Detailed Information on the
University Partnership Grants: Community Outreach Partnership Centers Assessment

Measure: This measure tracks the percentage of grantees that close out their grants in the given fiscal year that secure non-Federal resources above the mandatory program match requirement to strengthen their institutions' commitment to outreach activities.

Explanation:This measure evaluates applicants' ability to secure additional non-Federal resources to increase the effectiveness of the proposed program activities, build capacity, and become self-sustaining. The baseline figure is estimated due to the nature of the previous data reporting standards.

Measure: This measure details the percentage of grants that are closed out within 90 days after the end of the grant performance period. The target is to increase the total timely closeouts by a flat 10% annually.

Explanation:This measure helps ensure that grant funds are utilized in a timely manner and that HUD is an effective steward of government resources.

Measure: This measure tracks the percentage of grantees that successfully complete 90 percent or more of their proposed housing and/or economic development activities within the grant's lifespan. The FY07 goal is for 95 percent of the grantees that close out to achieve 90 percent of their program's performance goals by the end of the grant performance period.

Explanation:This measure evaluates a grantee's ability to complete all proposed goals and objectives in a timely manner. Please note that 2005 and 2006 numbers are estimates, as the Logic Model - which underlies program reporting - was not yet implemented in its current state until 2004, meaning the 2007 cohort will be the first grant closeouts using the model.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The purpose of the Community Outreach Partnership Center (COPC) program is to create and facilitate partnerships between institutions of higher education (IHEs) and communities to assist in establishing and/or carrying out outreach, research, and initiatives to address problems in urban areas.

Evidence: The COPC program was established by the Community Outreach Partnership Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 5307 note; the "COPC Act"). The COPC Act is contained in section 851 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102-550, approved October 28, 1992) (HCD Act of 1992). Section 801(c) of the HCD Act of 1992 authorized $7.5 million for each year of the 5-year demonstration to create Community Outreach Partnership Centers as authorized in the COPC Act. This program's funding continued beyond the initial five-year demonstration, which provided implicit authorization past the demonstration period. The program is currently being implemented through the program NOFA and the policies governing its operation are contained therein - see the FY 2005 COPC Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) available at http://www.oup.org/files/nofa/copc05.pdf, page 13744, columns one and two

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Yes, the COPC program strengthens the relationship between institutes of higher education (IHEs) and the surrounding communities, leveraging diverse resources to address unique community problems. Specifically, the COPC program helps establish partnerships between IHEs and communities , providing IHEs with assistance to concentrate on community problems associated with such issues as the lack of affordable housing, unemployment, and crime. The program also utilizes university faculty and the student body by fostering service learning opportunities, community work, and mobilizes other institutional resources to address community needs. The COPC program is the only Federal program that has developed a formal and systematic way for institutions of higher education to expand new and existing structured partnerships to address community needs.

Evidence: In 1989, the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities and other organizations recognized that institutions of higher education needed to develop, improve and/or renew their relationships with local communities by fostering service learning opportunities community work for students and faculty. In an effort to develop these types of relationships, institutions and other organizations advocated for the development of federal programs that would encourage institutions of higher education and communities to work together in a formalized partnership. In 1996, more than 1900 urban-core universities spent $136 billion dollars on salaries, goods, and services -- nine times greater than Federal direct spending on urban business and job development in the same year. Congress recognized the importance of utilizing universities to assist in community change and start or expand community-based partnerships. The National and Community Service Act of 1990 was enacted and the Community Outreach Partnership Act of 1992 authorized $7.5 million to establish the COPC program as stated in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, The Power of Partnership Celebrating 10 Years 1994-2004, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2004 available at: http://www.oup.org/files/pubs/copc10.pdf, page 8, paragraph (1) Identifies the need for partnerships between higher education and communities. In addition, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, HUD, PD&R, pages 1-43, Volume 5, Number 1, 2000; Altman Jennifer, Matching University Resources to Community Needs: Case Studies of University-Community Partnerships, 2006 available at http://www.oup.org also support the need for the program.

