U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Public and Indian Housing

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

Secretary\'s Representatives, Notice PIH 97-44(HA)

State/Area Coordinators, Issued: August 4, 1997

Directors, Office of Public Housing, Expires: August 31, 1998

Administrators, Area Offices Native

American Programs, Executive

Directors, Public and Indian

Housing Authorities

PROCESSING OF GRANT APPLICATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR (FY) 1997

PUBLIC HOUSING DRUG ELIMINATION PROGRAM (PHDEP)

1\. PURPOSE. This notice provides instructions for processing

grant applications submitted for funding under the FY 1997

PHDEP.

2\. APPLICABILITY.

A. This notice is applicable only to those public housing

authorities (PHAs) and Indian housing authorities

(IHAs) submitting grant applications for the FY 1997

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. HUD announced it\'s FY 1997 funding of \$250,649,052

under the PHDEP for use in reducing/eliminating drug-

related crime and associated drug-related crimes. A

Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) was published in

the Federal Register/Vol. 62, number 100 on Friday, May

23, 1997.

B. Applications (original and three identical copies of

the original application) is to be received by the

deadline at the local HUD FO on or before Friday,

August 8, 1997, at 3:00 pm, local time. A complete

listing of these offices was provided in appendix \"A\"

of the NOFA.

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

distributing grant funds to be awarded under the FY 1997

PHDEP NOFA will be in accordance with Handbook 1830.4 ,

REV-2, dated July 31, 1986.

5\. DEFINITIONS. The definitions for the PHDEP are contained in

24 CFR 761 of the \"Streamlined\" Consolidated Public and

Assisted Housing Drug Elimination Program final rule dated

March 28, 1996. HUD will publish a new PHDEP proposed rule,

for 60 day comment period, during August 1997. A final rule

should be published on or about December 1997.

6\. ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES. Eligible activities under the FY 1997

PHDEP are described in Section I.(c)(1)(6) and other

sections of the NOFA.

7\. INELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES. Ineligible activities under the FY

1997 PHDEP are described in Section I.(c)(10) and other

sections in the NOFA.

8\. SELECTIVE CRITERIA RATING. Selective criteria rating will

conducted in accordance with Section I.(d)(e) of the NOFA.

A. The number of points that an application receives will

depend on the extent to which the application is

responsive to the information requested in the

selection criteria. An application must receive a

score of at least 70 points out of the maximum of 100

points that may be awarded under this competition to be

eligible for funding.

B. Scoring under selection criterion 3 will be completed

by HUD local FOs that receive the applications.

Scoring under selection criterion 4 will be completed

by the Secretary\'s Representative for the area of the

country from which an application originates. FOs are

authorized to use one reviewer to score selective

criteria 3 and 4.

C. The scoring of applications under selective criteria 1

and 2 and associated deliverables will be completed by

a panel at a national PHDEP Application Processing

Center (APC). Spectrum Consulting Associates and it\'s

subcontractor, Laurel Consulting Group under HUD

contract \# DU100C000184 was selected to provided these

services. The APC will be located in the Washington,

D.C. area. Further instructions regarding this process

will be issued.

D. Applications, scored at the APC, with tie scores will

be selected in accordance with the procedures in

Section I.(e) (Ranking Factors) of the NOFA and other

instructions. In instances where two reviewers at the

APC have more than a 10 point different in their

recommended scores, applications will be scored by a

third reviewer. HUD will review all recommendations

and determine final scores.

E. In accordance with the FY 1997 PHDEP NOFA, after

applications have been scored, HUD will rank the

applications on a national basis. Awards will be made

in ranked order until all funds are expended. HUD will

select the highest ranking applications that can be

fully funded.

F. All awards will be made to fund fully an application,

except as provided in Section I.(b)(4) of the NOFA

(Reduction of Requested Grant Amounts and Special

Conditions).

9\. DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS. Distribution of funds will conducted

in accordance with I.(a)(b) of the NOFA.

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:

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

standing;

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

applicant;

\(3\) identity of any other applicant;

\(4\) 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 the

FO counsel. HQs counsel for the program to which the

question pertains may be contacted on (202) 708-3815.

11\. FIELD OFFICE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES.

A. Directors, Office of Public Housing, National Office of

Native Americans and Administrators, AONAPs will

designate a Field Office Grants Administrator (FOGA) to

manage the local FY 1997 PHDEP process.

B. Directors/Administrators are responsible to manage and

coordinate applications to the Secretary\'s

Representative for scoring purposes. State/Area

Coordinators may make recommendations to the

Secretary\'s Representative.

C. After awards are made Directors/Administrators are to

act as liaison with the grantee in the performance of

work in the grant and the ongoing evaluation of the

grant progress.

D. Grants Officers will act on the behalf of the Assistant

Secretary in the negotiating and executing the

functions involving the Department\'s FY 1997 PHDEP

grants. Grants officers will complete and execute Form

1044 (award/amendment block 8 and 20) of the specific

form and associated documents.

E. The Department must emphasize, that ultimately it will

be Directors/Administrators professional judgment, both

technical and managerial, that will secure for the

Government the objectives of FY 1997 PHDEP grants in a

timely manner, with prescribed costs and a high level

of excellence. Grant extensions to the FY 1997 PHDEP

round is not permitted.

12\. HEADQUARTERS (HQS) ROLES AN RESPONSIBILITIES.

A. Office of Community Relations and Involvement (OCRI),

Office of Crime Prevention and Security (OCPS) is

designated to manage the FY 1997 PHDEP process.

