Skip Navigation LinksLBTQ-SPCB-QA

Gender Health Equity SECTION

​​Request for Application (RFA) #22-10531

LBTQ Health Equity Initiative: Service Provider Capacity Building Program

*Last updated November 28th, 2022.

Questions & Answers

Q1:

​On page 4, the RFA says that service provider capacity building projects (SPCBPs) will be funded at $2.4M over two years, but later in that sentence, it says “total funding amount will be distributed between up to 8 contractors with awards totaling up to $400K each.” Later in the RFA it says, “GHEU anticipates funding up to 8 SPCBP contracts of up to $400,000 each” (p. 13). Please confirm max funding requests.

​A1:

​ The SPCB Program is funded for an overall total of $2.4M, which will be divided between up to 8 contractors for up to $400,000 each. The maximum funding request is $400,000.

Q2:

​On page 14, the RFA states: “While collaboration and partnership with health and health-related service providers (including but not limited to primary care, reproductive health, mental health, behavioral health and other facets of healthcare) is encouraged, the program contractor must be an LBTQ-led and/or -serving CBO.” Yet in the eligibility section, on page 16, it says: Contractor must… Have at least 2 years of experience in implementing projects and/or providing services to the priority populations. Please define “LBTQ-serving CBO.” Must the contractor have as its mission to serve this population or can contractors offer a variety of services to a variety of people, including LBTQ population?

​A2:

​The Department is using a common definition of CBO: a public or private nonprofit organization that is representative of a community or significant segments of a community; and provides services to individuals in the community. Applicant organizations are not required to have an exclusive focus on LBTQ populations. Please refer to RFA Attachment 4 – Contractor Narrative: applicants are required to describe: “experience and organizational capacity in serving the priority population(s) this project is designed to serve”; “ties to LBTQ communities and priority populations, including lived experience”; and “their ability to deliver services with linguistic and/or cultural competence for the priority population(s) that this project is designed to serve.” 

​Q3:

​On page 14, the RFA states: “While collaboration and partnership with health and health-related service providers (including but not limited to primary care, reproductive health, mental health, behavioral health and other facets of healthcare) is encouraged, the program contractor must be an LBTQ-led and/or -serving CBO.” Does this exclude health and health related service providers including FQHC’s from applying as the primary applicant?

​A3:

​This funding opportunity is intended for community-led capacity building efforts. While health service providers/FQHCs are not excluded, they must demonstrate meeting the required and desired qualifications of the RFA. Please refer to A2 for further guidance. 

​Q4:

​If the RFA needs to be submitted in multiple emails, will we receive timely electronic confirmation that each email has been received? If printed copies, will the copies be printed in black & white or in color?

​A4:

​Receipt messages will be manually generated by CDPH staff for each submitted submission email. Additionally, on November 30th automated Outlook receipts will be enabled for additional confirmation. 

All applications must be submitted in electronic form and will be provided to the scoring committee in electronic form. CDPH will not print copies.

Q5:

​As November 28th is the Monday after the Thanksgiving holiday week, can you please extend the deadline in order to allow proposers time to spend time with their family/friends/loved ones and still complete the RFA?

​A5:

​Yes, the application deadline is extended to November 30th, 2022 due to the holiday. Please refer to RFA #22-10531 Addendum 1.

​Q6:

​For Attachment 4: Contractor Narrative—1) Organization Capacity:

  1. What is the minimum font size allowed for footnotes?

  2. If Endnotes are used, do they count toward the maximum page limit?

  3. Since the resumes and Org Chart are not included in the maximum page limit, do you want those included as addendums?

  4. Could you please provide written clarification for how LGBTQ programs that exist within larger non-LGBTQ organizations can/should respond to Section 1b?

​A6:

  1. ​The minimum font size for footnotes is 9 points.

  2. Endnotes in Section 1: Organizational Capacity of the Contractor Narrative (RFA Attachment 4)  count towards the maximum (5) page limit. There is no page limit for Sections 2, 3 and 4 (Project Design, Approach, and Budget).   

  3. The Department recommends labeling and providing answers to each element in the order that they are presented in Attachment 4. However, resumes and organizational charts may be included as addendums.

  4. LGBTQ programs housed within a larger organization or institution may apply under the name and EIN of the larger organization, but provide narrative responses specifying how the program and project staff meet all minimum and desired qualifications.

​Q7:

​For Attachment 4: Contractor Narrative—2) Project Design: If the proposer wants to include graphic examples of products, should/can those be included as addendums?

