Answers to Grant Application Questions MINNESOTA EVIDENCE-BASED HOME VISITING (EBHV) GRANT PROGRAM

1. Question - As we are just getting started in January, we did reach the 85% caseload

threshold required for expansion funds in the grant. We currently have a home visitor

vacancy, and as a result did have some families leave which resulted in our caseload

dropping below the 85% level. We plan to fill the position in the next few months.

Because we are down a staff do we calculate a new target caseload with existing

staffing? If that were the case, we would be reaching that percentage.

Answer - The purpose of this funding is to serve more families. Applications should take into account internal implementation challenges as part of the proposal. The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) encourages applicants to consider the internal and external forces that impact full implementation in reaching target caseload, such as a plan to address staffing changes. Application budgets and work plans should reflect plans to ramp-up and how to address plateau phases.

2. Question - Would this funding opportunity provide an option to help cover training for

new staff in evidence-based models? The training would be for staff replacing those

who are retiring, not expanding additional staff.

Answer - The purpose of this funding is to serve additional families. All proposals must demonstrate that new families will be served with this funding. Application budgets and work plans should reflect activities related to serving additional families.

3. Question - We have had a home visiting model for several years. We currently have 19

Family Educators that provide home visits to 796 families. Would we be considered a

start-up/implementation or expansion/implementation program?

Answer - The program would be considered a start-up program if it were proposing to start new services using an approved evidence-based home visiting model. The program would be an expansion program if the evidence-based model currently being implemented would serve 1) additional participants within the current service area; or 2) additional participants within an expanded service area.

4. Question - We are a small but high-quality agency using an evidence-based early

childhood education (ECE) and Home Visiting model. We are in the heart of the Twin

Cities with a highly intensive, therapeutic model for serving families who have

experienced adverse childhood events. Is there preference for quantity relative to

quality for this grant? We would hope to expand from 25-50 people to 50-100 or

more through a planning and implementation grant.

2

Answer - Only evidence-based models from the list referenced in the RFP will be

considered. Proposals that include models outside of the list of evidence-based home

visiting models will not be reviewed. The application must support the target caseload

that you are proposing. Fidelity to the model, which includes quality, must be

demonstrated and maintained throughout the grant.

5. Question - Is the November 30, 2017 webinar about the Home Visiting RFP viewable at

any other time? Our organization has a staff training at that time.

Answer - The informational webinar is archived and can be viewed at any time. The RFP informational webinar is available on the MDH WebEx site. This link was also announced in Tuesday Topics, a weekly electronic communication from the Family Home Visiting (FHV) section at MDH. To subscribe to Tuesday Topics, visit the FHV website and click on “Subscribe to FHV E-bulletins” on the upper right hand side of the web page.

6. Question - What will be the average implementation grant award or range for a grant

award?

Answer - MDH will not be able to answer this question until awards are made. Grant amounts will be determined based on the applications reviewed. MDH anticipates 10-12 grant awards.

7. Question - It seems like the funding pot is limited, but MDH will need to demonstrate

a state-wide reach. We are a metro grantee and considered applying with another

partner to demonstrate a regional approach, however, the funding is too limited to

meaningfully cover a region. What advice would you have for us?

Answer - This is a competitive grant and as such, MDH cannot provide individual advice to applicants. MDH recommends that all applicants carefully examine internal capacity and external capacity to reach their proposed target caseload. Experience has demonstrated that applicants tend to overestimate their success and speed at hiring and retaining staff, implementing an evidence-based home visiting model with fidelity, building a referral network, and recruiting and retaining clients. Your application, including work plan and budget, must be realistic and demonstrate an attainable target caseload. Further, awarded grantees will be held accountable to reach their proposed target caseload and continued funding will be dependent on performance.

8. Question - Will the funding ramp up for successful grantees as more funding becomes

available? Will more than $3.2 million be available the last two years of the grant

periods due to the amount legislated?

Answer - This grant award is for $3.2 million per year for the period of May 1, 2018 - December 31, 2022. No additional funds will be awarded under this grant. However, MDH will be issuing another RFP for funds that are anticipated July 1, 2019.

9. Question - Will MDH put out additional funding opportunities in future years

(especially for those who aren’t successful in receiving this grant) once the funding

amount increases? This question is specific to the EBHV state funds.

3

Answer - See response to question #8 above. Yes, MDH will be issuing another RFP for

funds that are anticipated July 1, 2019.

