CAPTA

Supporting Evidence-Based Home Visitation Program to Prevent Child Maltreatment
Responses to Questions from the Webinar from June 10, 2008
Final 6/26/08

1. Michael B. Greene, Ph.D.
Director of Violence Prevention
The Nicholson Foundation

Dr. David Olds is in the process of developing a model of group-based prenatal and infant primary care program that integrates the principles, philosophy, and practices of the Nurse Family Partnership program. The target population for this program includes women who are at risk of undesirable pregnancy and parenting outcomes but fall short of the rigorous criteria established for the NFP program. It is also based on a randomized control trial of group prenatal care that did not include NFP principles (Ickovics, J. R., Kershaw, T. S., et al. (2007). "Group prenatal care and perinatal outcomes: a randomized controlled trial. Obstetrics & Gynecology 110(2 Pt 1): 330-339) that demonstrated positive outcomes for group-based prenatal care. Would this program be considered an "evidence-based" informed, and thus eligible for inclusion in an array of other evidence-based programs for purposes of this funding announcement?

Children’s Bureau response: The program announcement does not list specific home visitation programs or models and does not endorse a specific program as meeting the criteria for this announcement. Applicants must provide appropriate justification within their application to demonstrate and document how the home visitation model selected meets the criteria from the announcement. The actual selection of the evidence-based program/s is part of the Evaluation Criteria which will be used by the outside expert peer review panel to score and rate the applications submitted. The complete list of all the Evaluation criteria that will be used by the grant reviewers is listed on pages 44-52 of the grant announcement.

2. Leanne C. Barrett
Policy Analyst
Rhode Island KIDS COUNT
One Union Station
Providence, RI 02903
lbarrett@rikidscount.org
401/351-9400
401/351-1758 (FAX)

Question 2a: Can federal grant funds be used to pay any portion of salaries of home visitors during Year One (the planning year) and during Year Two – Year Five (implementation years)?

Children’s Bureau response: This will depend on the proposed activities. It is entirely up to the applicant to propose a plan, including selection of the approach and program strategy, that is responsive to the Evaluation criteria (pages 44-52) in the announcement.

Question 2b: Can you share any details about the national cross-site evaluation that will be funded separately? In order to identify and budget for the local evaluation, it would be helpful to know what will be covered in that evaluation and how the local evaluator would work with a national evaluator.

Children’s Bureau response: This has not yet been determined. We anticipate that the contractor funded to conduct the national cross-site evaluation will be in place by October 2008 and will work closely with all the newly funded projects and their evaluators.

3. Judie Hermann
414/442-7592
Judith.Hermann@Wisconsin.gov

Question 3a: Do program models such as: Healthy Families America and Parents as Teachers qualify as evidenced-based programs under the definitions of this RFP? Are they allowable program models to further a rigorous evaluation project under this RFP?

Children’s Bureau response: The program announcement does not list specific home visitation programs or models and does not endorse a specific program as meeting the criteria for this announcement. Applicants must provide appropriate justification within their application to document and demonstrate how the home visitation program/s selected meets the criteria from the announcement. The selected model/s should have already been rigorously evaluated. The actual selection of the evidence-based program/s is part of the Evaluation Criteria which will be used by the outside expert peer review panel to score and rate the applications submitted. The complete list of all the Evaluation criteria that will be used by the grant reviewers is listed on pages 44-52 of the grant announcement. Finally, each applicant must also propose to conduct a rigorous evaluation of their proposed project.

Question 3b: Do you have any suggested web sites that program models acceptable under this RFP are described?

Children’s Bureau response: The program announcement does not list any websites or specific home visitation models. Applicants must use the criteria defined in the announcement on pages 5-7 to determine which programs meet the criteria for funding under this announcement.

Question 3c: Can a list of accepted models be provided to potential applicants?

