Grant Guidelines

The North Carolina Community AIDS Fund will be releasing a request for proposals (RFP) in February 2010 for the period of September 1, 2010 through March 31 2011. Applications will be accepted for HIV prevention and care programs.

Approximately 75% of the funds will be allocated for prevention programs and 25% will be allocated for care programs.

The North Carolina Community AIDS Fund takes a broad view of prevention, including:

• HIV awareness and education;
• promotion of HIV testing;
•  targeted prevention programs;
• prevention for positives programs;
• treatment adherence; and
• programs whose outcomes are reasonably expected to enhance engagement in care. 

Prioritized care services may include but are not limited to those that emphasize community collaborations, support networks of care, address co-occurring diagnoses, and/or serve a currently underserved population.

Examples of care projects may include:

• integration of medical care and behavioral health services;
• services for non-English speaking or deaf communities;
• providing educational programs to address emerging issues within the HIV community; and
• direct care programs whose outcomes are reasonably expected to enhance engagement or retention in care. 

Agencies may be funded to expand an existing program, initiate a new program, or help agencies adapt current programming to the field of HIV.

The North Carolina Community AIDS Fund will support both programmatic costs and reasonable administrative costs. Indirect costs are not allowed, however this is a programmatic RFP. Applicants are encouraged to apply only for the amount of funding needed and not to rely upon the NC-CAF entirely for the support of the proposed project. The NC-CAF reserves the right to fund projects in full or part and will negotiate with funded agencies when such adjustments are made.

NCCAF seeks to increase the capacity of communities across North Carolina to respond to the HIV epidemic, thus a concerted effort will be made to fund agencies representing diversity in size, geography, service populations, and experience.

RFA Evaluation 

As part of an effort to ensure that NC-CAF’s grant application process is accessible, understandable, and of reasonable length, the NC-CAF staff has conducted a process evaluation of its RFP this funding cycle. Using Survey Money, surveys on the RFP were sent to over 200 individuals representing AIDS Service Organizations and other non-profits across North Carolina. The results are illustrated below, as well some comments by the grantees.  Most notable are the high ratings for the convenience and content of the information meetings (Table 2), the reasonable length of the application (Table 3), and the overall experience of completing the RFP process (Table 5). Reasons for agencies not to apply include “Timing was inconvenient” and “Not enough time to complete application” (Table 4).

Table 1: Source of NC-CAF RFP Information

Table 2: Responses to Questions on Information Meetings (N=30)

Comments mostly included satisfaction with the content of the RFP information meetings  and the communication and helpfulness of the staff. There were also suggestions for more guidelines on what services NC-CAF prioritized for funding. 

Table 3: Responses to Questions on the Reasonableness of Application (N=30)

 
Comments on the content of the application suggested the need for a budget justification, or narrative. Indeed, of those who left comments, 80%  suggested that the current budget design does not adequately allow agencies to explain how funds are operationalized.

Table 4: Response to Questions on the Time Commitment of Application (N=30)

Out of 5 comments, 2 mentioned the need for more time due to complete the application. One mentioned the quick turnaround time between submission and notification of award. Another praised the 18 month funding cycle and one suggested the project start date be moved up.

Table 4: Reason for Not Applying (N=12)                                              

Comments on the reasons for not applying included too much of a work load and the need of funding support of general operations, not a specific project.  Another explained that they did not want to compete with other agencies in their area.

Table 5: Response to Overall Experience (N=29)