

E. Each application submitted for a grant under the FY 96 PHDEP

NOFA WILL be evaluated on the basis of the following selection

criteria:

1

THIS DOCUMENT IS A RECOMMENDED REVIEWER \"HIGH,\" \"MEDIUM,\"

\"LOW,\" POINT DISTRIBUTION. ALL SCORES ISSUED BY THE REVIEWER

MUST BE JUSTIFIED IN WRITING. THE WRITTEN JUSTIFICATION MUST

INDICATE \"WHY\" THE APPLICANT \"DID NOT\" RECEIVE THE MAXIMUM

ALLOWABLE POINTS FOR THE PARTICULAR SELECTION CRITERIA FACTOR.

APPROPRIATE ENTRIES/COMMENTS MUST BE MADE ON ANY FACTOR

REQUIRING A SCORE. IN ASSESSING EACH CRITERION THE REVIEWER

WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING:

1\. FIRST SELECTIVE CRITERION. THE EXTENT OF THE DRUG-

RELATED CRIME PROBLEM IN THE APPLICANT\'S DEVELOPMENT OR

DEVELOPMENTS PROPOSED FOR ASSISTANCE. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE

POINTS FOR SELECTIVE CRITERION 1: 40 POINTS

SUBFACTOR 1-A SECTION I.(D)(1) UNDER PARAGRAPHS (I) AND (II)

OF THE NOFA MAXIMUM TOTAL POINTS: 15

SUBFACTOR 1-A DESCRIPTION: In awarding points, the

reviewer will evaluate the extent to which the applicant

has provided the above data that reflects drug-related

crime and other criminal activities associated with drug-

related problems, both in terms of the frequency and

nature of the drug-related crime and other criminal

activities associated with drug-related problems in the

HA/development(s) proposed for funding as reflected by

information submitted under paragraph (1)(i) (objective

data), and (ii) (other data) of this section; and the

extent to which such data reflects an increase in drug-

related crime and other criminal activities associated

with drug-related problems over a period of two year(s)

in the HA/development(s) proposed for assistance.

RECOMMENDED REVIEWER GUIDE FOR POINT DISTRIBUTION

HIGH POINTS (10-15 POINTS):

A. The applicant provides the best objective

data/other data that clearly outlines and provides

complete, detailed description, documentation and

analysis of the nature and frequency of the drug-

related crime and other criminal activities

associated drug-related problems and the impact on

the site(s) proposed for assistance.

2

B. The applicant documents crime statistics by listing

types of crime, including drug-related crime and

other criminal activities associated with drug-

related problems, the frequency of the crime, where

the crimes are committed with direct statistics for

the targeted ha or development site(s) and a

comparison of the activities to the community at

large.

C. The applicant clearly defines \"drug activity\" by

including where it was being sold, who was selling,

how it is being sold (drive by markets, sales out

of units, etc.), how they are operating and when

the drug-related activities occur.

D. The applicant clearly provides and documents

additional information such as vandalism costs,

school dropout rate, and drug abuse/treatment

referrals, high rate of public assistance, high

rate of persons under correctional supervision,

high vacancy rates, general neighborhood

deterioration, etc. The applicant demonstrates a

linkage to the drug-related crime and other

criminal activities associated with drug-related

problems.

MEDIUM POINTS (5-9 POINTS):

A. The applicant provides objective data/other data

that outlines a description, documentation and

analysis of the nature and frequency of the drug-

related crime and other criminal activities

associated with drug-related problems and the

impact on the site(s) proposed for assistance.

B. The applicant documents crime statistics by listing

some of types of crime, including drug-related and

other criminal activities associated with drug-

related problems, the frequency of the crime, where

the crimes are committed with statistics for the

targeted ha or development site(s) and a comparison

of the activities to the community at large.

C. The applicant defines \"drug activity\" by including

some of the following information: where it was

being sold, \"who was selling, how it is being sold

(drive by markets, sales out of units, etc.), how

they are operating and when the drug-related

activities occur.

3

D. The applicant provides some information such as

vandalism costs, school dropout rate, and drug

abuse/treatment referrals, high rate of public

assistance, high rate of persons under correctional

supervision, high vacancy, general neighborhood

deterioration, etc. that demonstrates limited

linkage to the drug-related crime and other

criminal activities associated drug-related

problems.

LOW POINTS (0-4 POINTS):

A. The applicant provides limited or no evidence of

objective data/other data, describing, documenting

and/or analyzing the nature and frequency of the

drug-related crime and other criminal activities

associated with drug-related problems and the

impact on the site(s) proposed for assistance.

B. The applicant provides limited or no evidence of

crime statistics by types of crime, including drug-

related and other criminal activities associated

with drug-related problems, the frequency of the

crime, where the crimes are committed with direct

statistics for the targeted HA or development

site(s) and a limited or incomplete comparison of

the activities to the community at large.

C. The applicant did not define \"drug activity\" by

including where it was being sold, who was selling,

how it is being sold (drive by markets, sales out

of units, etc.), How they are operating and when

the drug-related activities occur.

D. The applicant provides limited or no evidence of

additional information such as vandalism costs,

school dropout rate, and drug abuse/treatment

referrals, high rate of public assistance, high

rate of persons under correctional supervision,

high vacancy, general neighborhood deterioration,

etc. that demonstrates a linkage to the drug-

related crime and other criminal activities

associated with drug-related problems.

SUBFACTOR 1-B SECTION I.(d)(1)(IV) OF THE NOFA MAXIMUM TOTAL

POINTS: 5

SUBFACTOR 1-B DESCRIPTION: In awarding points, the reviewer

will evaluate the extent to which the applicant has analyzed

the data compiled and has clearly articulated its needs,

performance measurements, and strategies for reducing drug-

related crime and other criminal activities associated with

drug-related problems in the HA/development(s) proposed for

assistance.

4

RECOMMENDED REVIEWER GUIDE FOR POINT DISTRIBUTION

HIGH POINTS (4-5 POINTS): The applicant has clearly analyzed

the data collected regarding drug-related crime and other

criminal activities associated with drug-related problems and

other indicators associated with the proposed site(s) and has

drawn conclusions on what needs are to be addressed.

MEDIUM POINTS (1-3 POINTS): The applicant analyzes the data

collected regarding drug-related crime and other criminal

activities associated with drug-related with drug-related

problems and other indicators associated with the proposed

site(s) and has drawn some conclusions on what needs are to be

addressed.

