Measures are helpful to researchers and providers alike.  However, most currently available assessments of the developmental progress of young DLLs are problematic and cannot yet provide information regarding comprehensive developmental status, including children's progress toward English language acquisition, or the effectiveness of interventions in early childhood.  Valid measures in other languages are also needed to inform providers and researchers about the skills of the children they serve.  For example, sound measures in Spanish would be immediately helpful in monitoring skill development among children served by the large number of Head Start and child care programs in Puerto Rico.  Detailed review of currently available measures identified only a few measures that might be considered valid, reliable and appropriately normed for Spanish-speaking children in the U.S.  Moreover, measures for other languages are virtually non-existent.  The challenges facing researchers and practitioners in their attempts to obtain an accurate picture of overall development in the early years include, but are not limited to (ACF, 2004; ACF, 2008c; Espinosa & Lopez, 2007; Saunders & O'Brien, 2007; Snow & Van Hemel, 2008):

• the difficulties inherent to precise assessment of infants, toddlers, and preschool-aged children, regardless of language background;
  
  
• cultural and/or linguistic biases of common measures that often rely on assumptions regarding cultural interpretations and that are often simply translated from English to another language without careful attention to meaning;
  
  
• the lack of field-wide definitions of appropriate norms for DLL children;
  
  
• limited evidence for norms or thoughtful selection regarding norms for many common measurement tools;
  
  
• the lack of field-wide definitions of appropriate assessments and goals for bilingual versus monolingual assessment of children under 6 years of age; and
  
  
• the lack of field-wide guidance about analyses and interpretation of separate monolingual measurement of language (e.g., Spanish and English being measured separately) and conceptual measures of bilingual children's skills (e.g., allowing child to respond in either English or Spanish). 

Limited understanding of family level constructs.  In addition to child assessments, important family-level variables have not been adequately identified, examined or measured with respect to the DLL population.  Questionnaires and interviews with parents, when developed carefully, may allow insight into parental involvement, attitudes towards parenting, perceptions of and satisfaction with their early care and education options.  Standardized methods for gathering this information strengthens research efforts to inform early care and education providers.  Some valid measures (e.g., parent reports of expectations and satisfaction with care providers) could directly inform programs evaluating their own efforts.

Child care and Head Start programs are not only opportunities for the children enrolled, but can also provide supports for DLL families.  Programs can assist families in integrating into communities, supporting educational and developmental goals for their children, and accessing various services and programs that support work and parenting skills.  Practices that support health, safety, developmental knowledge and educational involvement can all be advanced by strong early care and education programs.  

Care and education settings for young children may directly influence families; furthermore, family factors may directly influence the effectiveness of early care and education activities (ACF, 2006; ACF, 2008c).  However, there is limited research to advance understanding of the links between programmatic and family features that might influence program effectiveness.  Again, this lack of research is even more apparent for families of young DLLs and the programs that serve them.

Two areas that might be particularly addressed within the Center for DLL Research could be a) identification of key family variables that link to program quality and young DLL outcomes, and b) measurement tools for assessing these parental features (e.g., questionnaires or interviews addressing community service utilization; parents' perceptions and satisfaction with programs; parent involvement and parental knowledge of child development).  As with child assessments, measurement of DLL family-level constructs requires further development to address norms, cultural appropriateness, and methodology (e.g., Likert scale vs. open-ended, questionnaire vs. interview).  For these efforts, the potential for cultural bias and even irrelevance of measures of family- or parent-level processes is especially pronounced, as differences in values are very likely to influence childrearing and child care goals and practices among adults.  The research field requires valid, culturally-competent tools to assess family-level processes in order to better understand the potential moderating role of family features on programmatic effectiveness (i.e., family-to-program links that are important for program quality and for young DLL outcomes).

Limited understanding of quality across early childhood settings. Valid measures to describe the quality of early childhood settings can guide efforts to improve the early care and education of children.  However, questions about existing measures of program quality challenge researchers, policymakers and practitioners.  For example, how much of a difference in quality, as observed through a standardized instrument or rating system, makes a difference in a child's development?  Are some aspects of quality more or less important for different children?  Furthermore, emerging research points increasingly to the need for measures to go beyond well-established, general indices of quality and to incorporate aspects of provider-child interactions and instructional practice in order to predict developmental progress or academic adjustment (ACF, 2007; Zaslow, 2006).  As efforts to assess the quality of early childhood settings and to improve practices based on these appraisals increase, there is a need for more evidence regarding what facets of quality are most significant for supporting school readiness and other areas of development among young DLLs.  The Center for DLL might address a number of research questions regarding provider- and center-level quality.  Are current measurement approaches missing any dimensions of quality that are important for young DLLs or their families?  For instance, if practices to support family literacy are significantly related to children's emerging literacy skills, should such practices (and potentially other program efforts) to engage parents be captured by measures of quality?  In addition, as more states develop and promote quality ratings systems to inform parents about their options, do LEP parents make use of them in choosing early care and education for their infants, toddlers and children, and if so, how?  What might constrain parents' use of this information?  What other information might be meaningful for parents as well as practitioners and policymakers to consider in assessing the quality of a setting as it relates to young DLLs and their families?  Beyond accounting for bilingual staff, the amount and variation in language use in a setting might be important features to observe, as they could be significant for the language and more general cognitive development of young DLL children. 

Limited toddler/infant DLL measurement or knowledge. The Center for DLL research is expected to consider the issues for DLL children from infancy to five years of age.  Although this announcement has emphasized the dearth of information regarding young DLLs, the limitations are even more extreme when considering infant/toddler DLLs.  Assessments for infants and toddlers are usually limited to parent, teacher and caregiver reports, and programs often have concerns regarding formal assessment at these young ages and the potential for 'labeling' a child prematurely.  In addition, it is difficult to develop effective interventions or strategies when the research community has yet to reach consensus about models of early bilingual language development.  All the questions regarding families, assessment, and strategies considered above apply to these younger children; and each of the research and leadership activities that might be proposed by the Center for DLL research should include consideration of the unique issues pertaining to infants and toddlers.

