9186_RFA_Application Scoring Rubric_AttD_Final_20260226_amended.pdf

RFA #S-91400-00016009 (OHCS #9186) Att D

Homeownership Language Access & Community Outreach and Engagement

ATTACHMENT D

SCORING RUBRIC:

Homeownership Language Access & Community Outreach and Engagement Grant Application

Project Overview and Alignment 60 points possible Workplan and Expected Outcomes 35 points possible

Estimated Budget 15 points possible Total Points Possible 110

Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW & ALIGNMENT (Total: 60 points)

A. Target Underserved Population(s) (10 points)

Which Underserved Population(s) do you plan to target? What is your agency’s track record of serving these Underserved Population(s)?

Score Range Scoring Guidance

8-10 Strong, detailed response with clear identification of community, strong track record, and evidence of cultural competence.

5-7 Adequate response with some detail and examples but may lack depth or evidence.

2-4 Limited detail; vague description of community or minimal evidence of past engagement.

0-1 Community not clearly identified; little or no track record provided.

B. Project Overview (10 points)

Provide an overview of your proposed project including key activities and intended impact on target Underserved Population(s).

Score Range Scoring Guidance

8-10 Provides a clear, compelling overview of the project. Key activities are well-defined, and the intended impact is specific, measurable, and aligned with community needs.

5-7 Project is generally well-described, but may lack clarity in one area (e.g., vague activities or broad impact statements).

2-4 Project description is vague or incomplete. Activities are listed but not clearly connected to outcomes.

0-1 Minimal or unclear description. Lacks detail on activities or intended impact.

C. Alignment with Mission (10 points)

How do the proposed activities align with your agency mission, services, and strategy?

Score Range Scoring Guidance

8-10 Strong alignment with agency mission, services, and strategic goals. Proposal clearly fits within broader organizational efforts.

5-7 General alignment is evident, but connections could be stronger or more explicit.

2-4 Some alignment, but proposal feels tangential to agency’s core work.

0-1 Little or no alignment with agency mission or services.

D. Community Need & Engagement (10 points)

How do you know this work is needed? Please describe how you developed the project plan and how this plan was informed by the community members that you seek to serve.

8-10 Strong evidence of need (e.g., data, community input). Community engagement is clearly described and meaningfully informs the project.

5-7 Some evidence of need and community input, but may lack depth or specificity.

2-4 Limited or anecdotal evidence of need. Community engagement is mentioned but not well-integrated.

0-1 No clear evidence of need or community involvement in planning.

E. Organizational Capacity (10 points)

Describe your agency’s capacity to do this work. How will your staff perform this work? What prior experience makes this staff qualified to undertake these efforts?

8-10 Demonstrates strong capacity with qualified staff, relevant experience, and a clear staffing plan.

5-7 Adequate capacity and experience, but staffing plan may be vague or incomplete.

2-4 Limited detail on staff qualifications or unclear plan who will implement the work.

0-1 Lacks evidence of capacity or relevant experience.

F. Success & Evaluation (10 points)

What does success look like for this project? How will you collect data (quantitative and/or qualitative) and how will that be used to improve support to Underserved Population(s)?

8-10 Clearly defines success, includes measurable outcomes, and outlines a strong plan for data collection and continuous improvement.

5-7 Success is defined, but evaluation methods may be underdeveloped or lack specificity.

2-4 Vague or general definition of success. Limited or unclear evaluation plan.

0-1 No clear success metrics or evaluation strategy.

Section 2: WORKPLAN & EXPECTED OUTCOMES (Total: 35 points)

Objective 1 Language Access: Assist with the cost of facilitating language access to homeownership assistance programs and services.

Objective 2 Community Outreach & Engagement: Expand outreach and engagement to reach

Communities of Color and Underserved Populations.

Proposed Activities (15 points)

12–15 Activities are clearly described, well-aligned with project goals, and demonstrate a strong understanding of community needs. Activities are feasible, specific, and actionable.

8–11 Activities are generally clear and relevant, but may lack some detail or specificity. Feasibility is mostly sound.

4–7 Activities are somewhat vague or overly broad. Some may not clearly align with project goals or community needs.

0–3 Activities are unclear, incomplete, or not aligned with the project’s purpose.

Target Populations (2 points)

Score Description

2 Clearly identifies specific Underserved Populations for each activity.

1 Populations are vaguely defined or not clearly connected to the activities.

0 No target population identified or response is irrelevant.

Timeline (3 points)

Score Scoring Guidance

3 Timeline is realistic and aligned with proposed activities.

2 Timeline is generally sound but raises some concerns about feasibility.

1 Timeline is vague and/or seems overly ambitious.

0 No timeline provided or timeline is not feasible.

Expected Outcomes (15 points)

12–15 Outcomes are specific, measurable, and clearly tied to proposed activities.

Strong focus on impact and equity.

8–11 Outcomes are relevant and measurable, but may lack some clarity or specificity.

4–7 Outcomes are somewhat general or not clearly linked to activities.

0-3 Outcomes are vague, unrealistic, or missing.

Section 3: BUDGET ESTIMATES (15 points)

Score Range Description

12–15 Budget is complete and clearly aligned with proposed activities. All costs are reasonable and well-justified.

8–11 Budget is mostly complete and aligned with the project. Most costs are reasonable and justified, though some line items may lack detail or clarity.

4–7 Budget includes key components but lacks clarity or detail in several areas.

Some costs may appear inflated, vague, or not clearly tied to activities.

Justifications are limited or inconsistent.

0-3 Budget is incomplete or contains major errors. Costs are poorly justified or not aligned with proposed work. Lacks transparency or feasibility.