Competitive grants differ from statutory distributions and discretionary distributions in that they are designed to encourage indigent legal services providers to develop solutions to specifically designated needs or shortcomings in the statewide provision of indigent legal services. Specifically, Executive Law sections 832 (3)(a) and 833 (7)(c) authorize the Office and Board to “target grants in support of innovative and cost effective solutions that enhance the provision of quality indigent legal services” and to incentivize counties through the use of “incentive grants.”
Typically, competitive grants are distributed through the use of an RFP (Request for Proposal) process, where awards are made based on proposals submitted by bidders that offer solutions to the objectives, problem or need specified in the RFP, and the bidder specifies how it intends to meet (or exceed) the RFP requirements.
The Board has authorized the development of three competitive grants: (1) providing counsel at first appearance, (2) upstate caseload reduction for institutional providers and the development of quality control measures in upstate assigned counsel programs, and (3) the establishment of regional Immigration Resource Centers to ensure attorney compliance with the requirements set forth in Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010).
Typically, competitive grants are distributed through the use of an RFP (Request for Proposal) process, where awards are made based on proposals submitted by bidders that offer solutions to the objectives, problem or need specified in the RFP, and the bidder specifies how it intends to meet (or exceed) the RFP requirements.
The Board has authorized the development of three competitive grants: (1) providing counsel at first appearance, (2) upstate caseload reduction for institutional providers and the development of quality control measures in upstate assigned counsel programs, and (3) the establishment of regional Immigration Resource Centers to ensure attorney compliance with the requirements set forth in Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010).