Question 3d: Are you most interested in understanding the effectiveness of different implementation strategies, as opposed to replicating findings from previously tested models that have been shown to be effective? It seems like you want us to choose a well-supported model and experimentally evaluate it, or the expansion of it, under a uniform implementation strategy. Or is what you really want is for us to choose a model or perhaps more than one model that meet the criteria of well-supported, and then evaluate the efficacy of different ways of implementing it? (See in particular the language on pp. 15-16) In other words, under one scenario, we would select a model or two and in the planning year, we would work out an implementation strategy that would be adopted uniformly across all sites using or wanting to use that/those model(s). Then we would just randomly assign families to T (get HV) or C (don't get HV) groups and report on outcome differences under that singular implementation strategy. Under the other scenario, we choose a model (I'll just assume one model for a moment), randomly assign families to T or C according to the implementation strategy, and not whether or not they get HV. Which scenario are you most interested in?

Children’s Bureau response: It is entirely up to the applicant to propose a plan, including selection of the approach and program strategy, that is responsive to the Evaluation criteria (pages 44-52) in the announcement.

Question 3e: Which model or models of home visitation programs fit the criteria as described on page 6-7?

If more than one model fits the criteria, must a state choose to develop the infrastructure around just one model or can more than one model be supported?

Children’s Bureau response: The program announcement does not list specific home visitation programs or models and does not endorse a specific program as meeting the criteria for this announcement. The applicant may select more than one model for support under this grant announcement. Applicants must provide appropriate justification within their application to document how the home visitation program/s selected meets the criteria from the announcement. The actual selection of the evidence-based program/s is part of the Evaluation Criteria which will be used by the outside expert peer review panel to score and rate the applications submitted. The complete list of all the Evaluation criteria that will be used by the grant reviewers is listed on pages 44-52 of the grant announcement.

Question 3f: How does a local program establish that it is "the same" as a model that fits the criteria? What evidence would be needed?

4. Linda Carpenter
FIRST 5 Santa Clara County
Santa Clara, CA
(408) 828-6821

The Grant Announcement states there are two phases. Phase I will be the development of a plan that will include all elements identified on Pgs. 11-13, which is to be submitted within 10 mo. of receipt of award. However, pg. 45 of the Approach and pg. 49 of the Evaluation sections ask for many of these same elements to be included in the application. How does one describe in the application things that are to be developed during the first year of the Phase I Planning?

Children’s Bureau response: The applicant must describe in their application a proposed strategy for Phase 1: Planning and their initial description for the plans for Phase 2: Implementation. The plans for Phase 2 will have to assume that Children’s Bureau approval is granted for purposes of writing the application and proposed approach.

5. Colleen M. Stroetz
Research and Development Specialist
The Children's Services Council of Broward County
“Our Focus is Our Children”
6301 NW 5th Way, Suite 3000
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33309
Ph: 954 377 1114 (Office)
Fax: 954 377 1683

Question 5a: On page 11 of the announcement it states “applicants may choose to use a phased-in or pilot approach that starts with one local jurisdiction and then expands to other areas of the state once the initial efforts have proven successful”. With this statement, does the Bureau wish to have proposals that include a state-wide implementation or can the proposal include just a pilot or phase-in throughout one local jurisdiction?

Children’s Bureau response: It is entirely up to the applicant to propose a plan, including selection of the approach and program strategy that is responsive to the Evaluation criteria (pages 44-52) in the announcement.

Question 5b: On page 11 and 12 of the announcement it states “the goal of the fiscal leveraging plan is to identify the other sources of funding that will be used to support the direct services provided to families”. With this statement, can an applicant incorporate direct services into the grant budget for the phase-in or pilot of the model program?

Children’s Bureau response: Funds are to support the planning and implementation of the selected evidence-based home visitation programs. Thus, supporting direct services alone is not a primary focus of this grant announcement. Please refer to pages 1-2 of the program announcement which provides an overview of the types of infrastructure activities that the grant funds will support.

Question 5c: On page 6 of the announcement, it reviews the criteria for selecting the evidence-based model. Does the RCTs need to be tested with the targeted population which would be selected for the proposal? For example, if the RCTs were done with general population participants but the grant proposal would be targeting children with special needs?