10. Question - Will fathers be considered to be program participants should they be

served by an evidence-based home visiting model?

Answer - Grantees should consult with their chosen model developer to determine eligible program participants.

11. Question - Are we allowed to include outreach and father advocate services if not

traditional part of the evidence-based model, but would increase positive outcomes?

Answer - Any adaptation to the model must be approved by the model developer.

12. Question - What is the date the brief survey is due? Is it due before the proposal or

part of the proposal?

Answer - You can complete the survey and submit it before the application due date. The survey must be completed and submitted by the application deadline of 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 1, 2018.

13. Question - Are letters of support allowed?

Answer - Letters of support are allowed. However, they will not be part of the application scoring.

14. Question - Do all the forms also need to be consecutively numbered, or only the

narrative and work plan sections?

Answer - Yes, all application pages, including forms, need to be numbered consecutively.

15. Question - We currently provide home visiting services (non-model) and are in the

process of completing our affiliate application and securing confirmed

partners. Would we be considered a planning or start up grant?

Answer - A planning grant does not include expansion of evidence-based home visiting model services to new families for this RFP. It is for collaboration and planning purposes only. A start-up implementation grant involves providing and budgeting for services to new families.

16. Question - If someone is awarded the planning grant and is ready to implement and

does so before the 14 month award period ends, do they become ineligible for a

future implementation grant?

Answer- Future RFP funding opportunities have not been determined at this point. However, it is a standard of all MDH grants to not allow supplanting of other funds.

17. Question - The FHV grant webinar and page 25 of the RFP mentions 4 budget periods.

Page 20 of the RFP talks twice about 6 budget periods. Are those typos on page 20? Or

did I miss a difference between what those two pages are talking about?

Answer - Yes, four budget periods, as stated on page 25 of the RFP is correct. The six budget periods mentioned on page 20 of the RFP is a typo and is incorrect. A corrected

4

version of the RFP has been posted on the MDH website. MDH apologizes for any confusion this inadvertent oversight may have caused and appreciates this error being brought to our attention.

18. Question - Are there qualification/credential requirements for family home visitors?

We have a staffer with Community Health Worker training who is amazing at this type

of work and highly qualified—and I’d really like to have her do this work if possible.

Can Community Health Workers do FHV through these grants?

Answer - Fidelity to model requirements must be followed and clearly identified in the application.

19. Question - In the project narrative, Letter D, we are to provide documentation to

prove we are approved to use the chosen model. We have a Federal Head Start

program and a State Early Head Start program. Would the State grant be our

documentation?

Answer - Yes, in this example, the Early Head Start (EHS) State grant could be submitted as documentation of approval to implement the evidence-based home visiting model. Applicants must provide documentation of approval to implement and expand EHS from either the federal or state funder, depending on how the EHS program is funded.

20. Question – If we apply (and are awarded) for funding now to support a small scale

expansion, does that preclude us from also applying for the larger funding when that

RFP rolls out in 2019 (i.e. Would we have to apply for a planning grant now to be

eligible for the larger monies in 2020, and not do any expansion at this time?)

Answer - Guidelines for the next RFP have not been determined. However, outcomes of

this RFP will not determine future RFP eligibility or outcomes. Future RFPs will require

that applicants demonstrate start-up or expansion of services to new families.

21. Question - In the paragraph below, does the phrase, “who are eligible for medical

assistance under Minnesota Statutes, chapter 256B, or the federal Special

Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)” apply only

to the first time mothers phrase or the whole paragraph listing? For example would

the parents with a history of mental illness be required to be on Medical assistance?

From page 7 Eligibility criteria: Serve, or plan to serve, families such as parents with high risk or high needs, parents with a history of mental illness, intimate partner violence, or substance abuse, or first-time mothers prenatally or until the child is four years of age, as prescribed by model developers, who are eligible for medical assistance under Minnesota Statutes, chapter 256B, or the federal Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).

Answer - We refer the reader to the term “such as” in the beginning of the paragraph referenced in the question above, which indicates that these are a sample list of eligibility criteria and not a required list of eligible families. The populations listed are discrete examples and not intended to be modifiers of each other.

5

22. Question - As a statewide resource for training, reflective consultation, and

Endorsement for Culturally Sensitive, Relationship-Focused Practice Promoting Infant

Mental Health, I would like to know how we might be considered as a

resource/contractor for those agencies/organizations applying for the full RFP?

Answer - It would be up to applicants to reach out to training providers/organizations to

determine how they might partner on the work outlined in their proposal. MDH does

not provide specific advice or endorse specific contractors.