B. OCPS has provided in this notice attachments (appendix

1 - 6) regarding the FY 1997 PHDEP grant application

process and other related documents to be used to

complete the grant application staff training and

application process. Additional instructions may be

issued.

C. OCRI will designate, in writing, a grants officer and

government technical representative for the FY 1997

PHDEP and process.

D. The timetable for PHDEP events will be carried out in

accordance with paragraph 18 of this notice and other

instructions issued by OCPS.

13\. FY 1997 PHDEP GRANT APPLICATION PROCESSING REQUIREMENTS.

A. FOs will assure that the FY 1997 PHDEP grant

application process is conducted in accordance with the

procedures set forth in the FY 1997 PHDEP NOFA, related

HUD regulations, this notice, ORI Grants Management

Handbook 7490.01, relative OMB Circular (specifically

OMB Circular A-87), handbooks, and additional guidance

provided by OCPS.

B. Applications will be submitted by the applicant to each

designated FO in accordance with the FY 1997 PHDEP

NOFA. Refer to the timetable in paragraph 18 of this

notice.

\(1\) FOs will document receipt of the FY 1997 PHDEP

grant application and provide written

acknowledgment, to grantees, that the FO received

the application indicating date and time of

submission.

\(2\) FOs will FAX the FY 1997 PHDEP Application Master

Log to OCPS, Room 4112, Fax number (202) 401-7965,

Attention: Malcolm E. Main, telephone number

\(202\) 708-1197, ext. 4232, (cc:mail address for

Malcolm E. Main is PIHPOST2).

\(3\) In order to verify and validate grant application

information, OCPS will request from each FO, via

cc:mail, verification of the Application Master

Log information.

\(4\) If a FO receives an application not in its

jurisdiction by the application deadline date, the

FO 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

FO within 24 hours of receipt of the

application; and

\(c\) Notify the FO by telephone that the

application is being forwarded. Send

designated FO, via cc:mail, what actions were

taken with a copy to the appropriate

personnel as follows:

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

overnight mail with a transmittal memo to

PHDEP FOGA. The FO receiving the application

will:

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

the application according to the prior

FO receipt date and time; and

\(2\) Attach any appropriate documentation to

the log.

E. Grant applications shall be screened and scored in

accordance with Chapter 2 of ORI Resident Initiatives

Grants Management Handbook 7490.01 and other guidance

issued by OCPS.

F. In connection with ORI Resident Initiatives Grants

Management Handbook 7490.01, the SMIRPH/MIRS Grants

Management Module will be used in the FY 97 PHDEP grant

cycle/process.

G. The FOGA will validate the correctness of all

information entered into each of the required screens

of the Grants Management Module.

\(1\) 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.

H. For administrative purposes, FOs will retain one copy

of the original FY 97 PHDEP grant application and send

two identical copies of the original application with

one score sheet attached to each copy with related

documents to the APC. FOs are authorized to use one

reviewer to score selective criteria 3 and 4. The

following items must be shipped to the APC:

\(1\) Transmittal letter. The transmittal letter must

identify the number of boxes, applications shipped

and listing of all ineligible applications with

reason for rejection.

\(2\) Application Master Log and Correctable Deficiency

Log with any ineligible applications, identified

and reason listed for rejection;

\(3\) Application screening documents, and score sheets.

A completed score sheet must be attached to each

application with selective criterion 3 and 4

scores entered on each score sheet. Curable

deficiency letters, corrections, must be attached

to the application.

\(4\) Organize and pack applications. Organized by HA

Code sequence with HA Code printed in 2\" high with

permanent marker on outside upper right hand

corner of each application.

\(5\) Diskette of application information from the

SMIRPH (public housing authorities)/and or MIRS

(Indian housing authorities) Grants Management

Module. FOs must ensure project summaries are

entered, in English, with upper and lower case

lettering

\(6\) For APC management purposes number all boxes and

place transmittal letter, Master Application Log,

Correctable Deficiency Log and diskette in box \#

1\. Applications must be controlled and accounted

for at all times during this process. All

applications will be sent \"overnight mail -

contracted or non-contracted\" to the APC. FOs

must check with their administrative officer and

mail room supervisor for guidance regarding this

matter.

K. Coordination and oversight of the PHDEP grant

application process. FOs will:

\(1\) Monitor and track grant applications by sending a

urgent cc:mail to the APC that states \"when\" and

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

arrival date\"; and

\(2\) Send a copy of all cc:mails regarding this process

to Malcolm E. Main (cc:mail address for Malcolm E.

Main is PIHPOST2).

\(3\) Any violation in carrying out this notice may

result in funding delays or repeating the scoring

and ranking procedures.

\(4\) HQs, in conjunction with the Office of Public and

Indian Housing Comptroller, and other offices will

audit a sample of FOs and the APC to validate the

review process.

L. The scoring of applications under selective criteria 1

and 2 and associated deliverables by the vendor, will

be completed by a panel at a national PHDEP Application

Processing Center (APC). OCPS will manage this

process. Spectrum Consulting Associates and it\'s

subcontractor, Laurel Consulting Group under HUD

contract \# DU100C000184 was selected to provided these

services. Additional instructions will be issued.

M. FOs will ship application boxes to the Sheraton

Washington Hotel, 2660 Woodley Road, Connecticut Ave.,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20008. Special shipping

instructions: Sheraton Washington Hotel - Shipping and

Receiving Department, HUD Grant Review, September 5 -

19, 1997, Attention: Deborah K. Tritle, Melissa Erie

and Ray Johnson. Phone number (202) 328-2000.