Federal responses.  The recent changes in cultural and linguistic composition of the U.S. population have triggered several federal actions, including Executive Order 13166, "Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency," (65 FR 50121, issued August 16, 2000).  Under that order, federal agencies are required to publish guidance regarding prohibition against national origin discrimination in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that affects Limited English Proficient (LEP) persons.  The federal regulation requires recipients of Federal financial assistance from HHS "to take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to Limited English Proficient (LEP) persons" and the subsequent guidance that has been issued strongly encourages programs to facilitate or provide translation/interpretation for LEP individuals, at a minimum.  Furthermore, the Child Care and Development Block Grant implemented guidance to ensure access to all children, including basing eligibility for child care subsidies on a child's immigration status and not a parent's status.  In addition, starting in 2008, the Child Care Bureau added a question to the Child Care and Development Fund's (CCDF) State Plan template to collect information on state efforts to serve families of DLLs through the CCDF subsidy program.  Although actions at the federal level have sought to improve access to public programs, questions abound regarding how federal and state programs can reduce barriers for DLLs and their families. 

Historically, Head Start has promoted culturally and linguistically responsive programming (OHS, 2008 OR HS PPS, 1972).  In the past two decades, Head Start has increasingly responded to the demographic shifts in its programs by requiring changes at the classroom and program levels in order to better serve DLL children and their families.  For example, classrooms with a majority of children speaking a language other than English are required to have at least one classroom staff member or home visitor who speaks their non-English language (Program Performance Standard 1304.52(g)(2), OHS, 1998 (45 C.F.R.1304.52(g)(2)).  The current Head Start Program Performance Standards include regulations addressing teachers' cultural and linguistic skills, classroom materials, ongoing assessment of progress, and family-oriented activities to better serve young DLLs and their families.  As outlined in the reauthorization (Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007, codified at 42 United States Code (U.S.C.) 9831 et seq.), Head Start programs are expected to support DLL children's "progress toward acquisition of the English language while making meaningful progress in attaining the knowledge, skills, abilities, and development [outlined in the act] including progress made through the use of culturally and linguistically appropriate instructional services" (Sec. 641A(a)(1)(B)(x), 42 U.S.C. 9836A (a)(1)(B)(x)).  Further, staff are to be provided technical assistance including "training in methods to promote vocabulary development and phonological awareness, in a developmentally, culturally and linguistically appropriate manner and support children's development in their native language." (Sec. 648(d)(2)(B), 42 U.S.C. 9843 (d)(2)(B)).  The Act also calls for valid and reliable research-based measures (Sec. 641A(b)(2)(F), 42 U.S.C. 9836A (d)(2)(B)) that are linked to curricula that are based on scientifically valid research (Sec. 642(f)(3), 42 U.S.C. 9837(f)(3)).  Programs, teachers and policymakers must address these specifications as effectively as possible.  However, available research-based resources are scarce.

Care providers and teachers, as well as administrators of programs within the Child Care Bureau and Office of Head Start are facing several challenges related to DLLs for which there is no clear guidance as yet.  A recent GAO study reported difficulties across federally-funded early childhood activities in staffing programs with trained bilingual or language-proficient staff (GAO, 2006).  Furthermore, an OHS report, resulting from a nationwide needs assessment of Head Start programs, highlighted administrators' apprehensions about how to evaluate the language proficiency of prospective staff (ACF, 2008a).  Both studies expressed concern about aspects of parent involvement and engaging families, including effective communication with parents and lower enrollment among some groups of eligible DLL families.  

Several projects at HHS/ACF reflect efforts to understand young DLLs and to inform the public programs that serve them: 

1. Head Start University Partnerships-English Language Learners, 2007-2010;

2. Study on the Status of Limited English Proficient Children Participating in Head Start and Early Head Start Programs, 2009-2011;

3. Design for Migrant and Seasonal Head Start Survey, 2007-2008;

4. National Academy of Sciences: Study of Early Childhood Assessment, October 2008;

5. Dual Language Learning: What Does It Take? Head Start Dual Language Report, February 2008;

6. Child Care Policy Research Grants, 2007-2010:

• Child Care Choices of Low-Income Families with Vulnerabilities,
• Choice of Care Among Low-Income Working Families: A Study of Latino Families in the New South,
• New Americans: The Child Care Choices of Parents of English Language Learners (ELL);

7. Celebrating Cultural and Linguistic Diversity in Head Start, 1993-1996;

8. Design Options for the Assessment of Head Start Quality Enhancements, 2003-2004;

9. Quality in Early Childhood Care and Education settings: A Compendium of Measures, November 2007;

10. Project Upgrade in Miami-Dade County, 2001-2009;

11. Head Start Quality Research Centers Consortiums (QRCs), 1995-2000, 2001-2006;

12. American Indian - Alaska Native Head Start Research Center, 2006-2010;

13. American Indian-Alaska Native Head Start Research and Outcomes Assessment (AIAN), 2002-2004

14. Supporting Positive Language and Literacy Development in Young Language Minority Children: Research, Policy, and Practice. (Research Roundtable held April 16-17, 2008).

For more information, please see the websites of Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation (OPRE) (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre), Child Care and Early Education Research Connections (http://www.childcareresearch.org/discover/index.jsp), OHS Resource Center (HSRC) (http://www.hsnrc.org/HSRC/index.cfm), and Early Childhood Learning and Knowledge Center (ECLKC) (http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc).  In addition, other federal agencies have produced resources to help guide research and programming efforts to respond to the DLL population, including:

1. Developing Literacy in Second-Language Learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth (August & Shanahan, 2006)
   
   
2. Dual Language Learners in the Early Years: Getting Ready to Succeed in School (NCELA, 2008)

Conclusion.  Although this discussion is not exhaustive, the many issues raised here illustrate the considerable lag between the questions and concerns of policymakers and practitioners about serving young DLLs (birth through 5 years) and their families and the implementation of viable, specific research that provides reliable and valid answers (ACF, 2008c). 

B. PURPOSE

The following section more specifically describes the purpose of the Center for Research in Early Care and Education focusing on DLLs.  The foremost goals and objectives of the Center are presented, including the two broad areas of inquiry that are of primary interest in this federal effort and several, more specific research topics that could begin to address these overarching questions.  The section concludes with the requirements for the Center.  Namely, the three categories of Center activities are described in detail:  focused program of research, national leadership activities, and supplemental activities.  In addition, the specific requirements for a successful proposal and for example activities that would fit within each category.    

