Office of Head Start Grant Reviewer Training · WELCOME . Early Head Start Expansion and ....

WELCOME

Early Head Start Expansion and EHS-Child Care Partnership Grants Reviewer Training October 2016

Reviewers and Panel Chairpersons will be asked to sign the ACF Certification Form Regarding

Conflict Of Interest, Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure for Reviewers of

Grant Applications.

ACF Certification Form

A conflict of interest exists if you, your spouse, child or partner: – Serves as an officer, director, trustee, partner, employee of or

consultant to the applicant, its parent or subsidiary organization. – Is negotiating prospective employment with the applicant, its

parent or subsidiary organization. – Has a financial interest in the grant application, the applicant, its

parent or subsidiary organization.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers are required to treat applications with confidentiality before, during, and after the review process.

Applications are the private property of the applicant, as such do not photocopy or save electronic copies of their notes and/or applications.

Do not discuss applications and scores outside of the panel meetings.

Confidentiality

Protect the copies of the applications in your possession, as well as any notes you may have prepared to assist you in panel discussions. Do not leave computers accessible to where applications, comments, scores, and notes can be viewed.

Do not leave confidential items open and/or unprotected in public places. Do not casually discard confidential information, such as notes, into waste cans.

Confidentiality (Cont’d)

Read the entire published funding opportunity announcement (FOA) and evaluation criteria found in Section V.1. of the FOA.

Do not contact the applicant for clarification of information or for any other reason.

Reviewers and the panel chairperson may not seek out additional outside information on the application or organization in review even if a link is provided in the application (e.g., doing an internet search on an organization).

Evaluating Applications

ACF will not release the following materials to requestors: – Privileged or confidential information obtained from applicants

involving commercial or financial matters – Pre-decision deliberative documents, the disclosure of which

would inhibit the decision-making process – Individual reviewers’ names and scores – Rankings of applications – Salaries of applicant's staff provided in the application – Proprietary information of an applicant (although such information

may be released back to the submitter) – Unsuccessful applications

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

The following materials may be released: – Under certain circumstances (such as a court order) the Agency

may be compelled to release a list of names of reviewers for a specific competition.

– Copies of successful applications (excluding any proprietary information, sensitive budget information, names/titles/salaries of applicant's staff)

FOIA (Cont’d)

PANEL REVIEW PROCESS ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Application Review Module (ARM)

ARM is the web-based Application Review Module of GrantSolutions.gov. ARM provides a cost effective and efficient system to manage all aspects of a grant review by simplifying the organization, evaluation and management of grant applications and assisting the program managers in providing a fair and comprehensive evaluation by standardizing the review process.

Read the funding opportunity announcement and understand the applicant requirements (Section IV.2.) and evaluation criteria (Section V.1.).

Carefully read all applications. Compose clearly written strength and/or weakness comments for each evaluation criterion in ARM.

Assign tentative scores for each section of the evaluation criteria prior to the panel meeting based on your comments.

Panel Responsibilities

Read the funding opportunity announcement and understand the applicant requirements (Section IV.2.) and evaluation criteria (Section V.1.).

Carefully read all applications.

Schedule and convene panel meetings.

Complete and submit the Final Summary of Criterion Comments, in ARM, to their panel monitor.

Panel Chair Roles and Responsibilities

Ensure that reviewers are on schedule in reading and scoring applications. Facilitate reviewer discussions to arrive, as

closely as possible, to consensus on comments to be included in the Final Summary of Criterion Comments. Resolve any conflicts within the panel. Maintain communication with federal Panel

Monitors to facilitate smooth functioning of all panel activities.

Panel Chair Roles and Responsibilities (Cont’d)

Communication

Federal Panel

Monitors

Panel Chair

Reviewers

Get acquainted.

Ensure that each reviewer knows how to access their applications.

Review roles and responsibilities.

Establish schedule and order for review of applications.

First Panel Meeting

Define rules for panel meetings.

Establish time limits for each meeting.

Refer to the provided panel assignment sheet for panelists’ contact information.

Assign initial application in ARM.

First Panel Meeting (Cont’d)

Focus initial discussion on resolving areas of disagreement. Seek alignment when possible. Although reviewers are never required to change their scores, every effort should be made to narrow differences in the range of scores.

If, after discussion, a reviewer wants to change a score, the Chair must return the evaluation to the respective reviewer in ARM.

Panel Meeting Process

Panel Meeting Process (Cont’d)

Reviewers

submit

Comments in ARM

Chairperson compiles Final Summary of

Criterion Comments

Panel Monitor reviews Final Summary of

Criterion Comments

Primary Panel Monitor Approves Final

Summary of Criterion Comments

Primary Panel Monitor reviews Final Summary of Criterion Comments

(gives feedback if necessary)

Chairperson reviews Panel Monitor’s

feedback

Set Ground Rules - Respect others. - Ensure that everyone is “heard” equally (set listening rules). - All panel members are expected to contribute. - Join panel meetings on time! - Come to meetings prepared (written comments and assigned

scores submitted in ARM). - Stay on task during the review. - Remain open-minded.