LOW POINTS (0 POINTS): The applicant provides no evidence of

data regarding drug-related crime and other criminal

activities associated with drug-related problems and other

indicators associated with the proposed site(s).

SUBFACTOR 1-C SECTION I.(d)(1)(V) OF THE NOFA MAXIMUM TOTAL POINTS:

10

SUBFACTOR 1-C DESCRIPTION: In awarding points, HUD will assign

points between zero (0) and ten (10) according to the extent

and availability of standardized data on the following

specific Part I crime activities as defined by the Uniform

Crime Reporting (UCR) system: (1) criminal homicide, (2)

forcible rape, (3) robbery, and (4) aggravated assault. This

data must cover both the frequency and nature of the crime in

the HA/development(s) proposed for assistance. The community

data will be taken from current Uniform Grime Reports (UCRs)

of the U. S. Department of Justice (FBI crime data) and will

be at the HA/city/county level, when available. The crime

data and the point values will be computed by HUD.

5

SUBFACTOR 1-D SECTION I.(d)(1)(VI) OF THE NOFA MAXIMUM TOTAL

POINTS: 10

SUBFACTOR 1-D DESCRIPTION: In awarding points, HUD will assign

points between zero (0) and ten (10) according to the extent

and availability of standardized data on the following

specific Part II crime activities as defined by the Uniform

Crime Reporting (UCR) system: drug abuse violations \[state,

Tribal and local offenses relating to the unlawful possession,

sale, use, growing, and manufacturing of narcotic drugs\], in

violation of state, Tribal and local law. This data must

cover both the frequency and nature of the crime in the

HA/development(s) proposed for assistance. The community data

will be taken from current Uniform Crime Reports (UCRs) of the

U. S. Department of Justice (FBI crime data) and will be at

the HA/city/county level, when available. The crime data and

the point values will be computed by HUD.

6

2\. SECOND SELECTIVE CRITERION. THE QUALITY OF THE PLAN TO

ADDRESS THE CRIME PROBLEM IN THE PUBLIC HOUSING

DEVELOPMENTS PROPOSED FOR ASSISTANCE, INCLUDING THE

EXTENT TO WHICH THE PLAN INCLUDES INITIATIVES THAT CAN BE

SUSTAINED OVER A PERIOD OF SEVERAL YEARS. MAXIMUM

ALLOWABLE POINTS FOR SELECTIVE CRITERION 2: 35 POINTS

SUBFACTOR 2-A SECTION I.(d)(2)(ii) (A) OF THE NOFA MAXIMUM

TOTAL POINTS: 10

SUBFACTOR 2-A DESCRIPTION: The applicant\'s plan clearly

describes the activities that are being proposed by the

applicant, including those activities to be funded under

this program and those to be funded from other sources,

and indicates how these proposed activities provide for

a comprehensive approach to reduce/eliminate drug-related

crime and other criminal activities associated with drug-

related problems (as described under Selection Criterion

1, section I.(d) (1), \"The extent of the drug-related

crime associated with drug-related crime problems\" in the

HA/development(s) proposed for funding.

RECOMMENDED REVIEWER GUIDE FOR POINT DISTRIBUTION

HIGH POINTS (8-10 POINTS): The applicant\'s plan clearly

demonstrates a distinct relationship between the drug-

related crime and other criminal activities associated

with drug-related problems and their strategy

(activities) to address the problems. The strategy

provides a comprehensive approach of multiple activities

encompassing numerous programs, policies, and practices

to effectively eliminate drug-related crime at the

proposed site(s).

MEDIUM POINTS (4-7 POINTS): The applicant\'s plan

demonstrates some relationship between the drug-related

crime and other criminal activities associated with drug-

related problems and their strategy (activities) to

address the problems. The strategy provides a approach

that encompasses some combination of programs, and

practices to eliminate drug-related crime at the proposed

site(s).

LOW POINTS (0-3 POINTS): The applicant\'s plan

demonstrates a limited or no evidence of relationship

between the drug-related crime and other criminal

activities associated with drug-related problems and

their strategy (activities) to address the problems. The

strategy tends to focus on singular programs to eliminate

drug-related crime and other criminal activities

associated with drug-related problems at the proposed

site(s).

7

SUBFACTOR 2-B SECTION I.(d)(2)(ii)(B) OF THE NOFA MAXIMUM TOTAL

POINTS: 5

SUBFACTOR 2-B DESCRIPTION: The applicant\'s plan provides a

budget narrative with supporting documentation (specifically

how costs were determined for each element of each activity in

the same format as shown in the application kit) for each

activity and describes the financial and other resources

(under this program and other sources) that may reasonably be

expected to be available to carry out each activity.

RECOMMENDED REVIEWER GUIDE FOR POINT DISTRIBUTION

HIGH POINTS (4-5 POINTS): The applicant\'s plan provides a

detailed budget narrative with supporting documentation for

each activity that described the financial and other resources

that were expected to be available to carry out each activity.

MEDIUM POINTS (2-3 POINTS): The applicant\'s plan provides a

budget narrative for each activity that described the

financial and other resources that were expected to be

available to carry out each activity.

LOW POINTS (0-1 POINTS): The applicant\'s plan did not provide

a clear budget narrative for each activity that described the

financial and other resources that were expected to be

available to carry out each activity.

SUBFACTOR 2-C SECTION I.(d)(2)(ii)(C) OF THE NOFA MAXIMUM TOTAL

POINTS: 2

SUBFACTOR 2-C DESCRIPTION: The applicant\'s plan is realistic

in terms of time, personnel, and other-resources, considering

the applicant\'s timetable for beginning and completing each

component of the plan and the amount of funding requested

under this program and other identified resources available to

the applicant.

RECOMMENDED REVIEWER GUIDE FOR POINT DISTRIBUTION

HIGH POINTS (2 POINTS): The applicant clearly demonstrates a

realistic plan in terms of time, personnel, and other

resources. Each component of the plan addressed the

identified need.

MEDIUM POINTS (1 POINT): The applicant provides a plan in

terms of time, personnel, and other resources. Each component

of the plan addressed the identified need.

8

LOW POINTS (0 POINTS): The applicant did not demonstrate in

the application a realistic plan in terms of time, personnel,

and other resources. Each component of the plan was not

documented and address the identified need.

SUBFACTOR 2-D SECTION I.(d)(2)(ii)(D) OF THE NOFA MAXIMUM TOTAL

POINTS: 2

SUBFACTOR 2-D DESCRIPTION: As described in the plan, other

entities (e.g., Tribal, local and state governments and

community organizations) are involved in planning and carrying

out the applicant\'s plan.

