Executive Summary:

These funds will support competitive grants to States, Tribes, and other eligible entities to support the infrastructure needed for the widespread adoption, implementation and sustaining of evidence-based home visitation programs. Funds will be used for efforts to expand and enhance home visitation programs based on proven effective models. Funds will support:

• Collaborative planning efforts to leverage other Federal, State and local investments of existing funding streams into evidence-based home visitation programs and practices; 
  
  
• A range of activities needed to build infrastructure systems that can fully adopt, implement, and sustain high quality home visitation programs that have strong fidelity to proven effective models;
  
  
• Rigorous local evaluations which include process/implementation, outcome, and cost analysis components.

Grants will be awarded for an initial planning phase in year 1 and, pending successful completion of that phase and approval from the Children's Bureau, funds for the implementation phase will be provided for years 2-5. During the planning phase, the grantees will engage in a collaborative process to develop a plan to build the infrastructure needed for the adoption, implementation and sustaining of the evidence-based home visitation programs. During the implementation phase, the grantees will implement their plan, conduct a rigorous local evaluation, and disseminate lessons learned to the field.

I. FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION

Legislative Authority

The legislative authority is Section 105 of The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, as amended (42 United States Code (U.S.C.) Section 5106).

Funding Opportunity Description

Purpose

These funds will support competitive grants to States, Tribes, and other eligible entities to support the infrastructure needed for the widespread adoption, implementation and sustaining of evidence-based home visitation programs. Funds will be used for efforts to expand and enhance home visitation programs based on proven effective models. Funds will support:

• Collaborative planning efforts to leverage other Federal, State and local investments of existing funding streams into evidence-based home visitation programs and practices; 
  
  
• A range of activities needed to build infrastructure systems that can fully adopt, implement, and sustain high quality home visitation programs that have strong fidelity to proven effective models;
   
• Rigorous local evaluations that include process/implementation, outcome, and cost analysis components.

Grants will be awarded for an initial planning phase in year 1 and, pending successful completion of that phase and approval from the Children's Bureau, funds for the implementation phase will be provided for years 2-5. During the planning phase, the grantees will engage in a collaborative process to develop a plan to build the infrastructure needed for the adoption, implementation and sustaining of the evidence-based home visitation programs. During the implementation phase, the grantees will implement their plan, conduct a rigorous local evaluation, and disseminate lessons learned to the field.

Background

Given the limited funding available to support human services programs and the push towards more accountability for outcomes, policymakers have become much more selective and insistent that funding support evidence-based programs that have demonstrated positive results. Over the last several years there has been sustained growth in the focus on identifying and using evidence-based programs and practices for a variety of disciplines such as health, mental health, substance abuse, education, juvenile justice, and child welfare programs. Prevention is the most important means available to address child maltreatment. There is a growing body of evidence that some home visitation programs can be a successful child maltreatment prevention strategy. 

Although there are a range of different models, the typical home visitation program uses home visiting as the primary strategy for the delivery of services to families. These services can include providing information about parenting and child development, linking families to other community services and resources and providing social support.  Through the efforts of the home visitor to engage and establish a strong relationship with the family, it is hoped that the program will produce short-term and intermediate positive outcomes such as changes in parent knowledge and behavior, decreased stress, better family functioning, and access to needed services. The long-term outcomes generally include better child health outcomes, better social and emotional support for the families, increased capacity of a parent to care for the child, and decreased abuse or neglect (Gomby, 2005). 

There is a sizable body of research, using both experimental and quasi-experimental study designs, that has evaluated the impact of a few nationally recognized home visitation programs (Duggan, Fuddy et al., 2004; Duggan, McFarlane et al., 2004; DuMont et al., 2006; Eckenrode et al., 2000). In addition, there have been a number of research reviews, meta-analyses, syntheses of findings and commentaries regarding the effectiveness of various home visitation programs (Bilukha et al., 2005; Chaffin, 2004; Gomby, 2005). A systematic review of the research on early childhood home visitation programs found that such approaches can prevent child maltreatment in high-risk families, with programs longer than two years having the strongest effects (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report/ Recommendations and Reports, October 3, 2003).

Nevertheless, not all home visitation programs have demonstrated positive impacts for all populations in preventing child maltreatment or improving parental capacity. The recent research does point to a need to better address the needs of families with the highest risk factors for child maltreatment such as those with caregivers with problems associated with mental health, substance abuse, and domestic violence. Some of the studies indicated that home visiting may be most effective for families where the initial need is the greatest and where parents are motivated to change and seek assistance (Gomby, 2005; Hahn et al., 2005; Littell & Schuerman, 2002). Other reviews also point to the importance of maintaining fidelity to the original model and the need for well-trained and well-supervised home visitors who can implement the original program as intended in order to produce positive impacts for families served.

Research has shown that home visitation, by trained nurses, in programs with strong performance monitoring and management systems, can reduce incidents of child abuse and neglect and improve other life outcomes for mothers and their children. In a well-known, randomized, longitudinal research trial, outcomes from one nurse home visitation program showed a nearly 80 percent reduction in rate of child maltreatment among at-risk families from birth through children's 15th year. Other research has shown that nurse home visits had a long-term positive effect on other family outcomes, such as reduced substance abuse, reduced arrests and convictions, greater work-force participation, reduced reliance on public assistance and food stamps, and reduced early sexual activity on the part of the children visited (Olds et al, 1994, 1997, 2000). 