23. Question - Are costs for transportation for clients considered an incentive or can they

be included in travel or a different category of the budget?

Answer - Transportation for clients is considered part of program costs, and should be included in the “Other” category of the budget. If transportation is provided in the form of gas cards, then it would fall under incentives. Please see the guidelines on incentives on page 19 of the RFP.

24. Question - Are we able to include enhancements to our models when considering

expansion, such as contracting for a chemical dependency counselor or reflective

practice consultant?

Answer - Reflective practice is referenced as a foundational requirement for both planning and implementation grants and would not be considered an enhancement. Program funds do not support the delivery or costs of direct medical, dental, or mental health services or legal services except for some limited services provided (typically by the home visitor) to the extent required in fidelity to an evidence-based home visiting model.

25. Question - Can we enhance existing programs through a regional grant such as

contracting with a chemical dependency counselor or reflective practice consultant?

Answer - All applications for funding must demonstrate a start-up or expansion of an evidence-based home visiting model for new families. Recipients who wish to adopt enhancements to an existing evidence-based home visiting model in order to better meet the needs of targeted communities must ensure written prior approval from the national model developers to ensure that enhancements do not alter core components. Reflective practice is considered a core component of both the planning and implementation grants and not an enhancement. Program funds do not support the delivery or costs of direct medical, dental, or mental health services or legal services except for some limited services provided (typically by the home visitor) to the extent required in fidelity to an evidence-based home visiting model.

26. Question - Can we expand more than one evidence-based home visiting model?

Answer- Yes.

27. Question - Regarding section F, Linkages and Collaboration, there are a number of

home visiting organizations in our community. Is there a way we can find out each

programs’ eligibility requirements and number of clients currently being served?

6

Answer - MDH recommends that you contact your community partners directly for this information.

28. Question - Can a Community Health Board who is a fiscal host for previous Maternal,

Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) funding (Nurse Family

Partnership) also be a fiscal host for this additional funding?

Answer - Yes.

29. Question - Our planning timeframe to implement a new evidence-based home visiting

model is approximately 6-7 months and then we would be ready for

implementation. Because the next round of available funding for implementation

grants would not be available until summer/fall of 2019, should we write an

implementation grant and build in the planning elements?

Answer - Yes, an implementation grant can include a plan for ramp-up time.

30. Question - Please provide a definition of “supplant”.

Answer - “Supplant” means to “replace” or “take the place of.” State statute wording prohibits recipients of state funds from replacing current state, local, or agency funds with state funds. Existing funds for a project and its activities may not be displaced by state funds and reallocated for other organizational expenses.

31. Question - The RFP states that current program funding should be maintained. How

should we address funding (private grant) that has a scheduled end date, as the ability

to maintain those funds is not something we can control.

Answer - Local funding that is under the control of the applicant must be maintained.

Use of funding that is not ongoing should be clearly described and reflected in the

narrative and budget proposal. The description should include the end dates for these

funds. Please also see definition above on supplanting.

32. Question - If our program is approved for funding, may we select a July 1, 2018 start

date?

Answer - The grant agreement and work plan will start on May 1, 2018, however work

plans and budgets may indicate ramp-up and plateau periods.

33. Question - Will there be encouragement or requirements for same-model programs to

work together to coordinate model specific training? Or how will model specific

trainings be coordinated to promote program and fiscal efficiency across the state?

Answer - There are no requirements for coordinating model specific training beyond

what is stated in the RFP. As stated in the RFP, MDH encourages regional coordination

and collaboration, which could include coordination of training. Once grantees are

selected and known, MDH will try to facilitate efficiencies and coordination of training

as applicable.

7

34. Question - The RFP indicates an anticipated release of $10 million for EBHV in the

summer/fall of 2019. Has the scope of that roll out been defined yet? If so, can you

please share? (i.e. What will the priorities be? Will it be open to any CHB, non-profit or

Tribe? Or limited to existing grantees, etc.?)

Answer - The guidelines for future RFP funding opportunities have not yet been determined, however, state legislation for the EBHV funding states that CHBs, non-profits and tribal nations are eligible to apply. All state funding under this legislation is competitive and the eligibility and awards of previous RFPs will not determine future RFP eligibility and awards.

35. Question - Regarding the section on Planning Grants and Goals, what is the anticipated

size of these grants, in dollars, per grant?