RECOMMENDED REVIEWER GUIDE FOR POINT DISTRIBUTION

HIGH POINTS (2 POINTS): The applicant clearly documents the

involvement of the local community and government

participation in the design and of support or other related

documentation.

MEDIUM POINTS (1 POINT): The applicant provides some evidence

of the involvement of the local community and government

participation in the design and implementation of the plan.

LOW POINTS (0 POINTS): The applicant provides no evidence of

involvement of the local community and government

participation in the design and implementation of the plan.

SUBFACTOR 2-E SECTION I.(d)(2)(ii)(E) OF THE NOFA MAXIMUM TOTAL

POINTS: 2

SUBFACTOR 2-E DESCRIPTION: The plan includes activities that

can be sustained over a period of years and\--identifies

resources that the applicant may reasonably expect to be

available for the continuation of the activities at the end of

the grant term.

RECOMMENDED REVIEWER GUIDE FOR POINT DISTRIBUTION

HIGH POINTS (2 POINTS): The applicant\'s plan clearly

demonstrates and includes activities that can be sustained

over a period of years and identifies resources that the

applicant may reasonably expect to be available for the

continuation of the activities at the end of the grant term.

MEDIUM POINTS (1 POINT): The applicant\'s plan includes

activities that can be sustained over a period of years and

identifies resources that the applicant may reasonably expect

to be available for the continuation of the activities at the

end of the grant term.

9

LOW POINTS (0 POINTS): The applicant\'s plan does not include

activities that can be sustained over a period of years and

identifies resources that the applicant may reasonably expect

to be available for the continuation of the activities at the

end of the grant term.

SUBFACTOR 2-F SECTION I.(d)(2)(ii)(F) OF THE NOFA MAXIMUM TOTAL

POINTS: 2

SUBFACTOR 2-F DESCRIPTION: The applicant\'s plan will serve to

provide training and employment or business opportunities for

lower income persons and businesses located in, or

substantially owned by persons residing within the area of the

section 3 covered project as defined in 24 CFR part 135 and in

accordance with 24 CFR 761.

RECOMMENDED REVIEWER GUIDE FOR POINT DISTRIBUTION

HIGH POINTS (2 POINTS): The applicant\'s plan clearly

demonstrates that it will serve to provide training and

employment or business opportunities for lower income persons

and businesses located in, or substantially owned by persons

residing within the area of the Section 3 covered development.

MEDIUM POINTS (1 POINT): The applicant\'s plan provides for

some training and employment or business opportunities for

lower income persons and businesses located in, or

substantially owned by persons residing within the area of the

Section 3 covered development.

LOW POINTS (0 POINTS): The applicant\'s plan does not clearly

state it will serve to provide training and employment or

business opportunities for lower income persons and businesses

located in, or substantially owned by persons residing within

the area of the Section 3 covered development.

SUBFACTOR 2-G SECTION I.(d)(2)(ii)(G) OF THE NOFA MAXIMUM TOTAL

POINTS: 5

SUBFACTOR 2-G DESCRIPTION: The applicant\'s plan contains a

clear description of its process to collect, maintain and

analyze specific drug-related crime and other criminal

activities associated with drug-related problems and workload

as defined by the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) system in

specific Part I/II crimes as detailed in selection criterion

1, paragraphs I.(d)(1)(v) and (vi) of the NOFA, as well as

other police workload data to include all calls for service on

the HA/development(s) proposed for funding.

10

RECOMMENDED REVIEWER GUIDE FOR POINT DISTRIBUTION

HIGH POINTS (4-5 POINTS): The applicant\'s plan clearly

demonstrates a clear description of its process to collect,

maintain and analyze specific drug-related crime and other

criminal activities associated with drug-related problems and

workload as defined by the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR)

system in specific Part I/II crimes as detailed in selection

criterion 1, section I.(d)(1)(v) and (vi) of the NOFA, as well

as other police workload data to include all calls for service

on the HA/development(s) proposed for funding.

MEDIUM POINTS (1-3 POINTS): The applicant\'s plan provides a

description of its process to collect, maintain and analyze

specific drug-related crime and other criminal activities

associated with drug-related problems and workload as defined

by the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) system in specific Part

I/II crimes as detailed in selection criterion 1, section

I.(d)(1)(v) and (vi) of the NOFA, as well as other police

workload data to include all calls for service on the

HA/development(s) proposed for funding.

LOW POINTS (0 POINTS): The applicant\'s plan does not clearly

state a description of its process to collect, maintain and

analyze specific drug-related crime and other criminal

activities associated with drug-related problems and workload

as defined by the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) system in

specific Part I/II crimes as detailed in selection criterion

1, section I.(d)(1)(v) and (vi) of the NOFA, as well as other

police workload data to include all calls for service on the

HA/development(s) proposed for funding.

SUBFACTOR 2-H SECTION I.(d)(2)(ii)(H) OF THE NOFA MAXIMUM TOTAL

POINTS: 7

SUBFACTOR 2-H DESCRIPTION: The applicant\'s plan includes an

evaluation process with specific performance measurements that

demonstrate results relative to crime workload detailed in

Selection Criterion 1, section 1.(d) (1) of the NOFA, in the

HA/development(s) proposed for funding.

11

RECOMMENDED REVIEWER GUIDE FOR POINT DISTRIBUTION

HIGH POINTS (5-7 POINTS): The applicant clearly outlines an

evaluation methodology to measure the success of the plan

based on specific indicators relating to the assessment and

identified needs of the proposed site(s); included in the

application was a discussion of the types of information and

the methods to be used to gather and analyze this information.

The information collected relates the evaluation process to

the assessment of the drug-related crime and other criminal

activities associated with drug-related problems of the

proposed site(s).

MEDIUM POINTS (1-4 POINTS): The applicant provides limited

evaluation methodology to measure the success of the plan; the

information generally collected relates the evaluation process

to the assessment of the drug-related crime and other criminal

activities associated with drug-related problems of the

proposed site(s).

LOW POINTS (0 POINTS): The applicant provides no evidence of

an evaluation process to measure the success of the plan or

described a methodology to measure the success of the plan for

data collection and failed to relate the evaluation process to

the assessment of the drug-related crime and other criminal

drug-related problems of the proposed site(s).