Finally, there is a limited but emerging body of research using randomized controlled trials on other home visitation models that also have had positive impacts on child abuse and neglect and other related outcomes such as promoting the increase in protective factors and decreasing risk factors for children and caregivers served.

Many States currently are implementing various types of home visitation programs using Federal, State, local and private funding streams including Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant, Title IV-B, Subpart 2 of the Social Security Act, and the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) Title II. These efforts do not all follow proven effective models. Some States have an infrastructure in place, but are implementing a model that has not been proven effective. Many States are implementing a range of home visitation programs and need support and guidance on identifying, selecting, and sustaining the most appropriate evidence-based program for their local community needs. Many Tribes have limited capacity and resources to implement evidence-based home visitation programs but have significant and unique needs for these services.  States and Tribes also need guidance and support to maximize and leverage all other funding streams available so that investments in proven effective programs can be made. 

Over the last several years, State health and human services officials have demonstrated an interest in implementing evidence-based programs and practices within their systems, but have been constrained by limited resources in their ability to develop the knowledge base of how such programs can fit within their systems. Given the challenges and complexities of efforts to incorporate evidence-based practices within real-world settings, research regarding the implementation of evidence-based programs can provide a wealth of information about the factors that affect implementation. 

This grant program provides an opportunity to develop, build upon and/or enhance the existing infrastructure to support high quality evidence-based home visitation programs.  With the increased emphasis on identifying evidence-based programs and practices, equal attention also must be placed on mechanisms and support needed for the successful dissemination of research-based programs, and their adoption and implementation in direct practice.  While learning more about the factors that contribute to successful implementation of evidence-based practices, these grants also will simultaneously provide States and Tribes with opportunities to begin planning concrete quality improvement strategies. Finally, this grant program will contribute to the knowledge base regarding best practices in the adoption, implementation, and sustaining of evidence-based home visitation programs and practices. 

Evidence-based Home Visitation Programs

Several evidence-based home visitation programs have been "rigorously evaluated using randomized controlled trials, to produce sizable, sustained effects on important outcomes such as abuse and neglect"(from the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, P.L. 110-161), to increase protective factors, and to reduce risk factors for child maltreatment.

ACF considers several criteria to define "Supported" or "Well-Supported" evidence-based programs that are consistent with the 2008 Consolidated Appropriation Act report language and therefore eligible for funding under this grant announcement.  These criteria are the following:

• There must be no clinical or empirical evidence or theoretical basis indicating that the practice constitutes a substantial risk of harm to those receiving it, compared to its likely benefits. 
  
  
• The program must articulate a theory of change which specifies clearly identified outcomes and describes the activities that are related to those outcomes.  This is represented through the presence of a detailed logic model or conceptual framework that depicts the assumptions for the inputs and outputs that lead to the short, intermediate and long-term outcomes.  The program must have a book, manual, training or other available writings that specify components of the program and describes how to administer it.

In terms of the evaluation data, the research supporting the efficacy of the program or practice in producing positive outcomes associated with reducing risk and increasing protective factors associated with the prevention of abuse or neglect must meet both of the following criteria:

• At least two rigorous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (or other comparable methodology)  in highly controlled settings have found the practice to be superior to an appropriate comparison practice, and the RCTs have been reported in published, peer-reviewed literature.
  
  
• The program has been tested and replicated in other sites and settings.

In addition, the following criteria must be met:

• The program must demonstrate a sustained effect for at least one year beyond the end of treatment, with no evidence that the effect is lost after this time.  The program must also demonstrate a sizable effect which is a statistically significant difference between the treatment and comparison/control group. 
  
  
• The outcome measures must be reliable and valid, and administered consistently and accurately across all subjects.
  
  
• If multiple outcome studies have been conducted, the overall weight of evidence must support the efficacy of the practice.
  
  
• Finally, the program must be actively working on building stronger evidence through ongoing evaluation and continuous quality improvement activities. 

Applicants need to provide adequate justification and documentation within the application that the program meets the evidentiary criteria outlined above from the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008,  P.L. 110-16  (i.e., they have been "rigorously evaluated using randomized controlled trials, to produce sizable, sustained effects on important outcomes such as abuse and neglect")

For example, a well-designed evaluation of a program is one where the control group and treatment group are comparable except for the intervention. Results from a well-designed RCT that meet the evidentiary standards would show statistically significant effects over a number of years. For example, a study that found significantly fewer verified reports of child abuse or neglect, relative to a control group, would meet the standard for sustained effects if these effects were seen across two or more points in time.

Examples of evaluation studies that would not meet the design standards are:

• An evaluation using a pre-post study design;
  
  
• A study that found a reduction in child abuse relative to the control group in year 1 but no effect in year 2. (This does not meet the standard for sustained effects);
  
  
• An evaluation that showed a pattern of small effects but none that rise to statistical significance. (This does not constitute sizeable).

Justifying Selection of the Evidence-Based Home Visitation Model/s

Regardless of the evidence-based home visitation model selected, all applicants must show that the proposed programs are/will be appropriate for the target population(s). The applicant should provide information on research findings on the effectiveness and acceptability specific to the proposed target population, if available.

Selected References

Bilukha, O., Hahn, R. A., Crosby, A., Fullilove, M. T., Liberman, A., Moscicki, E., et al. (2005). The effectiveness of early childhood home visitation in preventing violence: A systematic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(2S1), 11-39.

Chaffin, M. (2004). Is it time to rethink Healthy Start/ Healthy Families? Child Abuse & Neglect, 28(2004), 589-595.