Children’s Bureau response: There is no specific requirement that the RCTs be tested with the target population proposed in the application. Please see the section “Justifying the Selection of the Evidence-based Home Visitation Model/s” on pages 7-8. Another helpful resource is provided in the Selected References section on page 9, see the document entitled, Identifying and Selecting Evidence-Based Interventions from the US Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

Question 5d: The grant announcement looks for selection of EBP in the proposal. Can the proposal look at several models in the Planning year?

Children’s Bureau response: Applicants will need to identify the home visitation model/s that they plan to implement and consider in their planning year within the application. More than one model can be selected. Please refer to pages 10-14 of the grant announcement for details on the Phase I planning activities.

6. Melissa Janulewicz RN, PHN - Deputy Director
Shasta County Health and Human Services Agency - Public Health
2650 Breslauer Way
Redding, CA 96001
Phone: (530) 225-5066

Question 6a: Several times during the pre-application conference Melissa Brodowski referenced "jurisdictions" in the plural sense for targets of the grant. Are single county jurisdictions likely to receive funding or is the application seeking multi-jurisdictional areas?

Question 6b: Would tribal entities residing in a county's geographic area be considered as separate jurisdictions?

Children’s Bureau response: This would depend on the status of the tribal entities and whether they were recognized as sovereign nations.

Question 6c: The planning year for the grant would not involve funds being used for direct service or actual home visits. During the implementation phase of the project can grant funds be used to pay for staff to conduct the actual home visits?

Children’s Bureau response: Funds are to support the planning and implementation of the selected evidence-based home visitation programs. Please refer to pages 1-2 of the program announcement which provides an overview of the types of infrastructure activities that the grant funds will support. The first year of the grant program is intended to be used for a planning year and direct services would not be an appropriate use of the funding for Year 1. Please refer to the description of the elements of the planning year on pages 10-13 of the grant announcement for more details. In addition, please refer to pages 11-12 in the announcement regarding the requirement for a fiscal leveraging plan. The goal of the fiscal leveraging plan is to identify the other sources of funding to support the actual direct services. In Years 2 through 5, grantees will implement the various components of the plan. Please refer to pages 14-15 of the grant announcement.

7. Roy W. Rodenhiser, M.S.W., Ed.D.
Director, School of Social Work
1910 University Drive
Boise ID 83725-1940
Ph# 208-426-1789

Question 7a: Is the identified population for the Evidenced-Based Home Visitation program 0-3 or is it all at-risk children? This question is asked because we have 0-3 home-based programs (which your literature review seems to focus on) and also family preservation programs with older children who are at-risk.

Question 7b: We are not clear if the initial proposal is for Phase I only. While there are instructions for the implementation phase it seems that we must wait until we complete the first phase before we can move forward.

What do we submit for the 2-5 year implementation plan?

Children’s Bureau response: The applicant must describe in their applicant a proposed strategy for Phase 1: Planning and their initial description for the plans for Phase 2: Implementation. The plans for Phase 2 will have to assume that Children’s Bureau approval is granted for purposes of writing the application and proposed approach.

Question 7c: What does enhancement mean? Could it be supportive of direct services in some manner? We were curious about how much support can be given to a home-based program for enhancing their program.

Children’s Bureau response: The announcement does not specifically define what these enhancements might be. It is entirely up to the applicant to propose a plan that is responsive to the Evaluation criteria (pages 44-52) in the announcement.

8. Mary Jo Chippendale, MS, PHN
Family and Women's Health Supervisor
Division of Community and Family Health
Maternal and Child Health
Minnesota Department of Health
85 East Seventh Place
P.O.Box 64882
St. Paul, MN 55164-0882
Phone: (651) 201-3773
Fax: (651) 215-8953
E-mail: MaryJo.Chippendale@health.state.mn.us

Question 8a: Can the direct (client) services of a program be funded?

Question 8b: Can you choose more than one evidence-based model to be implemented within the state?

Children’s Bureau response: Yes.

Question 8c: Is the application supposed to cover the planning year (1 year) with the implementation (2-5 years) submitted 10 months into the first year if awarded or is the application to include the planning year and the four implementation years?