NOTE: Applications boxes must arrive at the APC NLT

September 5, 1997, 3:00pm EST time. Additional

instructions will be issued.

14\. CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATIONS.

A. 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.

B. After Congress has been notified OCPS will notify FOs

of a Congressional notification release date.

15\. NOTIFICATIONS TO SELECTEES AND NON-SELECTEES.

A. OCPS will prepare and forward, via cc:mail, selectee

awards to FOs. Award letters will not be sent until:

\(1\) Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations has

completed the notification of Congress.

\(3\) After Congress has been notified, OCPS will notify

FOs as to Congressional notification release date.

B. Applicants who were not funded will also be notified,

in writing, at the same time as funded grant

applications with scoring information. Applicants will

be provided information regarding scoring (strengths

and weaknesses) and other relative information.

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

provided to the Field Accounting Director (FAD) to

reserve and obligate grant funds.

D. The executed grant agreement will be provided to the

local FAD.

16\. 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 and other

instructions by OCPS. Directors and Administrators

(Grants Officers) will complete and execute Form HUD

1044 (award/amendment block 8 and 20) with associated

documents of the specific form.

B. Execution of Grant Agreement.

\(1\) A standardized grant agreement will be prepared by

OCPS and provided to FOs to assist in this

process. This agreement will be provided to FOs

as a guide only as related to contractual

agreements and other agreements between HUD and

the grantee.

\(2\) FOs must verify award amount(s) and may place any

special conditions, such as LOCCS edits or funding

or programmatic restrictions necessary for

compliance or performance of the approved award.

17\. APPLICATION DEBRIEFINGS.

A. After the completion of the scoring process OCPS will

provide a copy of scoring sheets and related documents

to FOs.

B. OCPS\'s Drug Information Strategy Clearinghouse (DISC)

will be available to provide feedback to those HAs

whose applications were not approved for funding. For

assistance or additional information contact Karen

Molina, DISC, on (301) 519-5358 and/or the general DISC

number on 1-(800) 578-3472.

C. The DISC will maintain file copies of applications,

scoring sheets and related documents.

18\. FY 1997 PHDEP GRANT PROCESS TIMETABLE. OCPS, Offices of

Public Housing/AONAPs FOs, and APC staff shall execute this

process in accordance with the below timetable, and other

instructions issued by the Department.

STEP TASKS TIMELINE(S)

1 A consolidated national PHDEP

field training was conducted

in 5 sites (Washington, DC,

Atlanta, GA, Pittsburgh, PA,

Kansas City, MO, and

Los Angeles, CA) for potential

grantees during June/July 1997

2 FOs designate Field Office Grant

Administers (FOGA) supervisors

and provide OCPS, via cc:mail,

the FOGAs name, cc:mail address

and phone number to: Malcolm E.

Main (cc:mail address PIHPOST2) August 5, 1997

3 OCPS provide FOs HUD staff

training materials guidance

to screen and score selective

criterion 3 and 4 and the

FY 1997 Application Processing

Notice August 5, 1997

4 FOs conduct and document

HUD staff training regarding

the PHDEP NOFA, application

process and that includes

screening and scoring of Week of

selective criterion 3 and 4 August 5, 1997

5 FY 1997 PHDEP APPLICATION

DEADLINE (FRIDAY) AUGUST 8, 1997,

6 FOs start processing

applications and scoring

selective criterion

3 and 4 of applications

(August 11 - August 29,

15 working days) (steps 6-18

through may be concurrent

activities August 11, 1997

NOTE: FOs are authorized to

use one reviewer to review

selective criteria 3/4.

7 FOs FAX Application Master

Log to OCPS, on fax

number (202) 401-7965,

Attention Malcolm E. Main

phone number (202) 708-1197,

ext. 4232 August 12, 1997

8 OCPS verifies FO

Application Master Logs August 12, 1997

9 FOs send application

acknowledgement and,

if applicable, technical

curable deficiencies

letter provided to

applicant August 12, 1997

10 FOs input data entry of

applications in SMIRPH/MIRS

Grants Management Module August 12, 1997

11 FOs start scoring selective

criterion 3 August 12, 1997

12 Secretary\'s Representative

starts scoring selective

criterion 4. State/Area

Coordinator may make

recommendations to the

Secretary\'s Representative August 12, 1997

NOTE: FOGAs must maintain

and document control of

movement of applications

13 END OF APPLICATION CURABLE (FRIDAY)

PERIOD AUGUST 8 - 26, 1997 AUGUST 22, 1997

14 FOs complete scoring of

selective criterion 3 August 29, 1997

15 Secretary\'s Representative

complete scoring of

selective criterion 4 August 29, 1997

16 OCPS provides

application shipping

instructions to FOs

via cc:mail August 29, 1997

LABOR DAY - HOLIDAY SEPTEMBER 1, 1997

17 FOs organize, and pack

application boxes that

contain the following: September 2, 1997

1\. Transmittal Letter to APC

NOTE: The transmittal

letter must identify the

number of boxes,

applications shipped

and listing of all

ineligible applications

with reason

for rejection.

2\. Application Master Log and

Correctable Deficiency Log

with any ineligible

applications \-- identified

and reason listed for

rejection.

3\. Application screening,

and score sheets.

NOTE 1: A completed score

sheet must be attached

to each application \-\--

with selective criterion

3 and 4 scores.