Daro, D.  (2006). Home Visiting: Assessing Progress, Managing Expectations.  Chicago:  Ounce of Prevention Fund and Chapin Hall Center for Children.

Duggan, A., McFarlane, E., Fuddy, L., Burrell, L., Higman, S.M., Windham, A., Sia, C.  (2004). Randomized trial of a statewide home visiting program to prevent child abuse:  Impact in preventing child abuse and neglect.  Child Abuse & Neglect, 28 (6), 623-643.

DuMont, K., Mitchell-Herzfeld, S., Greene, R., Lee, E., Lowenfels, A., & Rodriguez, M. (2006). Healthy Families New York Randomized Trial:  Impacts on Parenting After the First Two Years. New York: New York State Office of Children and Family Services.

Eckenrode, J. P., Ganzel, B. M. S., Henderson, C. R. J. M. A., Smith, E. P., Olds, D. L. P., Powers, J. P., et al. (2000). Preventing Child Abuse and Neglect With a Program of Nurse Home Visitation: The Limiting Effects of Domestic Violence. JAMA, 284(11), 1385-1391.

Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S.F., Blase, K.A., Friedman, R.M., Wallace, F.  (2005). Implementation Research:  A Synthesis of the Literature.  Tampa, FL:  University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, National Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publications #23).

Gershalter-Molko, R.M., Lutzker, J.R., Wesch, J.  (2003).  Project SafeCare: Improving health, safety and parenting skills in families at-risk for child maltreatment. Journal of Family Violence, 18(6), 377-386.

Gomby, D. (2005). Home Visitation in 2005:  Outcomes for Children and Parents. Sunnyvale, CA: Committee for Economic Development, Invest in Kids Working Group.

Kitzman, H., Olds, D.L., Sidora, K., Henderson C.R. Jr., Hanks, C., Cole R., Luckey, D.W., Bondy, J., Cole K., Glazner, J. (2000). Enduring effects of nurse home visitation on maternal life course: a 3-year follow-up of a randomized trial.  JAMA, 283(15): 1983-9.

Love, J.M., Kisker, E. E., Ross, C., Raikes, H., Constantine, J., Boller, K, et al. (2005). The effectiveness of Early Head Start for 3-year-old children and their parents: Lessons for policy and programs. Developmental Psychology, 41, 6, 885-901.

Olds, D.L., Henderson C.R., Jr, Kitzman H. (1994). Does prenatal and infancy nurse home visitation have enduring effects on qualities of parental caregiving and child health at 25 to 50 months of life? Pediatrics, 93(1): 89-98.

Olds, D.L., Eckenrode, J., Henderson, C.R., Jr., Kitzman, H., Powers, J., Cole, R., Sidora, K., Morris, P., Pettitt, L.M., Luckey, D. (1997). Long-term effects of home visitation on maternal life course and child abuse and neglect. Fifteen-year follow-up of a randomized trial. JAMA, 278(8): 637-43.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  (2006). Early Head Start Benefits Children and Families, Research to Practice Brief.  April 2006. Washington D.C.: Administration for Children and Families.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2008).  Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008. Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 2008.  (Public Law 110-161)  Excerpts for the Administration for Children and Families available at:  http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/olab/budget/2008/2008_consolidated_appropriations_act_pl110_161.htm

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  (2007).  Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration Identifying and Selecting Evidence-Based Interventions

http://download.ncadi.samhsa.gov/csap/spfsig/Final_SPFGuidance_Jan04_2007.pdf.

Weiss, H., Klein, L.G.  (2006). Changing the Conversation about Home Visiting:  Scaling Up with Quality.  Cambridge, MA:  Harvard Family Research Project.

Zigler, E., Pfannenstiel, J.C., Seitz, V. (in press). The Parents as Teachers program and school success: A replication and extension. Journal of Primary Prevention.    

Travel for Conferences and Presentations

Within three months after the award of the 12-month planning phase (Phase I) of the cooperative agreement, the project director, evaluator and/or other key staff must attend a 2-3 day kick-off meeting in Washington, D.C., with the other funded projects, the Federal Project Officer/s, and other staff and contractors of the Children's Bureau (CB) for the purpose of discussing details of the project work plan and cooperative agreement.

The budget for the 12-month planning phase should include funding for travel to the kick-off meeting, as well as funding for two key staff persons to attend the three-day CB annual grantees' meeting, usually held in the spring. In each of the four implementation years, the awardee must send only the project director and the evaluator to the annual grantee meeting. Grant funds should be budgeted for these travel expenses.

Required Grant Activities

CB will consider proposals from applicants that are interested in implementing or expanding one or more evidence-based home visitation programs.  For example, an applicant may want to implement two distinct home visitation programs for two different target populations within their jurisdiction.  Applicants must describe the process for selecting the home visitation model/s that they plan to implement in their jurisdiction. The application should describe the process that will be used to develop a plan to identify, select, prepare for, and evaluate the home visitation model(s) to be expanded and/or enhanced. In addition, the application should include a description of the activities to be conducted in the implementation phase during which the program model(s) will be executed and evaluated as well as how the lessons learned from the project will be disseminated to the field.

Phase I: Planning Phase (Year 1)

Grantees will be expected to initiate a 10-month collaborative planning process.   Applicants must collaborate with other relevant State and community agencies to plan the investment of Federal, State, local and private funding streams for evidence-based home visitation programs and to promote greater coordination of these related service delivery systems in order to expand and enhance the existing services.  The overall purpose is to insure that all relevant programs and funding streams are identified and included in these coordination efforts.  The culmination of this process will be the development of a plan to build the infrastructure needed for the widespread adoption, implementation and sustaining of the evidence-based home visitation program/s. 