12

3\. THIRD SELECTIVE CRITERION. THE CAPABILITY OF THE APPLICANT TO

CARRY OUT THE PLAN. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE POINTS FOR SELECTIVE

CRITERION 3: 15 POINTS

SUBFACTOR 3-A SECTION I.(d)(3)(i)(A)(B) and (C) OF THE NOFA MAXIMUM

TOTAL POINTS: 2

SUBFACTOR 3-A DESCRIPTION: The reviewer will determine the

extent of the applicant\'s successful and effective

administrative capability to manage its HA, as measured by its

performance with respect to operative NOD requirements under

the ACC or ACA and the Public Housing Management Assessment

Program at 24 CFR part 901. In evaluating administrative

capability under this factor, the reviewer will consider, and

the application must include in the form of a narrative

discussion, the following information: whether there are any

unresolved findings from prior HUD reports (e.g. performance

or finance), reviews or audits undertaken by HUD, the Office

of the Inspector General, the General Accounting Office, or

independent public accountants; whether the applicant is

operating under court order.

RECOMMENDED REVIEWER GUIDE FOR POINT DISTRIBUTION

HIGH POINTS (2 POINTS): The applicant clearly demonstrated a

capability to effectively and efficiently manage their housing

developments as outlined in reports generated by HUD reviews

or audits. For example, under the public housing management

assessment program (PHMAP) the housing authority must have an

assessment with consistent grades of \"A\" or \"B\" only for each

of the indicators, as available. (In the case of a Troubled

PHA, points awarded may only be in the Medium to Low range.)

MEDIUM POINTS (1 POINT): The applicant demonstrated

satisfactory (FAIR) ability to effectively and efficiently

manage their housing developments as outlined in reports

generated by HUD reviews or audits. Under PHMAP, the

assessment must show consistent grades of at least \"C\" as

available. (In the case of a Troubled PHA, the housing

authority must be achieving the goals that have been outlined

under the MOA.)

LOW POINTS (0 POINTS): The applicant demonstrated a lack of

ability to manage their housing developments as shown in HUD

reviews and audits through unresolved findings and

observations. Under PHMAP, the assessment shows grades of \"D\"

or lower as available. In the case of Troubled PHAs, the

housing authority is meeting only some or none of the goals

outlined under the MOA.

13

SUBFACTOR 3-B SECTION I.(d)(3)(ii) OF THE NOFA MAXIMUM TOTAL

POINTS: 3

SUBFACTOR 3-B DESCRIPTION: The application must demonstrate,

as authorized by applicable local, state, Tribal, and Federal

law, the extent to which the applicant has formed a

collaboration with the local, state, Tribal, and Federal law

enforcement officials and courts to gain access regarding the

criminal conviction records of applicants for, or tenants of,

HAs regarding applicant screening, lease enforcement, and

eviction. The application must demonstrate the extent to

which the applicant has implemented effective screening

procedures to determine an individual\'s suitability for public

housing (consistent with the requirements of 42 U.S.C.

3604(f), 24 CFR 100.202, 29 U.S.C. 794 and 24 CFR 8.4 which

deal with individuals with disabilities); implemented a plan

to reduce vacancies; implemented eviction and lease

enforcement procedures in accordance with 24 CFR part 966,

subpart B, 25 CFR 950.340 and Section 503 of NAHA; or

undertaken other management actions to eliminate drug-related

crime and other criminal activities associated with drug-

related problems in its developments.

RECOMMENDED REVIEWER GUIDE FOR POINT DISTRIBUTION

HIGH POINTS (2-3 POINTS):

The applicant has implemented thorough policies, practices and

procedures to effectively screen potential residents, reduce

vacancies and to evict those residents involved with illegal

drug activities. These policies, practices and procedures

have demonstrated a significant reduction in drug-related

crime and other criminal activities associated with drug-

related problems in the housing authority developments or has

maintained a low level of drug related crime.

MEDIUM POINTS (1 POINT):

The applicant implemented some policies, practices and

procedures to screen potential residents, reduce vacancies and

to evict those residents involved with illegal drug

activities. These policies, practices have demonstrated some

measurable reduction in drug-related crime and other criminal

activities associated with drug-related problems in the

housing authority developments.

14

LOW POINTS (0 POINTS): The applicant has not implemented

policies, practices and a procedure to screen potential

residents, reduce vacancies or to evict those residents

involved with illegal drug activities or the applicant\'s

management policies have not shown to have had an impact on

the reduction of drug-related crime and other criminal

activities associated with drug-related problems in the

housing authority developments.

SUBFACTOR 3-C SECTION I.(d)(3)(iii) OF THE NOFA MAXIMUM TOTAL

POINTS: 10

SUBFACTOR 3-C DESCRIPTION. The reviewer will ensure the

applicant\'s application has identified the applicant\'s

participation in HUD grant programs (such as CGP, CIAP, youth

sports, child care, resident management, PHDEP, HOPE VI,

Tenant Opportunities Program (TOP), Family Investment Centers

(FIC) grants etc.) within the preceding three years, and

discuss the degree of the applicant\'s success in implementing

and managing these grant programs.

RECOMMENDED REVIEWER GUIDE FOR POINT DISTRIBUTION

HIGH POINTS (7-10 POINTS): The applicant\'s previous and\\or

current (past three years) PHDEP grant(s) have been

successfully implemented with major results. The program has

demonstrated success through:

A. Timely execution of contracts with local police

authorities for law enforcement services.

B. Established and tracked indicators to measure program

success.

C. Managed and implemented program(s) on time based on the

application timetable.

D. During the immediate past FY, the applicant, as part of

program implementation, has demonstrated resident

participation and community involvement/partnerships.

E. Funds draw downs were obligated and expended consistent

with program implementation work plan and time line.

F. Performance and Financial Reports complete and submitted

in a timely manner.

G. Evaluation reports of previous PHDEPs are detailed and

reflect a significant improvement in program goals and/or

outcomes crime reduction.

15

MEDIUM POINTS (4-6 POINTS): The applicant\'s previous and/or

current (past three years) PHDEP grant(s) have been

successfully implemented with some results. The program has

demonstrated some success through:

A. Execution of contracts with local police authorities for

law enforcement services with some results.

B. Established and tracked indicators to measure program

with some documented success.

C. Managed and implemented program(s) were on time, some of

the time, based upon the application timetable. The

applicant modified time lines (extension) with some

success.

D. During the immediate past FY, the applicant, as part of

program implementation, has demonstrated some resident

participation and community involvement/partnerships.

E. Funds draw downs were obligated and expended most of the

time.