Strategies for Panel Team Success

Resolve conflicts early. - Ask for help from federal staff

- Provide responsive and sensitive facilitation

Stay objective.

Keep personal biases in check (e.g., personal philosophies and experiences).

Strategies for Panel Team Success (Cont’d)

Don’t compare applications (past or present).

Keep paneling process going! - Don’t get stuck on one issue!

- Try to stay on track in terms of timelines set for reviewing applications

- Develop a schedule and stick to it

- Take notes while reading

Strategies for Panel Team Success (Cont’d)

You have read the full grant application from abstract to appendices. You have written comments for each criterion.

– Determined strengths and/or weaknesses. – Each comment includes an example to support your statement. – Each example is referenced by a page number (or “No Page

Found”) from the application to support your comment.

You have assigned a score for each section of the evaluation criteria. Comments and scores have been entered and

submitted in ARM.

What does it mean to “come prepared” to a panel meeting?

Reading Applications – 1 hour: Begin with the application the panel has selected

to be reviewed first. Read the abstract and narrative completely, perhaps with notations of key statements.

– 1 hour: Reread the application and attachments slowly, looking for the applicant’s response to each specific evaluation criterion. For each evaluation criterion, ask yourself the following question: Has the applicant fully addressed the evaluation criterion as described in the

announcement?

Application Review Timeline

Writing Comments – 10 minutes: Assign a score for each section of evaluation

criteria. The score needs to be within the maximum number of points allotted for that section, and it must be justified and supported by your comments.

– 1 hour, 50 minutes: Enter your comments for both strengths and weaknesses for each evaluation criteria into ARM. Include examples from the application to support each of your comments. Include page number(s) from the application where the information can be found. If something is missing or not addressed indicate, “No Page Found.”

Application Review Timeline (Cont’d)

OVERVIEW OF THE WRITING PROCESS

To provide feedback to applicants; To enable federal staff to appropriately determine

funding decisions; To give Members of Congress clarification of

funding decisions for constituents; and To explain and validate ACF funding decisions.

Purpose and Importance of Comments

Writing Evaluative Comments

27

As a reviewer, it is necessary to “analyze” the entire content of the application and how pieces of information fit together. You will read, write and discuss for the purposes of careful analysis and evaluation of information. This process includes: READING the FOA including the evaluation criteria and each

application thoroughly.

WRITING evaluative comments that clearly state how an applicant addressed the criteria in their application.

DISCUSSING your assessment of the applicant with your panel members during panel meetings.

Comment only on the strengths and weaknesses of applicants’ responses to the evaluation criteria. Comments must pertain to stated criteria, not to

your personal experience or expectations. Reviewers should not measure applications against their own

preferences and need to separate prior experience with a program or rumored knowledge of a program. Reviewers should not project their own understanding of an

ideal Early Head Start or Child Care Partnership program on an application (e.g., dismiss a proposal for a family child care option based on their preference toward center-based).


Remember: The person reading the comments may not have seen the

application. Panel comments should be written so that as a stand-alone document, it would make sense to the reader. Write your comments in the present tense: “The applicant

indicates,” not “The applicant has indicated.” Reread what you have written from the standpoint of the

applicant. Have you provided the applicant with constructive comments?


Rewrite awkwardly structured sentences

Reduce redundant language.

Keep language clean, simple, and straightforward.

Proofread Your Comments

Look for errors including typos and misspellings, incorrect grammar or word usage, missing or unnecessary punctuation, missing or extra words, and subject-verb agreement. Use spell check and grammar check on computer


a.) use an opening statement linked to the criteria b.) identified strength or weakness c.) provide supporting examples and information d.) page number(s)

a+b+c+d= the BEST comment

FORMULA for the BEST comment

Not Acceptable: – Of the resumes included, there is a lack of evidence that key staff members

are qualified or knowledgeable. (Appendix).

Better: – A review of the resumes provided for key staff reveals no direct experience

or familiarity with Early Head Start programs, or with the Head Start Performance Standards. (Appendix, pages 12-24).

Best: ⁻ The applicant does not provide sufficient information that key staff are

qualified in early childhood, Early Head Start programs or the Head Start Performance Standards. The applicant includes a total of two resumes for key staff positions which indicate no knowledge or direct experience with Early Head Start programs, or with the Head Start Program Performance Standards. In addition, only one proposed key staff member has experience in Early Childhood Education. (Pages 15-22; Appendix, pages 12-18.)