NOTE 2: Curable deficiency

letters, corrections, must be

attached to each application.

4\. Organize and pack applications.

NOTE: Organized by HA Code

sequence with HA Code printed

in 2\" high with PERMANENT

MARKER on outside upper

right hand corner of each

application.

5\. Diskette of application

information from the

SMIRPH (public housing

authorities)/and or MIRS

(Indian housing authorities)

Grants Management Module.

FOs must ensure project

summaries are entered, in

English, with upper and

lower case lettering

6\. Number all boxes

and place transmittal

letter, Master Application

Log, Correctable

Deficiency Log and

diskette in box \# 1

18 FOs ship applications to APC.

Boxes must be shipped and

tracked by overnight delivery.

Application boxes will be

shipped to the Sheraton

Washington Hotel, 2660

Woodley Road, Connecticut

Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C.

20008\. Ship by: September 2, 1997

NOTE: Special shipping

instructions to APC:

Sheraton Washington Hotel -

Shipping and Receiving

Department, HUD Grant Review,

September 5 - 19, 1997,

Attention: Deborah K. Tritle,

Melissa Erie and Ray Johnson.

phone number (202) 328-2000.

19 Applications with all related

documentation must arrive at

the APC by: September 5, 1997

3:00pm EST time

20 FOGAs transmit cc:mail to OCPS

that states \"when\" applications

were shipped, overnight

carrier\'s name, phone number,

tracking number and \"expected

arrival date\". Provide

cc:mail to OCPS Attention:

Malcolm E. Main (cc:mail

address PIHPOST2) September 5, 1997

21 APC staff administrative time:

A. Start organization and

management of applications

and data base for review

process. September

6-7, 1997 is a weekend) September 5, 1997

1\. Organize applications

2\. Computer database

system set-up, which

includes analysis,

validation of reports

and awards, etc.

3\. Organize training and

panel/reviewer

materials, etc.

B. Complete process September 7, 1997

22 APC staff provides training,

with documentation, to APC\'s

supervisors, panel leaders,

contracted reviewers,

supervisors, and other staff

with related responsible

functional areas September 8, 1997

23 APC staff start scoring

applications (September 9 -

19, 1997, \-- 10 days which

includes Sat/Sun) September 9, 1997

24 APC completes application

process September 19, 1997

25 APC completes and validates

data base entries into Grants

Management Module, and

develops/produces specific

HQ analysis, reports and

award package September 19,1997

26 APC transmits to OCPS:

award letters,

congressional notifications,

required reports,

analysis and other related

documents September 22, 1997

27 APC ships applications,

with transmittal letter,

applications, scoring

sheets and related

documents to DISC September 22, 1997

28 Assistant Secretary PIH,

approves awards September 24, 1997

29 OCPS request Office of

Budget reserve approved

awards funds through the

Program Accounting

System (PAS) September 24, 1997

30 Assistant Secretary,

approves and submits

congressional notifications

to Assistant Secretary,

Congressional and

Intergovernmental Relations September 25, 1997

31 HQs \-- Congressional and

Intergovernmental Relations

makes appropriate

notifications September 25, 1997

32 OCPS will provide list of

final grant awards to FOs September 26, 1997

33 FOs transmit award letters

and grant agreements (Form

HUD-1044) to grantees.

A copy of each document

must be provided to the FO

local FAD in order to

obligate funds. September 26, 1997

34 FOs transmit letters to

applicants not awarded September 26, 1997

35 DISC transmits

copy of score

sheets and related

materials to FOs September 26, 1997

COLUMBUS DAY - HOLIDAY OCTOBER 13, 1997

36 FOs execute grant

agreements (Form

HUD-1044)

between HUD and the

grantees October 31, 1997

37 FOs enter activity budget

line items into LOCCS October 31, 1997

38 HUD submits award list

to Federal Register.

Document with be 1st Qtr Report

prepared by PIH October 31, 1997

39 FOs submit FY 97 PHDEP

grant status report

to OCPS October 31, 1997

40 FY 97 PHDEP analysis

completed by DISC

to OCPS November 10, 1997

41 OCPS provides FY 1997

PHDEP Analysis to HQs/FOs December 1, 1997

VETERANS DAY \-- HOLIDAY NOVEMBER 11, 1997

22\. REPORTS.

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. FOs reports shall be, but not limited to,

confirmation of the following:

\(1\) executed approval/disapproval letters to

applicants;

\(2\) executed grant agreements (Form-HUD 1044);

\(3\) transmitted award letter and grant agreements

(Form HUD-1044 to FAD; and

\(4\) input budget line items (BLIs) into LOCCS

B. FO shall submit completion of the above status, via

cc:mail, NLT October 31, 1997, to OCPS, Attention

Malcolm E. Main (cc:mail address for Malcolm E. Main is

PIHPOST2).

For further information on the Public Housing Drug

Elimination Program contact Malcolm E. Main, Office of Crime

Prevention and Security, Office of Community Relations and

involvement, Office of 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, extension 4232.

/s/

Kevin Emanuel Marchman

Acting Assistant Secretary for

Public and Indian Housing

Attachments

Appendix 1: FY 1997 PHDEP Grant Application Master Log

Appendix 2: FY 1997 PHDEP Grant Application Screening Field

Office Checklist

Appendix 3: FY 1997 PHDEP Grant Application Correctable

Deficiency Master Log

Appendix 4: FY 1997 PHDEP Grant Application Deficiency Letter

Appendix 5: FY 1997 PHDEP Grant Application Selective 3 and 4

Score Sheet Instructions

Appendix 6: FY 1997 PHDEP Grant Application Selective Criteria

3 and 4 Scoring Sheet with supporting documents

APPENDIX 1: FY 1997 PHDEP GRANT APPLICATION MASTER LOG

INSTRUCTIONS

1\. The Master Log must be typed, ensuring that all items are

complete.

