Score Summary Case Id:
Name:
Reviewer: John Doe
Score
0 out of 80
Status: Active
Last updated: 4/10/2026 12:03:04 PM
SECTION POINTS
AWARDED
AVAILABLE
POINTS
A. Design 0 28
B. Budget/Financial Management/Fund Development 0 20
C. Experience and Capacity 0 24
D. Past Performance and General Compliance 0 4
E. Collaboration 0 4
Total 0 80
Reviewer Notes:
ATTACHMENT D
Score Report Case Id:
Name:
Reviewer: John Doe
A: DESIGN POINTS
AWARDED
AVAILABLE
POINTS
Applicant demonstrates a clear understanding of the proposed project through procedures or process flow clearly defining roles and responsibilities. (Section D) (Rate the strength of response from 0 to 7) Identified through a comparison of their projects description narrative compared to supporting documents like process flows, program policies, org. charts etc.
❑ Program design clearly outlined in the project description and addresses the funding source component - 7 points
❑ Program design somewhat outlined in the project description and somewhat addressed the funding source components - 1 to 6 points ❑ Program is not outlined in the project description and/or does not address the funding source components - 0 points
0 7
Program clearly identifies the urgency of the community need and how this project will address both the need and urgency. This section is statistically supported.
(Applicant needs to provide statistical analysis supporting that this program meets a community need. Points are scored based on the strength of their response. See question D.5) (Rate the strength of response from 0 to 10) ❑ Application contains statistical analysis of supporting the urgency and Need of the project – 7 points
❑ Application statistically supports the need but not the urgency of the program in the community. The need and urgency are unclear – 1 to 6 points
❑ Application does not statistically support either the urgency or the need of the program in the community - 0 points
0 7
Program clearly identifies a pathway to address the need and clearly defines the 0 5
ATTACHMENT D
❑ Program clearly identifies how the needs identified are to be addressed and how the recipient will benefit from the program – 5 points ❑ Program does not clearly identify how the needs identified are to be addressed and how the recipient will benefit from the program – 0 points (Question D.6) (Rate the strength of response from 0 to 5) ❑ The project’s eligibility requirements do not align with the federal funding source and have unclear procedures to collect, maintain and report on client demographics. - 0 points
❑ The project’s eligibility requirements somewhat align with the federal funding source and/or have somewhat unclear procedures to collect, maintain and report on client demographics. - 1 to 3 points ❑ Program somewhat identifies how the needs identified are to be addressed and how the recipient will benefit from the program – 1 to 4 points Project has procedures and methods to avoid client duplication. (Question D.10) 0 0
Project has eligibility requirements that align with the federal funding source and have clear procedures to collect, maintain and report on client demographics. (Questions D.7 - D.9, D.11 and verified by the client intake form) (Rate the strength of response from 0 to 4)
4 ❑ The project’s eligibility requirements align with the federal funding source and have clear procedures to collect, maintain and report on client demographics. - 4 points
5 (Rate the strength of response from 0 to 5)
❑ Application has clear procedures and methods to avoid client duplication – 5 points
(Clear unduplication procedures should include a detailed account of how client data is collected, how the client data is analyzed to identify and remove duplicated clients, the data collection software used to manage the client data, staff positions assigned to analyze and remove duplicate data, frequency of data analysis to remove duplicative data)
❑ Application had unclear procedures and methods to avoid client duplication – 1 to 4 points
❑ Application does not have procedures and methods to avoid client duplication – 0 points
impact on individuals that will receive services through reportable outcomes.
Applicant describes how they will track the short and long term program results.