Answer - MDH will not be able to answer this question until awards are made. Grant

amounts will be determined based on applications reviewed. MDH anticipates 10-12

grants awards, including two or three planning grants.

36. Question - We are an organization that currently does home visiting as a part of our

model of community development. We are interested in evaluating an evidence-based

family home visiting model and understanding how it would support and expand our

current work with youth and families. If we were awarded a planning grant, and

unable to determine and implement an evidence-based home visiting model during

the timeline outlined, what would be the contingency plan?

Answer - All future RFPs will be competitive. We do not anticipate that all planning grants will be in a place to apply for implementation or to be competitively awarded an implementation grant. Once the planning grant ends there are no further obligations related to the grant.

37. Question - Regarding the section on Program Goals and Components as it relates to

priority and community definition or model definition, the RFP outlines characteristics

of target families until the child is four years of age. One of the evidence-based home

visiting models we are interested in defines engagement as two years or until the child

is age five. Which takes precedent?

Answer - MDH directs the reader to the first full paragraph on page 6 of the RFP, second

line, which uses the term “such as” in the beginning of that paragraph and indicates that

this list is a sample list and not a required list of eligible families served.

38. Question - Regarding the section on Program Goals and Components, our work focuses

on early learning (right before preschool) through college – working with families

before preschool and through college, a long term relationship/commitment. Would

we be eligible to apply?

Answer - See the “Eligibility Criteria” section on page 7 of the RFP.

39. Question - Regarding eligibility and duplication of services, the RFP states that

applicants must meet an identified gap in the existing continuum of early childhood

8

services and complement, rather than duplicate, existing home visiting services. How

would a duplication of services be determined?

Answer - Please follow the instructions on page 14, in the RFP, under section F, Linkages and Collaboration. The fourth bullet in that section requests that the applicant describe the identified gaps and overlaps in the existing continuum of home visiting services and how they will be addressed.

40. Question - Regarding disbursement of funding, how are funds dispersed? Monthly,

quarterly reimbursement?

Answer - Invoices may be submitted monthly or quarterly for reimbursement of eligible expenses incurred.

41. Question - Who could we contact for more information on the evidence-based home

visiting models and any requirements for training?

Answer - Contact information for priority evidence-based home visiting models can be

found on the HomVEE website. Contact information for priority models is also listed

below.

Early Head Start Home Visiting

Administration for Children and Families

Office of Head Start (OHS)

Mary E. Switzer Building

330 C Street, SW

Washington, DC 20201

Early Head Start website

Family Connects

Ashley Alvord and Jacquelyn Mroz, Training Specialists

Family Connects

1121 W. Chapel Hill Street

Suite 100

Durham, NC 27701

Email: ashley.alvord@dm.duke.edu, jacquelyn.mroz@duke.edu

Family Connects website

Family Spirit

Allison Ingalls

Program Manager

Phone: (443) 287-5154

Email: aingalls@jhu.edu or familyspirit@jhu.edu

Family Spirit website

Healthy Families America

9

Healthy Families America National Office

Prevent Child Abuse America

228 S. Wabash, 10th Floor

Chicago, IL 60604

Phone: (312) 663-3520

Fax: (312) 939-8962

E-mail: mailbox@preventchildabuse.org

Healthy Families America website

Nurse Family Partnership

Nurse-Family Partnership National Service Office

1900 Grant Street, Suite 400

Denver, CO 80203

Phone: (866) 864-5226

Fax: (303) 327-4260

E-mail: info@nursefamilypartnership.org

Nurse Family Partnership website

Parents as Teachers

Parents as Teachers National Center

2228 Ball Drive

St. Louis, MO 63146

Telephone: 314-432-4330

Toll-free telephone: 1-866-728-4968

Fax: 314-432-8963

Email: info@parentsasteachers.org

Parents as Teachers website

42. Question - What is meant by “community assets” on page 13, under section C?

Answer - Assets could include items such as infrastructure, resources, and other community characteristics.

43. Question - Comprehensive summary of overall home visiting budget – what exactly is

meant by this? Sponsoring agency budget? Individual contractors/partners’ budgets?

Need more guidance.

Answer - Please refer to the bottom of page 10 in the RFP, last paragraph in the planning grant section and the bottom of page 17 in the implementation grant section for information requiring applicants to include in their work plan an activity to develop a comprehensive summary of their overall home visiting budget, including all major home visiting funding sources. Once awarded, grantees will work with MDH staff to answer the following questions:

What is your full scope of home visiting programs?

