Questions submitted by entities interested in the Rural Nursing Clinical Simulation Center grants, and the answers to those questions, are listed below. This Web page will be updated regularly as questions are submitted.

• Eligibility
• Grant Technical Assistance

Eligibility

1. Q. The Bulletin says that rural areas that are eligible to apply for such grants are defined as having populations of less than 500,000. The list of eligible counties based on this criterion does not include five counties, which have populations of less than 500,000 (El Dorado, Marin, Placer, San Benito, and Yolo). Will grant applications be considered from these five counties?


A. Yes. Grant applications will also be considered from these five counties. These five counties were inadvertently left off the list.


2. Q. Would a “pre-licensure” License (sic.) Vocational Nursing program, located in an identified rural county, that is approved by the Board of Vocational Nursing & Psychiatric Technicians and the California Department of Education be an eligible applicant for this grant solicitation?
   
   A. No. Attachment 2 of Information Bulletin WIAB05-56 which announced this grant opportunity, specifies under "Purpose" that the purpose of the initiative is to "expand Registered Nursing (RN) education capacity." The same section indicates the expectation that simulation program coalitions will include "multiple schools" which are defined as "two year and four year nursing programs." Further, the attachment specifies under "Process" that "eligible applicants will be limited to pre-licensure nursing education providers." The section provides as examples of such providers "community colleges, State universities, and private colleges."
   
   Since Licensed Vocational Nursing (LVN) programs are not designed to expand the number of two-year and four-year college-trained RNs, they are not eligible applicants as the lead entity for rural simulation grant applications. However, LVN programs may be members of rural simulation grant coalitions.

Grant Technical Assistance

1. Q. Information Bulletin WIAB05-56 (Attachment 2) mentions mobile simulation centers. We think that such a mobile center would benefit our rural area where nursing training facilities are decentralized. How can we learn more about setting up such a mobile simulation center?

   A. Two such facilities have been created by the Alberta (Canada) Shock Trauma Air Rescue Society (STARS). They are installed in mobile home vehicles and visit rural emergency medical facilities on a pre-established schedule to give qualified practitioners the opportunity to practice medical procedures on a team basis. These mobile centers are not being used for nursing education but they do present on-point examples of mobile simulation facilities. To find out more, consult the following brochure: www.stars.ca/education/hps/hps_brochure.pdf. You can also contact Mike Lamacchia, the STARS Human Patient Simulator Program Outreach Manager, at (403) 516-3559.

   It should be noted that the California Rural Nursing Clinical Simulation Grant opportunity calls on grantees to provide premises at no cost to the State grants. Consistent with this, the cost of vehicles and their modification for use as mobile simulation centers cannot be charged to the State grants. This limitation notwithstanding, we do believe that establishment of mobile simulation centers constitutes a viable option to maximize the availability and utilization of simulation equipment under the State grants.

2. Q. Although the Request for Proposal excludes funding for the cost of space, may provision of space be included in the matching funds? For instance if a school remodels and/or leases space, or if a vehicle is purchased for a mobile simulation unit, could those expenses count towards the one-to-one match in funds?

   A. Yes.

3. Q. Please confirm that in-kind match could include the costs of premises modification to house the simulation center.

   A. The costs of premises modification to house a simulation center would qualify as in-kind match.

4. Q. The Information Bulletin states that the Business Case Proposal specifications will be shared in February with those who have submitted an Intent to Apply. As of March 2 we have not received these specifications and would like to.

   A. We have fallen behind our schedule for release of the Business Case Proposal package. It is in final draft now (March 3) and should be released shortly. Business Case Proposals won't be due to be submitted until mid-May (the draft package says May 12) and will only be accepted from proposers who have been determined via on-site reviews as being most ready for implementation. This means that some proposers that have submitted Intent to Apply letters and Coalition Statements of Readiness may not be found eligible to submit Business Case Proposals.

5. Q. What is the allowable indirect cost rate for the rural nursing simulation grant program? Should we use our Federally Approved rate?

   A. No allowable indirect cost rate has been established for this grant program. It would be appropriate to use your federally approved rate, provided that the basis of that rate does not include cost factors which are unnecessary or unreasonable in respect to a state program to fund nursing simulation equipment. So, cost factors such as publicity or fund raising activities should be backed out of the basis of the rate, and thus should be backed out of the federally approved rate.

6. Q. Page 2 of the business case proposal states that “equipment costs are limited to 50 percent of grant funds.” Could you confirm that this limitation is 50 percent of the requested grant amount, as opposed to 50 percent of the total project cost (requested grant amount plus matching funds)? This will impact the number of high tech manikins we will be able to purchase, and we were surprised to read this as we were under the impression the purpose of the grant is largely for the purchase of equipment for a simulation center.

   A. Equipment costs are limited to 50 percent of grant funds, not 50 percent of total project cost. The State’s intent is to ensure that adequate funds are reserved for faculty education and the coordinator/technician capability, without which the equipment would not be as useful. The expectation was that matching resources would also support the purchase of equipment and these other critical activities.

7. Q. Regarding the percent rate for Staff Benefits – we are using as match some salary time for employees of our institution, as well as for others outside (hospital staff). So, there is not one single rate. Would you like us to put the rate our institution uses (as we are providing most of the salary match), or the average rate that results from all combined salaries, or should we include this information on an additional page somewhere that breaks down the specific rates for each institution contributing salary/benefits?

   A. Please provide an additional page that breaks down the specific rates for each institution contributing salary/benefits. The same approach should be used in respect to indirect cost rates if those of contributing institutions are planned to be part of the match.

8. Q. I'm wondering whether the required full-time coordinator can be split between two people, as long as you have the equivalent of at least one FTE? We were hoping to have a combination of two faculty members assume this role because they will still need to spend some of their time teaching, not just coordinating the center.

   A. It's ok to split the required full-time coordinator position between two people. Of course, such a split will create the need for these two coordinators to, in turn, coordinate between them, so this approach complicates the situation.

9. Q. If we purchase a warranty on the equipment, does that count as equipment cost, or should it be placed under operational, or other costs? If it is operational, I assume we'd have to pay for it ourselves with matching funds since the grant will not pay for these costs.

   A. The cost of warranties does not count as equipment costs. But this cost could be charged to the part of the grant funds that are not for equipment.

10. Q. I understand we cannot go over 50 percent of the requested grant funds for equipment purchases. However, if we are purchasing/contributing equipment with matching funds as well as grant funds, is the equipment match limited to 50 percent of the matching funds committed, or is that also limited to 50 percent of the grant request? For example, if our total grant request is $200,000, and we wish to purchase $100,000 in equipment with grant funds, can we also commit up to $100,000 in equipment as match (since our total match is also $200,000)? Or does the total equipment cost (from grant and matching funds) have to be under $100,000?

    A. The question supposes two limits on equipment purchased with match, neither of which applies. These two inapplicable limits are 50 percent of match and 50 percent of grant funds. In fact, the 50 percent limit on the cost of equipment applies only to the State grant funds. There is no limit on the portion of match funds which may be expended for equipment.