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE CENTER

The purpose of the Center for Research in Early Care and Education: Dual Language Learners is to build long-term capacity for research on effective care and education programming for dual language learners (DLLs) between birth and 5 years of age and their families. It is expected that the Center will develop a comprehensive plan regarding what is required to conduct valid, reliable, culturally and linguistically sound research to evaluate and develop early care and education programming that effectively serves young DLLs and their families.  The Center will implement a program of research and leadership activities that reflect this plan. 

The primary goals of the Center are to develop research activities that address the following broad areas of inquiry:

I.  How can we best assess DLLs between birth and 5 years of age in large- and small-scale research studies and monitor their developmental progress in local programs?  It is expected that the Center will advance research and, ultimately, programming nationwide in support of young DLLs by advancing the state of assessments of the overall development of DLL infants, toddlers and children up to 5 years of age.  Specific areas of inquiry could include (this is not an exhaustive list):

a.      defining relevant outcomes across developmental domains (i.e., social and emotional, language, literacy, mathematics, approaches to learning, progress toward English language acquisition), across age span of birth to 5 years, and across early childhood settings;

b.     defining relevant outcomes among families of young DLLs;

c.      identifying and/or developing valid, culturally and linguistically sound measurement tools, systems, and procedures for assessing outcomes and growth across developmental domains;

d.     defining norms of DLL infants, toddlers, and preschool-aged children across developmental domains;

e.      defining field-wide appropriate standards for measurement of DLL children;

f.       defining processes for analysis and interpretation in assessing developmental progress of DLLs from monolingual or multiple language households;

g.      identifying, developing and/or validating measures of families of young DLL;

h.      identifying unique characteristics and needs of DLL children and families that should be considered in attempts to assess DLL children;

i.        identifying research that is still needed to fill gaps in knowledge regarding the developmental norms of young DLLs.

II. What should we do in early care and education settings to support the overall growth and development of young DLLs and the needs of their families?  It is expected that the Center will advance research and programming efforts by identifying promising points of intervention for children birth through 5 years of age and their families.  Specific areas of inquiry could include (this is not an exhaustive list):

In the area of families of young DLLs:

a.       identifying how state- and local-level systems and programs can ensure access for DLL families to child care subsidies and/or high-quality care settings;

b.      identifying what information regarding early care and education is most valued by DLL families;

c.       identifying effective or promising strategies for providing DLL families with meaningful information regarding child care options;

d.      identifying key features of DLL families that might shape their experiences with early childhood settings (e.g., beliefs about, perceptions or expectations of early childhood education or care providers, parent education, home language use, language proficiency, information sources);

e.       identifying family outcomes (e.g., family literacy, social capital, community integration) that support the positive development of young DLLs and could be targeted by early childhood programs.

In the area of early care and education providers and programs serving young DLLs:

a.       identifying characteristics/features of early childhood settings and staff and promising or effective standards, policies and practices across the diversity of settings (e.g., center-based, family child care, kith-and-kin care, home-based, monolingual or multi-lingual), that support the short- and long-term development of DLL infants, toddlers, and preschool-aged children across domains;

b.      identifying what factors may mediate or moderate the effects of promising features and practices in early care and education settings on young DLLs, including family-, caregiver- and teacher-level processes;

c.       identifying, validating and/or developing tools for assessing significant family- and/or provider-level variables;

d.      assessing the quality of early childhood settings as they relate to young DLLs and their families;

e.       identifying best approaches to improve the capacity of care providers and educators to serve DLLs and their families;

f.        identifying research that is still needed to fill gaps in knowledge regarding how public policies and early care and education settings and providers can support the overall growth and development of young DLLs and the needs of their families.   

REQUIREMENTS FOR CENTER

The purpose of this opportunity is to fund a Center for early care and education research that provides leadership to the research field regarding a) methods for assessing young dual language learners (DLLs) and the needs of their families and b) the best practices in early childhood settings to promote the development of DLL children between birth and 5 years.  Broadly, the Center will engage in research and national leadership activities aimed at guiding researchers, policymakers, and practitioners in their efforts to evaluate and improve early childhood settings to better serve young DLLs and their families.  The following section describes the general requirements of the Center and thus broadly defines the categories of activities which will be fundamental to address in applications for funding.  Applicants should note that ACF will use a cooperative agreement mechanism that allows substantial involvement by ACF in the activities undertaken with Federal financial support.  ACF intends to work cooperatively with the Grantee on the research and leadership activities as described below.

The successful proposal for the DLL Center will include 1) a comprehensive and detailed plan for a focused program of research, 2) comprehensive and detailed plans for primary national leadership activities, and 3) acknowledgement and details regarding ideas and resources for supplemental activities that could arise over the course of the project period. The activities proposed will represent a well-coordinated plan, involving cutting-edge questions and concerns regarding young DLLs in early care and education settings. ACF expects the focused program of research to comprise a slight majority of the Center's cost and effort (per year of the project); the primary national leadership activities and the supplemental activities should comprise a substantial minority of the Center's cost and effort.

I. FOCUSED PROGRAM OF RESEARCH

ACF intends for the work of the Center to include a focused program of research that ideally will result in solutions or answers to specific questions of interest to OPRE, CCB and OHS at the end of 5 years.  The focused program will pursue projects that provide information to the research field regarding a) methods for assessing young dual language learners (DLLs) and the needs of their families and b) the best practices in early childhood settings to support the development of DLL children between birth and 5 years. 

It is expected that the Center's program of research will build dynamically on the relevant work that is already available and in development in the field, investing resources to advance the research in order to provide guidance to programs serving young DLLs and their families. 

Proposal. The proposed plan for the focused program of research should address the full five years of potential funding (i.e., three years for initial award; two additional years that are at the option of ACF; each year's funding depends on satisfactory progress, availability of funding, and a determination that continued funding would be in the best interest of the Government).  The first year may reflect more developmental preliminary but substantial activities (i.e., identifying gaps in the field; reviews and secondary analyses; piloting; team development; establishing formal partnerships; refining activities and schedule in collaboration with the technical work group (TWG) and steering Committee).  ACF expects applicants to propose a focused program of research that consists of a set of closely related studies that build on each other and together result in advancing the field of research regarding assessment and practice in early care and education of young DLLs and their families.  ACF strongly discourages applications that propose a model in which multiple investigators each conduct separate studies that are only loosely coordinated around a given topic.  The focused program of research should comprise original research that is targeted toward a specific question or related sets of questions.  The successful applicant will demonstrate the importance of the question or questions to the field, will provide a description of rigorous methods to approach the question(s), and will provide a convincing argument that the research program and the methodological approach will significantly enhance the knowledge base.  As noted above, the Center activities should address questions of assessment and program practices.

