Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Comment Request; “eLogic Model” Grant Performance Report Standard, 10045-10047 [2011-4032]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2011 / Notices
for a PHA to appeal its troubled
designation. The proposed PHAS
interim rule at § 902.69 provides the
opportunity for a PHA to appeal its
troubled designation, petition for the
removal of troubled designation, or
appeal its score.
The proposed PHAS interim rule at
§ 902.68 affords PHAs the opportunity
to request a technical review of its
physical condition inspection or, at
§ 902.24, a database adjustment if
certain conditions are present. A
technical review of the physical
condition inspection may be requested
if a PHA believes that an objectively
verifiable and material error(s) occurred
in the inspection of an individual
property. A database adjustment may be
requested by a PHA due to facts and
circumstances affecting a project which
are not reflected in the physical
condition inspection or which are
reflected inappropriately in the physical
condition inspection.
HUD uses the data it collects from
program participants (PHAs) to evaluate
the four individual PHAS indicators and
to determine an overall PHAS score for
each PHA, and to determine the
physical condition scores for individual
projects. The overall PHAS score
determines if a PHA’s performance is
high, standard, substandard or troubled,
including Capital Fund Program
troubled. PHAs may request an appeal
of its overall PHAS score, or a technical
review or database adjustment of their
physical condition score. These requests
are submitted by letter from the PHA to
HUD, and the letter includes
documentation to justify the request.
HUD reviews the request and
accompanying documentation, and
makes a determination as to whether to
grant or deny the request based on what
the PHA has submitted. These
information collections are described in
the proposed PHAS interim rule, with
thorough definitions of each request.
The granting of an appeal, technical
review or database adjustment may
change a PHA’s designation, usually to
a higher level.
Agency form numbers: None.
Members of affected public: Public
housing agencies.
Estimation of the total number of
hours needed to prepare the information
collection including number of
respondents: 1,700 respondents
annually with 1 response per
respondent. Average time per response
for each form is 5.2 hours and total
annual burden hours is 8,840.
Status of the proposed information
collection: Revision of a currently
approved collection.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:50 Feb 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
Authority: Section 3506 of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35,
as amended.
Dated: November 22, 2010.
Merrie Nichols-Dixon,
Acting Deputy, Assistant Secretary for Office
of Policy, Programs and Legislative Initiatives.
[FR Doc. 2011–4030 Filed 2–22–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210–67–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
[Docket No. FR–5480–N–13]
Notice of Proposed Information
Collection: Comment Request; ‘‘eLogic
Model’’ Grant Performance Report
Standard
Office of the Chief Information
Officer, HUD.
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Information
Collection.
AGENCY:
The proposed information
collection requirement described below
has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act. The Department is
soliciting public comments on the
subject proposal.
DATES: Comments Due Date: April 25,
2011.
SUMMARY:
Interested persons are
invited to submit comments regarding
this proposal. Comments should refer to
the proposal by name and/or OMB
Control Number {2535–0114} and
should be sent to: Barbara Dorf,
Director, Office of Departmental Grants
Management and Oversight, Department
or Housing and Urban Development,
451 7th Street, SW., Room 3156,
Washington, DC 20410 or e-mail at
Barbara.Dorf@hud.gov.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Collette Pollard, Reports Management
Officer, Department of Housing and
Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street,
Southwest, Washington, DC 20410;
e-mail Collete.Pollard@HUD.gov; or
Dorthera Yorkshire, Senior Program
Analyst Office of Departmental Grants
Management and Oversight at
Dorthera.Yorkshire@hud.gov for copies
of the proposed forms and other
available information.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Department will submit the proposed
information collection to OMB for
review, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended).
This Notice is soliciting comments
from members of the public and
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
10045
affecting agencies concerning the
proposed collection of information to:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility; (2) Evaluate the
accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the
burden of the proposed collection of
information; (3) Enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and (4) Minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on those who are to respond; including
through the use of appropriate
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology,
e.g., permitting electronic submission of
responses.
This Notice also lists the following
information:
Title of Proposal: ’’eLogic Model’’
Grant Performance Report Standard’’.
OMB Approval Number: 2535–0114.
Form Number: The agency form
number is HUD 96010, each program
utilizing the Logic Model will have the
same form number and the Program
Name following the number to associate
the logic model to the specific program.
