Quality Improvement Network (QIN) Grant Application Review Meeting: - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Quality Improvement Network (QIN) Grant Application Review Meeting: Readers 1 Agenda I. Welcome and Introductions II. Quality Improvement Network (QIN) Overview III. Request for Applications (RFA): QIN IV. QIN Application Review Process
Quality Improvement Network (QIN) Grant Application Review Meeting: Readers
1
I. Welcome and Introductions II. Quality Improvement Network (QIN) Overview III. Request for Applications (RFA): QIN IV. QIN Application Review Process V. Attachments VI. Enterprise Grants Management System (EGMS)
IX. Q&A
2
5
maintains a targeted focus on children experiencing homelessness, children with special needs, children in foster care and/or children in families with very low incomes who are especially vulnerable.
quality of infant and toddler care by supporting child development centers (CDCs) in meeting the Head Start Program Performance Standards (HSPPS). The QIN was established as part of DC’s federally funded Early Head Start-Child Care Partnership (EHS-CCP) grant.
federal funds. Local funds are authorized through the Early Learning Quality Improvement Network Amendment Act of 2015, D.C. Code §4-415. Federal funds are authorized through the Early Head Start-Child Care Partnerships Grant, 42 U.S. Code 9801, et seq.
7
Purpose of Funds (RFA, p. 13)
eligibility, recruitment, selection, enrollment and attendance (ERSEA), continuous, comprehensive high quality services, job- embedded professional development and technical assistance to licensed child care partners to ensure low income infants and toddlers and their families have access to programs that meet Head Start Program Performance Standards (HSPPS). See: https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/policy/45-cfr-chap-xiii).
to support child care partners in the network to further the aim of Early Head Start (EHS), which is to enhance intellectual, social and emotional development of infants and toddlers to promote later success in school and life; promote greater family self-sufficiency; and encourage parents to support their child’s development.
8
Purpose of Funds (RFA, p. 13) (continuation) – Services are meant to support the full range of health, nutrition and family engagement services a child and their family needs from birth through the age of 36 months, or for a limited number of additional months following the child’s third birthday. Services can be delivered through one of two main models. The options for a model include:
the entire city and deliver comprehensive services. The city-wide hub may provide services to both child development centers and homes (1a); child development centers only (1b); or child development homes only (1c).
serve as the hub for their designated neighborhood area (Wards 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 or 7 or 8), based on established linkages in these communities and understanding of the unique challenges in these different areas.
9
Allowable / Unallowable Use of Funds (RFA, p. 16)
Section 1.3.1 Hub Responsibilities Overview and the budget included in the applicant’s submission.
ensure that the physical environment and facilities of all QIN child care partners meet all HSPPS, including requirements for square footage, health and safety, appropriate crib and sleep spacing and arrangements.
10
Eligibility (RFA, page 16)
non-profit, for-profit and faith-based community based
innovate strategies to achieve the objectives of the RFA. Award Period (RFA, p. 15)
contingent upon availability of funds.
funding.
11
Funds Available (RFA, p. 16)
Improvement Network (QIN) is at least $2,300,000 in local funds. Potential range of awards includes $500,000-$2,300,000.
from the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). OSSE anticipates, but does not guarantee, approximately $750,000- $900,000 in federal funds to be awarded to the hub, based on similar amount of funding received for this grant in previous fiscal years.
amount based on funding availability. Successful applicants may be awarded amounts less than requested.
12
– Choice of city-wide vs. neighborhood-based hub – Choice of service delivery for city-wide hub – In either model, hubs may provide comprehensive services directly or through contractual agreements with other
13
Hub Responsibilities (RFA, page 16)
status of the grant activities and progress.
problems encountered, through reports to OSSE/DEL. Monthly and quarterly reports are detailed in Section 3.3 Monitoring and Reporting.
and implement the delivery of services, including ERSEA services, continuous, comprehensive services, job embedded professional development and technical assistance in the QIN, as defined in Section 1.2.1 Introduction.
teachers with emphasis in continuity of care and relational learning that supports infant/toddlers and their families and fosters school readiness.
every 40 enrolled infant/toddler children and families.
14
Hub Responsibilities (RFA, page 16)
annual home visits and two parent teacher conferences for each enrolled child.
developmental delays or disabilities (at least 10 percent of funded enrollment).
below full enrollment, ensure that full enrollment is reached within 30 days.
enrolled children and their families to pre-kindergarten.
Head Start program.
Wards: 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.
15
Hub Responsibilities (RFA, page 16)
provider and for the QIN child care partner and their staff.
more identified wards if necessary.
partners meet all HSPPS, including requirements for square footage, health and safety, appropriate crib and sleep spacing and arrangements.
