Executive Summary:

I. FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION

Statutory Authority

Description

Purpose

BACKGROUND

Increasingly, service providers inside and outside government, are being held accountable for achieving results and for demonstrating that the services they provide are supported by strong evaluation research indicating their effectiveness. To complement this ongoing shift, over the last several years the field has seen sustained growth in the focus on identifying and using evidence-based programs and practices for health and human service programs. The Federal Government has been a strong proponent of the movement towards evidence-based and evidence-informed practice.

Driven by statutes, policy, principles, and a commitment to the children, youth and families they serve, those working in child abuse prevention and child welfare are striving to identify and implement models of practice that prevent abuse and neglect and intervene effectively. Despite these efforts, the body of evidence-based practices in these fields remains limited and rigorous evaluation to bolster the research base is needed. In addition, the complexity of the problems, issues, and populations being served in child abuse prevention programs presents a number of challenges to program evaluation utilizing a randomized control trial design. While randomized control trials (RCT) are often viewed as the gold standard for testing and establishing effectiveness, some have expressed a view that RCT may not be appropriate in all evaluation settings. Other important and equally rigorous frameworks and methods exist that may have distinct advantages under specific circumstances in the field of child abuse prevention.  Alternatives to RCTs may offer resolutions to certain circumstances and issues related to feasibility and resource availability of program evaluation in States and communities in general and in work with high risk populations.

In order to address some of these concerns and further disseminate new and developing knowledge regarding promising effective practices in the field of child abuse prevention, CB developed and published in 2003 Emerging Practices in Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention. This report sought to describe the current landscape of prevention by collecting information about effective and innovative programs and additionally noted that a strong need to expand the existing knowledge base about the effectiveness of child abuse prevention program models was needed. In FY 2003, responding to the need to increase the knowledge base about effective, promising practices in child abuse and neglect prevention and family support and family preservation programs, CB funded a cluster of nine field-initiated evaluations of existing, but previously unevaluated programs. The grantees selected a wide array of existing initiatives to evaluate. These included home visitation programs, the use of public awareness and media campaigns, programs targeting the increase of father involvement and adoption and family reunification programs. As required by the FY 2003 announcement, each of these studies incorporated various rigorous methodological approaches including randomized control trials, random sample surveys, analysis of retrospective data and process evaluation strategies. Many of the investigations yielded positive findings, but faced numerous challenges. These challenges included small samples sizes and short time-frames that created limitations in determining outcomes and generalizability of the research. Many gaps in relevant knowledge regarding evidence-based and evidence-informed programs and service models remain.

Therefore, the purpose of this program announcement is to further and expand upon previous efforts to encourage and support rigorous evaluation of programs and service strategies that continue to develop the evidence base in the child abuse and neglect prevention field. These awards are for the evaluation of a fully-operational child abuse prevention program that has not previously been rigorously evaluated. Funds from this award are not to be used for prevention activities, interventions, or the delivery of services, and may only be used for the evaluation of a prevention program or service model. The evaluation may be of an established prevention program, or of an operational but new prevention program.

To date, few child abuse prevention programs have undergone rigorous evaluation. The purpose of this program announcement is to increase knowledge in this area. Applicants are expected to provide information demonstrating the completion of a review (an evaluability assessment) indicating that the program is at an appropriate stage for the evaluation model proposed by the applicant.  Applicants are also expected to present evidence that the study will be of sufficient quality, size and scope to make a significant contribution to the field.

Project Expectations

Applicants should propose a rigorous evaluation plan. Experimental designs involving random assignment to treatment and control groups are the preferred method for determining the intervention impacts. An applicant may propose another type of evaluation research design but must include an adequate description and justification that the proposed design is the most rigorous design possible for addressing the questions of interest.  For example, the applicant may propose statistical alternatives to random assignment, such as regression discontinuity designs or propensity score matching; economic evaluations (i.e. cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit or other types of cost analyses); innovative/non-traditional methods such as qualitative, ethnographic research; participatory and utilization-focused research (i.e. involving the parents/line staff in the planning, implementation and evaluation process at every step); or network analysis to assess effectiveness and strength of collaborative efforts. Additionally, applicants may choose to conduct a utilization-focused evaluation and cost analysis to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the program/model and its components or strategies.