Sample Evaluative Comments: Weakness


33

Not Acceptable: Of the resumes included, there is a lack of evidence that key staff members are qualified or knowledgeable. (Appendix).

What makes this an unacceptable comment: This comment lacks a descriptive opening statement tied to the criteria, is missing an example to support the weakness, does not include supportive information and specific page numbers within the application Appendix.


34

Better: A review of the resumes provided for key staff reveals no direct experience or familiarity with Head Start programs, or with the Head Start

Performance Standards. (Appendix, pages 12-18). What is still missing: This comment is an improvement from the previous example, it includes a limited opening statement tied to the criteria, has an identified weakness, and specified page numbers. However, the example supporting the weakness is not strong and does not include specific supportive information.

35

Best: The applicant does not provide sufficient information that key staff are qualified in early childhood, Head Start programs or the Head Start Program Performance Standards. The applicant includes a total of two resumes for key staff positions which indicate no knowledge or direct experience with Head Start programs, or with the Head Start Performance Standards. In addition, only one proposed key staff member has experience in Early Childhood Education. (Pages 15-22; Appendix, pages 12-18.)

What makes this the “best” comment: This comment includes an opening statement tied to the criteria, an identified weakness, an example supporting the weakness, and combines supportive evidence from other parts of the application as indicated in the notation of page numbers.

Helpful Words

HELPFUL WORDS STRENGTH

HELPFUL WORDS WEAKNESSES

VERBS FOR WRITING SUMMARY STATEMENTS

Comprehensive Justifies Reasonable Documents Strong Appropriate Experiences Demonstrates Convincing Details Executives Exhaustive Adequate Specify

Describes Complete Extensive Provides Innovative Sound Qualified Thorough Feasible Focuses Presents Unique Evidence

Contradictory Inappropriate Limited Inadequate Sparse Opposing Confusing Incompatible Does not Obscure Without Lacking

Equivocal Unclear Restrictive Incomplete Ambiguous Unrealistic Inconsistent Discrepancy No Evidence Irrelevant Vague Insufficient

Provides information about Shows success in Demonstrates experience/capacity Describes procedures Provides details about Presents Reflects, Explains Details Specifies Ensures

Include Identify Discuss Propose Plans to Indicate Give Support Build Offer

Using the Application Review Module (ARM)

http://www.reviewerrecruitment.net/reviewerinfo/ohs/ehs_cc.html

ARM is not compatible with Google Chrome

• Internet Explorer (Microsoft Edge) (v. 7 or higher), Mozilla Firefox and Safari are recommended.

• Go to https://arm.grantsolutions.gov/arm/

• Username information is case sensitive

Username: HJones

• Log in Based on Your Role

Panelists (chairpersons and reviewers) should click “Reviewer.”

Panel Monitors (PPM/PAM, PM/SAM) should click “Monitor.”

ARM: Accessing ARM

• Accessing the Applications (Panelists)

Click on the OPEN FILE link under the Application File column.

A dialog box will open asking if you want to: • “Save File” (download to your computer), or • “Open with” (browse for PDF software to open)

Choose to Open the application using Adobe Acrobat.

*Panelists must have Adobe Acrobat Reader to open applications.

ARM: Accessing the Applications

Application Number

Application Name Status Total Score

Responses Entered

Comments Added

Application File

99999 Chairperson Submitted to Chair 100 36/42 36 Open File

9999* Reviewer 1 Submitted to SAM 7 42/42 24 Open File

999** Reviewer 2 Submitted to PAM 26 42/42 30 Open File

99*** Reviewer 3 Approved 93 42/42 42 Open File

• Accessing the Applications (Panel Monitors) Select By Chair next to the Evaluations List section of your ARM Dashboard.

This will open the Applications List page.

Scroll to find the application you want. Click on the OPEN FILE link in that row under the View App File column. A dialog box will open asking if you want to: “Save File” (download to your computer), or “Open with” (browse for PDF software to open)

*Adobe Acrobat Reader is needed to open the applications.

ARM - Accessing the Applications (con’t.)

41

ARM: Entering Comments and Scores

** The Office of Head Start has implemented a new format for entering comments and scores into ARM.**

What has changed? • Evaluation criteria will be added to ARM so each sub-criterion [1.1, 1.2, 1.3]

has its own comment box.

• Reviewers will be forced to enter a score of “0” at the sub-criterion level in order to activate the comment box.

• Reviewers will enter comments in ARM without adding special symbols to keep them in order.

• Reviewers will be able to provide a composite score for an overall criteria section after thinking through each sub-criterion!