Description of the need for the
information and proposed use: The
revised form, which is an attachment to
HUD Federal Financial Assistance
applications. HUD uses standardized
points for evaluating Logic Models
submitted under Rating Factor 5,
Achieving Results and Program
Evaluation for programs using the Logic
Model. The decision to standardize the
basis for rating the Logic Model resulted
from review of submitted Logic Models
and rating factor narrative statements,
and training sessions held with HUD
staff and the applicant community. By
standardizing the rating for the Logic
Model submission, HUD believes that a
greater understanding will be gained on
the use and relationship of the Logic
Model to information submitted as part
of the Rating Factors for award. The
standardization of the Logic Model
submission in Rating Factor 5 highlights
the relationship between the narratives
produced in response to the factors for
award, stated outputs and outcomes,
and discrepancies or gaps that have
been found to exist in submitted Logic
Models. HUD also believes that the
standardization will strengthen the use
of the Logic Model as a management
and evaluation tool. The Logic Model is
a tool that integrates program operations
and program accountability. It links
program operations (mission, need,
intervention, projected results, and
actual results), and program
accountability (measurement tool, data
E:\FR\FM\23FEN1.SGM
23FEN1
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
10046
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2011 / Notices
source, and frequency of data collection
and reporting, including personnel
assigned to function). Applicants/
grantees should use it to support
program planning, monitoring,
evaluation, and other management
function HUD uses the Logic Model and
its electronic version, the eLogic
Model®, to capture an executive
summary of the application submission
in data format, which HUD uses to
evaluate the attainment of stated
applicant goals and anticipated results.
HUD also uses the data for policy
formulation. HUD encourages
applicants and those selected for award
to use the Logic Model data to monitor
and evaluate their own progress and
effectiveness in meeting stated goals and
achieving results consistent with the
program purpose. To further this
objective, and in response to grantee
requests, the HUD eLogic Model®
contains a column that allows the
grantee to input results achieved for the
reporting period, as well as Year-ToDate (YTD) in the reporting year tab for
each year of the award. This added field
allows the grantee to review
performance each reporting period and
for each year of the award ‘‘at a glance,’’
and without having to construct a
report. The HUD eLogic Model® also
has fields to capture the location (city,
state, and nine digit Zip Code) where
the majority of the activities take place,
as well as a drop-down menu to identify
the reporting period start and end date.
In FY2010, HUD added a drop down
field for the reporting period, as follows:
Yr1Qtr1; Yr1Qtr2; Yr1Qtr3; Yr1Qtr4;
Yr2Qtr5; Yr2Qtr6; Yr2Qtr7; Yr2Qtr8;
Yr3Qtr9; Yr3Qtr10; Yr3Qtr11; Yr3Qtr12;
and Final Report. The sequential
numbering of the quarters was
determined necessary because each start
and end date within a program may vary
by grantee, so it was difficult to
determine the actual report that was
sent in the order that they were received
by HUD. If a grantee only reports semi
annually, it would select Yr1 Quarter 2
as its first reporting period and Yr1
Quarter 4 as its second semi-annual
reporting period. If a grantee is only
required to report annually, it would
select Yr1Qtr4 to denote its reporting
period. Final reports would be denoted
as a final report. Each Program NOFA
will specify the reporting requirement
with instructions, and whether a
separate final report is required in
addition to any annual report.
Applicants and grantees must follow the
following requirements in completing
and naming their Logic Model files:
The applicant name in the Logic
Model must match the applicant name
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:50 Feb 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
in box 8a of the SF424, Application for
Federal Financial Assistance Form. If an
applicant is submitting more than one
application for funding, the project
name must be completed and must be
different for each funding request made.
DO NOT use special characters (i.e., #,
%, /, etc.) in a file name.
DO NOT include spaces in the file
name. Limit file names to not more than
50 characters (HUD strongly
recommends not more than 32
characters).
DO NOT convert Word files or Excel
files into PDF format. Converting to PDF
format increases file size and will make
it more difficult to upload the
application and does not allow HUD to
enter data from the Excel files into a
database.
DO NOT save your logic model in
.xlsm format. If necessary save as an
Excel 97–2003 .xls format. Using the
.xlsm format can result in a Grants.gov
virus detect error. In addition, HUD
cannot accept and open .xlsm files.