The proposed evaluation plan should measure the effects of the proposed project on safety, permanency and well-being. Applicants are strongly encouraged to review the data indicators measured in CB's Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs) in identifying the outcomes they want to measure. Findings from the evaluation should support evidence-based practice and provide communities with examples of strategies that are tied to positive outcomes for children, youth and families.

Specifically the project's evaluation plan should use performance indicators that focus on increasing the safety, permanency and well-being of children, youth and families being served by the supported projects. The proposed evaluation plan should yield data that can be compared to, and contrasted with, State, regional and national level CFSR data, as appropriate.

Under this program announcement, the program or project to be evaluated and the research focus of the evaluation must be of sufficient scope and magnitude to merit intensive investigation. The evaluation focus should have national implications, and the findings from the evaluation should have high probability of significantly advancing theory, policy, and evidence-based practice in the field. Therefore, the program or project to be evaluated must have a sufficient number of subjects to support a rigorous, methodologically sound research and evaluation plan.

The findings from evaluation projects supported under this program announcement are expected to provide insights into more effective approaches to the delivery of services in the area of prevention and child welfare service provision. While applicants will be accorded considerable latitude in the selection of the program to be evaluated and the proposed focus of the evaluation, CB is interested in evaluation projects that are likely to address one or more of the following goals:

• Expand the current knowledge base;
• Build on prior research;
• Contribute to practice enhancements;
• Promote new and innovative approaches to evaluation research in child abuse and neglect prevention;
• Inform policy;
• Improve science; and/or
• Contribute to the continued expansion of knowledge about the prevention of child maltreatment.

Applicants may choose to submit proposals to conduct an evaluation of an existing and/or established program or they may choose to track the outcomes for a newly created or existing program. Programs that are being considered for evaluation must be fully operational at the time the award under this program announcement will be made.

Additional Project Requirements

Projects funded under this program announcement will be expected to:

1. Have a strategy for information dissemination, including fostering and strengthening communication and coordination activities with the National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect, Child Welfare Information Gateway, the Child-Based Child Abuse Prevention (CBCAP) Program, the National Resource Center on CBCAP and other relevant and appropriate members of CB's Training and Technical Assistance Network. Information disseminated will include both evaluation findings and lessons learned from the process of planning and implementing the evaluation of the prevention program.

2. Submit all program and financial reports in a timely manner, in the recommended formats (to be provided). CB prefers and will accept the final report on disk or electronically using a standard word processing program, however, grantees are only required to provide the original and two copies of performance progress and final reports.

3. Submit an original and two copies of the final evaluation report and any program products to CB within 90 days of the project end date.

4. Allocate sufficient funds in the budget to:

   • Provide for the project director, and other key partners to attend an early 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.
   • Provide for the project director, and other key partners to attend an annual three day grantees' meeting in Washington, D.C.
5. Ensure project activities are initiated within 90 days following the notification of the award.

II. AWARD INFORMATION

Explanation of Other:

In the first budget period, the maximum Federal share of each project is not to exceed $200,000. The projects awarded will be for a project period of 60 months. The initial grant award will be for a 12-month budget period. The award of continuation beyond each 12-month budget period will be subject to the availability of funds, satisfactory progress on the part of the grantee, and a determination that continued funding would be in the best interest of the government. 

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

Please see Section IV.5 for any restrictions on the use of funds for awards made under this announcement.

III. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION

1. Eligible Applicants

• State governments
• County governments
• Local governments
• Indian/Native American Tribal governments (Federally recognized)
• Indian/Native American Tribally Designated Organizations
• Public and State-controlled institutions of higher education
• 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
• For-profit organizations (other than small businesses)
• Small businesses

Foreign entities are not eligible under this announcement.

Faith-based and community organizations are eligible to apply under this announcement.