Presenter

Presentation Notes

The Office of Head Start has implemented a new format for entering scores and comments into ARM. Reviewers and Chairpersons will now be able to see and address the Evaluation criteria on a one-to-one basis at the sub-criterion level. Previously, ARM presented a Main criterion – such as Community Need and Objectives, and the sub-criterion for that section – 1.1 through 1.8 – was inserted into ARM all together in one single text field. Reviewers then inserted their comments, to address all of the sub-criterion, 1.1-1.8, by repeatedly using a comment box to address each sub-criterion. Additionally, reviewers were independently responsible for mapping their comments to the appropriate sub-criterion by inserting the sub-criterion number and using special characters to keep the comments in order. Now, with the new format, each sub-criterion has been entered separately and will have it’s own comment box for reviewers to use to address the sub-criterion. A composite score will be inserted at the end of the commenting process when the sub-criterion have been addressed for a Main Criteria, such as Community Need and Objectives.

42

ARM: Entering Comments and Scores (con’t)

Reviewer View Reviewer 2

**Reviewers will be forced to enter a score of “0” at the sub-criterion level in order to activate the comment box.

Presenter

Presentation Notes

When opening the score card for each application in ARM, Reviewers will see that the criteria sections have been broken down to the sub-criterion level to allow for comments to entered on a one-to-one basis. Reviewers will be required to enter a score of 0 for each sub-criterion - (1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and so on) in order to enter a comment. This is to ensure that Reviewers are taking the maximum score into consideration and scoring the applications as described in the published FOA. In the FOA, a range of points is not presented for each sub-criterion; therefore Reviewers will be required to enter an overall/composite score at the end of commenting process for each Main Criteria. As seen here for criterion 1.9 in the ARM Reviewer View, Reviewers will enter the overall score as the last criterion in each section. Additional comments are not required when the composite score is entered. The new ARM scoring format will help to ensure all points in each Main Criteria section are addressed and quickly denote those that are not applicable.

• Select whether your comment is a strength or weakness from the drop-down menu.

• Enter the page number or any other identifier.

• Enter your comments in the main body, or copy and paste content from an alternate word processing program. *Utilize the spell check tool that is provided next to Submit and Save.

ARM: Entering Comments and Scores (con’t)

• Special Characters: Please be careful when transferring your comments from Word to ARM.

Special characters will appear when you copy and paste from Word. Turn off the “Smart Quotes” feature in Word to minimize the appearance of special characters.

Opting to use Notepad versus Word will also minimize the appearance of special characters not recognized by ARM.

• Time-out If you are entering your comments directly into ARM, please Save your

work often. ARM will time-out after 30 minutes and your work may not be saved. The system does provide a timeout warning.

It is strongly recommended that panelists save every 15 minutes to avoid time-out issues and loss of work.

ARM: Entering Comments and Scores - Considerations

45

ARM: Criteria Overview

Chairperson View

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Panel Chairs are charged with creating the Panel Summary Reports that become a part of the official documentation used to support federal grant award decisions. Before the format was changed, Panel Chairs saw only the Master criteria on the Evaluation screen (1.0, 2.0, 3.0 …). They selected comments to address 1.1 – 1.8 at the top criteria level – and then managed them using special characters so they could be ordered correctly in the report. Now, in addition to the Master criteria, the Chair will see a separate line for each sub-criterion. Chairs will still follow the same process of selecting Reviewer comments, but the comments will be listed by Reviewer and sub-criterion number (1.1, 1.2, 1.3). Chairs will need to access the Comment field on each line to add the comments for that sub-criterion. Chairs can also opt to click the underlined Header Comments to view all of the comments submitted by Reviewers for all of the criteria from one screen. Please be mindful that Chairs will not see a variation in the scores at the sub-criterion level (1.1, 1.2, 1.3). Again, Reviewers will be only be able to enter a score of 0 and provide comments at the sub-criterion level. An overall score will be provided for each Master criteria section (e.g. Community Needs and Objectives), only after the Reviewer has inserted comments for each sub-criterion. Panel discussions should still address point spreads at the Master criterion level.

46

ARM: Criteria Overview (cont.)

Panel Rejection Comments

Presenter

Presentation Notes

When the panel summary report is returned to the Panel by the Chair / SAM /PAM, the comments and edits will be provided at the sub-criterion level! Panels will see that the comments will be mapped to a specific sub-criterion under a Main Criteria, such as Community Need and Objectives. SAMs and PAMs will also benefit from this change as they will now be able to make recommendations for edits, and/or let the panel know they have not fully addressed a sub-criterion, with the comments provided.

ARM Support

• ARM Support for Reviewers

Via email – [email protected] By Phone – 1.888.242.0684

• ARM Support for Panel Monitors Via email – [email protected] By Phone – 1.866.424.2637

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Reviewers should contact F2 Solutions for ARM technical assistance at [email protected].

