Executive Summary:

I. FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION

Legislative Authority

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

Funding Opportunity Description

Purpose

The purpose of this program announcement is to award a cooperative agreement to establish a National Quality Improvement Center (QIC) on Differential Response in Child Protective Services (CPS). The QIC will work to generate knowledge on effective practice models of differential response in child protective systems. It will support the infrastructure needed at the State and local levels to improve child welfare outcomes for children and their families who are identified as a result of referrals for suspected maltreatment. In addition, the QIC will work to foster collaborative research, demonstration and dissertation projects that address differential response in child protective services across the various systems that interface to maximize family strengths and keep children safe: neighborhood and community-based organizations, prevention programs, child protection, child welfare, health, education, housing, financial and family support. The overall goals of this project are:

1. To develop a national resource for information sharing and foster a learning network on the use of practice models of CPS differential response in child protective services;
2. To identify those core elements, explicit and implicit in the current success of the implementation of effective practice models of CPS differential response;
3. To support and/or replicate innovative, collaborative, and effective practices at the State and local level that strive to improve the child welfare outcomes for children and their families through the utilization of effective practice models of differential response in child protection;
4. To evaluate the effectiveness of practice models of CPS differential response undertaken through this project;
5. To disseminate the lessons learned from this initiative; and
6. To support doctoral students conducting related research on this topic. 

The Quality Improvement Center (QIC) will be tasked with conducting a comprehensive review of the literature, and synthesizing the current research and evaluation of initiatives in CPS differential response. In addition to current initiatives in place, the QIC will closely examine now defunct differential response initiatives and their dissolution to understand why such reform efforts were discarded and the obstacles that impeded their successful implementation. Building on the lessons learned from these activities, the QIC will replicate, rigorously evaluate and document for replication differential response models in use throughout the country. The QIC also will be charged with building a national learning network of public and private organizations that also are working to address this issue. This will include supporting doctoral students conducting research in this area. The overarching goals of this QIC are to generate and disseminate knowledge on effective practice models of differential response and to support the infrastructure needed at the State and local levels to improve child welfare outcomes for children and their families who are identified as a result of referrals for suspected child maltreatment.

The QIC will be awarded funds for a planning phase and, pending successful completion of that phase, an implementation phase. During the planning phase, the QIC will engage in a collaborative process to review the literature, clarify the focus, and refine the implementation plan for the remainder of its knowledge-building activities. During the implementation phase, the QIC will sponsor, monitor, and be responsible for a cross-site evaluation of research or demonstration projects at multiple sites, as appropriate. These projects will be comprised of a range of activities including: replication of existing effective practice models of differential response; evaluation of differential response initiatives found to be at a steady state; and an examination of a variety of new and innovative practice models. The QIC will systematize effective practice models; evaluate the dissolution of defunct State and local initiatives; and provide nationwide dissemination of the knowledge collected as an outcome of this work. The QIC also will provide two-year dissertation support for up to four doctoral students conducting research on this topic during the life of this cooperative agreement. Finally, the QIC will provide technical assistance to the projects supported under this initiative.

Background

The mission of the Children's Bureau is to promote the safety, permanency, and well-being of children and families. In an effort to achieve these goals, our nation's child welfare systems are faced with the challenge of producing positive outcomes for the children and families they serve. Achieving this goal can be a challenging task. Over the years many States have launched system improvement efforts in CPS to more effectively respond to allegations of child abuse and neglect, utilize and manage staff time more effectively in relation to the degree of severity of the case, and ultimately to provide a more effective and appropriate response to families coming to their attention. More recently, in response to the initial round of Child and Family Service Reviews (CFSR), States have developed Program Improvement Plans (PIP) to better accomplish this work.