Please see "Eligibility Certification" found in Section IV.2 for any required documentation supporting eligibility.

2. Cost Sharing or Matching: None

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, SF-424A and SF-424-B). Follow the instructions that accompany the forms and those in Section V, Application Review Information. Note that Federal funds and services or other resources purchased with Federal funds may not be used to match project awards.

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

Table of Contents. List the major sections of the application, and show the page that each section begins on.

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) Organizational Profiles; and 4) Budget and Budget Justification.  

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 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 not expressing specific commitments are not required and will not be considered by reviewers under the evaluation criteria.

Staff and Position Data.  Include job descriptions and curriculum vitae/ resumes for proposed project staff.

Page Limit. The length of the entire application package must not exceed 110 pages. This includes but is not limited to the required Federal Standard Forms and certifications (SF-424, SF-424A, SF-424B, and Certification Regarding Lobbying) table of contents, project summary, project description, logic model, budget/budget justification, supplemental documentation, proof of non-profit status, summaries of sub-grants and contracts, letters of agreement, and any other pages included in the application package.

All pages of the application package must be sequentially numbered, beginning with page one. All pages of each application will be counted to determine total length. All pages exceeding the 110 page limit will be removed and will not be considered in the reviewing process. A cover letter and general letters of support are not required. Applicants are reminded that if a cover letter and general letters of support are submitted, they will count towards the 110-page limit.

Each applicant must organize its application in the order listed in this section and number all application pages. Pages will be counted in the order they are submitted in hard copy and numbered when received electronically. All pages that exceed the page limit will be removed and will not be reviewed.

General Content and Form Information. To be considered for funding, each application must be submitted with the Standard Federal Forms and must follow 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 project description must be typed and double-spaced on a single side of 8 1/2 x 11 inch plain white paper with a least one inch margins on all sides, using black print with 12-point size Times New Roman font.

For charts, budget tables, supplemental letters and documents, applicants may use a different point size and font, but no less than 10-point size and single spaced.

All copies of an application must be submitted in a single package.  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.hhs.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) Organizational Profiles; and 4) 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 on the Internet at www.childwelfare.gov/preventing/developing/toolkit/ . 

Protection of Human Subjects.   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).

Electronic Submission

Applicants that submit their application electronically are advised to be sure that they secure and retain their service ticket number for reference whenever they have any interaction with the Grants.gov Contact Center.

Non-profit private organizations (not including private universities) are encouraged to submit the "Survey on Ensuring Equal Opportunity for Applicants" with their applications.  Applicants using a hard copy application, place the completed survey in an envelope labeled "Applicant Survey." Seal the envelope and include it along with your application package.  Applicants applying electronically, please submit this survey along with your application.   The Survey may be found at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/grants/grants_resources.html.

D-U-N-S Requirement

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Part I   THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION OVERVIEW

PURPOSE

Part II   GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARING A FULL PROJECT DESCRIPTION

INTRODUCTION

3. Submission Dates and Times:

Due Date for Applications: 05/04/2009

Explanation of Due Dates

Acknowledgement of Received Application

ACF will not provide acknowledgement of receipt of hard copy application packages submitted via mail, courier services, or by hand delivery.  Applicants who submit their application packages electronically via http://www.Grants.gov will receive two email acknowledgements from that website:

• An automatic acknowledgement of the application's submission that will provide a Grants.gov tracking number.
• An acknowledgement that the submitted application package has passed or failed a series of checks and validations.

4. Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs:

State Single Point of Contact (SPOC)

5. Funding Restrictions:

Costs of organized fund raising, including financial campaigns, endowment drives, solicitation of gifts and bequests, and similar expenses incurred solely to raise capital or obtain contributions, are unallowable under this grant award.

Grant awards will not allow reimbursement of pre-award costs.

Construction is not an allowable activity or expenditure under this grant award.

Purchase of real property is not an allowable activity or expenditure under this grant award.