OSSE child care licensing regulations.
requirements and use research-based curriculum and assessments that are aligned to the DC Common Core Early Learning Standards.
16
Hub Responsibilities (RFA, page 16)
as curriculum and assessments.
partner on a quarterly basis.
evaluators with the assurance that client confidentiality will be maintained. These activities may include, but are not limited to, site visits, surveys to families and facility staff, record reviews or other data collection activities.
financial and administrative data and information for QIN child care partners.
17
Hub Responsibilities (RFA, page 16)
and awarded by Sept. 1, 2019 for any contracted service providers or staff to include services, which include eligibility, recruitment, selection, enrollment and attendance (ERSEA), continuous and comprehensive services, job-embedded professional development and technical assistance, as previously defined in Section 1.2.1 Introduction.
and report monthly to OSSE on participants’ demographics, enrollment at each child care partner and other reporting requirements related to family services, coaching, nutrition, health, etc.
18
Grant Objectives (RFA, page 18) 1. Ensure all infants and toddlers served in QIN CCPs are in safe and healthy environments and receive continuous nurturing care that is responsive to their individual needs. 2. Support and retain a qualified early learning workforce with professional development (PD), coaching and technical assistance using individualized approaches that reflect the diversity of experience and expertise of staff. 3. Maintain the use of evidence-based family engagement strategies and practices across hub(s) and CCPs and increase participation. 4. Ensure all CCPs meet or exceed evidence-based quality program standards to improve outcomes for children and families. 5. Ensure families and children are linked to and receiving comprehensive supports and services. 6. Improve the health and well-being of QIN teachers through activities and initiatives.
19
Program Specific Assurances (RFA, page 35)
– All laborers and mechanics employed by contractors or subcontractors in the construction or renovation of facilities to be used to carry out Head Start programs shall be paid wages at not less than those prevailing on similar construction in the locality, as determined by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with the Act of March 3, 1931, as amended (40 U.S.C. 276a et seq., commonly known as the "Davis- Bacon Act").
21
Application Deadline
Application Review Period
Award Announcement
2019, but this timeline is subject to change.
22
Review Panel (RFA, pages 18-19)
to identify eligible organizations, as outlined in Section 1.2.3 Eligibility, interested in implementing the QIN grant. Applications that meet all eligibility and application requirements will be evaluated, scored and rated by an OSSE/DEL designated review panel.
applications received for this RFA. External peer reviewers may include employees of the District of Columbia government who are not employed by OSSE.
OSSE/DEL. After reviewing the recommendations of the review panel and any other relevant information, OSSE/DEL shall decide which applicant to fund.
23
Expectations of Reviewers
assessment of the extent to which each application meets the criteria as described in the scoring rubric.
accurate evaluation of each application reviewed.
which applications will be recommended for funding.
nature of applications and aspects of grant review process.
24
Readers are required to: 1. Read all applications in their entirety. 2. Follow all instructions provided. 3. Review and consider only the information in the applications. Reviewers are not required to access external documents or websites. 4. Provide a numerical score for each criterion. 5. Provide constructive written comments that provide meaningful information to the applicant, including suggestions for improvements. 6. Adequately address the strengths and weaknesses for each criterion in every application based on the selection criteria. 7. Provide summaries of strengths and weaknesses that (1) justify the score awarded for the section and (2) are consistent with each criterion being rated. Statements of strengths and weaknesses must be written in complete grammatically correct sentences. 8. Treat all applications in a fair and equitable manner.
25
Scores / Comments Alignment 1. The numerical scores to an applicant’s response to the criteria must be consistent with your written comments. Comments and scores should reflect the same overall assessment. 2. Scores should be checked for accuracy to ensure that the appropriate point scale was used. 3. Partial credit points may be awarded, but in whole numbers only. 4. Comments should both praise strong areas as well as critique weak ones. Comments are most helpful when they provide specific feedback on why something was strong or weak rather than simply describe or reiterate what the applicant stated. Remarks not only should tie directly to the resulting score, but also give an applicant vital feedback for writing future applications. 5. Comments should indicate whether the applicant’s response to the selection criteria is incomplete, poor, average, good or excellent. 6. Comments MUST be based on the scoring criteria in the rubric 7. Strength(s) must be aligned with criterion or criteria for which full points have been given. Weaknesses must be aligned with criterion or criteria for which
26
Characteristics of High Quality Comments
did not meet. The difference is clear between comments based on fact and those based on professional judgment.
did not meet.