F. Performance and Financial reports were complete with some

results and submitted in a timely manner.

LOW POINTS (0-3 POINTS): The applicant\'s previous and/or

current (past three years) PHDEP grant(s) were implemented.

The program has demonstrated with difficulty through:

A. Contract has not been executed with local police

authorities for services.

B. Did not implement the program(s) on time (based upon the

application timetable) and requested untimely extensions.

C. During the immediate past FY, the applicant, as part of

program implementation, solicited some resident

participation and community involvement/partnerships.

D. Funds draw downs were rarely obligated and expended on

time. There is evidence that grantee rarely draws down

from LOCCS, utilizes reserve funds and/or there is

evidence of co-mingling of funds.

E. Performance and Financial reports were completed and

submitted most of the time with a lack of performance in

results in crime reduction.

16

F. Evaluation reports of previous PHDEPs not submitted or

were sketchy and reflected no improvement in reduction of

drug related crime.

G. Performance and Financial reports were not submitted.

17

4\. FOURTH SELECTIVE CRITERION. (SCORED AT THE GRANT APPLICATION

PROCESSING CENTER SITE) THE EXTENT TO WHICH TENANTS, THE LOCAL

GOVERNMENT AND THE LOCAL COMMUNITY SUPPORT AND PARTICIPATE IN

THE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ACTIVITIES PROPOSED TO BE

FUNDED UNDER THE APPLICATION. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE POINTS FOR

SELECTIVE CRITERION 4: 10 POINTS

SUBFACTOR 4-A SECTION I.(d)(4)(i) OF THE NOFA MAXIMUM TOTAL POINTS:

3

SUBFACTOR 4-A DESCRIPTION: The application must include a

discussion of the extent to which community representatives

and Tribal, local, state and Federal government officials are

actively involved in the design and implementation of the

applicant\'s plan, as evidenced by descriptions of planning

meetings held with community representatives and local

government officials, letters of commitment to provide

funding, staff, or in-kind resources, or written comments on

the applicant\'s planned activities.

RECOMMENDED REVIEWER GUIDE FOR POINT DISTRIBUTION

HIGH POINTS (2-3 POINTS): The applicant clearly documents the

extent to which community representatives and local government

officials were actively involved in the design and

implementation of the applicant\'s plan, through a summary of

the participants involvement, meeting minutes, letters of

commitment to provide funding, staff, or in-kind resources, or

written comments on the applicants planned activities.

MEDIUM POINTS (1 POINT): The applicant provides some

documentation as to the extent to which community

representatives and local government officials were involved

in the design and implementation of the applicant\'s plan.

LOW POINTS (0 POINTS): The applicant has no documented

evidence of the extent to which community representatives and

local government officials were involved in the design and

implementation of the applicant\'s plan.

18

SUBFACTOR 4-B SECTION I.(d)(4)(ii) OF THE NOFA MAXIMUM TOTAL

POINTS: 3

SUBFACTOR 4-B DESCRIPTION: The applicant discussed the extent

to which the relevant governmental jurisdiction has met its

law enforcement obligations under the Cooperation Agreement

with the applicant (as required by the grantee\'s Annual

Contributions Contract with HUD). The application must also

include a certification by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO)

of a state or a unit of general local government in which the

developments proposed for assistance are located that the

locality is meeting its obligations under the Cooperation

Agreement with the HA, particularly with regard to the current

level of baseline law enforcement services. If the

jurisdiction is not meeting its obligations under the

Cooperation Agreement, the CEO should identify any special

circumstances relating to its failure to do so. Whether or

not a locality is meeting its obligations under the

Cooperation Agreement with the applicant, the applicant must

describe the current level of baseline law enforcement

services being provided to the HA/development(s) proposed for

assistance.

RECOMMENDED REVIEWER GUIDE FOR POINT DISTRIBUTION

HIGH POINTS (2-3 POINTS): The applicant discussed and provided

certifications and clearly documented the activities and

obligations currently being met by law enforcement under the

cooperation agreement. The application clearly described the

current level of law enforcement services being provided to

the developments proposed for assistance.

MEDIUM POINTS (1 POINT): The applicant provided certification

and limited documentation that obligations are being met by

law enforcement services. The application did not clearly

described the current level of law enforcement services being

provided to the developments proposed for assistance.

LOW POINTS (0 POINTS): The applicant provided certification

but no documentation regarding the obligations under the

cooperation. The application did not described the current

level of law enforcement services being provided to the

developments proposed for assistance.

19

SUBFACTOR 4-C SECTION I.(d)(4)(iii) OF THE NOFA MAXIMUM TOTAL

POINTS: 2

SUBFACTOR 4-C DESCRIPTION: The reviewer must discuss the

extent to which HA/development residents, and an RMC, RC or

RO, where they exist, are involved in the planning and

development of the grant application and plan strategy, and

support and participate in the design and implementation of

the activities proposed to be funded under the application.

The application must include a summary of written resident and

resident organization meetings, with supporting documentation

that addresses (but is not limited to) subject matter, names

of residents on committees, copies of resident surveys and

evaluations etc., as required by 24 CFR 761, and the

applicant\'s response to and action on these comments. If there

are no resident or resident organization comments, the

applicant must provide an explanation of the steps taken to

encourage participation, even though they were not successful.

RECOMMENDED REVIEWER GUIDE FOR POINT DISTRIBUTION

HIGH POINTS (2 POINTS): The applicant clearly demonstrates and

documents the active involvement of residents and resident

organizations in the planning and development of the grant

application and plan strategy. The applicant provides a clear

summary of each written resident and resident organization

comments, and the applicant\'s response to and action on these

comments.

MEDIUM POINTS (1 POINT): The applicant provides some evidence

of the involvement of residents and resident organizations in

the planning and development of the grant application and plan

strategy.

LOW POINTS (0 POINTS): The applicant did not demonstrate or

document the involvement of residents and resident

organizations in the planning and development of the grant

application and plan strategy.

SUBFACTOR 4-D SECTION I.(d) (4) (iv) OF THE NOFA MAXIMUM TOTAL

POINTS: 2

SUBFACTOR 4-D DESCRIPTION: The reviewer must discuss the

extent to which the applicant is already undertaking, or has

undertaken, participation in local, state, Tribal or Federal

anti-drug related crime efforts, such as Operation Weed and

Seed, and Operation Safe Home, and/or has successfully

coordinated its law enforcement activities with local, state,

Tribal or Federal law enforcement agencies.

