Grant RFPs

2016 Early Childhood Block Grant RFP Questions & Answers

June 22, 2015

 

1. Can you clarify if we can apply for funds starting July 2015-June 2016?

Answer:  Grant start dates are Jan, 1, 2016 (for calendar year) or July 1, 2016 (for fiscal year).

 

2. Can we apply for more funds?

Answer:  This RFP is open to current ECBG grantees only.  The number of awards for this RFP has not been predetermined and the maximum award amount is $2,250,000.  Budgets should be reasonable for the population to be served and strategies proposed.

 

3. Will funding be distributed based upon grantee results?  (goals met, info turned in on time)

Answer:  KCCTF is committed to ensuring a fair and equitable process for awarding grants.  Eligible applications will be evaluated, scored, and rated by early childhood specialists.  The KCCTF reserves the right to work with grantees to modify proposals if needed as well as the right to consider past compliance with reporting requirements as a supporting factor for grant award.  Please consider that observed management of previous grant cycles will be considered in determining priority (See Attachment K in RFP).

 

4. Is there a restriction on how much we can request?  In years past we were limited to what we requested in the previous grant year.

Answer:   This RFP is open to current ECBG grantees only.  The number of awards for this RFP has not been predetermined and the maximum award amount is $2,250,000.  Budgets should be reasonable for the population to be served and strategies proposed. KCCTF is committed to ensuring a fair and equitable process for awarding grants.  Eligible applications will be evaluated, scored, and rated by early childhood specialists.  The KCCTF reserves the right to work with grantees to modify proposals if needed as well as the right to consider past compliance with reporting requirements as a supporting factor for grant award.  Please consider that observed management of previous grant cycles will be considered in determining priority (See Attachment K in RFP).

 

5. My question regards Attachment I Financial Sustainability Plan. The first box refers to “anticipated amount of outside funding” for the upcoming year. The remaining boxes seem to get at partnerships that have not yet been fully developed. Would it be correct to say that the amount in the first box does not apply to the potential partnerships that may be developed as identified in subsequent boxes?

Answer:  The purpose of Attachment I is to assist communities in planning for the required 10% cash match for FY2016 if they did not already have it in their FY2015 proposal or to give those that had the 10% cash match an opportunity to think about a plan to achieve a more secure financial future by preparing for a predicted 20-25% reduction in CIF funding in FY2018.

 

6. At one time a “toolkit” to provide strategies for public/private was under development.  Has that been completed?  Can you send us this document or any others that provide guidance on building public/private partnerships?

Response: A toolkit is still being developed and will be distributed to all grantees when complete but it is not yet available.

 

7. On page 18 of the RFP it is noted, applicants are encouraged to blend and braid funding for cash match, can you please provide some examples of how we would document blended and braided funding for cash match that would meet your expectation?

Response: Traditionally the ECBG has focused on blended and braided funding. This was and continues to be a way for the Cabinet to evaluate the community’s collaborative work in building public/private partnerships and show a commitment among partners to reduce costs of the project by using existing supports to enhance Early Childhood programs.  The focus on blended and braided funding is separate from cash match.  The rationale behind a required 10% true cash match is for communities to build a safety net so when the funding is reduced in 2018, grantees can continue to fund Early Childhood programs in their community and build capacity for such programs.  Cash match is a liquid contribution from outside the organization –typically from the private sector. In-kind is something that shows a contribution of resources that reduce costs, which are valuable as well.  However, the braided/blended and the in-kind (both are strong indicators of public/partnership work) are not cash match. Cash match is outside of these and is an additional resource we are asking communities to develop.

 

8. Are we able to use non-common measures listed in the Blueprint, such as the Protective Factors Survey, as measurement tools for Outcomes 2.1 and 2.2?

Response: All ECBG folks are to use the common measures called out by our WSU team (all current funded programs are vetted for specific common measures by WSU). If you are adding a new program to your proposal for FY2016, then you will need to contact WSU to identify the best common measure out of the 8 that have been identified prior to submitting their proposal due in July.

 

9. Will the reviewers still be using the same Reviewer Manuel when they go to score the returned RFP’s?

Response: The reviewer manual is being updated to reflect any changes or additions to this RFP from last year as related to points assigned to individual sections.

 

10. The RFP says the funding period will be the 2016 calendar year or State Fiscal Year with 2 different grant start dates. Does that mean that there is a possibility that the grant will move to the State Fiscal Year? If so, how will the first 6 months of 2016 be funded if our proposal is renewed?

Response: Grantees can either choose to be on the calendar year (start January 2016) or fiscal year (start July 2016).  No one is going to have to move to the fiscal year.