27
Characteristics of High Quality Comments (continuation)
information that is not included in the application.
Remarks not only should tie directly to the resulting score, but also give an applicant vital feedback for writing future applications.
28
Characteristics of Low Quality Comments
good”).
assessment.
the reviewer.
29
Examples of Acceptable Reviewer Comments Executive Summary: Strengths The applicant provides an overview of the proposed program, which includes the target population and proposed model for providing
services that meet HSPPS. Weaknesses The applicant did not identify an adequate description of the service model chosen. The applicant did not demonstrate adequate knowledge of HSPPS and lacked a detailed plan on how services would be delivered.
30
Examples of Acceptable Reviewer Comments Information about the Organization: Strengths The applicant provided an overview of their mission and history. The applicant explained the relevance of their activities providing technical assistance, designing and implementing the selected QIN model. The applicant described how the mission and vision of the organization links with OSSE’s long term strategy. Weaknesses The applicant did not provide an adequate explanation of why they selected the proposed model, nor why the designated partners were
consistent with their strategic objectives and goals, at this point in their history.
31
Examples of Acceptable Reviewer Comments Applicant Organizational Knowledge: Strengths The applicant demonstrated experience providing technical assistance aligned to HSPPS and coaching to child development facilities. They indicated details about prior engagement with the target population. The applicant also has expertise in early childhood development and HSPPS as well as similar programs implemented in other cities. The applicant describes their proposed organizational and staffing structure. Weaknesses The applicant did not describe enough organizational ties with public and/or private entities that would complement their capacity and assist in delivery of technical assistance to the providers in the network.
32
Examples of Acceptable Reviewer Comments Process to Provide and Monitor Adherence to HSPPS: Strengths The applicant described a strong communication strategy to spread awareness of the QIN and HSPPS, their model for providing teachers with professional development, and continuously monitoring and improving services. The work plan and data collection and evaluation plans are logical against the programmatic narratives received. Weaknesses The applicant did not define how current families would continue to receive services uninterrupted.
33
Examples of Acceptable Reviewer Comments Detailed Planning Budget Expenditures: Strengths The applicant demonstrates strong financial management and internal accounting procedures to manage the grant. The amount requested seems adequate for the proposed program design. The expenses appear to be necessary to achieve the objectives of the proposed QIN program. Finally, all associated costs are reasonable and align to the goals and
Weaknesses The applicant failed to clearly state how many providers will participate in the QIN. The applicant did not adequately demonstrate how funds will be allocated to support services provided to the families.
34
Point Values
Score Not Assignable Limited/ Weak Fair Good Strong/ Exceptional No response
information doesn’t answer prompt question Attempts to answer prompt Mostly answers prompt Fully answers prompt Answers prompt in depth; reviewer has no questions Information, if provided, is unclear or hard to understand Missing a lot of requested information/unclear Missing some of requested information/mostly clear All requested information provided/ clear All requested information provided/ clear, highly focused, coherently integrated answers Inappropriate answer Appropriate answer with limited details Appropriate answer with details; answer is not well expressed Appropriate answer with details; answer is well expressed Appropriate, well- articulated answer that is extremely detailed and shows a clear and relevant path to success Strongly disagree Disagree Slightly agree Agree Strongly agree
35
Executive Summary: Briefly describe the applicant organization, the target population (i.e., neighborhood centers and/or homes vs. city-wide centers and/or homes), and its proposed model (Options 1a, 1b, 1c or 2) for providing services (including ERSEA, continuous and comprehensive services, technical assistance and job-embedded professional development), designing, implementing and monitoring the selected QIN model in support of ensuring families receive services that meet HSPPS. Applicants must also demonstrate a plan to ensure services delivered continue uninterrupted for families currently in the QIN.
36
Information about the Organization (Maximum: 10 points):
mission statement, a description of its core programs and explain the relevance of the organization’s programmatic and operational activities to providing technical assistance, designing, implementing and monitoring the selected QIN model. Provide an organizational history as it relates to supporting EHS/other federally funded programs in the community and other eligibility criteria outlined in Section 1.2.3. Describe how the mission and/or vision of the organization links to OSSE’s long term strategy to improve the quality of infant and toddler care in the District, including sharing of data and necessary information and participating in evaluation efforts, as needed.
describe how the organization is prepared to provide services and monitor the selected QIN model), the rationale for selecting this model and for selection of any partners and how it will directly result in high-quality care for infants and toddler and their families in DC and how this work is consistent with the organization’s strategic objectives and goals).