​A7:

​The Department recommends labeling and providing answers to each element in the order that they are presented in Attachment 4. There is no page limit for the program approach section of the narrative. However, sample graphics, materials or tools may be included as an addendum.

​Q8:

​For Attachment 4: Contractor Narrative—Budget Justification

  • For the Evaluation line item:

    • Does the proposer need to include a narrative justification for the 10% required?

    • How many (ballpark) hours is OHE assuming the proposer will need to engage in the required Evaluation Activities listed in the RFA?

​A8:

​Yes, evaluation budget allocation should be included in the budget form and narrative justification. Please see examples below, with varying levels of detail provided. 

  • EVALUATION DESIGN AND ANALYSIS CONSULTANTS - $23,375/Yr. x 2 Yrs. = $46,750 Evaluation Design and Analysis Consultants will collaborate with project staff, staff of the California Department of Public Health, and the initiative evaluator to develop project indicators and objectives, assist in the development of data collection and reporting procedures, oversee ongoing program data collection and reporting, assist in the ongoing analysis of project data, and assist in the preparation of project reports.

  • EVALUATION ACTIVITIES $10,000 Provides a funding pool to support costs related to program evaluation to be determined, including potential use of consultants to assist with evaluation design, data collection support, and data reporting and analysis.

  • EVALUATION ACTIVITIES $32,000.00 Evaluation Specialist: Collects and reports program data; plays key role in designing & implementing outreach strategy; facilitates communication and provides administrative support.


Contractors should allocate approximately 10% of proposed project hours for program evaluation activities, including evaluation planning, data collection, reporting, trainings, and quarterly meetings with the Initiative evaluator. Please refer to the RFA for details on the requirements of program evaluation for contractors. As needed, grantees may also engage with the Initiative evaluator to receive additional technical assistance and training around evaluation-specific topics. Some organizations may require more TA than others; as such, we suggest allocating 10% of project hours to evaluation, with the understanding that this may either go up or down, depending on the specific needs of the individual contractor.

​Q9:

​We are looking over this RFA and we were wondering how are you defining a CBO? We are an agency within [a larger institution] and so would we not be considered a CBO if wanted to apply as a collaborative of three programs?

​A9:

  • ​Please see A2 for definitions of CBO. 

  • Collaboratives are permitted under the terms of the RFA, but one organization must serve as the prime contractor who is responsible and accountable for the successful administration of the project (I.e. CDPH will have a contract with one entity). The remaining organizations/programs in the collaborative must be included in the budget sheet as consultants. The contractor must satisfy all minimum qualifications. However, the collaborative's qualifications and experiences as a whole will be used to evaluate desired qualifications. If the collaborative partners are all technically part of the same institution and fall under the same Employer Identification Number (EIN) they may submit one application, but provide narrative responses specific to the programs applying for funding rather than the overall institution. 


Q10:

​We are wondering if this funding can be used to hire for Peer Navigators at our own organization to increase our capacity to serve trans people of color, and if funding can be used to provide transportation assistance and other incentives to clients.

​A10:

​Please refer to Section 2.7 of the RFA for examples of allowable and unallowable projects. The described activities are considered allowable under the terms of this funding activity. Applicants must demonstrate how the proposed project aligns with the purpose of this funding: "This funding provides an opportunity for LBTQ-serving CBOs to develop new interventions and/or enhance existing activities, addressing the need for capacity building, training and quality improvement among California-based service providers to deliver affirming, culturally and linguistically responsive care and services to LBTQ communities. Additionally, funding may be used to strengthen community-based continuums of care for LBTQ Californians." 

​Q11:

For the letters of support, will you please clarify what you mean by them being from "population members"? Could this be prior clients we have served through our programs? Current or prior board members who identify as LBTQ?

​A11:

​Letters of support may come from any individual or organization/agency that will “indicate a deep and trusted relationship and endorsement of the community activities supported by the organization. Additionally, it is expected that each letter will iterate a unique relationship and perspective that the person providing the letter has with the proposing organization.” This may include current/former clients, community leaders, partner organizations, local government offices or agencies, etc. 

​Q12:

​Under Non-Allowable, an example is holding events at a bar that serves alcohol because "activities that may contribute to or exacerbate health disparities, such as substance misuse and abuse, are not allowable." Does this include harm reduction supplies/kits and/or drug safety testing kits that reduce harm associated with drug use?

​A12:

​Harm reduction tools and strategies represent a public health approach to the prevention of negative health outcomes supported by CDPH; as such, they do not fall under the same category as providing alcohol socially with program funds. 