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: HUD's COPC program is unique in its design, which is to provide assistance to IHEs in support HUD's mission of increasing homeownership, supporting community development, and providing access to affordable housing free from discrimination. COPC grants invest in outreach efforts at colleges and universities and help to strengthen and institutionalize community/university partnerships that incorporate community outreach into the curriculum throughout the institution. While the outreach efforts strengthen the university's course offerings and classroom learning, they also create partnerships between the institution, neighbors, area non-profits, business, and the municipality. In addition, HUD utilizes a competitive Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) selection process that addresses the issues of providing funding for redundant or duplicative efforts All applicants are required at the time of application submission to ensure in their application that proposed activities do not duplicate current or previously funded activities conducted by the institution or others in the proposed target area, unless they can demonstrate through documentation that there is a population in need that is not being served.

Evidence: FY 2005 COPC NOFA is available at http://www.oup.org/files/nofa/copc05.pdf , page 13750, column three, (iii); HUD's mission that is available at http://www.hud.gov/library/bookshelf12/mission.cfm

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: No major design flaws have been identified that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency. COPC's flexibility provides applicants the opportunity to address the specific needs of the targeted community and propose activities that will positively impact those needs. The program's concept of integrating community service with universities educational mission through applied research and outreach has several unique efficiencies: It takes advantage of local resources, builds institutional capacity and social networks, and improves the quality of educational experiences, as well as the community development results. The Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) process permits the Office of University Partnerships (OUP) the opportunity to refine program policies and guidelines, as needed, to increase both program efficiency and effectiveness. The program also has in place strong management oversight procedures. All applicants awarded funding under this program are assigned a HUD Government Technical Representative (GTR). The GTR is responsible for the day-to-day administration of the grant, including monitoring grantee performance. In addition, the program addresses the market failure (i.e., human capital that could serve community development instead of wasted because transaction costs are high) in the most direct way possible, using structured programs to ensure efficiency. COPC grants provide seed money, leveraging substantial and ongoing funding sources that allow COPC-initiated activities to continue long after the grant money has been expended. The COPC program encourages IHEs to propose activities that are consistent with, or complement, local Consolidated Plans, and other HUD funded programs, such as Community Development Block Grant, Emergency Shelter Grants, HOME, and HOPWA, as well as with other non-profits and foundations to obtain additional support to leverage other resources. COPC programs have leveraged resources from non-profit organizations, foundations, financial institutions, states and local governments, as well as other federal agencies.

Evidence: The COPC program authorization; Terms and Conditions outline GTR responsibilities; FY 2005 Peer Review Evaluation Guide that is used by reviewers to review applications; FY 2005 COPC NOFA is available at: http://www.oup.org , see section labeled program modifications that outlines changes that were made to make the program more efficient and effective.

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: The program is effectively designed to target IHEs that will initiate or expand community-based partnerships. Further, the program facilitates the joint efforts of IHEs and communities to solve urban problems. The program Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) contains a clear description of the purpose of the program, the target audience (communities experiencing such problems as the lack of affordable housing, unemployment, and high crime rates), and the type of activities that can be conducted. When an applicant submits an application they must describe how one or more Community Advisory Committees have been formed that represent the community's diversity (including businesses, community groups, residents, and others), and will serve to develop and implement strategies to address the needs identified and play an active role in all stages of the project. The COPC program emphasizes the importance of the institution's commitment to sustain community outreach activities after the end of the grant. During the peer review process, applications are scored on how well the applicant describes a sound approach to program management and implementation, and how they intend to secure additional resources to continue proposed outreach activities. HUD also assesses the applicants' plan to disseminate results of outreach and research activities to other COPCs and communities through such means as conferences, cross-site technical assistance, websites, and publications. Applicants eligible to apply for funding under this program must be public or private nonprofit institutions of higher education that grant two- or four-year degrees and that are accredited by a national or regional accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education. Each COPC project must address the following five key concepts: (1) Operate in an urban area; (2) Propose outreach activities and technical assistance to address multidimensional urban problems directly related to what the targeted neighborhoods and neighborhood-based organizations have determined is needed; (3) Engage community-based organizations and residents as partners with the institution both in planning and implementation of the project and beyond the life of the grant; (4) Assist target communities; and (5) Support of the program (university's senior officials) to make it part of the institution's broader effort to meet its urban mission and are therefore not subsidized. Applicants can also undertake applied research activities related to the project's outreach activities.