The plans for the focused research activities should be detailed and clear, describing the skills, expertise and knowledge of those involved, reflecting appropriate partnership development activities with programs, outlining a culturally and linguistically appropriate approach and specific objectives, goals, methodology and analyses for each proposed activity.  Each planned activity should include a list of specific products expected (i.e., measurement instrument, results brief, report, presentations, etc.)

Experience and skill in productive collaborative partnerships (across organizations, agencies, intellectual partners, etc.) would be an important component of a competitive application.  Evidence for collaborative skill would include successful participation in multi-site projects, recommendations from previous program partners and research partners, and previous management of multiple ongoing projects.  The proposal should include a well-coordinated management and communication plan for all Center team members; this should be clearly defined, realistic and practical. The schedule must be fully explained; budget and budget narrative should represent appropriate but cost-effective support for all proposed activities.

As noted above, ACF expects the focused program of research to comprise 50 to 60 percent of the Center's annual cost and effort.  The national leadership activities and supplemental activities are to be completed, in consultation with the steering Committee and technical work group, with the remainder of the funds and efforts.

Example activities. The focused program of research begins with identification of significant research questions for young DLLs and their families in early care and education settings.  These questions should be closely linked to the stated goals and objectives of the Center.   Significant areas of inquiry are described above, at the beginning of Section IB, in Goals and Objectives of the Center, and the applicant may identify additional important areas. 

The focused program of research will then specify research activities to address the selected areas of inquiry.  Activities could include: critical literature review and consolidation, meta-analyses, secondary analyses, new studies to advance research capabilities (e.g., development/evaluation of assessments, strategies, and approaches; descriptive surveys of programs and/or families; validation studies; gathering of normative data; longitudinal or cross-sectional studies of young DLL development).  This list of activities is not exhaustive or proscriptive, and we look forward to innovative research activities that most effectively address the selected questions and that build the knowledge base. 

2. NATIONAL LEADERSHIP ACTIVITIES

The Center will implement national leadership activities, including outreach and dissemination, to advance the capacity of researchers and policymakers to serve dual language learners between birth and 5 years of age.  The Center will work cooperatively with ACF and consult with a technical work group (TWG) and additional consultants, as needed, throughout the period of funding.  With the input of these groups, the Center will develop, refine and prioritize activities to (a) strengthen the capacity of DLL researchers to address concerns of practitioners and policymakers, and (b) provide leadership in advancing evidence-based practice and policy in support of young DLL children, their families, and their care and education providers. 

As part of the Center's national leadership role on the topic of young DLLs and their families, it is expected that the Principal Investigator(s) and other Center research team members will engage in dialogue with researchers and practitioners.  This dialogue will be used to identify promising areas of research, share information regarding key methodological approaches, and develop and complete outreach and dissemination products that will advance the field.  The Grantee will collaborate with CCB and OHS projects (e.g., research grantees, existing nationally funded technical assistance efforts) to disseminate the Center's recommendations for methodology for DLL research, as well as the specific findings from the Center's research. 

Proposal. Proposals will include preliminary plans for national leadership activities over the course of five years (i.e., three years for initial award; two additional years that are at the option of ACF; each year's funding depends on satisfactory progress, availability of funding, and a determination that continued funding would be in the best interest of the Government).  The plan should include innovative, creative and ground-breaking activities to strengthen the field of early childhood DLL research.  Competitive proposals will include detailed procedures for ongoing refinement, development and prioritizing of the national leadership activities, in collaboration with ACF, the TWG, and additional consultants and stakeholders as necessary.  This allows the applicant to make full use of expertise in the field to identify significant activities for this portion of the Center work.  The refinement plan itself will be sufficiently detailed to highlight collaboration and coordination.  Proposal should include details regarding Center resources that will address leadership activities (e.g., logistics support, quality-control and management).  The proposed national leadership activities will demonstrate strong links to the goals and objectives of the DLL Center and, when possible, to the activities comprising the focused plan of research proposed by the applicant.  As appropriate to the planned activities, the proposal will fully describe the expertise, skills and knowledge of the proposed Center team with respect to the completion of high-quality written products and organized logistical support for meetings, or other necessary abilities.  Note that national leadership activities and supplemental activities, in combination, are expected to involve approximately 40% of the cost and efforts of the Center.

Strong proposals will include appropriate plans for strengthening, developing and refining the national leadership activities plan during the course of the project.  All leadership activities should directly address the needs of researchers studying young DLLs and their families in early care and education settings.

Example activities. Examples of national leadership activities may include a combination of the following activities, and/or other key innovative activities identified by the applicant in their proposal.

1.  Written products, such as handouts, reports, manuals, and/or briefs regarding:

• meta-analyses or secondary analyses of previous early care and education DLL research,
• promising methodology (e.g., sampling, assessment, analyses of bilingual development, etc.),
• practice and program models,
• assessment approaches (e.g., cultural appropriateness, programmatic use, etc.),
• literature review regarding assessment issues for specific populations.

2.  Meetings, such as roundtables, institutes, and/or conferences regarding:

• identifying key needs concerning research, program and policy,
• interpreting and consolidating research,
• development of briefs/documents,
• disseminating center findings.

3.  Other outreach, such as presentations at national conferences, meetings with stakeholders, and/or collaboration with CCB and OHS technical assistance activities. 

This list of activities is not exhaustive or prescriptive, and we look forward to innovative leadership activities that most effectively address the selected questions and that advance the knowledge base. 

3. SUPPLEMENTAL ACTIVITIES

During the course of the project period, the expertise of the Center personnel will be called upon to select and design supplementary activities as needed to respond to pressing policy and practice needs that fall within the domain of the Center.  For designing and refining these supplemental projects, the Center will work through a consultative process between the Grantee, federal staff, the technical work group (TWG), and additional expert consultants, when needed.  Topics would be identified at a future date, as programmatic and research-field issues emerge regarding young DLLs, their families, and the programs that serve them.