In 2000, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, in cooperation with the Children's Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, began a study of State and county CPS systems and reform efforts. The objective of the study was to inform the Federal Government about the current structure and landscape of CPS systems in the United States and the improvement efforts that were underway at that time. The study examined the complexities of current CPS work processes from the knowledge gained through a survey and follow-up interviews of all State administrators, a random selection survey of county CPS agencies across the country, and site visits to innovative localities. The final report was completed in late 2002, followed by an invitational symposium of key local and State leaders in CPS, researchers, legislators and practitioners that reviewed and debated the findings of the study. A final synthesis report was produced from that symposium.

One of the products of the CPS Reform Study, a literature review published in May 2001, noted that almost all States have implemented some type of reform in terms of their child protective services practice or policy. These changes are being undertaken at different levels. In some States, changes are occurring statewide; in others, changes are limited to a specific locality; in still others, changes are occurring at a number of demonstration sites.

Examples of CPS reform initiatives include:

• Introduction of family assessment or differential response systems;
• Creation or support of community-centered service delivery systems;
• Clearer delineation of the relationship between CPS and law enforcement;
• Increased collaboration between CPS agencies and alcohol and other drug (AOD) agencies; and,
• Development of collaboration between CPS agencies and domestic violence (DV) agencies.

Of specific interest to the Children's Bureau (CB), is the current trend toward the development of differential or alternative response practice models in CPS as noted in ASPE's CPS Reform Study. Beginning in the mid-1990s, States across the country have been implementing various models of differential or alternative response. In 2003, the CPS Reform Study noted that 20 States reported polices that provided for an "alternative response" to investigation, but only 11 States were implementing such efforts statewide (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2003b). This study, and various subsequent studies, revealed that great variation in these approaches exists from State to State and with a wide range of success. Studies have also shown that implementing differential response models holds great promise for our efforts to improve outcomes for children and their families. The formalization of these approaches is still relatively new and as more States move to adopt, develop and adapt such policies the landscape of these differences will change. This QIC initiative seeks to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the differential response models being used and to further evaluate the effectiveness of these practice models.

Differential Response Models in Child Protective Services (CPS)

The movement toward the usage of differential response models has been grounded in several areas of concern with the traditional CPS model. One primary area is the growing dissatisfaction with the traditional CPS model and concerns that it is struggling to engage and adequately serve all families within the system. Studies have shown that the rates of service provision are extremely low and often cases determined to be of lower risk or severity, are excluded (Schene, 2005). To best serve these families, "there is a growing consensus that child welfare needs a service system for the lowest level of risk, for those families whose allegations of maltreatment do not meet the statutory definition or for which there is insufficient evidence of maltreatment, yet there is a clear need for support," (Conley, 2007, p. 1457). Additionally, many reporters of child abuse and neglect are frustrated with the response of CPS and often see the intervention as disruptive and lacking the service provision necessary except in cases of removal of the child.

Another dominant concern with the traditional CPS model is the adversarial nature of the relationship between the service provider and the family. Often, the investigative nature of the CPS process creates obstacles to active participation by families and provides minimal service provision unless the situation is severe. Recent research has indicated, "...that for lower to moderate risk cases, a non-adversarial, non-threatening family assessment approach aids parental engagement and increases the likelihood of voluntary participation in services," (Carpenter, 2007, p. 2).  Such a model offers the possibility of a collaborative approach to understanding the strengths and supports of a family both within and outside of the family unit as well as an opportunity for a deeper level of engagement. In an attempt to address these concerns and better meet the needs of children and families within the community, many States and localities have developed differential response models.

Differential response, also referred to as "dual track," "multiple track," or "alternative response," is a service provision approach that allows child protective services to respond differently to various accepted reports of child abuse and neglect. Most often, such a model is designed with two discrete tracks for case intervention. In some models, there are as many as five. The first track, the "investigatory track," is designed to serve the role of a more traditional child protective services path. In such a model, the focus of the "investigatory track" is determining if there is a finding of child abuse or neglect and identifying the responsible party. The alternative, non-investigatory track(s) most often consists of a family assessment instead of the traditional forensic investigation and may provide some form of voluntary case management and/or family support/strengthening services. Though there are differences in structure and implementation of the many differential response models being adopted throughout the country, there are general themes that are present in many of them. These include:

• A response track is chosen at the time of initial assessment, with the option to modify the response based upon safety and risk assessments.
  