The final plan should include, at a minimum, but is not limited to, the following elements:

• Identification of the lead agency that will be responsible for implementing the plan and coordinating with the other partner agencies, and a plan for providing management and oversight for this initiative as well as a plan for developing formal agreements with relevant agencies and service providers.
  
  
• A process for conducting a comprehensive inventory of existing and potential Federal, State, local, and private funding streams for home visitation as well as existing home visitation programs currently being funded and their evidence base.  The purpose of this inventory is to identify current and potential sources of funding for home visitation programs including, but not limited to: Title IV-B of the Social Security Act, Title V Maternal and Child Health Block grants, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Social Services Block Grant, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention block grant, Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act funds, and other State and local general and private funds. 
  
  
• Timeline for implementing the plan. 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. 
  
  
• Selection and identification process for the evidence-based home visitation model/s that the applicant has begun (or continue) to support. Where appropriate, a formal agreement must be in place to ensure that the original program developer will be supporting the replication effort. The application should identify the model/s selected and the plan submitted in Year 1 will confirm and document this process.  
  
  
• Fiscal leveraging plan and the mechanism for the disbursement of funds to support the home visitation programs. Plans also should include preliminary ideas for sustaining the programs beyond the grant period.  Funding provided through this program announcement will be used to support the overall planning and implementation of the selected programs.  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.
  
  
• Plans for working with the local home visitation programs funded through this initiative in order to facilitate the successful adoption, implementation, and sustaining of the evidence-based programs.    
• Plans for linking and coordinating the State and local home visitation services with other health and human services and formal and informal resources offered that comprise the continuum of care for families.
  
  
• Systematic screening and assessment processes to identify parents and caregivers who need to be referred to these home visitation programs. This may include screening at hospitals to insure that pregnant women, especially those exhibiting risk factors, are referred to these home visiting programs. The proposed plan for these processes should justify how the target population being served is consistent with the target population for the selected home visitation program model. 
  
  
• Provision for comprehensive training and technical assistance and support to programs implementing the evidence-based home visitation programs. This technical assistance may be provided by the developer of the program and/or other personnel who have the specific expertise to assist local programs with implementing these types of programs. At a minimum, the evidence-based program selected should have the capacity to provide the initial technical assistance and support to teams that will be assisting the local programs in implementing the model. This technical assistance also must address ways to ensure the quality of the supervision and coaching of the home visitors and their supervisors.
  
  
• Strategy for workforce recruitment and retention of the home visitors and other direct service staff who have the skills and capacity to deliver the high quality services to families.
  
  
• Plan for quality assurance systems to monitor the ongoing quality of various home visitation programs being funded and their fidelity to the original program. Plans also may support the development or enhancements of management information systems that can be used for quality assurance and oversight of programs.
  
  
• Plan for rigorously evaluating and testing the implementation of the various components of the initiative. The evaluation plan should include implementation (process), outcomes, and an economic evaluation component, with a cost analysis of this initiative being conducted at a minimum. Successful applicants will need to agree to collect common cross-site outcomes, measures, and costs for a national cross-site evaluation.

Applicants should describe their plan to work with the developers of the evidence-based models/curricula they propose to implement, including obtaining training and technical assistance (T/TA) and other program resources, requesting training and certification of providers, and seeking accreditation of programs.

CB is very interested in interagency collaborative efforts across various disciplines with common target populations and shared outcomes. As a result, applicants must collaborate with the following entities in the development of the plan and the subsequent implementation:

• State or local child welfare agency
• Designated lead agency for the Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention Program (see www.friendsnrc.org for a list of contacts). 

In addition, CB strongly recommends that applicants also collaborate with the following entities, when feasible and appropriate:

• Maternal and Child Health Early Childhood Comprehensive Systems grantees (see http://www.state-eccs.org/ for a list of contacts).

• Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) funded Project LAUNCH grantees (a limited number of States, Territories, and Tribes will be funded to plan for comprehensive early child wellness programs and implement local pilots in FY2008. A list of these grantees will be shared with successful applicants).

Near the end of year 1, approximately 10 months after the initial award, the grantee will be required to submit their draft implementation plan for review and approval by CB. A revised plan that incorporates the recommendations of CB may be required. Continuation funding for years 2-5 will be contingent upon CB's final approval of the plan.

Phase 2: Implementation Phase (Years 2-5)

In Phase I: Planning Year, grantees will develop a comprehensive and collaborative implementation plan to build the infrastructure for the home visiting program model(s) that will be adopted, evaluated and sustained during the 4-year implementation phase. The plan that will result from the Planning Phase will provide a roadmap for the partners to follow as they expand or enhance home visiting services, conduct rigorous evaluations and disseminate the project's learning to the field.  

In years 2 through 5, the grantees will implement the various components of their plan and work closely with CB to share lessons learned along the way and disseminate best practices in their efforts to support evidence-based home visitation programs in their jurisdiction.  The application should describe the critical components of their proposed implementation phase. These critical components should include, at a minimum:

1. The administrative structure for the project, including the lead agency, the relevant partners, and the proposed contents of the agreements across agencies and service providers. 
   
   
2. The results of the comprehensive inventory of funding sources and existing home visiting programs to be used for replication and identification of resources for supporting service delivery efforts.
   
   
3. Arrangements for technical assistance to programs including collaboration with the original designer/developer of the home visiting model(s) selected to support the replication effort, ensure fidelity to the model(s) and provide for quality service provision. 
   