Evidence: COPC program authorization; Urban Institute, Lessons From the Community Outreach Partnership Center Program, Final Report, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, March 2002, this document is available at http://www.oup.org/files/pubs/lessons_learned.pdf ; FY 2005 COPC NOFA is available at http://www.oup.org/files/nofa/copc_05.pdf, see page 13747, column 1, letter d.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: Yes, the COPC program has the following two specific output-based long-term performance measures: (1) by FY 2010, 98 percent of grantees will successfully implement 90 percent or more of their proposed program activities; and (2) by 2010, 60% of COPC grantees will secure non-Federal resources above the mandatory program match requirement, to further strengthen their institution's commitment to outreach activities. In the case of the COPC program, output measures alone are appropriate because of the diversity of the program's grantees (making outcome measures across the program difficult to formulate) and because the cost/resources required to conduct outcome evaluations would be significant relative to the program's size. These performance measures are linked to the purpose of this program which is to facilitate partnerships between institutions of higher education and communities to solve problems and revitalize urban communities through the successful implementation of housing and community development outreach and/or research activities, and to HUD's strategic goal - Strengthening Communities.

Evidence: Semi-annual progress reports; Performance Measure Analysis Chart; Annual Performance Plan Fiscal Year 2003, April 2002, pg 225 available at http://www.hud.gov/offices/cfo/reporst/cforept.cfm.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: OUP has established ambitious targets and timeframes for the program's long-term measures based on baseline performance of past grantees. The targets and timeframes were selected based on a review of program history (baseline data collected from grantees awarded in FY 2000-2003 and closed in FY 2005-2006) and because prior year performance suggest a need for grantee improvement. Achievement of the long-term goals will signal improved grantee performance, substantial reporting improvements, and the better stewardship of taxpayer resources. OUP will continue to strengthen the goals as needed to sustain continuous improvement in program outcomes.

Evidence: Performance Measure Analysis Chart

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: Yes, the COPC program has annual goals that have a direct relationship to the program's long-term objectives to carry out housing- and community development-related outreach and research activities in support of local communities. The annual goals illustrate progress in the development of program improvement and output reporting to carry out the COPC program. In the case of the COPC program, output measures alone are appropriate because of the diversity of the program's grantees (making outcome measures across the program difficult to formulate) and because the cost/resource would be significant to adequately measure grantee outcome relative to the program's size. The output measures help illustrate improved grantee performance in terms of accomplishing grant objectives, improving reporting, and operating more efficiently.

Evidence: Semi-annual progress reports; Performance Measure Analysis Chart.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: OUP has established baseline data collected from grantees awarded in FY 2000-2003 and closed in FY 2005-2006 for all annual performance measures. The targets are ambitious and reflect increasing expectations in terms of program effectiveness, accountability, and successful implementation of program activities. All targets are tied to program history/prior year performance.

Evidence: FY 2005 COPC NOFA, which is available at http://www.oup.org/files/nofa/copc_05.pdf ; Signed grant agreements; Grantee close-out reports; Performance Data Chart.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: All grantees are required to have signed letters of commitment, memoranda of understanding and/or agreements from all parties that will be involved with the project. The document must outline the roles and commitment of all partners to the grant. All documents are required to include the following information: the cash amount contributed or dollar value of the in-kind goods and/or services committed; a specific description of how the match is to be used toward the proposed program activities; the date the match will be made available and a statement that describes the duration of the contribution; any terms or conditions affecting the commitment, other than receipt of a HUD grant; and the signature of the appropriate executive officer authorized to commit the funds and/or goods and/or services. As part of the award process, each grantee signs a grant agreement that includes Terms and Conditions that specify the responsibilities of the grantee and sub-grantees. This agreement commits the grantee to adhere to the goals and requirements of the program and also incorporates by reference the proposal, which outlines the involvement of all parties in the grant. The Logic Model is one of the core elements of the program's accountability framework, as it aligns each grantee's activities with objectives and performance goals. Each grantee has to report on its individual annual performance measures to demonstrate progress toward achieving the project's long-term goals. All grantees are required to submit semi-annual progress reports. The narrative section of this report contains a description of the activities undertaken during the reporting period; significant accomplishments made during the reporting period; progress made toward the achievement of established goals and objectives; identification of any significant problems and their impact; corrective actions taken or planned; effect that such actions will have on the successful implementation/completion of the grant, as well as the logic model; and leveraged/match funds and/or in-kind services/contributions that were obtained in support of the recipient's project. If funded in FY'08, grantees will be required on an annual basis to submit a logic model report that outlines progress toward achieving major tasks and project goals.