Proposal. In this context, ACF does not expect applicants to provide highly detailed research plans for supplemental activities in the application.  The applicant should, however, document capacity to conduct such projects (e.g., knowledge of the field and research experience of key personnel, time, and equipment).  Applicants are expected to acknowledge the need to set aside effort and funds to complete supplemental activities as they arise.  Proposal should provide examples of a minimum of two supplementary studies/projects that the applicant believes might be useful to undertake, including a short rationale explaining the need for the proposed project and a description of the types of approaches that would be used.  A strong proposal would include innovative, ground-breaking, and important projects that might be considered as supplemental activities.  Although this section of the application does not need to be long, applicants should bear in mind that capacity for conducting quick response research projects will carry weight in the scoring of the application.

Example activities. The following activities could qualify as supplemental activities, addressing specific programmatic needs that might emerge over the course of the five year period of funding (i.e., three years for initial award; two additional years that are at the option of ACF; each year's funding depends on satisfactory progress, availability of funding, and a determination that continued funding would be in the best interest of the Government):

1. synthesizing the literature concerning measures of development in early childhood, to identify those that are most appropriate for infants, toddlers and young children from language minority backgrounds in order to provide guidance to national program evaluation efforts;
   
   
2. designing and/or conducting research to fill the gaps in knowledge regarding DLLs between birth and 5 years of age;
   
   
3. designing and/or rigorous evaluation of promising practices or interventions to support DLL children, their families, and care providers;
   
   
4. measure development, establishment of norms, and validation of measures for additional DLL population(s) with different languages/cultural backgrounds.

* Limited English Proficient (LEP), as defined by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), refers to persons who are unable to communicate effectively in English because their primary language is not English and they have not developed fluency in the English language.  As defined by the U.S. Department of Education (ED), LEP refers to those students who have not yet achieved English language proficiency (ELP), and are hence eligible for Language Instruction Educational Programs supported by ED, Office of English Language Acquisition (NCELA, 2007).  The term "dual language learners" (DLLs) encompasses LEP, and other terms frequently used, such as bilingual, English language learners (ELL), English learners, children from language minority backgrounds, children who speak a language other than English (LOTE), and children for whom English is a second language (ESL).  The term DLLs is used here, as it seems especially appropriate for a discussion of infants, toddlers and preschool-aged children who are learning a second language while continuing to acquire their first (or home) language.  For more information regarding HHS definitions and resources pertaining to LEPs, see HHS' website (http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/resources/specialtopics/lep/index.html).  For more information regarding OHS definitions and resources pertaining to DLLs, see OHS' Early Childhood Learning and Knowledge Center (http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/Dual%20Language%20Learners).

REFERENCES

Abedi, J., Hofstetter, C., & Lord, C. (2004). Assessment accommodations for English language learners: Implications for policy-based empirical research. Review of Educational Research, Vol. 74, No. 1, 1-28.

Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2007). Quality in Early Childhood Care and Education settings: A Compendium of Measures, November 2007. Prepared by Tamara Halle and Jessica Vick, Child Trends, for the Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation. Available online at http://www.childcareresearch.org/location/13403. 

Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2008a). Dual Language Learning: What Does It Take? Head Start Dual Language Report, February 2008. Prepared by National Head Start Training and Technical Assistance Resource Center, Pal-Tech, Inc. for the Office of Head Start. Available online at http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/Dual%20Language%20Learners.

Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2008b). Head Start Program Information Report, PY2007-2008.

Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2008c). Supporting Positive Language and Literacy Development in Young Language Minority Children: Research, Policy, and Practice. Summary of Roundtable Meeting, April 16-17, 2008, Washington, DC. Meeting sponsored by the Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Related materials available at http://www.childcareresearch.org/Discover?displayPage=meetings%5Cell%5Cindex.jsp.   

Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2008d). A Working Meeting on Recent School Readiness Research: Guiding the Synthesis of Early Childhood Research, October 21-22, 2008, Washington, DC. Meeting sponsored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation and the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation.

Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2006). Head Start Performance Measures Center, Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES 2000): Technical Report, February 2006. Prepared by Westat, Xtria, and The CDM Group, Inc. for the Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation. Available online at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/hs/faces/index.html.

Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2004). Migrant and Seasonal Head Start Research Design Development Project, Executive Summary, July 2004. Available online at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/hs/migrant_designproj/index.html.

August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language Minority Children and Youth. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Capizzano, J., Adams, G., & Sonenstein, F.L. (2000). Child care arrangements for children under five: Variation across states. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Available at http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/anf_b7.pdf.

Capps, R., Fix, M., Ost, J., Reardon-Anderson, J., & Passel, J.S. (2005). The health and well-being of young children of immigrants. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Available at http://www.urban.org/publications/311139.html.

Espinosa, L. & Lopez, M. (2007). Assessment considerations for young English language learners across different levels of accountability. Paper prepared for the National Early Childhood Accountability Task Force and First 5 LA, August 11, 2007.

Fuller, B., Eggers-Pierola, C., Holloway, S. D., Liang, X., Rambaud, M. F. (1996). Rich culture, poor markets: Why do Latino parents choose to forego preschooling? Teachers College Record, 97, 400-418.

Hamilton, B.E., Martin, J.A., & Ventura, S.J. (2007). Births: Final data for 2006. National vital statistics reports, Vol. 55, No. 11. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

Hernandez, D. (2006). Young Hispanic children in the U.S.: A demographic portrait based on Census 2000. Report to the National Task Force on Early Childhood Education for Hispanics, June 26, 2006. Available at http://www.ecehispanic.org/.

Hernandez, D.J., Denton, N.A., & Macartney, S.E. (2007). Children in immigrant families-- The U.S. and 50 states: National origin, language, and early education, March 2007. Child Trends and the Center for Social and Demographic Analysis, University at Albany SUNY: 2007 Research Brief Series: Publication #2007-11, 1-9. Available at http://www.albany.edu/csda/children.

Kirmani, R. & Yeung, V. (2008). Breaking Down Barriers: Immigrant Families and Early Childhood Education in New York City. Policy Brief. New York, NY: The Coalition for Asian American Children & Families (CAACF).