File names with spaces and special
characters in the file name or which
contain more than 50 characters present
problems for HUD entering the data
electronically into our database.
Applications that do not follow the
naming conventions will have their
applications rejected by the Grants.gov
website, as the file names that violate
these requirements are viewed as
containing viruses by the system.
Grantees who submit reports that do not
meet the file-naming requirements or do
not complete mandatory data fields will
have their Logic Model reports returned
to them for correction of these issues.
For the file name of the eLogic
Model®, please follow the file naming
conventions and requirements above.
After award, the file name for Logic
Model must be the award number and
reporting period. For detailed
instructions, please see the instructions
under Tab 1 of the program eLogic
Model®, form HUD96010. The reporting
periods will be specified in each of the
program NOFAs.
HUD’s goal is to improve the labeling
of the files to improve matching
submitted application logic models and
report Logic Models, thereby improving
HUD’s ability to place the information
in a database and measure the
effectiveness of HUD programs.
Factor 5, Achieving Results and
Program Evaluation, will consist of a
minimum of 10 points for the Logic
Model submission. The matrix provided
in Appendix B of this General Section
identifies how the Logic Model will be
rated in a standardized way across
program areas using the Logic Model.
Training on the rating factor will be
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
provided via satellite broadcast and
archived on HUD’s website for repeat
viewing. Individual Program NOFAs
may specify means other than the Logic
Model for capturing performance data
for evaluation purposes. Applicants
should carefully read the Program
NOFA to determine requirements and
the Factors for Award which constitutes
the basis for scoring each program
NOFA.
Additional details about the five
rating factors and the maximum points
for each factor are provided in
individual program NOFAs. For a
specific funding opportunity, HUD may
modify these factors to take into account
explicit program needs or statutory or
regulatory limitations. Applicants
should carefully read the factors for
award as described in the program
NOFA to which they are responding.
e. Additional Criteria: Past
Performance. In evaluating applications
for funding, HUD will take into account
an applicant’s past performance in
managing funds, including, but not
limited to, the ability to account for
funds appropriately; timely use of funds
received either from HUD or other
Federal, State, or local programs; timely
submission and quality of reports to
HUD; meeting program requirements;
meeting performance targets as
established in Logic Models approved as
part of the grant agreement; timelines
for completion of activities and receipt
of promised matching or leveraged
funds; and the number of persons to be
served or targeted for assistance. HUD
may consider information available
from HUD’s records; the name check
review; public sources such as
newspapers; Inspector General or
Government Accountability Office
reports or findings; or hotline or other
complaints that have been proven to
have merit.
In evaluating past performance, HUD
may elect to deduct points from the
rating score or establish threshold levels
as specified under the Factors for Award
in the individual program NOFAs. Each
program NOFA will specify how past
performance will be rated.
Agency form numbers, if applicable:
HUD–96010.
Estimation of the total number of
hours needed to prepare the information
collection including number of
respondents, frequency of response, and
hours of response: An estimation of the
total time needed to complete the form
is less than ten minutes; number of
respondents is 11,000; frequency of
response is on the occasion of
application submission. The total report
burden is 1100 hours.
E:\FR\FM\23FEN1.SGM
23FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2011 / Notices
Status of the proposed information
collection: New collection of
information for HUD’s discretionary
programs.
Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
Dated: February 16, 2011.
Colette Pollard,
Departmental Reports Management Officer,
Office of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2011–4032 Filed 2–22–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210–67–P
Note: To receive consideration as public
comments, comments must be submitted
through one of the two methods specified
above. Again, all submissions must refer to
the docket number and title of the rule.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
[Docket No. FR–5094–N–04]
Changes to the Public Housing
Assessment System (PHAS): Financial
Condition Scoring Notice
Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Public and Indian
Housing, HUD.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
This notice provides
additional information to public
housing agencies (PHAs) and members
of the public about HUD’s process for
issuing scores under the financial
condition indicator of the Public
Housing Assessment System (PHAS).
This notice includes threshold values
and associated scores for each financial
subindicator derived from generally
accepted accounting principles (GAAP)based financial information. This notice
updates and clarifies the audit flags and
tier classification chart.
DATES: Effective Date: March 25, 2011.