Evidence: FY 2005 COPC NOFA available at http://www.oup.org ; Terms and Conditions- Grant agreement is a legal contract between HUD and the grantee that outlines the requirements of the grant, including sub recipients; Semi-annual progress reports.

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: There has not been a program evaluation of sufficient scope, evaluative focus, and quality conducted at this point. In 2002, HUD commissioned the Urban Institute to review a sample of early COPC grantees. The study presented findings and lessons in five areas: activities, partners, partnerships, institutionalization, and lessons for building a successful COPC program. Although, the scope of this evaluation was limited, the information collected was valuable and did not suggest the need for immediate follow up. If the program is funded in FY'08, OUP will request that the Office of Policy Development and Research include an evaluation of the effectiveness of the COPC program in the FY'09 research agenda subject to the availability of funding, and other HUD priorities. However, the COPC program will not be evaluated annually due to the size of the program but OUP will conduct periodically updates internally.

Evidence: Urban Institute, Lessons From the Community Outreach Partnership Center Program, Final Report, March 2002, the document is available at http://www.oup.org/files/pubs/lessons_learned.pdf.

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: Although HUD's 2008 COPC program request for funds and FTEs is specifically linked to accomplishing HUD's Strategic Goal "Strengthening Communities", it is not tied specifically to the accomplishment of the program's annual and long-term performance goals. However, OUP does looks at the percentage of grantees that close out annually, the number of projects that achieve established goals and objectives, and applicant interest in the program. In the future, budget requests will be linked to performance in a more meaningful way.

Evidence: Evidence: 2008 OMB Budget Justification for COPC under PD&R's Research and Technology account includes the link to Strategic Goal C (Strengthening Communities), HUD's budget request for this program is linked to the program's goals and accomplishments. Budget information is provided to the public in a transparent manner through the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Annual Performance Plan Fiscal Year 2007,August 2006, pg 48 and 152, available at, HUD's website, http://www.hud.gov/offices/cfo/reporst/cforept.cfm

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: The OUP uses information collected from a variety of sources that provide substantial feedback that is considered and used to implement improvements to the COPC program. Examples of those sources are annual peer review meetings, annual conferences, program listservs, semi-annual grantee progress reports, and annual logic model reports. In addition, this year, OUP is finalizing the development of a new internal risk assessment tool to be used in assisting staff to prioritize project monitoring. This tool will be utilized with the FY'07 funding cycle of grantees. These sources provide information that is incorporated in the NOFA to increase program efficiency and effectiveness. The COPC program is implemented through the NOFA that is published each fiscal year, and the policies governing its operation are contained therein. Therefore, modifications and enhancements can be made annually. For example, OUP is finalizing the development of a new internal risk assessment tool to be used in assisting staff to prioritize project monitoring. In addition, in the FY'08 NOFA, HUD will require all applicants to report via the new electronic performance management accountability system, the Logic Model on OUP's new established performance measures. This will be a requirement outlined in the NOFA. Currently applicants are utilizing the system to provide baseline data to develop individualized performance measures and determine if goals and objectives have been achieved by the end of the grant performance period. Grantees will also be required to provide information on the Return on Investments to assess the impact of the project on the targeted community being served. Applicants will report on their progress annually using the Logic Model.

Evidence: Risk assessment tool; evolution of the NOFA available at www.oup.org.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: Grantees are required to submit semi-annual progress reports that reflect project activities undertaken during each reporting period. This information is used by the Government Technical Representative (GTR). The GTR is the HUD official responsible for the day-to-day administration of the grant, including monitoring grantee performance, ensuring program compliance, reviewing progress reports and providing technical assistance to improve program performance. The GTR also utilizes phone calls, and E-mail contacts to monitor grantee performance. To the extent travel funds are available, the GTR conducts on-site monitoring visits to review grantee performance and compliance with program requirements, and to see the impact the project is having on the community. These on-site visits are also used to provide technical assistance, as needed.

