What counts as an eligible service area for SAMHSA’s “Resiliency in Communities After Stress and Trauma” (ReCAST) program?

New Grant Writing Confidential Post: Go to?www.seliger.com?to sign up for FREE WEEKLY GRANT ALERTS and click on BLOG to read more than 600 posts about grant writing at Grant Writing Confidential.

Long ago, we wrote about?what grant writers and applicants should do?when confronted by a poorly organized RFP; because little external pressure pushes federal agencies to write RFPs that make sense, one finds too many RFPs that leave a lot of questions. SAMHSA’s “Resiliency in Communities After Stress and Trauma” (ReCAST) Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) is a case in point: eligible applicants are those “communities that have recently faced civil unrest, community violence, and/or collective trauma within the past 24 months.” Okay: the NOFO will surely get more specific, right? But the ReCAST NOFO says that “Community violence is defined as the exposure to intentional acts of interpersonal violence committed in public spaces by individuals who are not related to the victim.” Okay: but how much violence? Do two murders count? Do two instances of battery count? Almost every city of any size has likely experienced at least two “intentional acts of interpersonal violence” committed by strangers in the prior 24 months. So how much is enough? Is more better, for purposes of being funded by this program? How are applicants to judge the feasibility of being funded? Being able to have some sense of eligibility is key, because preparing and submitting a SAMHSA application isn’t a minor endeavor.

Then there is the issue of “collective trauma.” Do natural disasters count? I’ve read the definitions of “collective trauma” on pages 8 – 9 of the ReCAST NOFO, and I’ve gone through all 41 uses of the word “trauma,” but I don’t see an answer to that specific question. Natural disasters are violent and often cause injury and death, which makes me lean towards “yes,” but the emphasis on “civil unrest” seems to point to a very specific set of issues that SAMHSA has in mind.

So I sent an email to the SAMHSA contact person, Jennifer Treger, asking her a version of the above. She wrote back: “Thank you for your inquiry. Please refer back to the definition that you have pointed out on pages 8-9 of the funding opportunity. If you determine your community meets the eligibility based on the definitions, please feel free to submit an application.” But how am I, or anyone else, supposed to judge whether a specific community is eligible based on that vague definition? I tried asking her in another version, and she reiterated, unhelpfully, that “We can only respond to what is in the NOFO.”

She also wrote that: “You can determine if you feel your community meets the definition for Collective Trauma as stated in the NOFO.” But the problem is that how I “feel” doesn’t matter at all to SAMHSA in determining eligibility; only SAMHSA’s judgments matter (SAMHSA has the money). It’d be useful for SAMHSA to list, in its view, which communities have had sufficient “civil unrest, community violence, and/or collective trauma within the past 24 months” to qualify for ReCAST. Or, alternately, what metrics they’d use. An FBI Uniform Crime Rate (UCR) of x per 1,000 people, for example, would be a specific metric.

Too many federal agencies love the latitude that vagueness implies. It’s hard to advise our clients on whether they should apply to ReCAST without more specifics, but those specifics evidently aren’t going to be forthcoming. I guess we’ll have to try to look at our feelings and our client’s feelings, and hope SAMHSA feels what we feel.

For more on similar matters, see?RFP Lunacy and Answering Repetitive or Impossible Questions: HRSA and Dental Health Edition.