37
Applicant Organizational Knowledge (Maximum: 35 points)
Development Facilities (Maximum: 10 points): Describe the applicant
technical assistance (aligned to HSPPS) and coaching to licensed child development facilities to improve outcomes for children and families in alignment with HSPPS or other national best practices. To the extent that the proposed project involves child development homes, applicants should demonstrate knowledge of key differences in HSPPS between child development homes and centers. Provide details about prior engagement with the target population in the proposed project.
38
Applicant Organizational Knowledge (Maximum: 35 points) (continuation)
(Maximum: 10 points): Describe the applicant organization’s experience and expertise (and that of any partners) related to federal HSPPS early childhood development and children and families served in Wards 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 in the District. Applicants should demonstrate knowledge of similar programs implemented in other cities nationwide and a plan to glean best practices and lessons learned from those program models and apply them to the District context.
39
Applicant Organizational Knowledge (Maximum: 35 points) (continuation)
Describe the applicant’s proposed organization, staffing and positions or services to be contracted out to support the provision of all comprehensive and family engagement EHS services across the entire QIN. This should include a well delineated breakdown of how the model will be designed and implemented and the structure of any partnerships. Describe the senior management team and their capacity to provide effective oversight and accountability for the program, including establishing systems of ongoing monitoring and self-assessment and involving the parent committees/policy council in planning and decision- making consistent with HSPPS. If the proposed program engages with child development homes, describe staff knowledge and experience with this group.
40
Applicant Organizational Knowledge (Maximum: 35 points) (continuation)
the District’s residents and whose expertise complements your
technical assistance and services to the child care partners. The
work of the applicant’s program alone.
41
Process to Provide and Monitor Adherence to HSPPS (Maximum: 45 points)
children and families, please describe your communication strategy for program planning and community engagement. Describe the process your
child care partners and the target population in the District regarding HSPPS and participation in the QIN. If the proposed program engages with child development homes, describe any particular communication strategies that will be used with this group.
42
Process to Provide and Monitor Adherence to HSPPS (Maximum: 45 points) (continuation)
experience with or knowledge of similar initiatives and initial research into the landscape of EHS programs, describe the approach to providing teachers with continuous, job-embedded professional development and coaching aligned to DC Common Core Early Learning Standards, QIN School Readiness Goals and HSPPS (see Attachment B in the RFA for additional information).
demonstrate a plan to ensure QIN services continue uninterrupted for families currently in the QIN (if applicable). This is in addition to having a plan to communicate this to the child care partners, teachers and families.
43
Process to Provide and Monitor Adherence to HSPPS (Maximum: 45 points): (continuation)
Technical Assistance to Child Care Partners (Maximum: 10 points): Describe the methodology for monitoring the quality of services and technical assistance delivered to the child care partners and the process for continuous enhancement and improvement. Monitoring procedures must describe: (1) programmatic monitoring on the achievement of goals and activities, as stated and approved in the applications; and (2) adherence to terms agreed upon in notices or other agreements. Applicants may submit sample programmatic and financial reporting materials.
44
Process to Provide and Monitor Adherence to HSPPS (Maximum: 45 points): (continuation)
(Maximum: 5 points): Using the charts available in EGMS, complete the work plan and data collection and evaluation plan.
plan for the first year of the five year grant, detailing project activities (i.e., specific milestones or tasks) and indicating the alignment of those milestones/tasks with the objectives of the project. Each
activities and indicate the party responsible for completing the
will be performed.
45
Process to Provide and Monitor Adherence to HSPPS (Maximum: 45 points):
(Maximum: 5 points): Using the charts available in EGMS, complete the work plan and data collection and evaluation plan. (continuation)
the implementation of the organizational functions on a regular basis. Include data collection methodology and frequency. A complete response should clearly name the party responsible for activities, demonstrate a process for periodic data collection, ongoing learning and program improvement.
46
Detailed Planned Expenditures: Financial Management and Proposed Budget (Maximum: 10 points)
management and internal accounting procedures that will be used to ensure proper financial management of the grant, including the fiscal controls designed for accountability and procedures to ensure proper spending of the grant funds according to approved budgets and
tracking of expenditures according to approved budgets and contractual
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (as defined by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants).
47
Detailed Planned Expenditures: Financial Management and Proposed Budget (Maximum: 10 points) (continuation)
proposed budget for the first year of the five-year grant and narrative description of the use of grant funds to address the requirements of this
must be requested by contacting the Program Contact listed in Section 1.1.5. The standard indirect cost rate offered by OSSE/DEL is 10 percent, unless the applicant has a Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA) with the federal government that allows them to budget a different rate.