20

RECOMMENDED REVIEWER GUIDE FOR POINT DISTRIBUTION

HIGH POINTS (2 POINTS): The applicant demonstrated that they

are already participating in local, State, or Federal anti-

drug related crime efforts (such as Operation Weed and Seed,

coordinated by the U.S. Department of Justice, Operation Safe

Home, or other programs) or is successfully coordinating its

law enforcement activities with local, state or federal law

enforcement agencies.

MEDIUM POINTS (1 POINT): The applicant demonstrated that they

are undertaking, or has undertaken, participation in local,

State, or federal anti-drug related crime efforts (such as

Operation Weed and Seed, coordinated by the U.S. Department of

Justice, or Operation Safe Home or other programs) or is

successfully coordinating its law enforcement activities with

local, state, Tribal or Federal law enforcement agencies.

LOW POINTS (0 POINTS): The applicant failed to demonstrate

that they are already undertaking, or has undertaken,

participation in local, State, or Federal anti-drug related

crime efforts (such as Operation Weed and Seed, coordinated by

the U.S. Department of Justice, or Operation Safe Home or

other programs) or is successfully coordinating its law

enforcement activities with local, state, Tribal or federal

law enforcement agencies.

STEP 2 REVIEW APPLICATION FOR INELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES AND COMMENTS

After you have finished reviewing and scoring all elements of each

factor, assure the following:

o All scoring and comment blocks are filled out. The

comments serve as the source for feedback to the

applicants not funded, as well as review by OIG audits.

o Comment on the following issues, if appropriate, and mark

with the appropriate letter in the upper right hand

corner of the score sheet:

JOINT APPLICANTS - \"J\" An applicant may submit only

one application under the NOFA. If a joint

application has been made note \"J\" on the first

page of the score sheet.

21

EXCEPTION - \"J1.\" Housing authorities under a

single administration (such as one housing

authority managing another housing authority under

contract or housing authorities sharing a common

executive director) may submit a single

application, even though each housing authority has

its own operating budget. If the applicant is

applying under this exemption, place a \"J1\" on the

first page of the score sheet.

INELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES - \"I\" If you identify any

ineligible activities listed in the grant, circle

the item in the text. List the activity and page

number under \"Ineligible Activities\" on the score

sheet. Deduct the amount of the funding required

for the ineligible item from the total requested

budget to reflect total approved budget. The Panel

Leader will reconcile the amount to be deducted

with the second reviewer prior to data entry.

ALCOHOL/PRESCRIPTION DRUGS - \"A\" OR \"P\" If the

applicant describes its primary substance abuse

problem as alcohol or prescription drug abuse, you

are to note this on the first page of the

application. These activities will be identified

as ineligible and deducted as referenced above.

o Enter grant amount requested minus, if applicable, the

amount of any ineligible activities to show a revised

recommended grant funding. If there are any activities

that are not clear, note them and request clarification

prior to recommending funding.

o Verify all scores with a hand calculator.

o All score sheets must be signed by the reviewer. The

signature certifies completion of the review and scoring

process. It also certifies the reviewer did not provide

any technical assistance to the applicant, did not

discuss the application with anyone who did, and did not

have a relationship with the applicant that could be

considered a conflict of interest.

o Give the application package and the completed score

sheet to the grant administrator or panel leader. The

grant administrator or panel leader will initial the

assignment sheet next to the appropriate application to

signify the review is complete and the application has

been returned to them.

22

APPENDIX F: FY 1996 PHDEP GRANT APPLICATION SCORING SHEET

SECTION 1. FY 1996 PHDEP GRANT APPLICATION SCORE SHEET (COMPLETED

BY FIELD OFFICE)

FIELD OFFICE/AONAPs ENTRY:

HA
NAME:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

HA
CODE:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

FIELD
OFFICE/AONAPs:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

SECTION 2. FY 1996 PHDEP FINAL SCORING INFORMATION.

(SELECTIVE CRITERION 1,2 AND 4 COMPLETED BY APPLICATION CENTER

PROCESSING SITE. SCORING OF SELECTIVE CRITERION 3 COMPLETED BY

FIELD OFFICE/AONAPs.)

PANEL

POINTS POINTS SCORERS

LEADER

AWARDABLE AWARDED INITIALS

INITIALS

SELECTIVE CRITERION 1: 40

SELECTIVE CRITERION 2: 35

SELECTIVE CRITERION 3: 15

SELECTIVE CRITERION 4: 10

TOTAL: 100

FUNDS REQUESTED: \$\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

RECOMMENDED FUNDING: \$\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

PROCESSING PANEL SCORER NAME:
(print)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

PROCESSING PANEL SCORER
SIGNATURE:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

PROCESSING PANEL LEADER SCORE & FUNDING VERIFICATION:

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
DATE:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

(panel leader signature)

1

SECTION 3. FINAL BUDGET DATA INPUT SHEET

(COMPLETED BY GRANT APPLICATION CENTER PROCESSING SCORER

AND/OR FIELD OFFICE/AONAPs, AS APPROPRIATE)

PROCESSING

PANEL

HOUSING FIELD OFFICE/ SCORER

ENTRY:

LINE AUTHORITY AONAPs ENTRY: FINAL

ADJUSTMENT BY

ITEM REQUESTED REQUESTED HUD REVIEWER

NO. ACTIVITIES AMOUNTS (IF

APPLICABLE)

9110 Reimbursement of \$\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \$\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Law Enforcement

9120 Employment of

Security Personnel

A. Contracted Security

Guards \$\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \$\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

B. HA Police Departments \$\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \$\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

(TOTAL 9120 BLI FUNDING)

9130 Employment of Investigators

9140 Voluntary Tenant Patrols \$\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \$\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

9150 Physical Improvements \$\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \$\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

PROGRAMS TO REDUCE ILLEGAL DRUGS

9160 Drug Prevention \$\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \$\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

9170 Drug Intervention \$\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \$\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

9180 Drug Treatment \$\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \$\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

GRANT ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS

9190 Other Program Costs \$\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \$\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

TOTAL FUNDS REQUESTED \$\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

If applicable, processing panel scorer

total funding after adjustments \$\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

2

SECTION 4. FY 1996 PHDEP GRANT APPLICATION INELIGIBLE

ACTIVITIES (APPLICATION CENTER PROCESSING SCORER

ENTRY, AS APPROPRIATE)

The reviewer MUST list any ineligible items by activity and cost

objective from budget and deduct from the requested funding amount.

All deductions MUST be justified with comment by the scorer and

verified by a panel leader.