Matthews, H. & Ewen, D. (2006). Reaching All Children? Understanding Early Care and Education Participation Among Immigrant Families. Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP).

National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) (2005). Screening and assessment of young English-language learners: Supplement to the NAEYC position statement on early childhood curriculum, assessment, and program evaluation. Washington, DC: Author. Available at http://www.naeyc.org/about/positions/pdf/ELL_Supplement.pdf.

National Center for Children in Poverty. (2007). Low-income children in the United States: National and state trend data, 1996-2006. New York, NY: Author. Retrieved June 13, 2008, from http://www.nccp.org/publications/pdf/text_761.pdf

National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (2007). The growing numbers of limited English proficient students: 1995/96 - 2005/06. Washington, DC: Author. Available at http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/policy/states/reports/statedata/2005LEP/GrowingLEP_0506.pdf.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). Initial Results From the 2005 NHES Early Childhood Program Participation Survey, May 2006. (ECPP-NHES:2005). Available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006075.pdf.

Saunders, W.M., and O'Brien, G. Oral Language. (2006). In F. Genesee, K. Lindholm-Leary, W.M. Saunders & D. Christian (Eds.) Educating English language learners: A synthesis of research evidence (pp. 14-63). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Schexnayder, D.T., Schroeder, D.G., Faliski, K., & McCoy, J. (1999). Texas subsidized child care utilization patterns and outcomes. Austin, TX: Center for the Study of Human Resources. Available at http://www.utexas.edu/research/cshr/pubs/pdf/ccms.pdf.

Seitzinger-Hepburn, K. (2004). Building culturally and linguistically competent services to support young children, their families, and school readiness. Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation. Available at http://www.aecf.org/KnowledgeCenter.aspx.

Thomas, W.P., & Collier, V.P. (2003). The multiple benefits of dual language. Educational Leadership, 61(2), 61-64.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2007). Language Spoken at Home. (Table S1601). 2005-2007 American Community Survey. Available at http://www.census.gov/acs/www/index.html.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Status and trends in the education of Hispanics. (NCES 2003-008). Prepared by Charmaine Llagas, American Institutes for Research. Available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/hispanics/index.asp.

U.S. Government Accounting Office. (2006). Child care and early childhood education: More information sharing and program review by HHS could enhance access for families with limited English proficiency. (GAO-06-807). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office.

Zaslow, M. (2006). Child outcome measures in the study of child care quality. Evaluation Review, 30(5), 577-610. Available at http://www.childcareresearch.org/location/11175.

Ziv, Y. (2008). Characteristics of Dual Language Learners and their Families in Head Start: Findings from the Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES). Paper presented at the 2008 Head Start National Research Conference, Washington, DC.

II. AWARD INFORMATION

Explanation of Other:

The Federal share of project costs shall not exceed $1,500,000 for any of the 12-month budget periods, inclusive of indirect costs.  Half, or $750,000 of this amount will be from Head Start research funds and $750,000 will be from Child Care and Development Block Grant research funds. Head Start funds will be devoted to Center activities to (a) foster continuous improvement in the quality of the Head Start programs and in their effectiveness in enabling participating children and their families to succeed in school and otherwise, and (b) develop, test, and disseminate new ideas based on existing scientifically valid research, for addressing the needs of low-income preschool children and their families and communities.  CCDBG funds will be devoted to Center research activities to (a) advance the provision of resources to low-income families to find quality child care for their children, and (b) enhance the quality and supply of child care for all families including those who receive no direct assistance under the CCDF.

The project period will be up to three years.  The initial award will be for the first one-year budget period.  Requests for a second and/or third year of funding within the project period should be identified in the current application (on SF-424A), but such requests will be considered in subsequent years on a noncompetitive basis, subject to the applicant's eligibility status, the availability of funds, satisfactory progress of the grantee, and a determination that continued funding would be in the best interest of the Government.  An application for a continuation funded under this award beyond the three-year budget and three-year project period for an additional two years will be entertained in subsequent years on a noncompetitive basis, subject to availability of funds, satisfactory progress of the grantee (as described below under Roles and Responsibilities of OPRE), 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.

Description of Anticipated Substantial Involvement under the Cooperative Agreement:

A cooperative agreement is Federal assistance in which substantial Federal involvement in project activities is anticipated.  ACF expects to work closely with the organization that receives funding to ensure monies are used appropriately and in the most effective manner possible and that the activities included in the approved application address the programmatic needs in an efficient, effective, and timely manner.  Responsibilities of Federal staff and the successful applicant are further negotiated prior to award.  The organization selected to receive the award will be responsible for implementing the focused plan of research activities, national leadership activities, and supplemental activities.

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF GRANTEE

The Grantee will design and implement activities in support of the key goals of the Center as described in this program announcement.  Many of the expectations for the Center were outlined in Section I.B, Purpose.  The Grantee will develop an innovative and coordinated focused program of research, involving multiple studies that will identify gaps in the research and advance the evidence-base regarding assessment and best program practices for young DLLs. The Grantee will identify a plan for leadership activities that will advance the state of research, including details regarding the development and refinement of the leadership plan over the course of the project.  The Grantee will reserve resources and suggest potential projects for yet to be identified supplemental activities.  The Grantee will coordinate the multiple studies involving academic and program partners, and subcontractors.  Therefore, detail-oriented communication and management planning, as well as flexible problem-solving, will be of importance to Center success.

Priorities, schedule, goals and objectives will be further defined during negotiation of the cooperative agreement between OPRE and the Grantee.  In addition, as the Center receives feedback and additional information from the technical work group (TWG), ACF, stakeholders and other expert consultants, it is expected that the proposed activities will also be further refined and negotiated within the context of the Center's scope of work, the joint objectives of the Center and OPRE, and the short- and long-term results expected.  The Center may also be pursuing ongoing activities that will further inform the original proposal (e.g., developing/exploratory activities; research findings; literature reviews).

Grantees are encouraged to seek out and partner with other organizations and experts throughout the course of funding.  The Grantee will establish and maintain a core Research Team, consisting of academic partners and/or subcontracted partners, and other key personnel who will contribute significantly to the design, implementation and management of the Center activities.  In addition, the Grantee will establish and maintain a technical work group (TWG), made up of experts in early childhood assessment with respect to young DLLs, family outcome assessment, early care and education evaluation, and other relevant topic areas.  The Grantee will also meet monthly, either in person or by telecommunications, with a steering committee, to review progress, problem-solve, and solidify decisions regarding the Center activities.  Further, the Center will identify and consult with individual experts for particular topics or activities, as needed. 