Comment Due Date: April 25, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
invited to submit comments on this
notice to the Regulations Division,
Office of General Counsel, Department
of Housing and Urban Development,
451 7th Street, SW., Room 10276,
Washington, DC 20410–0500.
Communications must refer to the above
docket number and title. There are two
methods for submitting public
comments. All submissions must refer
to the above docket number and title.
1. Submission of Comments by Mail.
Comments may be submitted by mail to
the Regulations Division, Office of
General Counsel, Department of
Housing and Urban Development, 451
7th Street, SW., Room 10276,
Washington, DC 20410–0500.
2. Electronic Submission of
Comments. Interested persons may
submit comments electronically through
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
https://www.regulations.gov. HUD
strongly encourages commenters to
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:50 Feb 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
submit comments electronically.
Electronic submission of comments
allows the commenter maximum time to
prepare and submit a comment, ensures
timely receipt by HUD, and enables
HUD to make them immediately
available to the public. Comments
submitted electronically through the
https://www.regulations.gov Web site can
be viewed by other commenters and
interested members of the public.
Commenters should follow the
instructions provided on that site to
submit comments electronically.
No Facsimile Comments. Facsimile
(FAX) comments are not acceptable.
Public Inspection of Public
Comments. All properly submitted
comments and communications
submitted to HUD will be available for
public inspection and copying between
8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays at the above
address. Due to security measures at the
HUD Headquarters building, an advance
appointment to review the public
comments must be scheduled by calling
the Regulations Division at 202–402–
3055 (this is not a toll-free number).
Individuals with speech or hearing
impairments may access this number
via TTY by calling the Federal
Information Relay Service, toll-free, at
800–877–8339. Copies of all comments
submitted are available for inspection
and downloading at https://
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Claudia Yarus, Department of Housing
and Urban Development, Office of
Public and Indian Housing, Real Estate
Assessment Center (REAC), 550 12th
Street, SW., Suite 100, Washington, DC
20410 at 202–475–8830 (this is not a
toll-free number). Persons with hearing
or speech impairments may access this
number through TTY by calling the tollfree Federal Information Relay Service
at 800–877–8339. Additional
information is available from the REAC
Internet site at https://www.hud.gov/
offices/reac/.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Purpose of This Notice
The purpose of this notice is to
provide information about the scoring
process for PHAS indicator #2, financial
condition, under the PHAS. The
purpose of the financial condition
indicator is to measure the financial
condition of each public housing
project.
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
10047
II. Background
A. Financial Condition Indicator
Regulatory Background
To reflect a shift from a PHA-wide
based assessment to one that is property
based, HUD is revising the Financial
Assessment Sub-System for public
housing (FASS–PH) Financial Data
Schedule (FDS) and financial condition
scoring process. Project-based
management is defined in 24 CFR
990.115 as ‘‘the provision of property
management services that is tailored to
the unique needs of each property.’’
PHAs must also implement projectbased budgeting and project-based
accounting, which are essential
components of asset management.
Project-based accounting is critical to a
property-based assessment of financial
condition, because it mandates the
submission of property-level financial
data. Accordingly, PHAs will now be
scored at a property level, using the
already designated projects as the basis
for assessment.
HUD will assess the financial
condition of projects. Project financial
performance will be scored and
averaged across the PHA, weighted
according to unit count. The projects
within a PHA will be evaluated and
scored based on the project’s
performance relative to industry
standards.
B. Comparable Scoring Systems
The financial condition subindicators
are not unique to public housing. The
subindicators included in the financial
condition indicator scoring process are
common measurements used
throughout the multifamily industry to
rank properties and identify the
properties that require further attention.