  
• Alternative response services may be provided by community-based service providers or child welfare agency staff.
  
  
• Services are provided on a voluntary basis for families placed on a non-investigatory track, but refusal of the initial assessment can trigger an investigation.
  
  
• Alternative response is not assigned to cases where it is anticipated that court intervention may be required (e.g., sexual abuse or severe physical harm to a child) (Yuan, 2005).

Additionally, other identified common themes and factors include a focus on strength-based and family-centered interventions; use of screening criteria that focus on immediate child safety concerns, type and severity of alleged abuse, age of the child and the ability to forego labeling caregivers as maltreaters and placing their names in the State's central registry.

There have been several recent initiatives that further explore nationwide efforts in the implementation of practice models of differential response in CPS. Some of these initiatives include a number of State and locality specific evaluations that show great promise for reforms of this nature. Minnesota and Hawaii offer examples of key findings in their evaluation of their differential response reform efforts. They include:

• Families who received services under Minnesota's Alternative Response approach were less likely to have new child maltreatment reports than control families that received a traditional investigation (Loman, 2004b).
  
  
• Children placed in out-of-home care decreased by approximately 20 percent (Hawaii Department of Human Services, 2007).
  
  
• Implementation of an alternative response practice model resulted in an increased legal pursuit of perpetrators of the most serious types of child abuse and neglect and an increase in the intensity of investigations (Loman, 2004a).
  
  
• In Minnesota, though the initial cost of services and worker time provided under their Alternative Response approach was greater than in traditional CPS interventions, these Alternative Response services were less costly and more cost effective in the long term (Loman, 2004b).
  
  
• The average caseload for a Child Welfare Services (CWS) worker has decreased from 24 to 18 cases (Hawaii Department of Human Services, 2007).
  
  
• A majority of CPS workers liked working in the alternative response model and saw this approach as a more effective way of working with families with reports of child maltreatment (Loman, 2004b).

In addition to the encouraging data coming out of Minnesota and Hawaii, other research and evaluations have emerged with additional findings that reinforce the need for further study, evaluation, development and replication of differential response models. Some of these findings include:

• Families receiving the non-investigatory assessment response are more likely to be receptive to, and engaged in, the receipt of services (CWLA, 2006).
  
  
• The overall safety of children is not compromised by the use of the alternative response, and they are not at any greater risk for subsequent reports of child abuse and neglect (Loman 2004b, Schene 2005, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2005).
  
  
• Families who receive an alternative response may be less likely to experience subsequent reports or investigations of child abuse and neglect (Loman, 2004b, Urban Institute, 2006).
  
  
• Cases assigned to an alternative response track often experienced fewer barriers to service provision than more traditional CPS investigations (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2003a).

This information is most encouraging and it is hoped that further implementation of effective practice models of differential response will lead to:

• Interventions and response better suited to families and matching the severity of the allegations made against them;
  
  
• Greater targeted work for cases with more serious allegations;
  
  
• An increase in parental and familial engagement in service provision;
  
  
• A reduction in the recidivism rate; and
  
  
• Ultimately, a reduction in incidents of child maltreatment and improved outcomes for children and families (Schene, 2001).

Over the past decade and a half there have been several efforts to explore the use of practice models of differential response in child protective services, but the majority of these studies have been exploratory and descriptive in nature with minimal outcome data. Building on the lessons learned from these prior efforts, the goal of this QIC is to test and rigorously evaluate differential response models in use throughout the country, to further expand the body of research and knowledge base in this area, and to advance State and local differential response efforts in order to improve child welfare outcomes for the children and families who become involved with child protective services.

Selected Resources

Carpenter, C. (2007). Alternative Response. Children, Families and the Courts: Ohio Bulletin, Vol. 3 (3), 1-13.

