Do you know if implementing a Family Spirit home visiting program would qualify under any of the applicable categories?
|
Yes. Family Spirit qualifies under Category 1: evidence-based home visiting (EBHV) models not otherwise funded by CDPH/CHVP.
|
|
We have a health center in a very rural part of our County that is trying to implement a Family Spirit home visiting program to serve tribal communities in the area.
In order for this health center to apply for funding would they need to be a subcontractor to our county health department? In a case where the LHJ is contracting out to actually provide home visiting services what would the responsibility of the LHJ be?
I'm not very familiar with the process of subcontracting direct service in this way, if it is allowable, or any other considerations.
|
The LHJ would be responsible for submitting the application, being the lead agency for the award, and establishing a subcontract with the health center. As the awardee, the LHJ would additionally be responsible for
- ensuring that all scope of work deliverables and reporting requirements are met, and
- being present and actively participating in any technical assistance and discussions regarding budgets, the AFA, reporting, presentations, etc. CDPH/CHVP staff do not meet with the subcontractor staff without the LHJ present.
Many CHVP-funded LHJs are currently sub- contracting for services. If awarded, we can connect you with other LHJs who can provide you with information about how they collaborate with their subcontractors.
|
| Can you clarify if this funding may be used for a local MCAH home visiting program that is not CHVP, provided it addresses a need not currently met by the local CHVP? |
Yes. This type of proposed project would be eligible under Category 2: LHJ developed/defined or evidence-informed home visiting model. |
| If the lead entity county applying for 3.0 does not have Innovation 2.0, can they apply for a new project that includes counties who do have 2.0 as subcontractors? |
Yes. An LHJ that does not have Innovation 2.0 funding would be eligible to apply as a lead entity for a new project that includes subcontractors that do have Innovation 2.0 funding. |
|
Can an LHJ that participates in a CHVP Innovation 2.0 consortium as a non-lead (not directly contracted with CDPH) apply independently for an Innovation 3.0 award?
For context, the RSI notes all 61 LHJs are eligible to apply, and it specifies paths for LHJs with current 1.0 or 2.0 funding—hence the need to clarify how non-lead consortium participants are treated.
|
Yes. An LHJ that is a current subcontractor for an Innovation 2.0 project can submit an independent single-LHJ application for a new project. |
|
Are we able to use Innovation 3.0 funds for participant/client incentives?
If we use Innovation 3.0 funds for qualitative data collection with clients (e.g., focus group, interviews) are we able to use Innovation 3.0 funds for participant/client incentives to encourage participation in focus groups or interviews?
|
Yes. An LHJ can use Innovation 3.0 funds for participant/client incentives if it is in relation to an Innovation project. |
If we are a larger consortium, including more than 3 LHJs, would CHVP consider increasing the max award above $800,000?
|
No. Funding limits for the Innovation 3.0 RSI are set for all applicants. LHJs are encouraged to explore how best to leverage other relevant funding mechanisms to support project implementation and sustainability. |
|
If the consortium were to include LHJs who are 1.0 sites and 2.0 sites, what are the rules regarding the % of funds that can be allocated for the evaluation? Can we spend more than 20%?
|
In this scenario, The Innovation 1.0 awardee must be the Innovation 3.0 applicant.
The current Innovation 1.0 awardee could propose a project where they use more than 20% of the requested budget for evaluation. The current Innovation 1.0 must comply with the evaluation guidelines in the original Innovation 1.0 Project.
The awardee can include 2.0 LHJs, however, the only one that can spend more than 20% is the current Innovation 1.0 awardee lead.
|
| Should the budget that we submit include Indirect Costs? |
Yes. The budget narrative should include all costs that the applicant intends to include in the requested award. |
| Is there a limit to the percentage of funds that 1.0 Sites can allocate towards the evaluation? |
No. There is no limit to the percentage of award that an LHJ with current Innovation 1.0 funding can request for evaluation. The applicant could propose a project that uses 100% of the requested funds on an evaluation. |
| How is a "data system" defined? Do you have examples, or requirements? |
A data system is how the LHJ/project tracks program data. For example, an LHJ applying to implement an EBHV home visiting model under Category 1 must identify a model-approved data system and incorporate it into the planning and proposal. Other examples of data systems include, but are not limited to: ETO, Penelope. In some cases, Excel may be sufficient for tracking program activities. LHJs should not assume that whatever data system is used for CHVP or other projects in an LHJ can automatically be leveraged to support the Innovation project; applicants should include this assurance in their applications. |
| We are considering applying as a multi-LHJ consortium, using Innovation funds to (1) support a robust evaluation of a home visiting model implemented in several LHJs, as well as (2) staffing from the lead agency who will support implementation activities, cross-LHJ coordination, and training activities across several LHJs. These activities will strengthen the implementation of the home visiting model across LHJs within the consortium, while also build the evidence-base for the model. With this approach, counties within the consortium would have an MOU in place, but the other participating LHJs would
not be subcontractors, since they would not be receiving funds; rather partnering LHJs will receive training, technical assistance, implementation support, and evaluation services as part of participation in the consortia. Can you please confirm that we would still be considered a “Multi-LHJ Consortium" with this approach, where LHJs have an MOU in place, but are not sub- contractors? |
Yes. Establishing a multi-LHJ consortium through an MOU and not a subcontract is allowable. |
Is there a possibility that LHJs could receive additional CHVP INNV 3.0 funds based on size or number of residents?
|
No. Funding limits for the Innovation 3.0 RSI are set for all applicants. LHJs are encouraged to explore how best to leverage other relevant funding mechanisms to support project implementation and sustainability. |
| Will the reviewers accept an Excel file in addition to the application file to support the budget narrative question |
No. All information must be included in the space provided in the application. |
|
If we are proposing a revision to our current model which entails removing components and adding new ones in order to become a mostly administrative service, does that make us option A or option C on Question 3?
- Introduce an additional component to the current 1.0 project
- Expand the reach of the project
Fund administrative oversight or evaluation portions of the 1.0 project
|
As long as the applicant provides a clear, complete response that explains the LHJ's plans, the proposed project could fit under one or more options, in this case, option A or C, or both. |
|
The RSI says the maximum funding level for a single county is $600,000. Could we write for
$600,000 in state general funds and additional matching funds via Title XIX leading to a total greater than $600,000? Obviously, the project would need to include Title XIX allowable activities and a time study.
|
Yes. Applicants are encouraged to identify other funding sources, including Title XIX, with the understanding that the total Innovation 3.0 award will be $600,000. |
| Would two counties, each with separate Innovation 2.0 projects, be eligible to apply as a multi-LHJ consortia, if the 3.0 project was to introduce each other's 2.0 project to the other LHJ? So, 3.0 will be an additional component - the other LHJ's 2.0. |
Yes. This proposed project would be eligible as a multi-LHJ consortium, as it would include expanding the reach of both Innovation 2.0 projects and introducing a new component to each. |
|
What is specifically expected in the LHJ- developed monitoring plan. Is this plan intended to be a data analysis framework, or does it serve a different purpose?
Additionally, if there are specific elements or formats you expect to see in the monitoring plan, we'd be grateful for that direction.
|
EBHV home visiting model developers may have an existing plan that tracks how the program is being implemented and requires that plan to be used.
If there is no required monitoring plan, awardees will be asked to create one for their innovative practice based on what they think is best to support monitoring the implementation.
Awardees will be asked to create and submit a plan, and also to use the plan to report implementation metrics during annual reporting.
CDPH/CHVP will provide guidance on a monitoring plan to awardees.
|