III. Transition to Asset Management
and Frequency of Financial Condition
Submissions
The number of units in a PHA’s LowRent program and the PHAS designation
for small PHAs will determine the
frequency of financial condition
submissions during and after the
transition to asset management. PHAs
with fewer than 250 public housing
units will receive a PHAS assessment,
based on its PHAS designation, as
follows:
(1) A small PHA that is a high
performer will receive a PHAS
assessment every 3 years;
(2) A small PHA that is a standard or
substandard performer will receive a
PHAS assessment every other year; and
(3) All other small PHAs will receive
a PHAS assessment every year,
including a PHA that is designated as
E:\FR\FM\23FEN1.SGM
23FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 36 (Wednesday, February 23, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10045-10047]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4032]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
[Docket No. FR-5480-N-13]
Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Comment Request;
``eLogic Model'' Grant Performance Report Standard
AGENCY: Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Information Collection.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The proposed information collection requirement described
below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department
is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
DATES: Comments Due Date: April 25, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding
this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB
Control Number {2535-0114{time} and should be sent to: Barbara Dorf,
Director, Office of Departmental Grants Management and Oversight,
Department or Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Room
3156, Washington, DC 20410 or e-mail at Barbara.Dorf@hud.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Collette Pollard, Reports Management
Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh
Street, Southwest, Washington, DC 20410; e-mail
Collete.Pollard@HUD.gov; or Dorthera Yorkshire, Senior Program Analyst
Office of Departmental Grants Management and Oversight at
Dorthera.Yorkshire@hud.gov for copies of the proposed forms and other
available information.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department will submit the proposed
information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended).
This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and
affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information
to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility; (2)
Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the
burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond;
including through the use of appropriate automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting
electronic submission of responses.
This Notice also lists the following information:
Title of Proposal: ''eLogic Model'' Grant Performance Report
Standard''.
OMB Approval Number: 2535-0114.
Form Number: The agency form number is HUD 96010, each program
utilizing the Logic Model will have the same form number and the
Program Name following the number to associate the logic model to the
specific program.
Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The
revised form, which is an attachment to HUD Federal Financial
Assistance applications. HUD uses standardized points for evaluating
Logic Models submitted under Rating Factor 5, Achieving Results and
Program Evaluation for programs using the Logic Model. The decision to
standardize the basis for rating the Logic Model resulted from review
of submitted Logic Models and rating factor narrative statements, and
training sessions held with HUD staff and the applicant community. By
standardizing the rating for the Logic Model submission, HUD believes
that a greater understanding will be gained on the use and relationship
of the Logic Model to information submitted as part of the Rating
Factors for award. The standardization of the Logic Model submission in
Rating Factor 5 highlights the relationship between the narratives
produced in response to the factors for award, stated outputs and
outcomes, and discrepancies or gaps that have been found to exist in
submitted Logic Models. HUD also believes that the standardization will
strengthen the use of the Logic Model as a management and evaluation
tool. The Logic Model is a tool that integrates program operations and
program accountability. It links program operations (mission, need,
intervention, projected results, and actual results), and program
accountability (measurement tool, data
[[Page 10046]]
source, and frequency of data collection and reporting, including
personnel assigned to function). Applicants/grantees should use it to
support program planning, monitoring, evaluation, and other management
function HUD uses the Logic Model and its electronic version, the
eLogic Model[supreg], to capture an executive summary of the
application submission in data format, which HUD uses to evaluate the
attainment of stated applicant goals and anticipated results. HUD also
uses the data for policy formulation. HUD encourages applicants and
those selected for award to use the Logic Model data to monitor and
evaluate their own progress and effectiveness in meeting stated goals
and achieving results consistent with the program purpose. To further
this objective, and in response to grantee requests, the HUD eLogic
Model[supreg] contains a column that allows the grantee to input
results achieved for the reporting period, as well as Year-To-Date
(YTD) in the reporting year tab for each year of the award. This added
field allows the grantee to review performance each reporting period
and for each year of the award ``at a glance,'' and without having to
construct a report. The HUD eLogic Model[supreg] also has fields to
capture the location (city, state, and nine digit Zip Code) where the
majority of the activities take place, as well as a drop-down menu to
identify the reporting period start and end date. In FY2010, HUD added
a drop down field for the reporting period, as follows: Yr1Qtr1;
Yr1Qtr2; Yr1Qtr3; Yr1Qtr4; Yr2Qtr5; Yr2Qtr6; Yr2Qtr7; Yr2Qtr8; Yr3Qtr9;
Yr3Qtr10; Yr3Qtr11; Yr3Qtr12; and Final Report. The sequential
numbering of the quarters was determined necessary because each start
and end date within a program may vary by grantee, so it was difficult
to determine the actual report that was sent in the order that they
were received by HUD. If a grantee only reports semi annually, it would
select Yr1 Quarter 2 as its first reporting period and Yr1 Quarter 4 as
its second semi-annual reporting period. If a grantee is only required
to report annually, it would select Yr1Qtr4 to denote its reporting
period. Final reports would be denoted as a final report. Each Program
NOFA will specify the reporting requirement with instructions, and
whether a separate final report is required in addition to any annual
report. Applicants and grantees must follow the following requirements
in completing and naming their Logic Model files:
The applicant name in the Logic Model must match the applicant name
in box 8a of the SF424, Application for Federal Financial Assistance
Form. If an applicant is submitting more than one application for
funding, the project name must be completed and must be different for
each funding request made.