Conley, A. (2007). Differential response: A critical examination of a secondary prevention model. Children and Youth Services Review, 29, 1454-1468.

Hawaii Department of Human Services, Child Welfare Services. (2007, December 13). Hawaii's Differential Response System: Practical Implementation Strategies that Led to Successful Outcomes. Presented at the 2007 Children's Bureau Conference for Agencies & Courts in Arlington, VA.

Loman, A. & Siegel, G. (2004a). Differential response in Missouri after five years. St. Louis, MO: Institute of Applied Research.

Loman, A., & Siegel, G. (2004b). Minnesota alternative response evaluation: Final Report. St. Louis, MO: Institute of Applied Research.

Merkel-Holguin, L, Kaplan, C. and Kwak, A. (2006). National Study on Differential Response in Child Welfare. Washington, D.C.: American Humane Association and the Child Welfare League of America.

Schene, P. (2005). The Emergence of Differential Response. Protecting Children, 20, 4-7.

Schene, P. (2001). Meeting Each Family's Needs: Using Differential Response in Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect. Best Practice Next Practice, Spring 2001, 1-6.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families/Children's Bureau and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. (2003a). National Study of Child Protective Services Systems and Reform Efforts: Findings on Local CPS Practices. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families/Children's Bureau and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. (2003b). National Study of Child Protective Services Systems and Reform Efforts: Review of Sate CPS Policy. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families/Children's Bureau and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. (2005). Alternative Responses to Child Maltreatment: Findings from NCANDS. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Yuan, Y.T. (2005). Potential Policy Implications of Alternative Response. Protecting Children, 20, 4-7.

National Quality Improvement Center on Differential Response in Child Protective Services

CB's mission is to ensure the safety, permanency, and well-being of children and families. Its efforts to achieve these goals necessitate the testing of new and promising collaborative approaches to supporting children and families. Child protective services are a critical tool that States and localities use to prevent child maltreatment and improve outcomes for children and families. Thus, CB seeks to answer questions about improving child welfare outcomes by examining efforts to improve child protective services through the implementation of effective practice models of differential response.

To accomplish this goal, the CB will establish a National Quality Improvement Center (QIC) on Differential Response in Child Protective Services. The QIC will explore a broad range of issues and questions about effective practice models of differential response, how to successfully implement these models, what kind of collaborations and systems are essential to their success, why some differential response initiatives have been discontinued, and how these efforts can result in better outcomes for children and families and further reduce the risk of child maltreatment.

During the first year of this grant (Phase I: Planning Year), the grantee will work collaboratively with CB to decide how to address these questions. For example, with help from CB and the National Advisory Committee, the grantee will decide whether to take a broad look at a comprehensive set of questions or a more focused approach; which questions the project will answer during the literature review phase of the QIC project and which questions it will answer through implementation and evaluation of selected projects and dissertation support; and whether to focus its selected projects on a single region or take a national approach. In their applications, applicants must describe the process they propose to engage in during the planning year to refine and further define the focus of the remainder of the project.

Questions of Interest to the Children's Bureau

The following list is not intended to be exclusive, and applicants are encouraged to propose additional questions and justify their relevance. However, questions of interest to CB include, but are not limited to, the following:

General

What is currently known and what knowledge gaps exist regarding the use of differential response practice models in child protective services and whether and through what mechanisms or processes they improve child welfare outcomes for children and their families who are identified as a result of referrals for suspected child maltreatment?

Target Population

What are the characteristics of the child and family population being served by non-investigatory track interventions?

How, if at all, do these children and their families differ from the child and family population placed on the traditional investigatory track? Type of abuse? Race, ethnicity or cultural background?

What Effective Models of Differential Response in Child Protective Services (CPS) Already Exist?

Which are the most successful differential response models being used?  Why are they the most successful? What key factors impact their success?

What are the effective screening, decision making and referral processes used to identify and assign appropriate families to a particular response path within CPS?