6. Other Submission Requirements:

Submission by Mail

Hand Delivery

V. APPLICATION REVIEW INFORMATION

1. CRITERIA:

In considering how applicants will carry out the responsibilities addressed under this announcement, competing applications for financial assistance will be reviewed and evaluated against the following criteria:

OBJECTIVES AND NEED FOR ASSISTANCE - 20 points

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

1. The applicant demonstrates an understanding of the requirements of the authorizing legislation and this program announcement, and the proposed project would contribute to meeting those requirements. 

2. The applicant demonstrates a clear understanding of the need for and issues related to the evaluation of child abuse and neglect prevention programs. 

3. The applicant presents a clear vision for developing and implementing the proposed project.  The applicant makes a clear statement of the goals (i.e., end products of an effective project) and objectives (i.e., measurable steps for reaching these goals) of the proposed project.   

4. The applicant presents a clear and detailed description of the prevention program to be evaluated and demonstrates sufficient evidence to support why it merits evaluation. The description of the program should address significant features and components including: goals and objectives, history, characteristics of the target population, magnitude and severity of the problems and needs the program addresses, geographic location, context and services provided. Additionally, the conceptual theoretical and/or practice basis underpinning the structure, operations, components or strategies used by the program should be explained. 

5. The applicant presents a thorough review of the relevant literature that reflects a clear understanding of the research on best practices and promising approaches as it relates to the proposed project. The review of the literature sets a sound context and rationale for the project. The application provides evidence that the proposed project is innovative and, if successfully implemented, its evaluation findings are likely to contribute to the knowledge base on the prevention of child abuse and neglect. 

6. The findings and lessons learned through the proposed evaluation project would benefit policy, practice and theory development in improving evidence-based practices to prevent child maltreatment. 

APPROACH - 50 points

1. In reviewing the approach, reviewers will consider the extent to which: 
2. The applicant presents a clear and detailed description of the proposed evaluation methodology. The description should include the following, as appropriate: proposed evaluation design, including definitions of terms and variables; population and sampling plan, including the rationale, and strengths and potential limitations for interpretation of findings due to the composition of the proposed sample; use of comparison or control groups and the rationale for selecting these groups; recruitment and retention procedures, including realistic estimates of attrition, and a discussion of appropriate procedures for handling attrition or interpreting the findings of the evaluation in light of attrition; types of qualitative and quantitative data to be collected; data collection procedures and instruments, including information on reliability and validity of the instruments; plans for cost-effectiveness/cost-benefit analysis; access to data sources; and data analysis plan and the rationale for use of various analytic techniques appropriate to the study.  If the applicant proposes an evaluation design other than an experimental design that includes random assignment to treatment and control groups, there must be a clear justification for the choice of an alternate design, including evidence that the design will result in significant new scientific knowledge.
3. The applicant presents a clear and detailed description of the conceptual framework for the proposed evaluation. This description should include the strengths and any potential limitations for interpreting and generalizing the findings of this evaluation.  
4. The applicant provides a clear and well-defined logic model to guide the proposed project. The logic model demonstrates strong links between proposed inputs and activities and intended short-and long-term outcomes and the research and evaluation questions to be addressed or hypotheses to be tested. 
5. There is a sound timeline for effectively implementing the proposed project, including major milestones and target dates. The proposed project would complete the development and implementation of the proposed evaluation of the identified program within the five-year project time frame.  
6. The application demonstrates a thorough understanding of the challenges of program evaluation, and in particular, the possible challenges evaluating the selected program in this particular context with the methodology proposed. The applicant provides a sound plan explaining how the project would successfully overcome these challenges. 
7. The proposed project would effectively ensure the evaluation would be culturally sensitive to the target population of the identified program. 
8. The design of the proposed project reflects up-to-date knowledge from child maltreatment prevention research and literature.
9. The proposed evaluation project is innovative, and employs appropriate, methodologically rigorous evaluation design that will measure each stated goal and objective, result or benefit of the identified prevention program.  
   1. Goals and objectives are stated in specific measurable form and will document change, improvement, and effectiveness.
   2. The awardee will collect appropriate data. 
10. There is a sound plan for ensuring compliance with regulations and procedures pertaining to confidentially and careful handling of information on individuals, families and evaluation data; securing informed consent; and implementing Institutional Review Board (IRB) review, if applicable. 
11. The applicant either demonstrates that they have the in-house capacity to conduct an objective and rigorous evaluation proposed, or presents a sound plan for contracting with a third-party evaluator. 
    1. The proposed evaluator has sufficient experience with research and/or evaluation, understands the population of interest, and demonstrates the necessary independence from the project to assure objectivity.  
    2. Applicants proposing an external evaluator should include a letter of agreement signed by the applicant and the program to be evaluated. This letter should describe the proposed relationship between the applicant and the program to be evaluated and express commitment to participate together if the proposal is funded. 
12. There is a sound plan for developing useful products during the proposed project and a reasonable schedule for developing these products. The intended audience (e.g. researchers, policymakers, and practitioners) for product dissemination is comprehensive and appropriate. The dissemination plan includes appropriate mechanisms and forums that would effectively convey the information and support successful replication by other interested agencies.