Question 8d: Is the target population that should be discussed in the application, the direct service clients to be served or the communities selected to implement the model?

Children’s Bureau response: The applicant should address both the clients/ families to be served, as well as the communities or jurisdictions to be served by the proposed project. Please refer to the third bullet on page 12 which describes the “screening and assessment processes to identify the parents and caregivers who need to be referred to these home visitation programs” and the Evaluation criteria for the “Objectives and Need for Assistance,” on page 45 bullet #3 regarding the identification and justification for the target population for the proposed project.

9. Katy Spurlock
The Urban Child Institute
600 Jefferson Ave.
Memphis, TN 38105
901-526-1822 x 243

If a community is awarded a grant as a result of responding to RFP grant 0130 regarding evidence-based home visitation to prevent child abuse, will it be expected that all of that community’s home visitation service providers will change the home visitation models that they use to a model that has higher evidence-based credentials? For example, if a community has a Healthy Families model and a Nurse Family Partnership model, would it be expected that the community would decide to increase the number of participants in the Nurse Family Partnership model, or would it also be sufficient to enhance and expand the Healthy Families model?

Children’s Bureau response: The funds are meant to support the widespread implementation, adoption, and sustaining of evidence-based home visitation model/s. It is entirely up to the applicant to propose a plan that is responsive to the Evaluation criteria (pages 44-52) in the announcement.

10. Karen Schenk, RN. BS
Program Coordinator
Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services 930 Wildwood,
P.O. Box 570
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0570
Phone: 573-751-6429
Fax: 573-751-6185

Question 10a: Concerning the application. Are we right to assume that our application should include information on our plan for all 5 years even though we will be not be assured to get Year 2-5, if year 1 is awarded until our final implementation plan is reviewed?

Question 10b: Is this the same for the budget? Are we submitting a 5 year budget even though we do not have all the information we will gather in year 1 to use?

Children’s Bureau response: Yes. Please refer to the Evaluation Criteria for the Budget section on pages 51-52 for more details.

Question 10c: Can there be funding in the first year to contract for the rigorous evaluation since the process evaluation will begin then?

Children’s Bureau response: It is entirely up to the applicant to propose a plan that is responsive to the Evaluation criteria (pages 44-52) in the announcement.

Question 10d: Can ANY type of federal funding be used as match for this grant or does it have to be ANYTHING but federal funds?

Children’s Bureau response: No Federal funds can be used for the match.

11. Pam Stuver, Nurse Supervisor
Maternal Child Health, Prevention Programs
Lane County Public Health
541-682-4670

Question 11a: Can we request less (as long as it is over $100,000) for our planning year and still request the full $500,000 per year for the implementation years?

Children’s Bureau response: Applicants should propose amounts for the planning and implementation year that are commensurate with their need. However, it is recommended that applicants request the amount that they anticipate they will need for the implementation years in Year 1 since the availability of funding for subsequent years is based on the Year 1 budget.

Questions 11b: Can required training costs to train staff to implement with fidelity to the evidence-based model we plan to implement be included in the planning budget?

Children’s Bureau response: It is entirely up to the applicant to propose a plan and budget that is responsive to the Evaluation criteria (pages 44-52) in the announcement.

12. Laurie McKeown
TEAM for West Virginia Children
P.O. Box 1653
Huntington, WV 25717
(304)523-9587 ext 308
laurie@teamwv.org

Here in West Virginia we have a collaborative network of 3 early childhood home visitation models identified in 1997 as eligible for state funding because of their evidence base - those models include Healthy Families America, Parents as Teachers, and Maternal Infant Health Outreach Workers (a regional model out of Vanderbilt University). As I read the RFP, the model(s) must be identified in the grant. Which of these three models will be accepted? If we knew going into this, that the grant reviewers would eliminate all 3 of these models as not meeting the evidence-based criteria, we would not use our time (and resources) to apply.

A related question - if none of these 3 models are acceptable under the terms of this RFP, can we still apply, using the Planning Process to identify a model that will fit?