What service delivery or intervention models are being utilized in non-investigatory tracks in differential response practice models?

What established mechanisms are used for re-tracking cases in the event that circumstances in that case change? How often are they used? How effective are these mechanisms? What referral and system linkage processes are in place? What impact does case re-tracking have on child outcomes, family participation and retention in services?

What are effective strategies for engaging and retaining families placed in voluntary services on non-investigatory paths in dual response systems?

In the case of successful models of differential response, what impact do these models have on rates of maltreatment? Recurrence of maltreatment? Re-referral to CPS? Placement of children in out of home care?

How do differential response models address cultural competence? What models have had success in meeting the needs of Tribal children and families?

Program Implementation

What are the critical factors that support or hinder the implementation and replication of practice models of differential response?

What are the characteristics of the workforce providing services to children and families receiving services in non-investigatory track interventions? What, if any, are the characteristics that differentiate them from the workforce serving families on the traditional investigatory track? Do these differences, if any, impact the effectiveness of service provision or differential response models?

What are the criteria used by different States in determining assignment to the non-investigatory or investigatory tracks, e.g., presence of imminent danger, level of risk, the number of previous reports, the source of the report, and/or presenting case characteristics such as type of alleged maltreatment and age of the alleged victim?

What percentage of families assigned to the non-investigatory track accept voluntary services? What percentage of families assigned to the non-investigatory track are ultimately referred for investigation?

Are there differences in services offered to children and families in differential response tracks?

How is safety and risk being assessed in successfully implemented models of differential response? What is the process for addressing changes in safety and risk levels in families in receiving services in a non-investigatory track? What pathways for collaboration are in place between CPS and community agencies?

Based upon the implementation of these programs, what service gaps within the community are highlighted? How can these gaps hinder the implementation of differential response models?

What is the cost-effectiveness or cost benefit of the implementation of differential response practice models in CPS systems?

Discontinued Differential Response Practice Models

What differential response models or initiatives have been discontinued after implementation? What are the key characteristics of these models? How do they differ from those models that remain operational?

What aspects of these initiatives proved unsatisfactory?

What followed the abandonment of the differential response model? Did the CPS agency go back to the traditional model or did it move to another set of reforms?

Program Outcome Evaluation

What goals and objectives are typically the focus of differential response models?

How have these goals and objectives been measured in outcome evaluations to date and do particular measures show up frequently in these evaluations?

What are the strengths and weaknesses of evaluations of differential response models to date? Can these weaknesses be overcome through improved methods available within the QIC context?

System Linkages and Collaboration

How do agencies work effectively with community-based providers to best serve and engage families in a differential response model?

What core community services must be available or developed if differential response systems are to have reasonable alternatives to investigation?

How do agencies work effectively with law enforcement, domestic violence advocacy organizations, mandated reporters and the court system in differential response models?

QIC Roles and Responsibilities

Because CB's goal in funding this program announcement is to improve child welfare outcomes for children and their families who are identified as a result of referrals of suspected child maltreatment, the QIC's approach is to foster collaboration and research to generate knowledge on effective practice models of differential response and to support the infrastructure needed at the State and local levels.

The QIC will perform the following functions:

It must be emphasized that the QIC will not assume the training, technical assistance (T/TA), and information dissemination functions and responsibilities currently performed by CB's National Resource Centers, Child Welfare Information Gateway, and CB's other T/TA Network partners.

One distinctive function of the QIC is that it will build knowledge in the area of CPS differential response by testing models through supporting selected research and demonstration projects. The research topic for these projects will be identified during Phase I: Planning Year of this grant by the QIC, in conjunction with CB. The QIC will monitor and evaluate and provide technical assistance and support to these projects. The QIC will also support dissertation research on this or related topics as appropriate.

Research and demonstration projects sponsored by the QIC under this initiative must:

Dissertation support sponsored by the QIC under this initiative will focus on independent research that may incorporate any of the strategies outlined above and focus on the use of differential response models in CPS to improve outcomes for children and their families who are identified as a result of referrals for suspected maltreatment.