ORGANIZATIONAL PROFILES - 25 points

In reviewing the organizational profiles, reviewers will consider the extent to which:

1. The applicant's organization and any partnering organizations have the experience and expertise in child abuse and neglect prevention, especially in the area of program evaluation; and in the administration, development, implementation, management of similar projects.
2. The proposed project director and key project staff demonstrate sufficient relevant knowledge, experience and capabilities (as demonstrated by a resume or C.V.) to effectively implement and manage a project of this size, scope and complexity.  The roles, responsibilities and time commitments of each proposed project staff position, including consultants, subcontractors and/or partners are clearly defined and appropriate to the successful implementation of the proposed project.
3. The proposed project staff demonstrate sufficient technical training, knowledge, expertise and experience (as demonstrated by a resume or C.V) to effectively implement the proposed designed program evaluation as outlined in the application.
4. There is a sound management plan for achieving the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks and ensuring quality.

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 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.

2. Review and Selection Process:

Initial ACF Screening: Each application will be screened to determine whether it was received by the closing date and time and whether the requested amount exceeds the stated ceiling.   Late applications or those exceeding the funding limit will be returned to the applicants with a notation that they were unacceptable and will not be reviewed.

A panel of at least three reviewers (all experts in the field of child abuse and neglect or related disciplines 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 ACYF Commissioner. 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; 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 Government and to achieve geographic distributions of grant awards. 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.

The Secretary either accepts the recommendations of the peer review panel or will append to the approved application a detailed explanation of the reasons relied on for approving the application and for failing to approve each pending application that is superior in merit, as indicated on the peer review panel list.

Since ACF will be using non-Federal reviewers in the process, applicants have the option of omitting from the application copies (not the original) specific salary rates or amounts for individuals specified in the application budget and Social Security Numbers, if otherwise required for individuals. The copies may include summary salary information.

3. Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates:

VI. AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION

1. Award Notices:

Successful applicants will be notified through the issuance of a Notice of Award (NoA) document that sets forth the amount of funds granted, the terms and conditions of the grant, the effective date of the grant, the budget period for which initial support will be given, the non-Federal share to be provided (if applicable), and the total project period for which support is contemplated. The NoA will be signed by the Grants Officer and transmitted via postal mail.

Following the finalization of funding decisions, organizations whose applications will not be funded will be notified by letter, signed by the Program Office head.

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements:

Grantees are subject to the administrative requirements in 45 CFR Part 74 (for non-governmental entities) or 45 CFR Part 92 (for governmental entities).

Direct Federal grants, sub-award funds, or contracts under this ACF program shall not be used to support inherently religious activities such as religious instruction, worship, or proselytization. Therefore, organizations must take steps to separate, in time or location, their inherently religious activities from the services funded under this program.  Regulations pertaining to the Equal Treatment for Faith-Based Organizations, which includes the prohibition against Federal funding of inherently religious activities, can be found at the HHS web site at: http://www.hhs.gov/fbci/waisgate21.pdf.