2\. Attach a photocopy of the adding machine tape which verifies

the total amount of funding requested.

3\. \# HAs on column 1 and add page #s as required.

4\. FAX Application Master Log to OCPS on fax number (202)

401-7965, Attention Malcolm E. Main phone number

\(202\) 708-1197, extension 4232, by August 12, 1997 (COB).

FY 1997 PHDEP GRANT APPLICATION MASTER LOG

\#

HA CODE

HA NAME

DATE

TIME

LOGGED IN BY:

FUNDS

REQUESTED

Total funds requested by applicants \$

Field Office FOGA name:

APPENDIX 2: FY 1997 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:

Total funds requested: \$

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

SECTION 2. FIELD OFFICE SUPERVISOR \-- APPLICATION SCREENING

CHECKLIST

SCREENING PROCESS

TABS COMPLETED TAB IN APPLICATION

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)/and supporting documentation

5 SF-424B Assurances

6 Form HUD-2880 Applicant/Recipient

Disclosure/Update Report

7 First Selection Criteria

8 Second Selection Criteria

8A - Implementation Schedule/Activity

timetable

8B - Personnel Position Descriptions (if

applicable)

9 Third Selection Criteria

10 Fourth Selection Criteria

10A - Summary of Written Resident Comments

10B - Letters of Commitment (if applicable)

11 Certifications (In all cases refer to the NOFA)

11A - RMC, RC and RO certification

11B - As applicable drug treatment program

certification

11C - As applicable law enforcement certification

11D - Form HUD-50070 drug-free work place

certification

11E - Chief Executive Officer (CEO) certification

11F - HUD-50071 lobbying certification

11G - SL-LLL disclosure of lobbing activities

certification

11H - Debarment and Suspension Certification

11I - Civil Rights Laws Certification

11j - As applicable Law enforcement Records and

Medical/Disability Information Certification

SECTION 3. REVIEW OF FY 97 PHDEP GRANT APPLICATION

COMPLETED

YES NO ACTION TAKEN

1\. Are all computations in the SF-424A (budget) and

budget narrative complete and correct?

1A Did the FO review the SF-424A and narrative to

check for duplication of funds with other HUD

programs? ANSWER YES OR NO.

1B 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? If an error was identified,

please explain actions taken in specific comment

section below.

4\. Refer to the NOFA. As applicable did the

applicant request funding for the activities

described in 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:

4A. As applicable 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

4B. As applicable did the applicant demonstrate that

on the basis of information submitted in

accordance with the requirements, 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 \*\*(explain below)

Were curable technical deficiencies corrected:

Yes \*\*No \*\*(explain below)

APPLICATION FULLY ACCEPTABLE:

Yes No (Explain below)

Application screened by (print):

Verification of the above:

Date:

(FOGA Signature)

As applicable specific comments by FOGA: (Use additional paper

if necessary)

FY 1997 PUBLIC HOUSING DRUG ELIMINATION PROGRAM FIELD OFFICE

GRANT ADMINISTRATOR APPLICATION PROCESS CHECKLIST

The following steps serve as guidelines for the FOGA to manage

the review of the FY 97 PHDEP grant process. The FOGA must

initial and date each step as it is completed in this review

process and sign after all steps have been completed. This

process must be executed in accordance with the timelines set

forth in paragraph 18 of this notice.

All documents are official documents and must be complete and

legible. The Master Application Log must be typed.

DATE FOGA

STEP COMPLETED INITIALS ACTION TAKEN

1 FOGA designated and provided via cc:mail

the name/cc:mail address and phone

number to OCPS

3 Identified screeners, reviewers for

applications and data module entry

person and other required staff

4 PHDEP training completed. Training

attendance and subjects covered was

documented on the FO \"Training

Attendance Sheet\"

5 HUD reform act provisions form completed

by reviewers

6 All applications logged in and date/time

stamped the same day and time they were

received in the Application Master Log

NOTE: The log must be typed, and

funding, applications late and/or

rejected certified. The log is an

official document and must be complete

and legible

7 Receipted for original and three

identical copies of the original

application validated against the

Application Master Log

NOTE: Checked to ensure all

applications are complete. Designate

and file original as control copy

8 If applicable, applications not in local

jurisdiction transferred by OVERNIGHT

MAIL

9 Application Master Log faxed to OCPS

10 Application general data entered into

data module from section 1 of the

application screening checklist

11 Applications screened for technical

deficiencies

12 Acknowledgment letter/technical

deficiency letters sent to applicants

13 Selective criterion 3 and 4 were scored

A. Provided reviewer with assigned

applications and score sheets

B. Reviewer assignment sheet, listed

all applications assigned to

reviewer

14 Reviewer scored each application

selective criterion 3 and 4. Reviewer

entered the score on both score sheets

and attached score sheets and any other

relative documents to application.

Reviewer used hand held calculators to

verify computations. Reviewers printed

all comments.

15 If applicable, all technical

deficiency(ies) received materials from

housing authorities

16 Reviewer returned applications and

completed score sheets to the FOGA. The

reviewer assignment sheet was initialed

by the FOGA to indicate receipt of the

application.