The described activities are considered allowable under the terms of this funding activity. Applicants must demonstrate how the proposed project aligns with the purpose of this funding: “This funding provides an opportunity for LBTQ-serving CBOs to develop new interventions and/or enhance existing activities, addressing the need for capacity building, training and quality improvement among California-based service providers to deliver affirming, culturally and linguistically responsive care and services to LBTQ communities. Additionally, funding may be used to strengthen community-based continuums of care for LBTQ Californians.” 


Q13:
My organization is trying to write the MOUs. Are there expectations of our partners/subcontractors in the implementation of, for example, training for a group of doctors or medical practices, in giving us data or data collection?
​A13:

​*Subcontractors are permitted but not required under this RFA. If an applicant includes subcontractors in their proposed project:

Subcontractors will be required to report data up to the contractor (applicant), and the contractor will be responsible for reporting that data in aggregate to the program evaluation team. All contractors will be required to report on a set of standardized measures (i.e., race, ethnicity, age, location of participants, other demographic factors), and will also work with the Initiative evaluation team to develop project/intervention-specific evaluation measures. This is intended as a capacity building exercise for the funded organizations  and support in collecting data that is important to them and reflects the progress of their specific work. There will additionally be individualized technical assistance and trainings provided by the evaluation team to help contractors and subcontractors learning data reporting procedures and the best ways to capture this information, but the contractor will be the intermediary between the subcontractors and the program evaluation team. 


​Q14:
My organization is a University of California. Our role will probably be as a subcontractor. Is there a cap on the percent of personnel in a subcontractor's budget? The grant says that the cap for indirect is 25%. The applicant that we will be a subcontractor for has a cap of 10%. Which percent will my organization be subject to?
​A14:
​There are no limitations for the University of California as a subcontractor. There are limitations for the University of California as a prime contractor and how much they are allowed to subcontract to other organizations.

Q15:
This is a service provider capacity building opportunity. Will the direct population be the service providers and the end-users are the LBTQ women. Can you say something on that?
​A15:
​Please refer to Section 2.7 of the RFA for examples of allowable and unallowable projects. Applicants must demonstrate how the proposed project aligns with the purpose of this funding: "This funding provides an opportunity for LBTQ-serving CBOs to develop new interventions and/or enhance existing activities, addressing the need for capacity building, training and quality improvement among California-based service providers to deliver affirming, culturally and linguistically responsive care and services to LBTQ communities. Additionally, funding may be used to strengthen community-based continuums of care for LBTQ Californians." 

Service providers are the population of focus for funded project activities (I.e. capacity will be build among service providers). Applicants must also describe how the proposed project will address the needs of LBTQ populations and at least one LBTQ Initiative priority population (BIPOC LBTQ Californians, LBTQ youth, LBTQ elders, economically and/or legally vulnerable LBTQ individuals) I.e. the end users of services and the individuals whose health would be ultimately impacted. 


Q16:
We understand that a formal needs assessment of the communities is maybe a focus of another funding stream other than this one, but we want to build in a feedback loop with our target population. Would this be allowable?
​A16:
​As long as the primary programmatic activities and impact are related to capacity building, incorporating needs assessment activities are an appropriate project/evaluation component. Applicants should include justification within the application narrative of how assessment activities strengthen project implementation and/or evaluation. A proposal that primarily consists of a needs assessment should be submitted under RFA#22-10853 LBTQ Research Among California Communities (anticipated release date 11/30/2022). 

Q17:
I had a question about the definition of healthcare service providers and whether or not information technologists that are programming SOGI data question into electronic medical record systems count or if the electronic medical record system providers themselves count as healthcare service providers that trainings could be targeted for this RFA? 
​A17:
​Yes, this is appropriate under the current funding opportunity. 

Q18:
There is a font size listed, but there are no recommended font types that come along with that. Do you have a specific font that you want text in to meet the 10-point size requirement?
​A18:
​For this RFA, the only specified style requirement is a minimum font size of 10 points, in order to simplify documentation requirements for applicants. Any font style, size and layout is acceptable as long as it is not smaller than 10 points. (Within reason: no Wingdings please.)

Q19:

In terms of references and footnotes formats, are there any specific requirements or requests to how the references and footnotes are formatted? 

​A19:
​Please refer to A6 (list items 1 and 2) for information related to footnotes and endnotes. There are no other formatting requirements for footnotes or references. 