Evidence: The progress report consists of a narrative and a financial section. The narrative section of the report contains a description of the activities undertaken during the reporting period; significant accomplishments made during the reporting period; progress made toward the achievement of established goals and objectives; identification of any significant problems and their impact; corrective actions taken or planned; and the effect that such actions will have on the successful implementation/completion of the project. In addition, the narrative addresses leveraged/match funds and/or in-kind services/contributions that were obtained in support of the recipient's project, as well as requests for any technical assistance required from HUD. The financial component of the report reflects costs incurred during the reporting period and cumulative costs (SF-269A, Financial Status Report). An example of a semi-annual progress report is included.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: Federal managers/GTRs are rated on performance based on proactive grant monitoring, creative problem solving, provision of technical assistance and knowledge of and adherence to departmental rules. GTRs monitor grantees to ensure compliance with all applicable program requirements. Federal managers/GTRs determine that all costs are allowable, allocable and reasonable in accordance with the principles outlined in applicable OMB Circulars. If HUD determines that costs are ineligible, they are disallowed and these costs are borne entirely by the grantee. All costs incurred by the grantee must be in conformance with the approved budget. Failure to comply with the requirements established in the grant agreement will result in the GTR taking appropriate corrective action(s), up to and including suspending or terminating the agreement for non-performance. In addition, when a previously funded applicant applies for a new grant their past performances is evaluated and scored. An applicant will lose up to five points as a result of poor performance on a previously awarded grant. Verification of past performance is validated from program and financial reports, monitoring reports, Logic Model submission and amendments. The deduction of points under the past performance rating section could cause the applicant not to be selected for award.

Evidence: HUD's employee performance appraisals; Terms and Conditions; OMB circulars A-21 and A-110; SF-269A, Financial Status Report; FY'05 COPC NOFA, which is available at page 13749, column 3 under Rating Factor 1, Past Performance, discusses the deduction of points.

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner, spent for the intended purpose and accurately reported?

Explanation: Funds appropriated for this program are announced and committed before the end of the fiscal year. Once selected for award, all applicants are formally notified in writing and the winners are published in the Federal Register, as required by the HUD Reform Act. Grants are awarded to IHEs and are announced in late August when institutions are getting back in session. The majority of the grants are obligated within three months of the award announcement. Once an applicant is selected for award, budgets are reviewed and negotiated to ensure project efficiencies and that the project will be implemented in a cost effective manner. Funds are then set up in HUD's Line of Credit Control System (LOCCS). The LOCCS system contains hard and soft financial control and is used for fiscal management of HUD grants. The GTR monitors the Grantee's draw down of funds from HUD's LOCCS payment system and determines that all costs are allowable, allocable and reasonable in accordance with the cost principles, as outlined in OMB Circular A-21, and the purpose of the program outlined in the application. Costs and progress in implementing and achieving results are further monitored by the GTR. Grantees report expenditures for each reporting period, and cumulatively, utilizing the SF-269A, Financial Status Report.

Evidence: Each year in the Federal Register the announcement of the applicants selected for awards is published; OMB circulars A-21 is available at http://oup.org/ta/ta main.asp ; Terms and Conditions; SF-269A, Financial Status Report.

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: While the COPC program has implemented several process changes to improve its operations, it has no performance measure currently in place to verify increased efficiency/effectiveness. OUP has improved program efficiency by including it with other competitive grant programs under HUD's SuperNOFA and e-Government efforts to move towards integrated electronic application and performance reporting through eGrants and the federal interagency portal, Grants.gov. The cost effectiveness of implementing a project is evaluated during the peer review process. OUP utilizes the panel review format. Once an applicant is awarded, budgets are reviewed and negotiated to ensure project efficiencies and cost effectiveness. Costs and progress in implementing and achieving results are further reviewed by the GTR through the quarterly progress report is submitted. OUP also utilizes a new electronic performance management accountability system, the Logic Model. The system provides baseline data to applicants and helps them develop effective, quantifiable, outcome oriented evaluation plans to measure performance and determine if goals and objectives have been achieved by the end of their grant performance period. It will also provide information on the Return on Investments to assess the impact of the project on the targeted community being served. In addition, the program has a program efficiency measure that assists in ensuring that grant funds are utilized in a timely manner and that HUD is an effective steward of the government's resources. The measure looks at the percentage of grants that are closed out within 90 days after the end of the grant performance period. In addition, the program has a program efficiency measure that assists in ensuring that grant funds are utilized in a timely manner and that HUD is an effective steward of the government's resources. The measure looks at the percentage of grants that are closed out within 90 days after the end of the grant performance period. Furthermore, the program awards grantees' abilities to leverage additional funds in support of program initiatives.