INELIGIBLE REVIEWER

ACTIVITY AMOUNT TAB \# JUSTIFICATION FOR

OR COST DEDUCTED PAGE \# DEDUCTION

SECTION 4A. IF APPLICABLE, SPECIAL CONDITIONS TO GRANT AGREEMENT

(GRANT

APPLICATION CENTER PROCESSING SCORER ENTRY)

3

1st SELECTIVE CRITERION - THE EXTENT OF THE DRUG-RELATED CRIME

PROBLEM IN THE APPLICANT\'S DEVELOPMENT OR DEVELOPMENTS PROPOSED FOR

ASSISTANCE.

MAX 40

SUBFACTOR 1-A EXTENT TO WHICH DATA SHOWS FREQUENCY & NATURE OVER 1 YEAR

HIGH (10-15) MED (5-9) LOW (0-4)

Provides best objective data Provides best objective data LIMITED or NO

CLEARLY outlined BASIC Outline evidence of

COMPLETE DETAILED descrip. Outlines description with objective data

with analysis of nature and analysis with SOME types

frequency of crime of crime

Documents crime stats & LIMITED or NO evi-

problems associated dence of crime

stats

CLEARLY defines drug activity SOME information on where, DID NOT define

drug

Where, who, how & when who, how & when activity

Compares to community Compares to community LIMITED or INCOMP-

CLEARLY documents & provides LETE comparison

additional info and SOME additional info LIMITED or NO

Demonstrates LINKAGES to Demonstrates LIMITED additional info

problems associated w/crime linkages

REVIEWER\'S COMMENTS: POINTS AWARDED:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

SUBFACTOR 1 -B EXTENT OF ANALYSIS & CLEARLY ARTICULATED NEED & STRATEGY

HIGH (4-5) MED (1-3) LOW (0)

CLEARLY analyzed data Analyzes data LIMITED or NO evidence

of analysis

Draws conclusions on what SOME conclusions on NO conclusions on what

needs are to be addressed what is needed is needed

REVIEWER\'S COMMENTS: POINTS AWARDED:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

4

SUBFACTOR 1 -C PER CAPITA INCIDENCE OF ROBBERY & HOMICIDE IN COMMUNITY

POINTS AWARDED:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

SUBFACTOR 1 -D PER CAPITA INCIDENCE OF DRUG ARRESTS IN COMMUNITY

POINTS AWARDED:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

POINTS AWARDED FOR SELECTIVE CRITERION 1: 1-A

1-B

1-C

1-D

TOTAL:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

5

2nd SELECTIVE CRITERION - THE QUALITY OF THE PLAN TO ADDRESS THE CRIME
PROBLEM

IN THE PUBLIC HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS PROPOSED FOR ASSISTANCE, INCLUDING
THE EXTENT

TO WHICH THE PLAN INCLUDES INITIATIVES THAT CAN BE SUSTAINED OVER A
PERIOD OF

SEVERAL YEARS.

MAX 35

SUBFACTOR 2-A PLAN CLEARLY DESCRIBES ACTIVITIES, COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH?

HIGH (8-10) MED (4-7) LOW (0-3)

CLEARLY demonstrates DISTINCT SOME relationship LIMITED or NO evidence

RELATIONSHIP between of relationship

crime/problems & strategy

COMPREHENSIVE approach of Strategy provides approach Strategy focuses on

MULTIPLE activities with SOME combination SINGULAR programs

of programs

REVIEWER\'S COMMENTS: POINTS AWARDED:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

SUBFACTOR 2-B BUDGET NARRATIVE & SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION PER ACTIVITY

HIGH (4-5) MED (2-3) LOW (0-1)

DETAILED budget narrative Basic budget narrative for NO clear budget

with SUPPORTING each activity narrative for each

DOCUMENTATION for each activity

activity

REVIEWER\'S COMMENTS: POINTS AWARDED:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

SUBFACTOR 2-C REALISTIC IN TIME, PERSONNEL & OTHER RESOURCES

HIGH (2) MED (1) LOW (0)

CLEARLY demonstrates realistic Provides a plan for each NO realistic
plan

plan for EACH component component Each component not

documented

REVIEWER\'S COMMENTS: POINTS AWARDED:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

6

SUBFACTOR 2-D OTHER ENTITIES INVOLVED IN PLANNING & IMPLEMENTING PLAN

HIGH (2) MED (1) LOW (0)

CLEARLY documents involvement SOME evidence of NO evidence of involve-

of local community in DESIGN & involvement in design ment in design &

IMPLEMENTATION of plan & implementation implementation

REVIEWER\'S COMMENTS: POINTS AWARDED:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

SUBFACTOR 2-E ACTIVITIES SUSTAINED, IDENTIFIES RESOURCES FOR
CONTINUATION

HIGH (2) MED (1) LOW(0)

CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES & Includes activities that DOES NOT include

includes activities that may be sustained over the activities that

can be sustained over the years can be sustained

IDENTIFIES resources for Identifies potential reso- NO resources

continuation urces identified

REVIEWER\'S COMMENTS: POINTS AWARDED:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

SUBFACTOR 2-F PROVIDE TRAINING/JOBS/BUSINESS OPPOR FOR LOW-INCOME
PERSONS

HIGH (2) MED (1) LOW (0)

CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES it will SOME training & jobs OR DOES NOT CLEARLY
state

provide training & jobs OR business opportunities it will provide
training

business opportunities for & jobs OR business

lower income persons opportunities

& businesses

REVIEWER\'S COMMENTS: POINTS AWARDED:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

7

SUBFACTOR 2-G DEVELOPED PROCESS TO COLLECT & ANALYZE CRIME & WORKLOAD

HIGH (4-5) MED (1 -3) LOW (0)

CLEARLY Demonstrates a DESCRIBES process DOES NOT CLEARLY state

description of process description of process

maintain & analyze crime

and workload data for calls

for service at proposed sites.

REVIEWER\'S COMMENTS: POINTS AWARDED:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

SUBFACTOR 2-H DEVELOPED EVALUATION PROCESS

HIGH (3) MED (1 -2) LOW (0)

CLEARLY OUTLINES methodology LIMITED evaluation NO evidence of

to measure success based on methodology evaluation process

specific indicators

Applic. discusses types of Info generally collected Failed to relate
evalua-

info & methods for analysis relates to crime prob- tion process to
assess-

of crime problems at pro- lems at proposed sites ment of crime problems

posed sites at proposed sites

REVIEWER\'S COMMENTS: POINTS AWARDED:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

POINTS AWARDED FOR SELECTIVE CRITERION 2: 2-A

2-B

2-C

2-D

2-E

2-F

2-G

2-H

TOTAL:

8

3RD SELECTION CRITERION: THE CAPABILITY OF THE APPLICANT TO CARRY OUT
THE PLAN.