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

• EHS Expansion and EHS-Child Care Partnership Grants - Review Support Webpage


• Application Review Module (ARM)

https://arm.grantsolutions.gov

• Adobe Acrobat Reader

• High-speed Internet (Internet Explorer/Microsoft Edge)

• Panel Information Sheets

• Grant Review Agenda

Key Review Resources

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Thank you. Now I’d like to cover a few logistical items: Please remember to bookmark the Review Support Webpage created for your convenience. This page is accessible from ARM and will house links to the FOAs, ARM training manuals, and contact information for our Help Desk. Critical updates to the review process or period will also be added here. In short, this page is a valuable resource and communication tool to have during the review period. The Review Support Webpage provides instructions for the ARM system. Prior to the start of the review, you will receive panel information sheets, a Grant Review Agenda, and your ARM username and password. ARM will open at a time determined by OHS and the time will be listed with your ARM credentials. Please log into ARM using the information provided to you. Note: Reviewers will not be given ARM credentials and given access to the ARM system until all regulatory forms have been completed. To help ensure there is no difficulty accessing the applications and/or the evaluation system, we strongly recommend each Panel Monitor have access to Adobe Acrobat Reader and reliable high-speed internet. Please use Internet Explorer to access ARM and the applications in ARM.


https://arm.grantsolutions.gov/

https://arm.grantsolutions.gov/

• Reviewers will not be required to print and return any hard copy documents at the end of the review.

• Your ARM User ID will serve as your electronic signature to confirm the panel scores and comments put into ARM are final, and APPROVED.

• Reviewers will be asked to complete a Panel Evaluation Form to close out the review process.

Close Out Procedures

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Once all applications on your panel are approved, you will be contacted via email with close-out steps. The email will include a link to the Objective Review Panel Evaluation for your completion.

Questions?

FUNDING OPPORTUNITY ANNOUNCEMENT

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Program Overview

Early Head Start-Child Care Partnerships EHS-CC Partnerships enhance and support early learning settings to provide full-day, full-year comprehensive services that meet the needs of low-income working families; enhance access to high-quality, full-time child care; support the development of infants and toddlers through strong relationship-based experiences; and prepare them for the transition into preschool. EHS-CC Partnerships play an important role in the system by both expanding high quality early learning services to infants and toddlers, and applying resources and lessons learned from Early Head Start (EHS) to build the capacity of the child care system. Early Head Start Expansion Applications to expand the number of center-based slots in traditional EHS programs to provide early, continuous, intensive and comprehensive child development and family support services that will enhance the physical, social, emotional, and intellectual development of participating children; support parents' efforts to fulfill their parental roles; and help parents move toward self-sufficiency. The Office of Head Start (OHS) expects that applicants will propose serving children in a full-day, full-year model with a minimum of 1,380 hours per year. Combination Approach Applications to both expand the number of EHS center-based slots and implement the EHS-CC Partnership model

Scoring Guide

Community Need and Objectives

1.1. Does the applicant clearly describe the geographic location where services will be provided and demonstrate that it will direct resources to meet the greatest need in that area to maximize community impact? Does the applicant describe the need for services for working families or families in school? Does the applicant include the estimated number of EHS eligible children and children who are receiving child care subsidy by geographic location? Does the plan include serving special populations and does the applicant include data on the estimated number of infants and toddlers for that population?


1.2. Does the applicant identify existing child care and other early learning services for infants and toddlers in the geographic area, to the extent they exist, and describe their current level of quality and consider the number of EHS- eligible children being served in low-quality child care settings? Does the applicant, regardless of the model for which the applicant is applying, describe how the project will leverage and/or complement existing child care and early learning opportunities in the community? If proposing EHS-CC Partnership, does the applicant identify the partners that will participate in the proposed project and demonstrate that meeting EHS quality standards will require significant improvements in its child care partners’ current level of quality?


1.3. Does the applicant justify how the proposed program model (e.g., Non-Partnership EHS Expansion, EHS-CC Partnership, or a combination of the two models) best meets the needs of the local community? Does the justification use information from the needs assessment, consider the availability and quality of child care and early learning services for infants and toddlers in the community, and describe the applicant's process for engaging other entities in the community in making this determination?


Community Need and Objectives - Example

“Because the proposed model includes many different partner sites with varying levels of existing capacity, some providers will use funding to improve the quality of current child care services whereas other sites will create new infant and toddler classrooms that expand the number of children being served. As discussed in Section 2.2, the difference between state licensing requirements and HSPPS will require child care partners to lower ratios and group sizes, and ensure that staff meet the appropriate qualifications. Some center-based programs may be able to open additional classrooms in order to maintain or expand enrollment, and some family child care providers may elect to expand their infant and toddler enrollment. Across counties, this project will greatly increase access to EHS services in areas where there is an overwhelming disparity between need and available services and will improve the quality of care to benefit not only children funded under this proposal, but also other children receiving care within the partner sites.”