Q20:
Section 3 – Approach mentions a narrative with a description, but the instructions look like you're just looking for a logic model and work plan. Is there an additional narrative that needs to go with those two or is it just a logic model and work plan? It's not a lesser approach to use the chart as opposed to a long narrative?
​A20:
​This RFA requires both a logic model and work plan. The logic model may be presented in a standard graphical format, or a simple narrative format. Our intention is to simplify formatting requirements for applicants. Additionally, some previous applicants were not able to include much information within the constraints of a graphic: the logic model should contain enough basic information for the scoring team to assess.  Applicants will not be penalized on logic model format (graphic, narrative page, bulleted list, etc). 

​Q21:
My organization has an LGBTQ+ program, but the entire organization is not solely focused on LBTQ population. So for the question about leadership and the board, I have talked to some extent about leadership and the board, but then I'm also working in a description on the dedicated program. Is it okay to focus on the dedicated program there?
​A21:
Yes; please refer to A6 (list item 4). 

​Q22:

In terms of impact, does impact have to happen in every single county in a region?

​A22:
​No, it just has to be within the region apply under. For example, if a proposed project focuses on the LBTQ population within one specific city of the selected region, that is totally acceptable. Projects with broader coverage are also acceptable, as long as regional focus and impact can be demonstrated. 

​Q23:
I was wondering if with this RFA, there was going to be another release for people who want to be subcontractors. 
​A23:

​This is the only application period for RFA#22-10531; there will not be any subsequent application periods specifically for subcontractors.

The structure of the current RFA is different from that of the first RFA of the LBTQ Initiative: under this funding opportunity, collaboration (or having a prime and subcontractor model) is allowed but not required. We anticipate receiving a mix of individual organization applications for solo projects; collaborative applications; and contractor-subcontractor partner applications – these are all allowed under the terms of this RFA.


Q24:

We are going to be applying for the $400,000, and I know that 10% needs to be dedicated to evaluation. Our plan was to have most of that 10% portion go to existing staff who could work with the CDPH evaluator. I’m wondering if on the budget does it need to demonstrate this percentage of this person’s time will be on the actual project work and this percentage will be on evaluation?

​A24:

​Please refer to A8 for examples of acceptable evaluation budget justifications; significant detail is not required.

Note: the 10% minimum requirement is calculated as actual dollars and cents and is not rounded up.  (I.e., to be compliant a $400,000.00 application must have a minimum of $40,000.00 budgeted for evaluation-related costs, not $39,999.95.)


Q25:
For the budget, I saw that the template in the RFA is not required and is used as a guideline. We were going to use our internal template. In our budget, we break things down by calendar year and I noticed in the template it's by quarter. Is it okay to not have it broken down by quarter?
​A25:
​Using the provided budget format is not required for the application, and an applicant would not be penalized for using their own format. The provided template is the format required by CDPH for contracting, and awarded applicants will be required to submit a revised budget in quarter format for contracting purposes if the budget in the application was not already in that format. 

Q26:
On the RFA, it says that the deadline to receive applications is November 28th. Wasn't there a conversation that it was extended to November 30th
​A26:
​Yes. The application deadline has been extended to Nov. 30th. This is reflected on the webpage and in the current live version of the RFA document. 

​Q27:

If we do an activity and somebody from a different region wants to attend in another region, even though they live in California, can they still do that?

​A27:
​Yes. Projects are required to primarily focus activities and impact within one region of California, but are not required to be exclusive to that region. Cross-regional activities and/or attendance to funded activities is allowable. 

​Q28:
Are you anticipating this is going to continue beyond the suggested years? If there's new funding, then will it have to go through a whole new RFA process?
​A28:
​The LBTQ Health Equity Initiative funding was authorized by the legislature for a 5 year period (2019-2024). Funded projects will have contractual implementation periods running through 2025. If further funds are authorized at a future date, this information will be announced – we do not currently have any information regarding the potential for future funding or program extension. 

Q29:
Are the people participating in the review part of CDPH staff?
​A29:
​Yes, scoring committee members will be CDPH employees, recruited for programmatic expertise, experience and alignment with Initiative priority populations.

​Q30:

​I'm wondering if anyone has inquired about extending the deadline for Round 2 given our organizations' need to respond to the Colorado Springs shooting last week. 

​A30:

At this time, the deadline for CDPH to receive applications for LBTQ Health Equity Initiative RFA #22-10531 Service Provider Capacity Building Program remains as November 30, 2022 before 5:00 PM (PST). 

Q31:

​Can you tell me if we are limited to including only 2 letters of support in our proposal, or can we include more?

A31:

​Please include only two letters of support in your proposal. If more than two letters of support are provided, only the first two will be considered. 



Contact :

Sarah Roush

LBTQCapacityBuilding@cdph.ca.gov 
Page Last Updated :