17 FOGA checked score sheets for

completeness, validates scores and

signed score sheet to confirm

validation. Errors found were corrected

by the reviewer in all cases and

initialed.

18 Applications were controlled and

accounted for at all times during this

process.

19 Completed application screening sheet/

score sheets, and other related

documents

20 FO application process completed

21 Mailed boxes with applications, with

associated materials that include:

A. Transmittal letter. The

transmittal letter must identify

the number of boxes, applications

shipped and listing of all

ineligible applications with reason

for rejection.

B. Application Master Log and

Correctable Deficiency Log with any

ineligible applications \--

identified and reason listed for

rejection;

C. Application screening documents,

and score sheets. A completed

score sheet must be attached to

each application with selective

criterion 3 and 4 scores entered on

each score sheet. Curable

deficiency letters, corrections,

must be attached to the

application.

D. Organize and pack applications.

Organized by HA Code sequence with

HA Code printed in 2\" high with

PERMANENT MARKER on outside upper

right hand corner of each

application.

E. Diskette of application information

from the SMIRPH (public housing

authorities)/and or MIRS (Indian

housing authorities) Grants

Management Module. FOs ensured

project summaries were entered, in

English, with upper and lower case

lettering

F. For APC management purposes

numbered all boxes and placed

transmittal letter, Master

Application Log, Correctable

Deficiency Log and diskette in box

\# 1.

22 All applications will be sent \"overnight

mail - contracted or non-contracted\" to

the APC. Checked with administrative

officer and mail room supervisor for

guidance regarding this matter.

23 Application boxes were shipped to the

Sheraton Washington Hotel, 2660 Woodley

Road, Connecticut Ave., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20008 to arrive by

September 5, 1997, 3:00pm EST.

Special shipping instructions were as

follows: Sheraton Washington Hotel -

Shipping and Receiving Department, HUD

Grant Review, September 5 - 19, 1997,

Attention: Deborah K. Tritle, Melissa

Erie and Ray Johnson. Phone number

\(202\) 328-2000.

24 Sent urgent cc:mail to the APC and OCPS

(Attention Malcolm E. Main, PIH POST2)

that stated \"when\" and \"how\" the

applications were shipped and \"expected

arrival date.\"

FOGA Signature: Date:

Field Office:

Specific comments by FOGA (Use additional paper if necessary):

APPENDIX 3: FY 1997 PHDEP FIELD OFFICE GRANT APPLICATION CORRECTABLE

DEFICIENCIES MASTER LOG

\#

DATE

OF FO LTR

PHA/IHA NAME

DATE

TIME

CORRECTIONS RECD.

LOGGED IN BY:

COMMENTS

Field Office FOGA name:

APPENDIX 4: SAMPLE FY 1997 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

1997 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 5: FY 1997 PHDEP FIELD OFFICE GRANT APPLICATION

SELECTIVE CRITERIA 3 and 4 \-- \"HIGH\", \"MEDIUM\",

AND \"LOW\" SCORER GUIDANCE

RECOMMENDED REVIEWER \"HIGH,\" \"MEDIUM,\" \"LOW,\" POINT DISTRIBUTION

Below is a guide given to each reviewer to help illustrate the

scoring criteria for selective criteria 3 and 4 of the PHDEP

grant application. The criterion is broken into three different

point categories on what would constituted a \"High\", \"Medium\",

and \"Low\" score. In reviewing an application, reviewers will

find that it does not fall neatly into one of these categories,

based on the text provided. Refer to the FY 97 PHDEP NOFA for

the complete scoring selective criteria.

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)(C) AND (D) OF THE NOFA

MAXIMUM TOTAL POINTS: 4

HIGH POINTS (3-4 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.

MEDIUM POINTS (1-2 POINTS)

The applicant demonstrated satisfactory FAIR ABILITY to

effectively and efficiently manage their housing developments as

outlined in reports generated by HUD reviews or audits.

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.

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

POINTS: 2

HIGH POINTS (2 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 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.

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: 4

HIGH POINTS (3-4 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:

1\. Timely execution of contracts with local police

authorities for law enforcement services.

2\. Established and tracked indicators to measure program

success.

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

application timetable.

4\. During the immediate past FY, the applicant, as part of

program implementation, has demonstrated resident

participation and community involvement/partnerships.

5\. Funds draw down were obligated and expended consistent

with program implementation work plan and timeline.

6\. Semiannual and final performance and financial reports

complete and submitted in a timely manner.

7\. Evaluation reports of previous PHDEPs are detailed and

reflect a significant improvement in program goals

and/or outcomes crime reduction.

MEDIUM POINTS (1-2 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 documented some success through:

1\. Execution of contracts with local police authorities

for law enforcement services with some results.

2\. Established and tracked indicators to measure program

with some documented success.

3\. Managed and implemented program(s) were on time, some

of the time, based upon the application timetable. The

applicant modified timelines (extension/waiver of

regulation) with some success.

4\. During the immediate past FY, the applicant, as part of

program implementation, has demonstrated some resident

participation and community involvement/partnerships.

5\. Drawdown of funds were obligated and expended most of

the time.

6\. Semiannual and final performance and financial reports

were complete with some results and submitted in a

timely manner.

LOW POINTS (0 POINTS)

The applicant\'s previous and/or current (past three years) PHDEP

grant(s) WERE IMPLEMENTED. The program has demonstrated with

difficulty through:

1\. Contract has not been executed with local police

authorities for services.