Evidence: OMB Circular A-21 OMB circulars are available on OUP's website at http://oup.org/ta/ta main.asp ; Semi-annual progress reports; Terms and Conditions; Risk Assessment Form.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The COPC program collaborates with and builds upon other ongoing community activities funded by HUD such as: Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), Neighborhood Networks, HOPE VI , as well as other Federal agencies such as the Corporation for National and Community Service (through the Learn and Serve program) and the National Science Foundation. The program also collaborates with foundations such as The W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Knight Foundation, Annie Casey Foundation, The Pew Partnership for Civic Change, as well as National nonprofits such as Campus Compact; Campus and Community Partnerships for Health; the National Center for Learning and Citizenship; the National Service Learning Clearinghouse; and the American Association of Community Colleges, and its affiliates. These relationships improve the program's impact by leveraging additional resources - both tangible and intangible - in support of the program's goals.

Evidence: Grantee proposals; Close out reports; COPC Conference agendas 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005; The Wingspread Conference Statement 2004, Calling the Question: Is Higher Education Ready to Commit to Community Engagement? Higher Education Collaborative for Community Engagement and Improvement; National Forum for the Public Good, 2005.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: OUP requires all grantees to comply with the provisions of 24 CFR part 84 (Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals and Other Non-Profit Organizations), OMB Circulars A-21 (Cost Principles for Educational Institutions) and A-133 (Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations). Once grantees have been selected for award they receive the Assistance Award/Amendment (HUD-1044) form with accompanying terms and conditions and negotiated budget. Prior to award, HUD verifies the grantee's indirect rates and that the institution has a current audit on file. Each grant is assigned a GTR. The grant funds are set up in HUD's Line of Credit Control System (LOCCS). The LOCCS system is used for fiscal management of HUD grants. The GTR monitors the Grantee's draw down of funds from LOCCS. Prior to approval of a LOCCS draw down, a determination is made that all costs are allowable, allocable and reasonable and in accordance with eligible program activities and the cost principles outlined in OMB Circular A-21. Grantees report costs for each reporting period and cumulatively utilizing an SF-269A, Financial Status Report. If a budget revision is required, upon approval, the GTR will issue an amendment to the grant agreement. In the event that the Grantee incurs costs in excess of the grant amount, all excess costs shall be borne entirely by the grantee. The Grantee may not co-mingle any funds committed under this award with any other existing or future operating accounts held by the Grantee. An institutional accounting system must ensure that HUD funds are not co-mingled. Funds specifically budgeted/received for one program may not be used to support another program. If the accounting system does not comply with this requirement, the Grantee must establish a system to provide adequate fund accountability for the total amount of the funds to be awarded. If the grantee fails to comply with the requirements established in the award and these provisions, including failure to submit reports on time and in accordance with the requirements contained in these provisions, the GTR will take action to reject a payment request and or/limit Grantee's access to program funds. Actions by the GTR include, but are not limited to, requiring the submission of reports and financial statements to the GTR for approval prior to drawing down any funds; and/or suspending or terminating the agreement for non performance. Upon completion of the grant, the grantee submits the final narrative and financial report along with other required close out documentation and final Logic Model report.

Evidence: OMB circulars at the White House website at: http://www.oup.org/ta/ta main.asp. ; Grant agreements- Terms and Conditions; FY 2005 COPC NOFA available at http://www.oup.org/files/nofa/copc_05.pdf.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: OUP utilizes information collected from a variety of sources to address internal management deficiencies. Examples of those sources are the annual peer review, annual conference, program listserv, and reports submitted by grantees. For example, this year, OUP is finalizing the development of a new internal risk assessment tool that will be used to help staff prioritize program monitoring. Although COPC will not be funded this year. This tool will be utilized by OUP with the FY07 funding cycle of grantees and will assist OUP in looking at its annual efficiency measure that addresses the percentage of grants that are closed out within 90 days after the end of the grant performance period. If COPC is funded in the future, this measure will assist in ensuring that grant funds are utilized in a timely manner and that HUD is an effective steward of the government resources. In addition, in the FY08 NOFA, HUD will require all applicants to report via the new electronic performance management accountability system, the Logic Model on OUP's new established performance measures. This will be a requirement outlined in the NOFA. Currently applicants are utilizing the system to provide baseline data to develop individualized performance measures and determine if goals and objectives have been achieved by the end of their grant performance period. Grantees will also be required to provide information on the Return on Investments to access the impact of the project on the targeted community being served. Grantees will report on their progress annually.