ATTACHMENT D
0 2
28 Section Total
❑ The organization demonstrates the capacity to sustainably continue their programming. — 4 points
❑ The organization does not demonstrate the capacity to sustainably continue their programming. — 0 points
0 Section Total
(This can be assessed by evaluating: how much funding is leveraged for the project, how much funding is secured for the project and how much is pending, and the total cost to complete the project)
20 0
Program budget is clearly defined and request falls within allowable range as specified in the NOFA. Applicant provides description for each budget line item that clearly conveys the intended use under each category. (Questions E.1 and E.8)
❑ Incomplete and/or somewhat clear program budget —1 to 6 points ❑ Incomplete Program budget that does not define each line item and does not fall within the allowable range as specified in the NOFA – 0 points
AVAILABLE
POINTS
Budget proposal corresponds to the project scope and fits within the total project budget. (Rate the strength of the response from 0-5. See the definitions below) 9 ❑ The proposed project somewhat corresponds to the scope and/or somewhat fits within the total project budget — 1 to 8 points ❑ The proposed budget does not correspond to the project scope, and does not fit within the total project budget — 0 points
4 ❑ Complete and clear Program budget that defines each line item and falls within the allowable range as specified in the NOFA. – 7points 0 POINTS
AWARDED
0 7
E.3) (Rate the strength of response from 0 to 7)
B: BUDGET/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT/FUND DEVELOPMENT
(See questions E.1-E.6 and Section D)
❑ The proposed budget corresponds to the scope, and fits within the total project budget — 9 points
Whether funded by City CDBG/ESG funding, the organization demonstrates the capacity to sustainably continue their programming. (Questions E.1-E.5, E.7-
ATTACHMENT D
❑ 5 + years’ experience - 4 points
C: EXPERIENCE AND CAPACITY
program (Question F.3. program administration only) (Identified through staff resumes, org chart, and project description.)
❑ Under 3 years’ experience – 2 points
20 (Scoring determined by the score received from the Experience and Capacity Assessment attachment)
❑ Applicant scored 120 or above on the risk matrix, thus a high risk applicant — 0 points or DISQUALIFIED
Section Total
❑ 3-5 years’ experience - 3 points
0 0
0 4
❑ No Experience – 0 points
AVAILABLE
POINTS
❑ Applicant scored 79 or below on the risk matrix, thus a low risk applicant — 30 points
POINTS
AWARDED
Organizational Experience and Capacity Assessment
❑ Applicant scored 80-119 on the risk matrix, thus a moderate risk applicant — 15 points
Applicant demonstrates sufficient staffing experience to carry out the described 24 AVAILABLE
POINTS
D: PAST PERFORMANCE AND GENERAL COMPLIANCE
Applicant spent all of the funds requested in the past three years? ❑ Program did spend all grant funds requested – 2 points 0 2
Section Total 0
❑ Program did meet deliverables – 2 points
2 ❑ Program did not spend all grant funds requested and/or funds were deobligated – 0 points
POINTS
AWARDED
Applicant met defined measurable deliverables as outlined in their contract. 0 4
❑ Program did not meet deliverables – 0 points
ATTACHMENT D
Applicant is actively participating CoC related activities and/or meetings. 2 ❑ Applicant is not currently participating in the CoC but delivers a clear plan on how their agency will participate soon. –1 to 2 points ❑ Applicant is not currently participating in the CoC and does not offer a plan or a clear plan of how they will become involved. – 0 points Section Total
POINTS
AWARDED
0 4
Applicant demonstrates clearly how their scope of service collaborates with other organizations to serve all the needs of the client. (Questions H.2.- H.3) (Rate the E: COLLABORATION
❑ Application does not have clear collaboration with other agencies – 0 points
2 *Demonstrating clear collaboration should include the names of the organizations they partner with, how the collaboration fits into the proposed program, and demonstrate how the collaboration efforts are used to receive or provide clients wi
th referrals.
(Question H.1)
0 ❑ Applicant is currently participating in the CoC—2 points ❑ Application has clear collaboration with other agencies – 2 points ❑ Applicant is not aware of the SJCCoC – 0 points
strength of the applicant’s response from 0 to 2)
AVAILABLE
POINTS
0 ATTACHMENT D