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

the application timetable) and requested untimely

extensions.

3\. During the immediate past FY, the applicant, as part of

program implementation, solicited some resident

participation and community involvement/partnerships.

4\. Drawdown of funds were rarely obligated and expended on

time. There is evidence that grantee rarely draws down

from LOCCS, utilized other HUD funds and/or there is

evidence of co-mingling of funds.

5\. Semiannual and final performance and financial reports

were completed and submitted most of the time with a

lack of performance in results in crime reduction.

6\. Evaluation reports of previous PHDEPs not submitted or

were sketchy and reflected no improvement in reduction

of drug-related crime.

7\. Semiannual and final performance and financial reports

were not submitted.

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

POINTS: 5

HIGH POINTS (4-5 POINTS)

The applicant\'s plan CLEARLY DOCUMENTS the relationship between

the extent of the crime detailed in Selection Criterion I,

section I.(d)(1) of grants during the preceding years, and

outcomes regarding reducing/eliminating drug-related crime

described in the implementation of the plans and timetables,

timely draw down of funding which corresponds to the timetable of

proposed activities, achievement of goals outlined in previous

PHDEP and/or other HUD program semiannual and final performance

and financial reports, audits, and performance outcome measures

in drug and crime activities at previously targeted developments.

MEDIUM POINTS (2-3 POINTS)

The applicant\'s plan satisfactorily FAIRLY DOCUMENTS the

relationship between the extent of the crime detailed in

Selection Criterion I, section I.(d)(1) of grants during the

preceding years, and outcomes regarding reducing and eliminating

drug-related crime described in the implementation of the plans

and timetables; drawdown of funds were obligated and expended

MOST of the time; applicant achieved some of the goals outlined

in previous PHDEP and/or other HUD semiannual and final program

performance and financial reports, audits, and performance

outcome measured in drug and crime activities at previously

targeted developments.

LOW POINTS (0-1 POINT)

The applicant\'s plan provided LITTLE OR NO DOCUMENTATION

regarding the relationship between the extent of the crime

detailed in Selection Criterion I, section I.(d)(1) of grants

during the preceding years, and outcomes regarding reducing and

eliminating drug-related crime described in the implementation of

the plans and timetables; drawdown of funds WERE NOT obligated or

expended in a timely manner; applicant achieved FEW OR NONE of

the goals outlined in previous PHDEP and/or other HUD semiannual

and final program performance and financial reports, audits, and

performance outcome measured in drug and crime activities at

previously targeted developments.

FOURTH 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. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE POINTS FOR

SELECTIVE CRITERION 4: 15 POINTS

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

POINTS: 5

HIGH POINTS (4-5 POINTS)

The applicant CLEARLY DOCUMENTS the extent to which community

representative 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 (1-3 POINTS)

The applicant provides SOME DOCUMENTATION as to the extent to

which the 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.

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

POINTS: 4

HIGH POINTS (3-4 POINTS)

The applicant discussed and provided certification 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 development proposed for assistance.

MEDIUM POINTS (1-2 POINTS)

The applicant provided certification and LIMITED DOCUMENTATION

that obligations are being met by law enforcement services. The

application DID NOT CLEARLY DESCRIBE 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.

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

POINTS: 3

HIGH POINTS (3 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 (1-2 POINTS)

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 organization in the planning and

development of the grant application and plan strategy.

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

POINTS: 3

HIGH POINTS (3 POINTS)

The applicant CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED that it is 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 (1-2 POINTS)

The applicant DEMONSTRATED that it is undertaking, or has

undertaken, participation in local, State, or federal anti-drug

related crime efforts as mentioned above 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 it is already

undertaking, or has undertaken, participation in local, State, or

Federal anti-drug related crime efforts as mentioned above or is

successfully coordinating its law enforcement activities with

local, state, Tribal or federal law enforcement agencies.

HUD FIELD STAFF TRAINING \-- ATTENDANCE ROSTER

Subject: FY 1997 PHDEP Application Reviewer Training

FO:

Date of training:

The following HUD staff attended the FY 1997 PHDEP

Application Reviewer Training.

\# NAME

1\.

2\.

3

4\.

5\.

6\.

7\.

8\.

9\.

10\.

FOGA signature:

HUD REFORM ACT PROVISIONS - FOR REVIEWERS

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:

\(1\) 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.

I understand the provisions of this regulation.

Reviewer Signature:

Date:

FY 1997 PHDEP FIELD OFFICE REVIEWER APPLICATION LOG

REVIEWER NAME:

\#

HA CODE

PHA/IHA NAME

DATE

REC

DATE

RETURN

REVIEWER SIGNATURE

FOGA

SIGNATURE

APPENDIX 6: FY 1997 PHDEP GRANT APPLICATION SELECTIVE CRITERIA

3 AND 4 SCORING SHEET AND RELATED DOCUMENTS

Each reviewer will receive a number of assigned FY 1997 PHDEP

grant applications to review and score. These applications will

be listed on the application assignment sheet accompanying the

applications. Please check to verify the receipt of all

applications listed and sign the sheet as confirmation.

The reviewer is responsible for the applications in at all times.

Return each application to the supervisor as you complete the

review and scoring of each application. Review the applications

in the order listed on your assignment sheet.

Applications are to be reviewed and scored according to the FY 97

NOFA, OMB Circular A-87, the FY 97 Application Processing Notice

and any additional instructions issued by the OCPS.

