Comment Detail
Date: 07/15/24 First Name: Kevin Last Name: Foster Email: kevin@capitalforcompassion.com Organization Type: organization Organization: Capital for Compassion Comment
1. Many of the scoring criteria are not used to differentiate better projects from worse projects. Examples: 1) San Fran – You only have to have one empowerment activity to get all five points so about every project gets empowerment points. This negates empowerment as a discrimator between a service rich housing project and one that cobbled together one weak empowerment service; 2) Pittsburgh has five ways to resolve scoring ties. The reason for this is that the criteria fails to effectively assess projects so that there is a myriad of ties; 3) Atlanta – the Heirs Property Resolution is very innocuous and extremely rare. Effectively, no project gets these points.
2. It seems that some of the criteria are affected by auditor pet peeves so the criteria is adjusted to make it withstand an audit better, but not help in identifying better projects.
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock (
) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.