   
4. A process for instituting the selected approach (pilot or phased-in) to introduce the model(s) and expand and enhance services based on initial learning. 
   
   
5. A strategy for information dissemination, including fostering and strengthening communication and coordination activities with other grantees and with CB's Training and Technical Assistance Network including CB's National Resource Centers, the National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect and Child Welfare Information Gateway.
   
   
6. Identification of linkages with appropriate agencies, organizations, and resources on the local, regional, State, Tribal or Federal levels that address issues pertaining to the prevention and treatment of child abuse and neglect through the use of evidence-based home visitation programs.

Evaluation

ACF expects that projects funded under this program announcement will develop a knowledge base around successful strategies for the implementation, adoption and sustaining of evidence-based home visitation models. ACF is interested in learning about the success of funded programs in developing a comprehensive plan that involves the relevant partners; encouraging the investment of existing funding streams for evidence-based home visitation programs; the factors associated with the successful implementation of the programs; maintaining fidelity to a model; their sustainability and suitability for replication; and their overall cost-effectiveness and cost benefit. ACF is especially interested in the use of participatory or utilization-focused evaluation approaches that emphasize the use of data to help guide program planning and implementation throughout the grant period.

It will be most important to understand the impact of funded projects on building the infrastructure needed to implement and sustain evidence-based home visitation programs that can prevent child maltreatment. Given the scarce resources available for prevention programs and the push to establish cost efficiency measures, programs should conduct a cost analysis that will provide State, local, and Tribal policy makers with the information they need to make more thoughtful decisions about resource allocation in their communities.

ACF has a particular interest in projects that develop knowledge about:

• Factors associated with developing or enhancing the infrastructure to support and monitor the quality of evidence-based programs;
  
  
• Effective strategies for adopting, implementing and sustaining evidence-based home visitation programs;
  
  
• Effective strategies to encourage the investment of existing funding streams for evidence-based home visitation programs.
  
  
• The conditions under which evidence-based programs can be implemented with fidelity on a large scale (i.e., What are the types of providers, organizations, communities, or infrastructures that are most effective?); and
  
  
• The outcomes and cost-effectiveness of supporting evidence-based programs.
  
  

In order to compare outcomes, it would be acceptable for a grantee to test different implementation strategies. Examples of this could include testing different approaches for providing training and technical assistance on the evidence-based home visitation programs within different jurisdictions. Applicants are encouraged to propose and justify other methods of comparing outcomes produced by various combinations of implementation activities.

Projects are expected to allocate a minimum of ten percent of the project budget each year to evaluation.

Funded programs will be asked to track the same/similar outcomes, using the same/similar tools as the evidence-based models being implemented, so it will be possible to compare the implementation and outcomes of the funded programs with the implementation and outcomes of these same models that have already been implemented and evaluated. In addition, CB anticipates funding a national cross-site evaluation contract for programs funded under this announcement and will work with the grantees to identify common cross-site measures for processes, outcomes, and costs.

Applications should include a logic model or conceptual framework that shows the linkages between the proposed planning and implementation activities and the outcomes that they hope to achieve. (For assistance in developing a logic model, see http://toolkit.childwelfare.gov/toolkit/).

Implementation Projects

Activities funded under this funding announcement are implementation projects. At CB, an implementation project is one that puts into place and tests new, unique, or distinctive approaches for delivering services to a specific population.

Implementation projects may test whether a program or service that has proven successful in one location or setting can work in a different context. Implementation projects may test a theory, idea, or method that reflects a new and different way of thinking about service delivery. Implementation projects may be designed to address the needs of a very specific group of clients or focus on one service component available to all clients. The scope of these projects may be broad and comprehensive or narrow and targeted to specific populations. For this announcement, an implementation project must:

1. Implement an evidence-based model with specific components or strategies that are based on theory, research, or evaluation data; or replicate or test the transferability of successfully evaluated program models;
   
   
2. Determine the effectiveness of the planning process and implementation strategies using a rigorous evaluation approach; and
   
   
3. Produce detailed procedures and materials based on the evaluation that will contribute to and promote evidence-based strategies, practices, and programs that may be used to guide large scale replication or testing, and to encourage the investment in these types of programs in other settings. 

ACF will expect grantees to engage in an evaluation of sufficient rigor to demonstrate potential linkages between project activities and improved outcomes. Guided by a logic model for the project, this evaluation will include process/implementation, outcomes, and cost evaluation components. The process evaluation will assess the implementation of the project, as well as the linkages between the collaborative partners that will help ensure that identified needs of children and families are met. The outcomes component will use a sufficiently rigorous approach to examine how the approaches used in this demonstration project affect key outcomes of interest. The evidence from the evaluation will support evidence-based practice and provide examples of implementation strategies that are tied to positive outcomes for children and families.

Project Requirements

The acceptance of funds for projects responsive to this announcement will signify the applicant's assurance that it will comply with the following requirements:

1. Have the project fully functioning within 90 days following the notification of the award of the cooperative agreement.
   
   
2. Participate in a national evaluation or a technical assistance contract that relates to this funding announcement.
   
   
3. Submit to the Federal Project Officer and Grants Management Specialist (as requested) all performance indicator data, program and financial reports in a timely manner, in recommended format (to be provided). CB prefers and will accept the final report on disk or electronically using a standard word-processing program.
   
   
4. Submit an original and two copies of the final report, the evaluation report, and any program products to CB within 90 days of the project end date.  Grantees will also be expected to submit their final, de-identified outcome and cost data to the National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect within 90 days of the project end date. 
   
