Some of you have submitted questions to Lifeline staff with respect to the recently released RFP. We encourage you to review the RFP carefully, as you may find the answers to many question within the document itself or on the RFP page of the Members-Only site. However, we want to be sure to capture the questions that we realize the RFP does not clearly answer. We have created this running blog post to serve that purpose. If you have additional questions regarding the RFP, please feel free to post them in the comments section below. We will check back frequently and update this blog with answers as we go.
Increasing capacity to answer Lifeline calls:
Q: My center has a high answer rate (above 90%) so how would it increase its capacity to answer Lifeline calls?
Since you center already has a high answer rate, your proposal should indicate how your center will undertake new activities while maintaining its high answer rate.
Q: Our Center has a high answer rate, in increasing our capacity, should we anticipate a higher volume of Lifeline calls to be routed to our Center? Can we increase capacity and demonstrate other improved outcomes instead of increased volume if the answer to the first question is no?
We will not route additional calls to your Center without your instruction to do so. And the RFP does not require you to change your coverage area. However, if you would like to expand your coverage area, please contact Jessica Haas at jhaas@mhaofnyc.org. As stated in the RFP, the stipend awards should be used to “increase the center’s capacity to answer Lifeline calls.” If your Center already has high answer rate, you should describe how your center will undertake new activities (i.e., outreach or follow-up) while maintaining your high answer rate.
Provide follow-up to hotline callers at high risk for suicide:
Q: We are working on our RFP for Follow Up, and would greatly appreciate any information you could provide regarding the Letter of Intent or MOU from our local ED(s). As I understand it, a letter will strengthen our application as for Follow Up but is not mandatory?
If you plan to submit a proposal for follow up you really should include either a Letter of Intent from your local ED or an Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between your agency and the ED. The reason these items are stressed is that without either your proposal would not appear practical or feasible to the reviewers. Developing a relationship with an ED where none existed before is a lengthy and time consuming process, and it is unlikely, given the relatively short time frame for this project, that you would be able to engage key decision makers, formalize a follow up plan, and initiate the project within the one-year time frame.
Either a Letter of Intent or an MOU is acceptable. A Letter of Intent would need to include as much information as possible on what both parties are agreeing to, though details may still need to be developed. An MOU generally includes all details of the planned program and outlines the key responsibilities of each party. Having something close to an MOU already in place at the time of the application would most definitely strengthen the proposal.
Call Log:
Q: I was hoping to find out if [the Call Log] needed to be implemented now, versus if it was okay that it is in the process of being implemented by our RFP submission.
The call log must be implemented before starting the RFP activities, not before submitting your application. The earlier the better, because you will have more predata for your outcome measures.
Budget:
Q: I notice in the sample budget you include reimbursement for a grantee meeting in Washington, DC. Is there a grantee meeting that we need to budget for?
The budget is just a sample. There will be no grantee meeting for which you need to budget.