Children’s Bureau response: The program announcement does not list specific home visitation programs or models and does not endorse a specific program as meeting the criteria for this announcement. Applicants must provide appropriate justification within their application to demonstrate how the home visitation selected meets the criteria from the announcemnt. The actual selection of the evidence-based program/s is part of the Evaluation Criteria which will be used by the outside expert peer review panel to score and rate the applications submitted. The complete list of all the Evaluation criteria that will be used by the grant reviewers is listed on pages 44-52 of the grant announcement.

13. Cyrel Gable, MSW
Family Resources and Education
Linn-Benton Community College
6500 SW Pacific Blvd.
Albany, OR 97321
541-917-4909 / 541-917-4270 (fax)
cyrel.gable@linnbenton.edu

Question 13a: The announcement requires submission of “job descriptions, and curricula vitae and/or resumes for proposed project staff.” In order to submit CV’s or resume’s we would need to have specific individuals identified to fill staff positions. If this is not feasible prior to application submission, is it acceptable to submit just the job descriptions?

Children’s Bureau response: Yes.

Question 13b: The announcement requests (page 11) that Phase I planning activities include “a comprehensive inventory of existing and potential . . funding streams, as well as existing home visitation programs currently being funded . . .” How much of this inventory must be included in the original application? Is this inventory to include all funding streams and programs nationally, or are you requesting information just for our local area?

Children’s Bureau response: It is entirely up to the applicant to propose a plan, inventory and activities that are responsive to the Evaluation criteria (pages 44-52) in the announcement. The inventory of funding streams should focus on the Federal, state, local and private funding that will be available for the applicant’s proposed project.

Question 13c: The webinar quotes the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, PL saying:

“In carrying out this new initiative, the Department is instructed to adhere closely to evidence-based models of home visitation and not to incorporate any additional initiatives that have not met these high evidentiary standards or might otherwise dilute the emphasis on home visitation.” This initiative is intended to enhance and/or expand existing services, but this requirement seems to make collaboration with existing programs impossible. Does this mean that organizations that deliver services to high risk families which include other features in addition to home visitation would not be eligible to participate in the implementation of an evidence-based home visitation program? For instance, if an agency currently includes family counseling and a therapeutic classroom for children, would it be ineligible to participate in the home visitation program?

Children’s Bureau response: It is entirely up to the applicant to propose a plan and activities that are responsive to the Evaluation criteria (pages 44-52) in the announcement.

14. Sarah M. Davis
Michigan Children's Trust Fund
235 S. Grand Ave., Suite 1411
Lansing, MI 48933
Phone: 1.800.CHILDREN
Direct: 517.335.7770
Fax: 517.241.7038

Question 14a: What is the role of the State CBCAP lead agency if more than one organization from the state applies for the ACF grant?

Children’s Bureau response: At a minimum, the CBCAP lead agency must be involved in the development of the proposed plan for Phase I and the subsequent implementation of the plan in Phase 2 (see page 13 of the announcement). The exact nature of the involvement and collaboration is entirely up to the applicant.

Question 14b: In turn, what is the role of the CBCAP lead agency if it wishes to apply for the ACF grant, and another organization from the State also applies for the grant?

Children’s Bureau response: The list of eligible applicants is provided on page 20 of the grant announcement and multiple applications from each State may be submitted. For all applications, at a minimum, the CBCAP lead agency must be involved in the development of the proposed plan for Phase I and the subsequent implementation of the plan in Phase 2 (see page 13 of the announcement). The exact nature of the involvement and collaboration is entirely up to the applicant to propose how this requirement will be met.

15. Chris Arestides, RN, BSN, MPH
Home Visit Coordinator
Brighter Futures Nurse-Family Partnership
Help Me Grow
1111 Edwin C. Moses Blvd.
Dayton, OH 45408
(937) 208-6349

Question 15a: If the evidenced based program that is selected has an existing logic model linking activities and outcomes, is this acceptable for the grant submission or are you looking for the development of a logic model addressing how the selected evidenced based program will be implemented specifically in our community with local strategies and local expected outcomes?