MAX 15

SUBFACTOR 3-A: HA\'S ADMINISTRATIVE CAPABILITY - PHMAP

HIGH (2) MED (1) LOW (0)

PHMAP indicators of PHMAP indicators of PHMAP indicators of \"D\"

\"A\" or \"B\" at least \"C\" or lower

CLEARLY Demonstrates Demonstrates fair abili- Demonstrates lack of
ability

thru HUD reviews or ty to manage HA Reviews and audits with

audits effective, effi- unresolved findings

cient management

CANNOT be designated For troubled HA, must Troubled HA, meeting only

a troubled HA be achieving MOA goals some or none of MOA goals

REVIEWER\'S COMMENTS: POINTS AWARDED:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

SUBFACTOR 3-B: LAW ENFORCEMENT, SCREENING & LEASE ENFORCEMENT

HIGH (2-3) MED (1) LOW (0)

IMPLEMENTED THOROUGH IMPLEMENTED SOME NONE IMPLEMENTED

practices and policies practices & policies

to effectively screen,

reduce vacancies, &

evict residents involved

in illegal drug activities

DEMONSTRATED significant DEMONSTRATED some NO impact on reduction

reduction in crime or reduction in crime in crime in HA properties

maintained low level

of crime

REVIEWER\'S COMMENTS: POINTS AWARDED:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

9

SUBFACTOR 3-C: PAST THREE YEARS ADMINISTRATION OF GRANT PROGRAMS

HIGH (7-10) MED (4-6) LOW (0-3)

TIMELY execution of law DELAY in execution of law NO contract executed

enforcement contracts enforcement contract

Tracked indicators to SOME success measured LIMITED or NO meas-

measure programs success urements

IMPLEMENTED per timetable Applicant modified timetables NOT implemented
on

with success time

DEMONSTRATED within past FY SOME resident & community SOME resident &
com-

resident participation participation munity participation

& community involvement

or partnerships

Funds were obligated & Funds were obligated & Rarely obligated &

expended consistent with expended most of time per expended on time.

workplan & timeline plan Rarely draws down

from LOCCS or evi-

dence of co-

mingling of funds

ALL reports complete and SOME reports were late SOME reports were

submitted on time or incomplete, some results late or-incomplete,

in crime reduction lacked results in

crime reduction

Final DEP evaluation reports Final PHDEP eval-

are detailed & reflect uation reports not

significant improvement submitted or sketchy

in goals or crime reduction & no improvement in

reduction in crime.

REVIEWER\'S COMMENTS: POINTS AWARDED:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

POINTS AWARDED FOR SELECTIVE CRITERION 3: 3-A

3-B

3-C

TOTAL:

10

3rd SELECTION CRITERION VERIFICATION BY LOCAL FIELD OFFICE/AONAPs FOGA:

1\. Selective criterion 3 of the application was scored by one reviewer.

2\. Score was posted in Section 2 of scoring sheet for Selective
Criterion 3.

3\. Score sheet is complete. All scores issued by the reviewer was
justified in

writing. The written justification indicate \"WHY\" the applicant \"DID
NOT\"

receive the maximum allowable points for the particular selection
criteria

factor. Appropriate entries/comments WERE made on any subfactor
requiring

a score.

4\. An additional copy of the score sheet was produced and attached to
second

application.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

(Field Office/AONAPs Scorer - Print Name)

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

(Field Office Scorer/AONAPs Signature)

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

(Field Office/AONAPs FOGA Certification) Date

FIELD OFFICE/AONAPs FOGA COMMENTS:

11

4th SELECTIVE CRITERION - THE EXTENT TO WHICH TENANTS, THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT AND

THE LOCAL COMMUNITY SUPPORT AND PARTICIPATE IN THE DESIGN AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF

THE ACTIVITIES PROPOSED TO BE FUNDED UNDER THE APPLICATION

MAX 10

SUBFACTOR 4-A PARTIES ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN DESIGN/IMPLEMENTATION OF PLAN

HIGH (2-3) MED (1) LOW (0)

CLEARLY DOCUMENTS extent SOME documentation in LIMITED or NO documented

community & gov\'t were design & implementation evidence

ACTIVELY involved in design

& implementation of plan

eg. minutes of mtgs., ltrs. of

commitment, in-kind resources

REVIEWER\'S COMMENTS: POINTS AWARDED:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

SUBFACTOR 4-B EXTENT RELEVANT GOV\'T MET OBLIGATION OF COOP. AGREEMENT

HIGH (2-3) MED (1) LOW (0)

Provided Law Enfor. Certif. Provides Certif. Provides Certif.

by Chief of Police by Chief of Police by Chief of Police

CLEARLY DOCUMENTED LIMITED documentation NO documentation

activities & oblig.

CLEARLY DESCRIBES current DID NOT CLEARLY describe NOT described

level of law enforcement current level

REVIEWER\'S COMMENTS: POINTS
AWARDED:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

12

SUBFACTOR 4-C RC INVOLVEMENT IN PLANNING/DEV/IMPLEM OF STRATEGY & DESIGN

HIGH (2) MED (1) LOW (0)

CLEARLY demonstrates & Provides SOME evidence DID NOT demonstrate or

documents ACTIVE involve- document

ment in planning & development

of application & strategy

Provides CLEAR SUMMARY of

each written comment and

HA\'s RESPONSE to & action

on each comment

REVIEWERS COMMENTS: POINTS
AWARDED:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

SUBFACTOR 4-D PARTICIPATION IN LOCAL/ST/FED ANTI-DRUG EFFORTS

HIGH (2) MED (1) LOW (0)

DEMONSTRATED participation DEMONSTRATED HA is FAILED to demonstrate

in local/st/fed anti- undertaking or has

drug efforts eg. weed & participated

seed, operation safe

home, etc.

OR OR OR

Successfully coordinating Successfully coordinating Successfully
coordinating

with local/st OR fed law

enforcement

REVIEWERS COMMENTS: POINTS
AWARDED:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

POINTS AWARDED FOR SELECTIVE CRITERION 4: 4-A

4-B

4-C

4-D

TOTAL

13