Reviewers must give reasons for scores, expressed in strengths

and weaknesses. Comments must be useful, clear, significant,

accurate, and logical. Include the applicant\'s application

tab/page numbers regarding comments. If needed, use and attach a

blank sheet of paper to complete your comments. Do not write on

the back of pages. Print all comments.

Requirements for writing comments: use black ink, write legibly,

use complete sentences, use proper grammar and spelling, include

the application\'s page for each comment, be specific, detailed

and concise, be tactful, justify each strength and weakness and

document your evaluation. 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. Reviewers must

print all comments.

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.

As the reviewer scores each selective criterion they must post

the scores on the score sheet. All scores must be justified and

verified by a supervisor.

Points are awarded based on the extent to which an applicant is

responsive to the information requested in the selection

criterion. An application must receive a score of at least 70

points out of a maximum of 100 points that may be awarded under

this competition to be eligible for funding.

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.

If appropriate, comment on the following issues and mark with the

appropriate letter in the upper right hand corner of the score

sheet:

A. INELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES - \"I\". If the reviewer

identifies ineligible activities listed in the grant,

circle the item in the text. List the activity and

tab/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 supervisor will

reconcile the amount to be deducted with the second

reviewer prior to data entry.

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

applicant describes its primary substance abuse problem

as alcohol or prescription drug abuse, the reviewer

will note this on the application and appropriate

scorer page. These activities will be identified as

ineligible and deducted as referenced above.

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.

All score sheets must be signed by the reviewer and verified by

the supervisor. Verify all scores with a calculator.

Part 1 of the application score sheet will be managed by APC

staff. Note it is not part of your score sheet. Reviewers will

complete Part II-A and II-B of the score sheet. Reviewers must

attached Part II-A and II-B to each application.

FY 1997 PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING

DRUG ELIMINATION GRANT PROGRAM

OFFICE OF CRIME PREVENTION AND SECURITY

OFFICE OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS AND INVOLVEMENT

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

REVIEWER SCORING FORM PART II-A

HA Legal Name

HA Code FO Code

Designated FO

Funds Requested: \$ Projected Funds Approved: \$

\*\*PLEASE USE BLACK INK\*\*

Selective Maximum Points

Criteria Points Awarded

3 15

Reviewer Signature: Date:

FOGA Signature: Date:

FY 1997 PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING

DRUG ELIMINATION GRANT PROGRAM

OFFICE OF CRIME PREVENTION AND SECURITY

OFFICE OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS AND INVOLVEMENT

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

REVIEWER SCORING FORM PART II-B

HA Legal Name

HA Code FO Code

Designated FO

Funds Requested: \$ Projected Funds Approved: \$

\*\*PLEASE USE BLACK INK\*\*

Selective Maximum Points

Criteria Points Awarded

4 15

Secretary\'s Representative Signature: Date:

HA CODE: FO CODE: HA LEGAL NAME:

3\. THIRD SELECTIVE CRITERIA: The capability of the Applicant to Carry
out

the Plan (Maximum Points: 15)

\(i\) (A) through (D) Applicant\'s administrative capability (Max
Points: 4) Score

\(ii\) Collaboration to gain access to records (Maximum Points: 2) Score

\(iii\) Applicant participation in HUD grant programs (Maximum Points:
4)

Score

\(iv\) Success or failure of previous PHDEP grants (Maximum Points: 5)
Score

Reviewers must use the criteria as written in the Notice of Funding

Availability.

Total Score

STRENGTHS: Page No.

\+

WEAKNESSES: Page No.

\-

HA CODE: FO CODE: HA LEGAL NAME:

4\. FOURTH CRITERIA: 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 Points: 15)

\(ii\) Extent of Representatives\' involvement (Maximum Points: 5) Score

\(iii\) Jurisdiction met local law enforcement obligations (Maximum
Points:

4\) Score

\(iv\) Extent HA and residents are involved in planning (Maximum Points:
3)

Score

\(v\) Applicant participation in anti-drug efforts (Maximum Points: 3)
Score

Reviewers must use the criteria as written in the Notice of Funding

Availability.

Total Score

STRENGTHS: Page No.

\+

WEAKNESSES: Page No.

\-

FY 1997 PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING

DRUG ELIMINATION GRANT PROGRAM

OFFICE OF CRIME PREVENTION AND SECURITY

OFFICE OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS AND INVOLVEMENT

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

SCORING FORM WORKSHEETS

(ATTACH TO EACH SCORE SHEET)

SECTION 1. FINAL BUDGET DATA INPUT SHEET. COMPLETED BY FO AND APC

STAFF.

FO APC

FUNDS APPROVED

ITEM ACTIVITY REQUESTED AMOUNT

9110 Reimbursement of

Law Enforcement \$ \$

1\. Dedicated

PH Division/

Bureau \$ \$

(TOTAL 9110 BLI FUNDING) \$ \$

9120 Employment of

Security Personnel

1\. HA employed

Security

Guards \$ \$

2\. Contracted

Security Gds \$ \$

3\. 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, total funding

after adjustments \$

FOGA Signature:

APC Panel Leader Signature:

SECTION 2. FY 1997 PHDEP GRANT APPLICATION INELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES. IF

APPLICABLE, COMPLETED BY FO AND APC STAFF.

The reviewer(s) 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 3. IF APPLICABLE, SPECIAL CONDITIONS TO GRANT AGREEMENT (FORM

HUD-1044). COMPLETED BY FO HUD AND APC STAFF.