DO NOT use special characters (i.e., , %, /, etc.) in a
file name.
DO NOT include spaces in the file name. Limit file names to not
more than 50 characters (HUD strongly recommends not more than 32
characters).
DO NOT convert Word files or Excel files into PDF format.
Converting to PDF format increases file size and will make it more
difficult to upload the application and does not allow HUD to enter
data from the Excel files into a database.
DO NOT save your logic model in .xlsm format. If necessary save as
an Excel 97-2003 .xls format. Using the .xlsm format can result in a
Grants.gov virus detect error. In addition, HUD cannot accept and open
.xlsm files.
File names with spaces and special characters in the file name or
which contain more than 50 characters present problems for HUD entering
the data electronically into our database. Applications that do not
follow the naming conventions will have their applications rejected by
the Grants.gov website, as the file names that violate these
requirements are viewed as containing viruses by the system. Grantees
who submit reports that do not meet the file-naming requirements or do
not complete mandatory data fields will have their Logic Model reports
returned to them for correction of these issues.
For the file name of the eLogic Model[supreg], please follow the
file naming conventions and requirements above. After award, the file
name for Logic Model must be the award number and reporting period. For
detailed instructions, please see the instructions under Tab 1 of the
program eLogic Model[supreg], form HUD96010. The reporting periods will
be specified in each of the program NOFAs.
HUD's goal is to improve the labeling of the files to improve
matching submitted application logic models and report Logic Models,
thereby improving HUD's ability to place the information in a database
and measure the effectiveness of HUD programs.
Factor 5, Achieving Results and Program Evaluation, will consist of
a minimum of 10 points for the Logic Model submission. The matrix
provided in Appendix B of this General Section identifies how the Logic
Model will be rated in a standardized way across program areas using
the Logic Model. Training on the rating factor will be provided via
satellite broadcast and archived on HUD's website for repeat viewing.
Individual Program NOFAs may specify means other than the Logic Model
for capturing performance data for evaluation purposes. Applicants
should carefully read the Program NOFA to determine requirements and
the Factors for Award which constitutes the basis for scoring each
program NOFA.
Additional details about the five rating factors and the maximum
points for each factor are provided in individual program NOFAs. For a
specific funding opportunity, HUD may modify these factors to take into
account explicit program needs or statutory or regulatory limitations.
Applicants should carefully read the factors for award as described in
the program NOFA to which they are responding.
e. Additional Criteria: Past Performance. In evaluating
applications for funding, HUD will take into account an applicant's
past performance in managing funds, including, but not limited to, the
ability to account for funds appropriately; timely use of funds
received either from HUD or other Federal, State, or local programs;
timely submission and quality of reports to HUD; meeting program
requirements; meeting performance targets as established in Logic
Models approved as part of the grant agreement; timelines for
completion of activities and receipt of promised matching or leveraged
funds; and the number of persons to be served or targeted for
assistance. HUD may consider information available from HUD's records;
the name check review; public sources such as newspapers; Inspector
General or Government Accountability Office reports or findings; or
hotline or other complaints that have been proven to have merit.
In evaluating past performance, HUD may elect to deduct points from
the rating score or establish threshold levels as specified under the
Factors for Award in the individual program NOFAs. Each program NOFA
will specify how past performance will be rated.
Agency form numbers, if applicable: HUD-96010.
Estimation of the total number of hours needed to prepare the
information collection including number of respondents, frequency of
response, and hours of response: An estimation of the total time needed
to complete the form is less than ten minutes; number of respondents is
11,000; frequency of response is on the occasion of application
submission. The total report burden is 1100 hours.
[[Page 10047]]
Status of the proposed information collection: New collection of
information for HUD's discretionary programs.
Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended.
Dated: February 16, 2011.
Colette Pollard,
Departmental Reports Management Officer, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2011-4032 Filed 2-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