1.4. Does the applicant describe how it will: a) improve the services provided to infants and toddlers currently being served; b) expand the number of infants and toddlers it proposes to serve through this funding; or c) do both a and b.


1.5. Does the applicant propose center-based and/or family child care services? Does the applicant provide a reasonable justification for its program option(s) as the most appropriate to meet the needs of the target population? Does the applicant specify how it will provide full-day, full-year (1,380 hours per year or more) services to meet the needs of working families?


1.6. Does the applicant demonstrate knowledge and awareness of its state's subsidy and CCDF policy landscape in its proposed service area to effectively leverage available resources? Does the EHS-CC Partnership applicant describe a reasonable plan to ensure that at least 25 percent of its EHS eligible children will have subsidies at all times? Does the EHS-CC Partnership applicant go above this minimum, and/or include a plan that ensures more robust inclusion over time of children who have a child care subsidy? If the EHS-CC Partnership applicant does not describe a plan to ensure that 25 percent or more of its EHS eligible children will have subsidies at all times, does the applicant provide reasonable justification as to why not?



“There are substantially more licensed centers in the proposed service area than other types of care. Child Care Centers have the highest capacity to serve infants and toddlers and those who are receiving CC subsidies. The high number of enrollment opportunities proposed in this application and the anticipated work with caregivers and providers to achieve EHS standards, makes working with Licensed Child Care the best option to effectively and efficiently use EHS funds in making a broad impact to the quality early care and education systems and services. Meeting the needs of eligible parents who are working, in school, or in job training programs will require that the CC partners serve children between 6 to 10 hours each weekday through the entire year no less than 48 weeks total. This will mean that CC partners will employ enough caregivers who meet the required qualifications to provide care in a 10-hour day. Parents child care needs will be assessed at the time of enrollment to ensure that the classroom can meet the hours of care.”


“EHS funds will supplement, not supplant existing state- subsidized child care funds. The layering of funds will build upon existing childcare services along with other community resources. Importantly, children will retain their enrollment status regardless of their funding source. The first layer of funding is the provision of full-day, full- year early care and education care. For an EHS-eligible child with a state subsidy, the state subsidy will fund the early care and education. For an EHS-eligible child without a state subsidy, EHS will fund these direct services. The second layer of funding, derived from EHS, will be directed towards professional development, increasing caregivers’ wages, and improving quality which will benefit all children, regardless of funding source. The third layer, directed towards EHS-eligible children and funded through EHS, will provide funding for comprehensive services.”

“…This prioritization is one way in which the Program will help ensure that the 25% of enrolled children are receiving child care subsidies. Other activities to make certain that the Program meets the required 25% CC Subsidy enrollment includes targeted recruitment of children with CC subsidies, engaging in partnerships with CC centers with high numbers of enrolled children with CC subsidies, working with the current County X EHS program to identify children from existing waitlists that are receiving subsidies, and increased training to Family Support Specialists (FSS) on helping low-income parents apply for subsidies. There has also been an increased interest by the State Child Care Administration to allow outside agencies to assist in completing CC Subsidy eligibility applications and recertification. If this does occur, the County X EHS-CC partnership FSS will receive the appropriate training to provide this assistance to families. The Family Support Specialist will partner with families receiving subsidies to fully understand the steps for determining and remaining eligible for CC Subsidies. This includes planning with parents to track and monitor the submission of eligibility and re- determination of eligibility documentation and meeting with caseworkers.”


1.7. Does the applicant describe planned start-up activities and timelines? Does the applicant include plans to begin serving children as soon as high-quality services can reasonably be provided? Does the applicant include dates it will begin delivering services to children, when it will reach full enrollment, and when the applicant will meet the full complement of requirements from the HSPPS?


1.8. Does the applicant provide a recruitment and selection plan that ensures children most in need receive services, including not less than 10 percent who are children with disabilities? Does the applicant describe a plan to prioritize serving children from certain special populations such as children who are homeless, in foster care or involved with child welfare, and dual language learners, if need was indicated by community assessment data?


Project Design and Approach

2.1. Does the applicant propose a clear and reasonable plan to meet the needs for high-quality comprehensive child development services for the highest-need infants and toddlers, including early intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities, based on its community assessment?


2.2. Does the applicant provide evidence that its proposed ratios and group sizes for care will meet relevant regulations and licensing requirements?


2.3. Does the applicant provide a feasible plan to ensure the use of a research-based, developmentally appropriate curriculum and quality teaching practices in all settings where children will be served with this funding?


2.4. Does the applicant, regardless of the model, describe how it will leverage resources and involve other service providers, public or private entities, businesses, higher education, and other agencies in the community to meet the need for high-quality comprehensive early learning services? Does the applicant describe how they plan to maximize access and minimize duplication and demonstrate broad-scale impact to support the early care and education workforce and higher quality infant and toddler care?