49
RFA Attachment A: Central Data Assurances (RFA, page 29) RFA Attachment B: Program Specific Assurances (RFA, page 35) RFA Attachment C: QIN School Readiness Goals (RFA, page 36) Other Attachments (required uploads in EGMS) (RFA, pages 23-24)
51
provide the following to the Grant Point of Contact: – First name – Last name – Email address – Note if you have worked in EGMS previously and, if you have, provide a new email address for your reader role
may require you to set a new password.
52
53
54
55
they would let OSSE know if they learn of a conflict with a particular applicant.
that submitted applications” – DC Citywide Grants Manual and Sourcebook, Sec. 8.1(b)
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
1. Hit “save/calculate” when scores are entered or edited on the reader scoresheet. 2. On the scoring summary tab of the reader scoresheet, click “calculate totals” and “save page.” 3. Ensure no boxes are blank under “points awarded” on the scoring summary tab of the reader scoresheet. 4. On the scoring summary tab of the reader scoresheet, do not exceed maximum possible “available points.” 5. Ensure “total score” has been recorded in the indicated space on “reader to do list” before clicking “submit.”
65
66
Potential Error 1: Scores are entered, “save/calculate” is clicked. Scores are then edited and “save/calculate” is not clicked. The revised score will not be updated. To resolve Error 1: Click “save/calculate” after entering or editing any scores. Confirm that the sub-total for the section is the sum of the scores given to the sub-sections.
67
Note: “Save/Calculate” is one button on all tabs on the reader scoresheet, excluding the scoring summary.
68
Potential Error 2: A score higher than the maximum allowed for a sub-section will still calculate into the total for the section (i.e., 6 out of 5 for “mission and history”). To resolve Error 2: Correct the score to be a number less than or equal to the maximum allowed and re-click “save/calculate.” Confirm that the sub-total for the section is the sum of the scores given to the sub-sections.
69
Potential Error 3: Only “calculate totals” is clicked and scores are not saved. To resolve Error 3: Click “calculate totals” and “save page” to ensure the score is saved and recorded.
70
Potential Error 4: Only “calculate totals” is clicked. The score and any comments entered in “overall comments” are not recorded. To resolve Error 4: Click “calculate totals” and “save page” on the scoring summary tab of the reader scoresheet. “Calculate Totals” will place the sum of the “points awarded” in the “application total points” box. Clicking “save page” will save and record the score and comments.
71
Note: “Overall Comments” is a good space to indicate any comments on the application as a whole, the work plan, the evaluation and data collection plan
72
Potential Error 5: Sub-totals are blank, artificially reducing total score. To resolve Error 5: If boxes are blank, return to related tab corresponding to the blank score, hit “save/calculate” again and then return to the scoring summary page to confirm the issue has been resolved and all boxes now have scores that are: (a) less than or equal to the maximum score allowed for the section and (b) match your
the application (See Error 4).
73
Potential Error 6: Scores are higher/lower than intended. To resolve Error 6: If the Total score (e.g., 73 out of 100) does not reflect your view on the application overall, re-visit the other tabs, re-score and hit “save/calculate”
74
Potential Error 7: Blank score is submitted to OSSE. To resolve Error 7: If “total score” is blank on the reader to-do list, hit “review application” to return to the scoring summary tab of the review checklist and click “calculate totals” and “save page” again. Navigate back to the reader to-do list by clicking “close browser” on the reader to-do list and “return to reader to-do list” on the application window. The “total score” should now appear on the reader to-do
Error 4), click “submit.” The “review status” will then change to “completed.”
75
Final Quick Tips:
contact with EGMS will not excuse missing the review submission deadline.)
after 60 minutes of inactivity.
and paste from a Word document, double-check that final sentences/paragraphs are not cut off.
help center if you think you are encountering this problem.
7:30 a.m. – 5:30 p.m. Monday - Friday
77
log into EGMS.
are functioning.
within EGMS.
required to participate in facilitated discussions between Aug. 23, 2019 and Aug. 26, 2019.
complete comments and facilitated discussion, if needed.
may be shared with applicants (without reviewer names).
Intelligence (AEI).
78
79
2019
2019
2019
80
excellent resource that walks readers through the step-by-step process
FIND US
facebook.com/ossedc twitter.com/ossedc youtube.com/DCEducation www.osse.dc.gov
GET SOCIAL
ADDRESS: POC:
83
1050 First St. NE Washington, DC 20002 Tara Dewan-Czarnecki (202) 741-7637 Tara.Dewan-Czarnecki@dc.gov Rebecca Shaw Phone: (202) 741-7637 Rebecca.Shaw@dc.gov