Specific Tasks to be Performed by the Quality Improvement Center during the Planning and Implementation Phases

Applicants must propose a design that clearly and concisely describes a strategy for a 12-month planning phase (Phase I: Planning Year) for the development of the QIC. The Phase I plan also will include the process for identifying and selecting a research topic for research and demonstration projects, soliciting applications and selecting projects. Upon approval of the Phase I plan by CB, a 48-month implementation phase (Phase II) will follow. Early in Phase II, the QIC will announce, monitor, and evaluate 48-month research and demonstration projects. The QIC will also provide technical assistance (using its own resources or through sub-contracts with other technical assistance providers) to projects supported under this initiative. Also during Phase II: Implementation Phase, the QIC will announce, and support for two years dissertation research for up to four advanced level doctoral students conducting research in this area.

Applicants are required to support at least three research and demonstration projects. These projects will develop and implement, replicate, evaluate or systematize effective practice models of differential response in CPS systems, with specific components or strategies that are based on theory, research, or evaluation data.

In years two through five the project will allocate at least $1,600,000 per year to support research and demonstration projects and dissertation research.

In addition, the QIC must cooperate fully with any evaluation requested by CB. The QIC also will be responsible for a cross-site evaluation of the research and demonstration projects it sponsors, as appropriate.

Travel for Conferences and Presentations

Within two months after the award of the 12-month planning phase (Phase I) of the cooperative agreement, the project director, evaluator and/or other key staff of the QIC must attend a one-day work planning meeting in Washington, D.C. with the Federal Project Officer and other CB staff for the purpose of discussing details of the project work plan and cooperative agreement.

Additionally, 10 months after the award of the 12-month planning phase (Phase I) of the cooperative agreement, the QIC awardee must make an oral presentation to CB staff in Washington, D.C., describing and defending its plan for the Phase II - Implementation Plan (Version A) (described below). Applicants are advised to propose sending three project staff members, for up to two days, to make the presentation: the project director, the evaluator, and one other key partner.

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

Phase I: Planning Year

Applicants must propose a Phase I plan that addresses the components described in the Background section of this announcement including:

(1) the proposed membership and composition of the National Advisory Committee for the QIC:

(2) an analysis of the current state of research on differential response models in CPS systems;

(3) a feasible and appropriate method for conducting a comprehensive review of the literature as well as of current differential response initiatives or best practices;

(4) a systematic approach to focusing the research topic and refining the implementation plan;

(5) a strategy for developing a comprehensive review of the literature and best practices;

(6) an approach and method for the timely development of the Phase II implementation plan; and

(7) a preliminary design for the Phase II - Implementation Plan (Version A) that presents a clear and comprehensive vision of how the proposed QIC would operate.

Although applicants will have considerable flexibility in developing an implementation strategy tailored to the needs and resources they identify during year one, applications for the first year of funding must explain how during Phase I the applicant will:

In developing a strategy for conducting the comprehensive review and analysis, CB advises applicants to address Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requirements regarding data gathering. Applicants should propose specific methods (e.g., written surveys, questionnaires, conference calls, focus groups, and unstructured telephone or in-person interviews) and realistic timelines for OMB approval.

In years two through five the project will allocate at least $1,600,000 per year to support research and demonstration projects and doctoral student dissertations.

Where impact evaluations of sponsored demonstrations are included in the project plan, such evaluations must employ an experimental design based on the random assignment of individuals or cases to either a treatment group or a control group. Impact evaluations will compare the experimental and control groups for statistically significant differences on selected outcome measures. The impact evaluation samples must be of sufficient size depending in part on the type of program intervention to be evaluated, as well as the level of services to which the non-treatment control group will be exposed. As appropriate, cross-site outcome evaluation plans must include a power analysis illustrating minimum detectable impacts estimated to justify the proposed research sample size. CB is particularly interested in QIC and selected project evaluation plans that incorporate a strong focus on the utilization of the research findings in practice throughout the implementation period.