A faith-based organization receiving HHS funds retains its independence from Federal, State, and local governments, and may continue to carry out its mission, including the definition, practice, and expression of its religious beliefs. For example, a faith-based organization may use space in its facilities to provide secular programs or services funded with Federal funds without removing religious art, icons, scriptures, or other religious symbols. In addition, a faith-based organization that receives Federal funds retains its authority over its internal governance, and it may retain religious terms in its organization's name, select its board members on a religious basis, and include religious references in its organization's mission statements and other governing documents in accordance with all program requirements, statutes, and other applicable requirements governing the conduct of HHS funded activities.

Additional information on "Understanding the Regulations Related to the Faith-Based and Community Initiative" can be found at: http://www.hhs.gov/fbci/regulations/index.html.

HHS Grants Policy Statement

The HHS Grants Policy Statement (GPS) is the Department of Health and Human Services new single policy guide for discretionary grants and cooperative agreements. Unlike previous HHS policy documents, the GPS is intended to be shared with and used by grantees. It became effective October 1, 2006 and is applicable to all Operating Divisions (OPDIVS), such as the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), except the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The GPS covers basic grants processes, standard terms and conditions, and points of contact, as well as important OPDIV-specific requirements. Appendices include a glossary of terms and a list of standard abbreviations for ease of reference. The GPS may be accessed at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/grants/grants_related.html.

3. Reporting Requirements:

Grantees will be required to submit performance progress and financial reports periodically throughout the project period. Frequency of reporting is listed later in this section.

Beginning with FY 2009 awards, most ACF grantees will begin using the a Standard Form (SF) for required performance progress reporting (PPR). The SF-PPR is a standard government-wide performance progress reporting format consisting of a series of forms implemented by Federal agencies to collect performance information from award recipients. Most ACF grantees will begin using the standard format implemented through ACF's Office of Grants Management (OGM), entitled the "ACF-OGM-SF-PPR." Use of the ACF-OGM-SF-PPR will begin for new awards and continuation awards made by ACF in FY 2009. At a minimum, grantees will be required to submit the ACF-OGM-SF-PPR, which consists of the ACF-OGM-SF-PPR Coversheet and the ACF-OGM-SF-PPR Appendix B Program Indicators.

ACF Programs that utilize other SF-PPR reporting formats, or other reporting forms or formats that differ from the new ACF-OGM-SF-PPR, have listed those forms or formats below. Grant award documents will inform grantees of the appropriate performance progress report form or format to use beginning in FY 2009.

Grantees will continue to use the Financial Status Report (FSR) SF-269 (long form) for required financial reporting.

The SF-269 (long form) and the ACF-OGM-SF-PPR may be found at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/grants/grants_resources.html. Grantees should consult their award documents to determine the appropriate performance progress report format required under their award.

Performance progress and financial reports are due 30 days after the end of the reporting period. Final program performance and financial reports are due 90 days after the close of the project period.

Final reports may be submitted in hard copy to the Grants Management Office Contact listed in Section VII. of this announcement.

VII. AGENCY CONTACTS

Program Office Contact:

Catherine Nolan
Children's Bureau
Portals Office Building, 8th Floor
1250 Maryland Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20024
Phone:  202-260-5140
Email: catherine.nolan@acf.hhs.gov

For hearing or speech impaired callers, contact the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 (TTY (Text Telephone) / ASCII (American Standard Code For Information Interchange)).

Grants Management Office Contact:

Lisa Dammar
Division of Discretionary Grants
ACYF/Operations Center
c/o Dixon Group, Inc. ATTN: Children's Bureau
118 Q St., NE.
Washington, DC 20002-2132
Phone 2:  cb@dixongroup.com
Email: ACFOGME-Grants@acf.hhs.gov

For hearing or speech impaired callers, contact the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 (TTY (Text Telephone) / ASCII (American Standard Code For Information Interchange)).

VIII. OTHER INFORMATION

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, DC 20002-2132
Phone: 866-796-1591 or TTY 711

Email: cb@dixongroup.com

Checklist

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

Posted on March 5, 2009