The Grantee will propose a well-coordinated set of activities for five years.  The initial award will be for the first one-year budget period, and continued funding beyond the initial one-year budget period will be considered in subsequent years, subject to satisfactory progress of the Grantee in accomplishing planned activities and available funding.  OPRE will participate in TWG meetings and will work closely with the Grantee to promote partnerships and collaborative research, both within the Child Care Policy Research Consortium and with other potential partners conducting research on young DLLs attending early care and education programs. 

Principal Investigator. The Principal Investigator (PI) will be the primary Center personnel representing the Center across all activities; their expertise, knowledge and skills will inform each portion of the Center activities, and will contribute directly to the collaborative efforts involved.  Through their efforts, the Center will advance the state of research concerning young DLLs.  A major role for the PI will be the establishment and maintenance of the collaboration across the various participants in the Center activities.  The PI will also be the one who has the primary responsibility for successful completion of high-quality activities that address the needs of researchers of young DLLs and their families in early care and education settings.

It will be of key importance that the PI commits appropriate time and effort to the Center, to ensure ongoing management and oversight, and high-quality results and products.  The Grantee should inform the Federal Project Officer regarding any significant changes in these time demands over the course of the project period.

The PI must have a Ph.D. or equivalent for their field, and should be an established expert as demonstrated by a substantial body of published work, including peer reviewed articles.  The PI must have experience and skills in working with dual language learners and low-income families and in early childhood research methodology.  The PI should have advanced experience and knowledge of early childhood assessment and/or program evaluation methodology.  Additional areas of strength could include: child care/Head Start research, bilingual language development, cultural knowledge and sensitivity.  Expertise in the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) funding, state regulations regarding child care, and Early Head Start/Head Start programming, would be additional areas of interest.

Grantees are encouraged to seek out and partner with other organizations and experts throughout the course of funding, given the depth of expertise in DLLs that is required by this program announcement.  Gaps in the PI skills may be addressed through subcontracts and partnerships with other skilled academic professionals (i.e., Co-PIs; consultants; logistic management support; research team). 

Research Team. The Center Research Team personnel (project manager(s); coordinator(s); writers; data collectors; subcontracted academic and logistics support; academic partners; analyses contractors) are key to the success of all of the Center activities.  The research team must include individuals with experience and skills for completing research with young children in child care and Head Start/Early Head Start settings; bilingual staff must be hired as appropriate for all Center activities.  Gaps in Co-PI or PI abilities may be addressed by identified strengths in the Research Team.  The Grantee will inform the Federal Project Officer of any changes in key personnel over the course of the Center project period.

Steering Committee. The steering committee will consist of the PI (and Co-PIs, if applicable), other selected key Center personnel, the Federal Project Officer (from OPRE), and representatives of OPRE, CCB and OHS (as available). This steering committee will meet monthly in person or by teleconference and will provide OPRE an opportunity to remain informed about ongoing project activities.  The steering committee will (a) provide problem-solving feedback regarding project activities, b) review research plans, progress and products of the Center towards the Center's short- and long-term goals, (c) identify supplemental research activities to address emerging programmatic concerns, (d) identify and develop opportunities for dissemination of the Center's work, (e) identify opportunities for the Center to consult with policymakers, (e.g., State Child Care Administrators, and other CCDF and OHS stakeholders), and (f) facilitate communication and collaboration with other OPRE-, CCB-, and OHS-funded projects.  Collaboration could include the joint development of products and the coordination of presentations or briefing events to inform research-to-practice projects, such as CCB's Child Care Technical Assistance Network (CCTAN) and Research Connections. Details of the focused plan of research and national leadership activities (as described in Section IB, Purpose) will be refined and prioritized in collaboration with the steering committee.

Technical Work Group (TWG).  The Center's plans and activities will be continually informed and refined with the feedback and contributions of a TWG, composed of researchers with expertise in young DLLs and relevant topics (e.g., families of DLLs, cultural competence, bilingual assessment and program evaluation methodologies).  The TWG would be strengthened by members with extensive experience and understanding of CCDF, state regulations regarding child care, and Early Head Start/Head Start programming.  The TWG should be able to present the perspectives of a wide range of disciplines, offering information from a broader context to address the Center's goals.  The TWG will provide expertise to support all Center activities, will assist in identifying cutting-edge questions and concerns in the research field, and will ensure that the highest standards of scientific rigor are maintained in the Center's work.  Federal staff (i.e., representatives of OPRE, OHS, and CCB) will also serve as members of the TWG.  At a minimum, the TWG will meet once each year.  The proposal should include a list of proposed members of the TWG, including sufficient details to assess their appropriate expertise.  Clear and practical plans for communication and utilization of the TWG (in refining and informing all Center activities) will also strengthen the application.  Final membership of the TWG will be decided in collaborative negotiations with ACF.

Additional Consultants. The Center may require additional expertise to inform various emerging project activities (e.g., consolidating research on a particular topic, writing or reviewing documents, contributing to the design or analysis plan for a study, or informing the team regarding concerns of a particular population).  If gaps are identified in the expertise, skills or available time of the primary Center personnel, the Grantee could pursue additional consultation with these experts.

Products.  The Center is expected to be a key resource of original information for researchers exploring DLL issues.  A primary goal of the Center is improving the evidence base through a range of methods and approaches; communicating those improvements with the research community and policymakers will be an important component of the Center's work.  Written products might include briefs, reports, booklets, and manuals.  Other products might include working meetings, roundtables, research training institutes, webinars, or other innovative mechanisms for building consensus and disseminating information in the field.  Each leadership and research project completed by the Center should be linked to dissemination products and/or outcomes.  The grantee will specify plans for logistical and publishing support as appropriate for the proposed activities.