Evidence: Semi-annual progress reports; Risk assessment tool.

Are grants awarded based on a clear competitive process that includes a qualified assessment of merit?

Explanation: Under this program, HUD competitively awards all grants to two and four-year colleges and universities. The program funding opportunity is announced through HUD's SuperNOFA. Awards under this program are not renewable; outreach is conducted to ensure new grantees each year. The HUD Reform Act of 1989 has stringent requirements ensuring the NOFA identifies factors for award and the basis upon which funding decisions will be made. OUP conducts two types of reviews, a threshold review and a technical review. All applications submitted for funding first undergo a threshold review to determine compliance with the threshold requirements defined in HUD's General Section of the NOFA and the specific program requirements. Applicants that meet the threshold requirements are forwarded for technical review. During the technical review, OUP utilizes a panel review format. This format ensures that three individuals with diverse experience and knowledge review each application. The role of a peer reviewer is to evaluate proposals in accordance with the degree to which it is responsive to the Factors for Award published in the NOFA. After the peer review process, HUD funds applications in rank order until all available program funds are awarded. In order to be considered for funding, an applicant must receive a minimum score of 75 points. If two or more applications have the same number of points, the application with the most points for Factor 3, Soundness of Approach, shall be selected. If there is still a tie, the application with the most points for Factor 1, Capacity of the Applicant and Relevant Organizational Experience, shall be selected. If there is still a tie, the application with the most points for Factors 2, 4 and then 5 shall be selected in that order until the tie is broken. HUD reserves the right to make selections out of rank order to provide for geographic distribution of grantees.

Evidence: FY 2004 and 2005 COPC NOFA's and HUD's FY 2005 SuperNOFA General Section are available at http://www.oup.org ; OUP's Peer Review Handbook; Program evaluation guide; HUD Reform Act of 1989.

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: Once an applicant is selected for award, it receives a written notification of award that includes the name of the GTR that will assist the grantee with program requirements and responsibilities during the life of the grant. The GTR is responsible for the technical administration of the grant, evaluation of performance under the grant, acceptance of semi-annual progress reports and provide on-going technical assistance to better manage the project and improve performance. Grantees are required to submit semi-annual progress reports that reflect progress toward accomplishing the project objectives and goals as stated in their application. The semi-annual progress report consists of a narrative and financial section. The GTR also utilizes phone calls, and E-mail contacts to monitor grantee performance. The GTR uses program reporting data to assess risk; and to the extent travel funds are available to conduct on-site monitoring and technical assistance visits to review grantee performance and compliance with program requirements; and see the impact the project is having on the community.

Evidence: Semi-annual progress reports; Terms and Conditions; FY 05 NOFA. HUD's General Section of the 2005 SuperNOFA available at http://www.oup.org

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: Currently, grantee information is available to the public in a transparent manner through OUP's program website, but this information does not include performance data. Annual announcements of funded applicants, grantee contact information, abstracts of what each program proposed, and other published documents such as newsletters and case studies that reflect individual grantee accomplishments are posted for easy access by the public. As the Logic Model improves, outcome information will be more readily available. At which time, OUP will also make results data available on a summary basis to inform the public of grantee performance improvements. Grantees are required to submit quarterly progress reports that reflect project activities undertaken during the reporting period. The quarterly progress report consists of a narrative and financial section. The narrative section of this report describes the activities undertaken during the reporting period; significant accomplishments made during the reporting period; progress made toward the achievement of established goals and objectives; identification of any significant problems and their impact; corrective actions taken or planned, and the impact that such actions will have on the successful implementation/completion of the grant. The financial component of the report reflects detailed costs incurred during the reporting period, and cumulatively (SF-269A, Financial Status Report).

Evidence: Semi-annual progress reports; Terms and Conditions; OUP website http://www.oup.org.

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: The program's long-term measures were developed utilizing baseline information collected from grantees awarded in FYs 2000-2003 and closed in FYs 2005 and 2006. While the measures should improve program performance, the novelty of them prevents evaluation of progress toward goals. The program has demonstrated some progress in achieving the program's long-term performance measures, however this information is not well-documented and can only be estimated to this point.