   
5. Allocate sufficient funds in the budget to:
   1. Provide for the project director, the evaluator, and other key partners to attend a 2-3 day kickoff meeting for grantees funded under this program announcement to be held within the first three months of the project (first year only) in Washington, D.C.
      
      
   2. Provide for the project director and the evaluator to attend an annual three-day grantees' meeting in Washington, D.C., each grant year.
      
      
   3. Commit a minimum of ten percent of the project budget each year to evaluation.

II. AWARD INFORMATION

Substantial Involvement with Cooperative Agreement:

A cooperative agreement is a specific method of awarding Federal assistance in which substantial Federal involvement is anticipated. A cooperative agreement clearly defines the respective responsibilities of CB and the grantee prior to the award. CB anticipates that agency involvement will produce programmatic benefits to the recipient otherwise unavailable to them for carrying out the project. The involvement and collaboration includes:

• CB review and approval of planning stages of the activities before implementation phases may begin;

• CB involvement in the establishment of policies and procedures that maximize open competition, and rigorous and impartial development, review and funding of cooperative agreement or sub-grant activities, if applicable;
  
  
• CB and recipient joint collaboration in the performance of key programmatic activities (e.g., strategic planning, implementation, information technology enhancements, T/TA, publications or products, and evaluation);
  
  
• Close monitoring by CB of the requirements stated in this announcement that limit the grantee's discretion with respect to scope of services offered, organizational structure and management processes; and
  
  
• Close CB monitoring during performance, which may, in order to ensure compliance with the intent of this funding, exceed those Federal stewardship responsibilities customary for grant activities.

Awards under this announcement are subject to the availability of funds.

III. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION

1. Eligible Applicants:

• State governments
• County governments
• Local Governments
• City or township governments
• Regional Organizations
• U.S. Territory or Possession
• Public and State-controlled institutions of higher education
• Indian/Native American Tribal governments (Federally recognized)
• Indian/Native American Tribal organizations (other than Federally recognized)
• Indian/Native American Tribally Designated Organizations
• Public/Indian Housing Authorities
• Non-profits with 501(c)(3) IRS status (other than institutions of higher education)
• Non-profits without 501(c)(3) IRS status (other than institutions of higher education)
• Private institutions of higher education
• Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions
• Special district governments

State child welfare agencies, Tribes, child maltreatment prevention organizations, health departments, hospitals, and community-based organizations are encouraged to apply.

Applicants should demonstrate their organizational capacity to manage the proposed project and consider their current capacity to implement evidence-based programs. Jurisdictions serving a smaller population or a more limited geographic range may want to apply for different levels of funding.

Collaborative efforts and interdisciplinary approaches are encouraged. Applications from collaborative groups must identify a primary applicant responsible for administering the grants.

Collaboration partners must include organizations with child maltreatment prevention and home visitation experience and expertise. Other partners could include child welfare organizations and other health or human service agencies.

Faith-based and community organizations that meet the statutory eligibility requirements are eligible to apply under this announcement.

Foreign entities are not eligible under this announcement.

2. Cost Sharing or Matching: Yes

Grantees are required to meet a non-Federal share of the project costs. Grantees must provide at least 10 percent of the total approved cost of the project. The total approved cost of the project is the sum of the ACF share and the non-Federal share. The non-Federal share may be met by cash or in-kind contributions, although applicants are encouraged to meet their match requirements through cash contributions. For example, in order to meet the match requirements, a project with a total approved project cost of $555,555, requesting $500,000 in ACF funds, must provide a non-Federal share of at least $55,555 (10 percent of total approved project cost of $555,555.) The following example shows how to calculate the required 10 percent match amount for a $500,000 grant:

                        $500,000         (Federal share)

divided by                  .90         (100 percent - 10 percent)

equals               $555,555         (total project cost including match)

minus                $500,000         (Federal share)

equals                 $55,555         (required 10 percent match)

Grantees will be held accountable for commitments of non-Federal resources even if they exceed the amount of the required match. The non-Federal share match will be reported semi-annually using the SF-269 Financial Status Report (see Section VI.3). Failure to provide the required amount will result in the disallowance of Federal funds. A lack of supporting documentation (e.g., letters of commitment, budgets from third-party sources) at the time of application will not exclude the application from competitive review.

3. Other:

Disqualification Factors

IV. APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION

1. Address to Request Application Package:

2. Content and Form of Application Submission:

Each application must contain the following items in the order listed:

Application for Federal Assistance. (Standard Form (SF) 424). Follow the instructions that accompany the form.

Budget Information. Non-Construction Programs (SF-424A) and Budget Justification. Follow the instructions that accompany the form and those in Section V, Application Review Information.

Certifications/Assurances. See Forms, Assurances, and Certifications below.

Project Summary/Abstract (one page maximum, double spaced). Clearly mark this page with the applicant name as shown on SF-424, identify the program announcement and the title of the proposed project as shown on SF-424 and the service area as shown on SF-424. The summary description should not exceed 300 words.

Care should be taken to produce a summary/abstract that accurately and concisely reflects the proposed project. It should describe the objectives of the project, the approach to be used, and the results or benefits expected.

The Project Description. Applicants should organize their project description in this sequence: 1) Objectives and Need for Assistance; 2) Approach; 3) Evaluation; 4) Organizational Profiles; and 5) Budget and Budget Justification.  