Children’s Bureau response: It is entirely up to the applicant to propose a plan and activities that are responsive to the Evaluation criteria (pages 44-52) in the announcement. However, the logic model included in the application should address the activities and strategies proposed within application.

Question 15b: If the current home visiting infrastructure in place, specifically the funding system and process constraints, limits the capability of an existing evidenced based program to be implemented at full capacity, can the funds be used to expand the infrastructure and remove the limitations to allow for expansion of families served in the community that are eligible to receive the evidenced based program?

Children’s Bureau response: It is entirely up to the applicant to propose a plan and activities that are responsive to the Evaluation criteria (pages 44-52) in the announcement.

Question 15c: Can we use funds to cover a percentage of salaries of staff delivering the evidenced based program?

Can we use funds for existing staff salaries to be better able to add additional staff to expand the ability to implement an evidenced based program?

16. Judie Hermann
Office Of Prevention Initiatives
Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services
608/261-8084
Judith.Hermann@Wisconsin.gov

Question 16a: It seems that the intent of the RFP is to establish the state wide infrastructure including evaluation of the program and coordination between systems; and identification of funding streams from various sources to support an evidenced based model of home visiting. Because of this, will this grant actually support the direct services of a home visitation model identified in the implementation phase, or will it only support the technical assistance and support of existing HV programs to provide the evidenced model chosen? In other words, will any of these new funds be available for expanding programs to new sites or expanding services within existing sites?

Question 16b: Please identify the HV models that are known to fit the evidentiary criteria. Specifically, do PAT and Healthy Families qualify?

Children’s Bureau response: The program announcement does not list specific home visitation programs or models and does not endorse a specific program as meeting the criteria for this announcement. Applicants must provide appropriate justification within their application to demonstrate and document how the home visitation model selected meets the criteria from the announcemnt. The actual selection of the evidence-based program/s is part of the Evaluation Criteria which will be used by the outside expert peer review panel to score and rate the applications submitted. The complete list of all the Evaluation criteria that will be used by the grant reviewers is listed on pages 44-52 of the grant announcement.

17. Holly McPhail
Program Coordinator
Healthy Families Florida
111 North Gadsden Street, Suite 200
Tallahassee, FL 32301
850.488.1752, Ext. 131
850.488.5562 (fax)
hmcphail@ounce.org

Question 17a: If a State is operating a statewide home visiting program and wants to enhance the program, does the evidentiary criteria outlined in the grant application apply to the core home visitation program or is the evidentiary criteria only required for the enhancement component to the home visiting program?

Children’s Bureau response: The evidentiary criteria applies to the evidence-based home visitation program/s selected by the applicant for replication and expansion.

Question 17b: HFNY is currently listed as “supported” under the CBCAP guidelines for identifying evidence-based programs. Will listing HFNY for evidentiary criteria qualify other HF programs to make enhancements to their existing projects?

Question 17c: The Appropriations Consolidated Bill Act states the Department will only fund RCTs evidence-based programs, however the criteria provided on pages 6-7 states “RCTs (or other comparable methodology) in highly controlled settings…” What is considered “other” comparable methods and which is the standard that we should reference in our application?

Children’s Bureau response: The announcement did not specifically define what the other comparable methodology would be. Applicants will need to articulate within the announcement how their selected home visitation program meets the criteria for evidenced-based programs in the announcement (pages 5-8). Applicants should also review the evaluation criteria listed on pages 44-52 to insure that the application addresses all the required elements.

Question 17d: Many of the “proven” models for home visiting included the use of incentives to keep participants engaged in evaluation. Has there been thought to the replication of such evaluation designs in real life settings? Are incentives permissible in the evaluation design for projects funded by this grant?

Children’s Bureau response: It is entirely up to the applicant to propose a plan and activities that are responsive to the Evaluation criteria (pages 44-52) in the announcement.

Question 17e: When choosing what model to cite for meeting the evidentiary criteria, is it necessary to use all the same outcomes and tools as the original project, or just similar outcomes and tools?