Evidence: Close out reports; Semi-annual progress reports; Performance Measure Analysis Chart.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: There is some indication that the program is making progress in achieving its annual performance goals; evidence contained in closeout reports estimates improved performance. While the COPC program has only recently established annual performance goals, the data provided gives some credit toward progress. Previously, the COPC program successfully achieved its leveraging goals established in Annual Performance Plans over a four-year period (i.e., FY 2000-2003 APPs). Comparable performance has been sustained since then. However, the new performance measures COPC has adopted will require time to prove efficacy. The innovative design of the COPC program allows applicants to take varied approaches to carry out housing and community development outreach and research activities to revitalize their local communities. Therefore, each project's annual performance measures are individualized to demonstrate progress toward achieving its short-and long-term performance goals, which are linked to the COPC program's long-term performance measures. All grantees are required to have an approved project management plan that serves as the baseline against which the grantees' performance is measured. Grantees are required to submit semi-annual progress reports that reflect project activities undertaken during the reporting period, and the leveraged/match funds and/or in-kind services/contributions that were obtained in support of the recipient's project. GTR's can use this information to assist grantees to measure and refine annual performance goals, if warranted.

Evidence: Semi-annual progress reports; Performance Measure Analysis Chart; Annual Performance Plan Fiscal Year 2003, April 2002, pg. 225 available at, HUD's website, http://www.hud.gov/offices/cfo/reporst/cforept.cfm

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: While OUP has exhibited some evidence of improving value and efficiency, the data supporting such evidence will need to be improved and the demonstrated evidence, to date, is not sufficient to warrant credit. Nevertheless, with the use of technology, OUP has enhanced - and will continue to improve - program implementation, monitoring, impacted cost and improved program efficiency. OUP has implemented many new internal measures. For example, OUP has streamlined its program peer review process. All peer reviewers are now utilizing an electronic platform that allows applicants to receive substantial feedback on their application in a timely manner. This process has reduced the man-hours required to conduct reviews. OUP has also increased the utilization of technology to provide information to all interested parties about activities, accomplishments and achievements of the program. The public can access the OUP website to find general information, as well as, specific program information, such as the names of institutions awarded funding in a particular year or particular state, and project description. The web provides information about funding opportunities. OUP publications are available via the website. Utilization of the website also allows the public to contact program representatives directly in a seamless manner to ask questions and/or make suggestions. In addition, in FY'07, OUP is implementing a new procedure that will accelerate the obligation of funds. The new procedure will make funds available to all grantees by the end of each fiscal year, allowing access to grant funds more quickly to accomplish goals and objectives and thereby lead to timelier project closeouts. COPC program grantees collaborate with financial institutions; state and local governments; non-profit organizations and community organizations to leverage resources. In addition, the program's baseline performance measure data (see evidence) illustrates that funds have been leveraged to make federal dollars go further.

Evidence: The OUP website http://www.oup.org provides general information, call for reviewers, publications; Performance Measure Analysis Chart.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: HUD is the Federal agency responsible for providing affordable housing and improving communities for low- and moderate-income individuals. Although other Federal agencies, state-based, and community-based programs provide funding opportunities to institutions of higher education, the primary intent of the funding is not for the development of Community Outreach Partnership Centers that create unique community partnerships to advance HUD goals. Since each COPC grantee administers a unique approach to community development, it is not reasonable to make meaningful comparison to other initiatives. Further, the cost of evaluating program outcomes such that such a hypothetical comparison could be performed is not reasonable given the overall size of the program. Therefore, it is not reasonable nor cost-effective to compare COPC outcome results with equivalent programs.

Evidence: N/A

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: While several process-based evaluations of the COPC program have been completed, none presented sufficient performance-based evaluative information to warrant credit. In 2002, an evaluation was conducted by the Urban Institute to review a sample of early COPC grantees. The study presented findings and lessons in five areas: activities, partners, partnerships, institutionalization, and lessons for building a successful COPC program. Although, the scope of this evaluation was limited, the information collected was valuable and informed process improvements. If the program is funded in FY'08, OUP will request that the Office of Policy Development and Research include an evaluation of the effectiveness of the COPC program in the FY'09 research agenda subject to the availability of funding, and other HUD priorities. The COPC program will not be evaluated annually due to the size of the program, but OUP will conduct periodically updates internally.

Evidence: Urban Institute, Lessons From the Community Outreach Partnership Center Program, Final Report, March 2002, the document is available at http://www.oup.org/files/pubs/lessons_learned.pdf.