Non-Federal Resources. Provide a letter of commitment verifying the actual amount of the non-Federal share of project costs (see Sections III.2 and V).

Indirect Charges. If claiming indirect costs, provide documentation that the applicant currently has an indirect cost-rate approved by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) or another cognizant Federal agency.

Third-Party Agreements. If applicable, include a letter of commitment or Memorandum of Understanding from each partner and/or sub-contractor describing their role, detailing specific project tasks to be performed, and expressing commitment to participate if the proposed project is funded. Note: General letters of support are not required and are not considered under the evaluation criteria.

Staff and Position Data.  Include job descriptions, and curricula vitae and/or resumes for proposed project staff.

Page Limit. The application limit is 75 pages. Pages over this page limit will be removed from the application and will not be reviewed. This page limit does not include standard forms 424, 424A, 424B, certifications, assurances, third-party agreements, letters of commitment, job descriptions, resumes and curricula vitae.

General Content and Form Information. To be considered for funding, each application must be submitted with the Standard Federal Forms (provided at the end of this announcement or through the electronic links provided) and following the guidance provided. The application must be signed by an individual authorized to act for the applicant agency and to assume responsibility for the obligations imposed by the terms and conditions of the award.

The application must be typed, double spaced, printed on only one side, with at least 1-inch margins on each side and 1 inch at the top and bottom, using standard 12-Point fonts (such as Times New Roman or Courier). All pages must be numbered. When spacing, margins, and font instructions are not followed, excess pages will be removed and will not be reviewed.

All copies of an application must be submitted in a single package, and a separate package must be submitted for each funding opportunity. The package must be clearly labeled for the specific funding opportunity it is addressing.

Because each application will be duplicated, do not use or include separate covers, binders, clips, tabs, plastic inserts, maps, brochures or any other items that cannot be processed easily on a photocopy machine with an automatic feed. Do not bind, clip, staple or fasten in any way separate subsections of the application, including supporting documentation. Use a clip (not a staple) to securely bind the application together. Applicants are advised that the copies of the application submitted, not the original, will be reproduced by the Federal Government for review.

Tips for Preparing a Competitive Application. It is essential that applicants read the entire announcement package carefully before preparing an application and include all of the required application forms and attachments. The application must reflect a thorough understanding of and support the purpose and objectives of the applicable legislation.  Reviewers expect applicants to understand the goals of the legislation and CB's interest in each topic. A "responsive application" is one that addresses and follows all of the evaluation criteria in ways that demonstrate this understanding. Applications that are considered to be "unresponsive" or do not clearly address the evaluation criteria or program requirements generally receive very low scores and are rarely funded.

CB's website (http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb) provides a wide range of information and links to other relevant websites. Before preparing an application, applicants can learn more about CB's mission and programs by exploring the website.

Organizing the Application. Reviewers will use the specific evaluation criteria in Section V of this funding announcement to review and evaluate each application. The applicant should address each of these specific evaluation criteria in the project description. Applicants should organize their project description in this sequence: 1) Objectives and Need for Assistance; 2) Approach; 3) Evaluation; 4) Organizational Profiles; and 5) Budget and Budget Justification. The applicant must use the same headings as these criteria, so that reviewers can readily find information that directly addresses each of the specific review criteria.

Logic Model. A logic model is a tool that presents the conceptual framework for a proposed project and explains the linkages among program elements. While there are many versions of the logic model, they generally summarize the logical connections among the needs that are the focus of the project, project goals and objectives, the target population, project inputs (resources), the proposed activities/processes/outputs directed toward the target population, the expected short- and long-term outcomes the initiative is designed to achieve, and the evaluation plan for measuring the extent to which proposed processes and outcomes actually occur. Information on the development of logic models is available at: http://childwelfare.gov/preventing/developing/toolkit/.

Evaluation. Project evaluations are very important. If the applicant does not have the in-house capacity to conduct an objective, comprehensive evaluation of the project, then CB advises that the applicant contract with a third-party evaluator specializing in social science or evaluation, or a university or college, to conduct the evaluation.  In either case, it is important that the evaluator has the necessary independence from the project to assure objectivity. A skilled evaluator can help develop a logic model and assist in designing an evaluation strategy that is rigorous and appropriate given the goals and objectives of the proposed project. Additional assistance may be found in a document titled "Program Manager's Guide to Evaluation."  A copy of this document can be accessed at: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/other_resrch/pm_guide_eval/reports/pmguide/pmguide_toc.html.

Protection of Human Subjects. Evaluation plans that include obtaining identifiable private information about clients may involve non-exempt human subjects research and require compliance with the HHS Protection of Human Subjects regulations (45 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 46). Applicants proposing such research are asked to describe: (a) the procedures for protecting the privacy of clients and ensuring the confidentiality of data collected about clients; and (b) the process for obtaining institutional review board (IRB) review of the proposed evaluation plans. While IRB approval is not required at the time of award, applicants proposing non-exempt human subjects research will be required, as a condition of award, to hold a Federal-wide Assurance (FWA) approved by the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) and to provide certification to ACF that an IRB designated under the FWA has reviewed and approved the research prior to enrolling any subjects in the proposed evaluation. Certifications of IRB approval may be submitted to ACF using the form at: http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/assurance/OF310.rtf.

General information about the HHS Protection of Human Subjects regulations can be obtained at: http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp. Applicants may also contact OHRP by email (ohrp@csophs.dhhs.gov) or by phone (240-453-6900).