Because the QIC initiative is funded through a cooperative agreement, CB must give final approval at the end of Phase I: Planning Year to the Phase II: Implementation Plan before the grantee can move forward with the Phase II work plan and evaluation plan. Funding for Phase II is contingent upon this approval.

Phase II: Implementation Plan (Version A)

In Phase I: Planning Year, the QIC must develop and submit a Phase II: Implementation Plan (Version A) for announcing, selecting, monitoring and evaluating research and demonstration projects and dissertation support. This plan must build on knowledge gained from a review of the literature and promising practices in the field, the results from the comprehensive needs assessment, and input from the National Advisory Committee and other sources.

Applicants must submit a preliminary design for the Phase II: Implementation Plan (Version A) in this application that presents a clear and comprehensive vision of how the proposed QIC would operate. Applicants must describe the approach and processes that they would use to develop the implementation plan and address anticipated logistical and administrative issues. The Phase II: Implementation Plan (Version A) with any revisions made by the grantees since the application process, is due nine months after the award of the cooperative agreement and must include, at a minimum, the following components:

1. The results of the comprehensive review of the literature conducted during the planning phase (Phase I).
   
   
2. A conceptual framework or logic model describing the linkages between and among (a) attributes of the populations, problems, conditions, and systems that are the target of the interventions; (b) strategies; (c) resources; (d) traditional and innovative services/strategies to be provided; and (e) anticipated short- and long-term outcomes.
   
   
3. An administrative structure for soliciting proposals, reviewing and selecting research and demonstration projects and dissertation support, including program description, eligibility, application evaluation criteria, and selection process. Eligible applicants for research and demonstration projects and dissertation support will be specified in these solicitations.
   
   
4. A plan to provide technical assistance to prospective candidates to assist them in proposing projects that meet the standards for research and demonstration projects supported under this initiative. The design of these projects must be evidence-based or evidence-informed with specific components or strategies that are based on theory, research, or evaluation data. They must also pertain to issues of national scope and incorporate logic models and an evaluation framework. At a minimum, technical assistance provided by the QIC to prospective candidates should consist of instructions and materials providing information on application requirements, suitable topics, the role of partnerships and collaborations, program and research designs, data sources and data collection strategies, and evaluation designs and analytic techniques. QIC applicants may propose other ways of providing technical assistance to projects. For example, QIC applicants may propose conducting a one-day workshop open to all prospective candidates. Applicants should describe how the workshop would provide information and answer attendees' questions.
   
   
5. A plan to provide limited technical assistance to doctoral students seeking support for their dissertations. At a minimum, this assistance should involve screening the topics being proposed by the students to insure that they are relevant to the overall goals and purpose of the QIC.
   
   
6. A plan for technical assistance to projects selected for support by the QIC. The QIC will be required to not only monitor the operations of the projects, but also to provide ongoing support, guidance, and technical assistance to assist them in project implementation, data collection, and evaluation.
   
   
7. The design of an administrative and management structure for ensuring that projects are implemented within 90 days of their selection by the QIC and monitoring projects and dissertation support under this initiative, including appropriate plans for ensuring accountability from the projects and doctoral students receiving the dissertation support.
   
   
8. A description of mechanisms for forming and maintaining a consortium and information-sharing network consisting of partnerships with and among sites and doctoral students receiving support sponsored by the QIC. CB anticipates that the members of the consortium will meet regularly to exchange information and engage in collaborative problem-solving efforts.
   
   
9. A methodology for evaluating the research and demonstration projects, including ensuring that projects and participating agencies and organizations collect appropriate qualitative and quantitative process and outcome data.
   
   
10. A strategy for information dissemination, including fostering and strengthening communication and coordination activities with the National Advisory Committee and CB's Training and Technical Assistance Network. Special efforts will be made to coordinate with the National Resource Centers, the National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect and Child Welfare Information Gateway.
    
