Skip to content
DispatchCare

2026-07-21 · 8 min

Writing CP into your RHT subaward

A subaward narrative that names the coordination layer and the evaluation plan is easier to approve than one that names only staff.

Name the three lines separately

Workforce, technology and evaluation should be three visible lines. Bundling them into one 'program' line invites a reviewer to cut the part they cannot see.

The technology line covers mission coordination, broadcast and the vendor portal. The evaluation line covers metric definition, dashboards, quarterly report packs and the analyst time to interpret them.

Document the before state

Non-supplantation is easiest to satisfy when the narrative states plainly what exists today: referrals by fax and phone, no status back to the referring hospital, no cohort reporting. That sentence is the justification for new infrastructure.

Attach the reporting cadence to the state's

States file three quarterly progress reports and one annual progress report, plus an annual financial report. A subaward narrative that commits to producing data on that cadence, in that structure, reduces the state's monitoring burden, and states notice.

Plan procurement early

2 CFR 200 procurement standards apply to the subrecipient. Depending on threshold and state policy that can mean quotes, a sole-source justification, or purchase through an existing cooperative contract. Deciding the route in the narrative avoids a stall after the award.

Want the version specific to your state and cohort? We will walk through it with your program and grants leads.

See a mission go from the chart to the home and back.

A 30-minute walkthrough with a coordinator view, a CP program view and the dashboard your sponsor will read.