D-U-N-S Requirement

Proof of Non-Profit Status

Forms, Assurances, and Certifications

3. Submission Dates and Times:

Due Date for Applications: 07/21/2008

Explanation of Due Dates

Receipt acknowledgement for application packages will not be provided to applicants who submit their package via mail, courier services, or by hand delivery.   Applicants will receive an electronic acknowledgement for applications that are submitted via http://www.Grants.gov.

Checklist

You may use the checklist below as a guide when preparing your application package.

4. Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs:

State Single Point of Contact (SPOC)

5. Funding Restrictions:

6. Other Submission Requirements:

Submission by Mail

Hand Delivery

V. APPLICATION REVIEW INFORMATION

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-13)

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 40 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining the data needed and reviewing the collection information.

The project description is approved under OMB control number 0970-0139, which expires 4/30/2010.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

1. Criteria:

Part I   THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION OVERVIEW

PURPOSE

GENERAL EXPECTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

Part II   GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARING A FULL PROJECT DESCRIPTION

INTRODUCTION

EVALUATION CRITERIA:

OBJECTIVES AND NEED FOR ASSISTANCE - 20 points

In reviewing the objectives and need for assistance, reviewers will consider the extent to which: 

APPROACH - 35 points

In reviewing the approach, reviewers will consider the extent to which: 

EVALUATION - 20 points

In reviewing the evaluation plan, reviewers will consider the extent to which: 

ORGANIZATIONAL PROFILES - 20 points

BUDGET AND BUDGET JUSTIFICATION - 5 points

In reviewing the budget and budget justification, reviewers will consider the extent to which: 

1. The costs of the proposed project are reasonable, thoroughly justified, and appropriate in view of the activities to be conducted and expected results and benefits.

2. The applicant's fiscal controls and accounting procedures would ensure prudent use, proper and timely disbursement, and accurate accounting of funds received under this program announcement.
   
   
3. The applicant has committed a minimum of 10 percent of the project budget each year to evaluation.
   
   
4. The applicant provides sufficient detail on the source(s) of the required 10 percent project match. 

2. Review and Selection Process:

A panel of at least three reviewers (primarily experts from outside the Federal Government) will use the evaluation criteria described in this announcement to evaluate each application. The reviewers will determine the strengths and weaknesses of each application, provide comments about the strengths and weaknesses, and give each application a numerical score.

The results of the competitive review are a primary factor in making funding decisions. In addition, Federal staff conducts administrative reviews of the applications and, in light of the results of the competitive review, will recommend applications for funding to the Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF) Commissioner.  ACYF reserves the option of discussing applications with other funding sources when this is in the best interest of the Federal Government. ACYF may also solicit and consider comments from ACF Regional Office staff in making funding decisions. ACYF may take into consideration the involvement (financial and/or programmatic) of the private sector, national, or State or community foundations; a favorable balance between Federal and non-Federal funds for the proposed project; or the potential for high benefit from low Federal investment. ACYF may elect not to fund any applicants having known management, fiscal, reporting, programmatic or other problems that make it unlikely that they would be able to provide effective services or effectively complete the proposed activity.

With the results of the peer review and the information from Federal staff, the Commissioner of ACYF makes the final funding decisions. The Commissioner may give special consideration to applications proposing services of special interest to the Federal Government and achieving geographic distribution of cooperative agreements.  Applications of special interest may include, but are not limited to, applications focusing on underserved or inadequately served clients or service areas and programs addressing diverse ethnic populations.

Available Funds. Applicants should note that grants to be awarded under this program announcement are subject to the availability of funds.

3. Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates:

VI. AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION

1. Award Notices:

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements:

3. Reporting Requirements:

VII. AGENCY CONTACTS

Program Office Contact:

Melissa Brodowski
Children's Bureau
1250 Maryland Avenue, SW.
Washington, DC 20024
Phone:  202-205-2629
Email: melissa.brodowski@acf.hhs.gov
TTY or TTD: ACYF/ Operations Center
Phone: TTY 711

Grants Management Office Contact:

Lisa Dammar, Grants Officer
Division of Discretionary Grants
ACYF Operations Center
c/o The Dixon Group, Inc. ATTN: Children's Bureau
118 Q St., NE.
Washington, DC 20002-2132
Phone:  866-796-1591
Phone 2:  or TTY 711
Email: cb@dixongroup.com

VIII. OTHER INFORMATION

Pre-Application Conference. CB will be sponsoring a pre-application conference for all parties interested in applying for funding under this program announcement.

The purpose of the conference is to respond to questions about the program announcement. The pre-application conference for this program announcement will be held on June 10 at 11:00 am ET and will be repeated on June 10 at 4:00 pm ET. The period during which questions will be received as part of the pre-application conference will open on June 10 at 11:00 am ET and will close on June 11 at 5:00 pm ET.

A recording and transcript of the applicant conference will be posted at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/grants/grants_cb.html following the conference and at least 30 days prior to the application due date; it will be available until the closing date of the announcement.

Information pertaining to this pre-application conference can be found at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/grantreview/ or by contacting the ACYF Operations Center, c/o The Dixon Group, Inc. ATTN: Children's Bureau, 866-796-1591 or TTY 711, cb@dixongroup.com.

Additional information about this program and its purpose can be located on the following website: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/

For general information regarding this announcement please contact:

ACYF Operations Center
c/o The Dixon Group, Inc.
ATTN: Children's Bureau
118 Q St., NE.
Washington, D.C. 20002-2132
Phone: 866-796-1591 or TTY 711

Email: cb@dixongroup.com

Posted on May 22, 2008