2.5. Does the applicant document a plan to develop a unified birth-to-school-entry continuum of care and education through linkages with home visiting programs, Head Start and other preschool programs? Does the applicant describe comprehensive policies and procedures to address transitions into, within, and out of the program?


2.6. Does the applicant propose a plan to partner with other providers to ensure that children with disabilities receive all appropriate services in accordance with federal and state laws?


2.7. Does the applicant ensure that all children enrolled in the program will be screened and receive necessary referrals and follow-ups for developmental, sensory, and behavioral services?


2.8. Does the applicant clearly explain how it will involve parents in the program and engage parents based on their unique needs? Does the applicant describe how it will design activities to engage parents in program decision-making and leadership?


2.9. Does the applicant describe the availability of appropriate program facilities for planned program models, anticipated timelines for completing any construction, renovation, or adaptation of space to meet requirements, and where relevant, plans for alternative service provision (e.g., temporary home-based services) during start-up, until contracts are in place and facilities are fully operational?


2.10. If proposing EHS-CC Partnership services, has the applicant identified its partner sites or provided a thorough plan for recruiting and sustaining center-based and/or family child care partners in order to begin providing services as soon as high-quality services can reasonably be provided? Does the applicant provide information about the range of potential partners available in the proposed service area, and contingency plans for replacing proposed partners if any partnerships do not materialize or prove unsustainable?


“Applicant X used a systematic and comprehensive process in the selection of PBO child-care provider partners, investing time and effort to identify and engage potential providers, and to ensure the alignment of our philosophy and vision. Applicant X assembled a list of licensed child care centers, family child care homes, and faith-based centers and researched the identified centers for licensing status, eligibility for state-funded subsidies, and the business model. A series of informational meetings were held throughout the County to introduce providers to Early Head Start and the PBO project. Applicant X then evaluated the child care sites regarding health and safety, facilities, and the provision of comprehensive services. Applicant X ranked the providers in each target area and stratified approach was used to select the providers in the catchment areas: one third of providers scoring high, one third scoring mid-level; and one third of providers scoring low. A total of 23 providers were identified as potential partners.”

Project Design and Approach - Example

Organizational Infrastructure and Management Systems

3.1. Does the applicant’s proposed organizational and staffing structure support the provision of all comprehensive services across the entire program, including clearly defined roles and responsibilities of the grantee and any child care partner sites, and delegate agencies, if applicable?


3.2. Does the applicant provide evidence that the senior management team and governing board have the capacity to provide effective oversight and accountability for the program, including establishing systems of ongoing monitoring and self-assessment and involving the Policy Council in planning and decision- making?


3.3. Does the applicant describe the composition and expertise of the governing board that meets the requirements of the Head Start Act? Does the applicant describe a plan for supporting family involvement in governance through participation on the Policy Council?


3.4. Does the applicant provide evidence of its experience and ability to successfully administer the proposed program in a high-quality way, including the capacity for management of a multi-site operation, if applicable? If proposing EHS-CC Partnership services, does the applicant describe its ability to work with partners, build consensus, and assure accountability for meeting HSPPS across multiple sites (as appropriate)?


3.5. Does the applicant demonstrate it will have strong fiscal controls and cost effective fiscal management across all sites, including its partner sites?


Staffing

4.1. Does the applicant demonstrate that all teaching staff will meet the qualification requirements by the end of the start-up period? Does the applicant identify resources it will access to meet credentialing needs?

Staffing

Staffing - Example

“Applicant X will partner with Local College’s School of Education (SOE) to ensure that all teachers will have the requisite education within 18 eighteen months of program operations. Participants enrolled in SOE’s Early Childhood Education Program earn a Florida Department of Children and Families-approved Florida Child Care Professional Certificate in Infant/Toddler Studies. Completion of this program leads to National Child Development Associate (CDA) credentialing…The SOE Early Child Education Program has extensive experience in training early childhood teachers and caregivers. This experience indicates that students typically take two courses simultaneously. Based on taking two courses each semester, the student can complete all four courses, the certification coursework and necessary portfolios and examinations within one calendar year, meeting the deadline of 18 months for the requisite credentials. SOE will assign an advisor to work with all teachers (and parents) in Applicant X. This position will ensure that teachers meet the pre-requisites, have adequate funding, and are enrolled in the appropriate courses. Experience indicates that such a position reinforces the commitment of teachers to remain and graduate from the program.”

4.2. Does the applicant demonstrate that it will be able to recruit and train a sufficient number of well-qualified staff to support the proposed program design?

Staffing

4.3. Does the applicant plan to use a variety of professional development approaches to address specific staff needs, including family child care providers? Does the applicant describe professional development plans that provide support for providers' progression along career pathways to higher credentials, tied to increased compensation?