    
11. Identification of linkages with appropriate agencies, organizations, and resources on the local, regional, State, or Federal levels that address issues pertaining to the prevention and treatment of child abuse and neglect.

Phase II: Implementation Plan (Version B)

Ten months after the award of the cooperative agreement, the grantee will make an oral presentation to CB staff in Washington, D.C., describing and defending its Phase II: Implementation Plan (Version A).

One month after this presentation, the QIC must submit a revised implementation work plan (Phase II: Implementation Plan (Version B)) incorporating the recommendations of CB staff. CB will review this plan and continued funding is contingent upon CB approval of this plan (Version B).

Evaluation

CB requires an objective rigorous evaluation of this grant project. This evaluation should be designed to collect systematic data to answer, at a minimum, the questions of interest to CB that are selected from those listed in this program announcement, and other questions proposed by the applicant and approved by the Bureau.

The proposed evaluation plan should measure the effects of the implementation 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. The findings from the evaluation should support evidence-based practice and provide States with examples of strategies that are tied to positive outcomes for children and families.

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

Applicants should allocate an appropriate percentage of their budgets to support a rigorous program evaluation.

Demonstration Projects

Activities funded under this program announcement are demonstration projects. At CB, a demonstration project is one that puts into place and tests new, unique, or distinctive approaches for delivering services to a specific population. The focus of the demonstration projects will be based on the topic selected by the QIC grantee in conjunction with CB.

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

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

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

Other Project Requirements

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

Description

II. AWARD INFORMATION

Substantial Involvement with Cooperative Agreement:

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

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

Explanation of Other:

In year one, the maximum Federal share of the project is not to exceed $1,700,000. In years two through five the maximum Federal share is not to exceed $2,000,000 per budget period. The project awarded will be for a project period of 60 months. The initial award will be for a 12-month budget period. The award of continuation beyond each 12-month budget period will be subject to satisfactory progress on the part of the awardee and a determination that continued funding would be in the best interest of the Federal Government.

In years two through five the project will allocate at least $1,600,000 per year to support research and demonstration projects and dissertations.

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

III. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION

1. Eligible Applicants:

• State governments
• County governments
• 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
• Special district governments

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

Foreign entities are not eligible under this announcement.

2. Cost Sharing or Matching: Yes

In year one, the grantee must provide at least 10 percent of the total approved cost of the project. The total project cost is the sum of the Federal and non-Federal share. For example, an applicant requesting $1,700,000 in year one must match a minimum of $188,889 (total project cost = $1,888,889) in year one. The following example shows how to calculate the required 10 percent match amount based on a Federal share of $1,700,000, as is required:

$1,700,000                               (Federal share)

divided by                 .90           (100% - 10%)

equals              $1,888,889         (total approved project cost, including match)

minus               $1,700,000         (Federal share)

equals                $188,889         (required 10% match)

The non-Federal share may be met by cash or in-kind contributions, although applicants are encouraged to meet their match requirements through cash contributions. The grantee will be held accountable for commitments of non-Federal resources even if they exceed the amount of the required match. Failure to provide the required amount will result in the disallowance of Federal funds. A lack of supporting documentation at the time of application will not exclude the application from competitive review.

3. Other:

Disqualification Factors

IV. APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION

1. Address to Request Application Package:

2. Content and Form of Application Submission:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

D-U-N-S Requirement

Proof of Non-Profit Status

Forms, Assurances, and Certifications

3. Submission Dates and Times:

Due Date for Applications: 07/11/2008

Explanation of Due Dates

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

Checklist

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

4. Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs:

State Single Point of Contact (SPOC)

5. Funding Restrictions:

6. Other Submission Requirements:

Submission by Mail

Hand Delivery

V. APPLICATION REVIEW INFORMATION

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

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

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

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

1. Criteria:

Part I   THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION OVERVIEW

PURPOSE

GENERAL EXPECTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

Part II   GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARING A FULL PROJECT DESCRIPTION

INTRODUCTION