Children’s Bureau response: It is entirely up to the applicant to propose a plan and activities that are responsive to the Evaluation criteria (pages 44-52) in the announcement.

18. Karen S. Howard
Director of Policy & Government Affairs
Nurse-Family Partnership National Service Office
1900 Grant St., Suite 400, Denver, CO 80203-4304
Cell: 202.510.0929
Direct: 303.865.8386
Toll Free: 866.864.5226
karen.howard@nursefamilypartnership.org

Question 18a: Aren’t research or demonstration programs that modify or change core components of an evidence-based home visitation program model outside the scope of the grant program?

Children’s Bureau response: The focus of the announcement is on supporting the adoption, implementation, and sustaining of existing evidence-based home visitation programs that have strong fidelity to proven effective models (see p. 1 of the announcement).

Question 18b: Are direct services fundable activities under the grant program?

Children’s Bureau response: Funds are to support the planning and implementation of the selected evidence-based home visitation programs. Please refer to pages 1-2 of the program announcement which provide an overview of the types of infrastructure activities that the grant funds will support. The first year of the grant program is intended to be used as a planning year and direct services would not be an appropriate use of the funding for Year 1. Please refer to the description of the elements of the planning year on pages 10-13 of the grant announcement for more details. In addition, please refer to pages 11-12 in the announcement regarding the requirement for a fiscal leveraging plan. The goal of the fiscal leveraging plan is to identify the other sources of funding to support the actual direct services. In Years 2 through 5, grantees will implement the various components of the plan. Please refer to pages 14-15 of the grant announcement. In years 2-5, applicants will need to propose implementation activities that are responsive to the Evaluation criteria from the announcement (see pages 44-52).]

Question 18c: What is the definition of “direct services?”

Children’s Bureau response: The announcement does not provide a specific definition of direct services.

Question 18d: Can the Children’s Bureau provide examples of the types of appropriate evaluations that grantees may conduct to demonstrate the efficacy of their proposals under the Evaluation section of the Announcement (p. 15)?

Children’s Bureau response: We cannot provide specific examples of evaluations to prospective applicants. Please refer to the section on Evaluation and Implementation Projects on pages 15-17 of the grant announcement. In addition, applicants will need to propose an evaluation plan that sufficiently addresses the evaluation criteria listed in the announcement (see pp. 44-52).

Question 18e: What “other comparable methodology” meets the evaluation data requirements to demonstrate that a program is a supported or well-supported evidence-based program under the Evidence-Based Home Visitation section of the Announcement (p.6)?

Children’s Bureau response: The announcement did not specifically define what the other comparable methodology would be. Applicants will need to articulate within the announcement how their selected home visitation program meets the criteria for evidenced-based programs in the announcement (pages 5-8). Applicants also should review the evaluation criteria listed on pages 44-52 to insure that the application addresses all the required elements.

Question 18f: What are the “protective factors” associated with the prevention of abuse or neglect under the Evidence-Based Home Visitation Programs section of the Announcement (p. 6)?

Children’s Bureau response: The announcement did not specifically define protective factors or risk factors. However, the Background section of the announcement (see page 3, second paragraph) describes some short-term and intermediate positive outcomes of home visitation program such as “changes in parent knowledge and behavior, decreased stress, better family functioning, and access to needed services.” Examples of the highest risk factors for child maltreatment are described in the Background section which includes, “caregivers with problems with mental health, substance abuse, and domestic violence,” (see page 4, first full paragraph).

Question 18g: What entity or organization will conduct the national cross-site evaluation?

Children’s Bureau response: This has not yet been determined.

Question 18h: Will the Children’s Bureau seek input from the national offices of evidence-based programs during the planning phase of the grant program?

Children’s Bureau response: This has not yet been determined.

Supporting Evidence-Based Home Visitation Program to Prevent Child Maltreatment Responses to Questions from the Webinar from June 10, 2008 Final 6/26/08

Supporting Evidence-Based Home Visitation Program to Prevent Child Maltreatment
Responses to Questions from the Webinar from June 10, 2008
Final 6/26/08