Staffing

4.4. Are the proposed family service worker caseloads reasonable based on the number of families of enrolled children?

Staffing

Bonus Points

5.1. Does the applicant propose to serve children residing in zip codes identified as having high concentrations of poverty, as listed in Section VIII. Other Information, Appendix? If so, the applicant will automatically receive 3 points.

Bonus Points

5.2. Does the applicant propose to serve substantial numbers of children residing in a federally designated Promise Zone, as listed in Section VIII. Other Information, Appendix? Does the applicant include form HUD-50153 Certification of Consistency with Promise Zone Goals and Implementation, signed by the authorized official for the designated Promise Zone supporting the application? If so, the applicant will automatically receive 3 points.

Bonus Points

5.3. Does the applicant propose to serve children living in rural areas, as defined as rural, non-metropolitan counties, as listed in Section VIII. Other Information, Appendix? If so, the applicant will automatically receive 3 points.

Bonus Points

Project Budget and Budget Justification

6.1. Does the budget clearly align with the proposed service delivery model? Is the budget cost effective and reasonable for what is proposed? Are staff positions included to cover all comprehensive services and to meet the proposed ratios and group sizes? Are all programmatic and contract costs explained? Does the applicant include the cost of diapers and formula in their budget? If the applicant is proposing EHS-CC Partnership services, does the applicant clearly demonstrate that a significant portion of funding will be directed to its child care partners to ensure high-quality early learning experiences? Does the applicant demonstrate that funding will be directed to child care partners to support staff professional development, including credentialing and other opportunities designed to support increases in wages and compensation?


6.2. Does the applicant discuss how it will use a combination of federal, state, and local funds as well as resources from other early childhood programs or funding streams, including state, local, and private sector funding for child care, pre-kindergarten, and special education services? EHS-CC Partnership applicants will need to provide specific details about their plans to use a layered funding approach that includes the child care subsidy for its proposed budget. Does the applicant discuss how it will not supplant existing funding including subsidies for their proposed project?



“Our proposed EHS-CCP program thoughtfully combines Early Head Start funding with state-level support through the State subsidy program. Our budget will support strongly enhanced services at our partner sites to meet rigorous Early Head Start standards for all children, including a 10-hour day program option for children with State vouchers. Based on existing levels of support for infants and toddlers at State rates, we anticipate that CCDF will provide, on average, $7,800 annually per child for children with active vouchers. With this assumption in mind, we are also aware of the budgeting challenges that can face programs and families if subsidies are lost mid-term. Our budget accounts for up to a 16.7% “flux” in subsidy revenue, from attrition or turnover in subsidy recipients. This conservative budget ensures that our partners will be able to continue full Early Head Start services for children even in the event that their subsidy funding is lost.”

6.3. Does the applicant's budget demonstrate that it can ensure that children with child care subsidies will continue to be served if their subsidies are lost?



“The program expects that children who lose child care subsidies will remain in services despite the loss of additional funding. This is written into the contract with CC Partners. In addition, the program will provide a flat reimbursement that while considering 25% children in each classroom to be receiving CC subsidies, does not preclude the partner from enrolling more than 25% with subsidized children. Additional enrollment of subsidies children above 25% will be encouraged through the flat reimbursement cost for 75% of children being funded by the EHS grant, enrollment of additional children with subsidies will free up EHS funds to the partners to pay a higher portion of administrative costs and overhead for the partners. This is intended to encourage high enrollment of subsidized children, so that when or if a child loses subsidies, the partner will still be receiving necessary grant fund to operate the classroom…”

6.4. Does the applicant demonstrate that it will be able to meet the 20 percent required non-federal share match using allowable sources and explain its valuation of non-cash sources? Per Section III.2, Cost Sharing or Matching, applicants that state their intention to request a waiver will not lose points under this criterion.


6.5. Does the applicant justify the need for start-up costs and demonstrate that the amounts requested are reasonable? Are the proposed start-up costs necessary for the applicant to comply with requirements and be adequately equipped? This criterion is not applicable if the applicant is not requesting start-up funds.


6.6. Does the applicant describe their plan for the expenditure of T/TA funds? Does the applicant include adequate resources for T/TA to assist the child care and family child care partners with meeting HSPPS?



“The Program will use operational and TTA funds to extend a contract with ABC Human Development that currently provides Mental Health Consultation to the ABC County EHS caregivers. The consultations will be provided to CC programs that are not receiving Mental Health consultation through enrollment in QF. Mental Health Consultant increases the caregiver’s knowledge of infant/toddler development, individualization, and responsive caregiving and improves their ability to apply this knowledge in order to promote children’s growth and development.”

Scoring Rubric

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Activity- allow 10-15 minutes

Scoring Guide

Date post:	04-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dangkien
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times