Meetings.  The Grantee will be expected to attend a minimum of five meetings annually.   First, at least once a year, the Center will host an in-person meeting for the TWG, in which the work of the Center will be presented and the plan for research and leadership activities will be prioritized and refined.  This would be an opportunity to consult with the TWG regarding specific questions and/or design decisions.  Additional TWG activities could include presentations to inform the Center regarding recent research findings in the field or to discuss diverse points of view.  The Center will be responsible for all costs and logistics (i.e., hotel, travel, compensation) for the TWG activities.  The second required meeting is the Annual Meeting of the Child Care Policy Research Consortium (CCPRC) held in Washington, DC.  Third is the biennial Head Start National Research Conference (June 2010 and 2012) held in Washington, DC.  In alternate years, the Grantee will attend another national Head Start meeting related to the Center's purpose (e.g., Dual Language Learners Institute).  When the Center's PI or other key personnel are in Washington, DC for other meetings, OPRE will facilitate opportunities to present to OPRE, CCB and OHS.  OPRE will identify two other opportunities for Center personnel to meet with CCB and OHS stakeholders to inform the Center's activities and to ensure that the Center's findings are reaching researchers, policymakers and practitioners.  For example, the Grantee may be asked to participate in the annual Child Care State Administrators' Meeting.  These meetings typically are held in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area and last approximately two days.  The budget should reflect travel funds for the PI and at least one key personnel to attend the required meetings and conferences, as well as sufficient travel funds for other relevant meetings and conferences.

Reporting. The Grantee will submit to OPRE regular quarterly Financial Status and Program Progress reports (See http://www.acf.hhs.gov/grants/grants_resources.html) that describe activities including, at a minimum: a) information about the actions taken to implement the proposed research project, b) outcomes of the proposed project, and c) issues and obstacles identified through implementation of the project.  

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF OPRE

OPRE staff will collaboratively negotiate with the Grantee regarding the roles and responsibilities outlined in this announcement, prior to finalizing the Cooperative Agreement.  The Federal Project Officer and other ACF staff will participate in the monthly steering committee to provide technical assistance and feedback and to remain informed about project activities and progress.  OPRE staff will review and provide feedback regarding Center products.  OPRE staff will act as a liaison between the Grantee and the Child Care Bureau and the Office of Head Start to ensure that the research products developed are relevant and translatable to the policy and practice communities.

Funding.  Funding for the project will be for three years initially; two additional years of funding are possible.  Funding for each year will depend on satisfactory progress towards Center goals, availability of funding, and a determination that continued funding would be in the best interest of the Federal Government.

The fourth and fifth years of funding are optional.  The Grantee will be required to submit an updated proposal of activities for each of the additional years of funding.  In deciding whether to continue funding of the Center for the optional fourth and fifth years, OPRE will consider the proposed activities for those years based on:

1. The recommendations of a review team consisting of federal staff.  This review will be conducted during the last half of the second year of the project period.  The review will primarily consider the proposed activities for the fourth and fifth years.
   
   
2. The timeliness and effectiveness with which all requirements of the negotiated cooperative agreement have been or are being met by the Center. 
   
   
3. The quality, relevance, and usefulness of the Center's activities and products and the degree to which the Center's activities and products have contributed to improved policy and research capacity in the field, as they pertain to DLLs birth to 5 years of age and their families.

III. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION

1. Eligible Applicants

Eligibility is open to all types of domestic applicants other than individuals.

Foreign entities are not eligible under this announcement.

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

2. Cost Sharing or Matching: None

3. Other:

Disqualification Factors

IV. APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION

1. Address to Request Application Package:

Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation
c/o Educational Services, Inc.
4350 East West Highway
11th Floor, Suite 1100
Bethesda, MD 20814
Phone:  866-429-0520
Fax: 240-744-7005
Email: DLLreviews@esi-dc.com

2. Content and Form of Application Submission:

Applicants must limit their application package to 100 pages, double-spaced, with standard one-inch margins and 12-point fonts (such as Times New Roman or Courier).  This page limit applies to the narrative text and most of the supporting materials (i.e., Table of Contents, Project Abstract, Budget), but does not include the curriculum vitae, letters of support, or Standard Forms (SF) (see list below).  Applicants must number the pages of their application beginning with the Table of Contents.  Pages in excess of the page limitation will be removed and not reviewed.

Applicants must include all required forms and materials, organize these materials according to the format for their application package, and in the order presented below:

1. Cover Letter. Applicants should include a Cover Letter using official letterhead of the institution or university, and including the Funding Opportunity Number, the title of the application, and contact information.
   
   
2. Contact Information Sheet. The contact information sheet should include addresses, phone and fax numbers, and email addresses for the Principal Investigator or Project Director and the organization's authorized fiscal representative.
   
   
3. Required Standard Federal Forms and Certifications.  The applicant must complete all the standard forms required for making applications for awards under this announcement, which may be found at: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/grants/grants_resources.html   The applicant's authorizing official must sign to acknowledge responsibility for the obligations imposed by the terms and conditions of the grant award.  Required Standard Federal Forms and Certifications include: 

• Standard Application for Federal Assistance (SF-424); 
• Budget Information--Non-Construction Programs (SF-424A); 
• Assurance Regarding Non-Construction Programs (SF-424B); 
• Certifications regarding lobbying, requires signature; 
• Disclosures of Lobbying Activities (if necessary) (SF-LLL); 
• Protection of Human Subjects Assurance, requires form and signature.

4. Table of Contents
   
   
5. Project Abstract (one page maximum)
   
   
6. Project Description. The project description should be carefully developed in accordance with the research goals as described in the Background and Purpose sections of Section I of this announcement, and the structural requirements listed in Section V. Applicants are strongly encouraged to use the detailed Evaluation Criteria found in Section V to organize the project summary/abstract and full project description.
   
   
7. Budget and Budget Justification. Include a budget and budget justification in the application reflecting the entire project period. This budget should match the appropriate budget categories reflected in 424-A, Section B. The budget must include funds for the Principal Investigator and one other key staff to attend at least five meetings each year (as described in Section II under Meetings), most likely to occur in Washington, DC.
   
   
8. Third Party Agreements (if necessary)
   
   
9. Appendix, including:

• Curriculum Vitae;
• Letters of Support (if applicable);
• Proof of Non-Profit Status (if applicable).

For electronic submissions via Grants.gov, application sections 1 through 8 are considered part of the mandatory project narrative section.

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 Letter of Intent: 05/04/2009

Due Date for Applications: 06/15/2009

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.