What are your home visiting program expenses?

What are your home visiting revenues or funding sources?

10

44. Question - Regarding the Due diligence form, if partners are contracting with a CHB

and the CHB will be the fiscal agent, do the contractors need to complete this?

Answer - No, non-profits that are contractors of a primary applicant do not need to complete the Due Diligence Form. Non-profit organizations who are the primary applicant, fiscal agent, or partnering applicant must complete the form.

45. Question - When will the Excel format documents be available?

Answer - Sample Excel format documents will be e-mailed by December 18, 2017 to agencies that submitted a Letter of Intent.

46. Question - Do I need to submit the short survey and face sheet with the Letter of

Intent, or submit it along with the actual application?

Answer - The survey can be done anytime between now and the application deadline

and the face sheet is part of the grant application, and as such, should be submitted

with the application. Again, both need to be submitted by 4:00 p.m. (CST) on February

1, 2018.

47. Question - When will the Questions and Answers be posted, and where? Answer – RFP related questions and answers will be posted no later than December 11,

2017 on the MDH Family Home Visiting website.

Questions and Answers Added January 8, 2018

48. Question – Do you want a table of contents?

Answer - The RFP does not require a table of contents. However, a table of contents

would assist review committee members in the application review process.

49. Question - If we did not submit a Letter of Intent by the December 7th deadline, are we still able to submit an application in response to the RFP? Answer – Yes. The submission of a Letter of Intent is not required to submit an application in response to the RFP.

50. Question - What font size can we use for the Excel budget justification? Also, can the Excel budget be one worksheet with all four budget periods on one sheet, or do you want each budget period as a separate Excel work sheet? Any concerns about size for printing for reviewers – ours is 11 x 14 inches paper size. Answer – The Budget Summary Table should fit onto one printed page and will be an official part of the grant agreement upon award. The Primary Budget is designed to exhibit the math and summary of each expense while the Budget Narrative provides justification for each expense. For ease of printing, we recommend that applicants who choose to use Excel consider splitting the narrative from the math documentation and summary parts of the budget. This is not a requirement, but a consideration for

11

printing. Please be advised that Excel budgets will be printed on paper no larger than 11x14 inches, so pay attention to right and left margins. It is expected that budgets for each period will continue over several pages, but keeping to a single page width will make it easier for reviewers. Regardless of which format is used (Excel or Word) the instructions on pages 19, 20, and 25-32 in the RFP should be followed. No additional points will be awarded if an applicant uses Excel or Word to submit their Budget and Justification.

51. Question - On page 8 of the RFP it states “A list of applicants that submit a Letter of Intent will be shared amongst all the applicants to allow for and encourage coordination where possible.” When will this list be shared? Will it be posted on your website or emailed to applicants who submitted a Letter of Intent?

Answer – The list of potential applicants who submitted a Letter of Intent was shared with other applicants who submitted a Letter of Intent via e-mail on December 13, 2017. An updated list was sent on December 28, 2017 which included additional information such as the type of grant the applicant is applying for (planning or implementation), the proposed Family Home Visiting (FHV) model, and other partners the applicant is working with or plans to work with on the grant. Interested parties may request a copy of this list by e-mailing the FHV Grants e-mail inbox at: Health.FHVGrants@state.mn.us

52. Question - Since the start date is now May 1, 2018 the first budget period on page 25 of the revised RFP should now be May 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019, correct? Answer – Yes, that is correct. The first budget period is now 14 months (May 1, 2018 – June 30, 2019.) This change was also highlighted in the Family Home Visiting Tuesday Topics Special Edition announcement that was sent out on December 13, 2017 regarding the Revised EBHV Request for Proposals.

53. Question - Are you still holding the information meeting on December 18, 2017? Answer - The meetings held on December 18 and 19th were not sponsored by MDH. Rather, they were capacity building meetings hosted by the Minnesota Coalition for Targeted Visiting to assist organizations in preparing their Evidence-Based Home Visiting Grant application. Please contact Laura LaCroix-Dalluhn at laura@lacroixdalluhnconsulting.com for more information.

54. Question - In our letter of intent we indicated a number for our “Anticipated Target Caseload Once at Full Capacity”. We interpreted “full capacity” to mean after year 2, since the first year you would be building caseload with new enrollees, and then year 2, keeping those on and adding new clients. I believe we possibly interpreted that incorrectly, because in the grant application it references that applicants must be able to demonstrate an ability to reach their projected target caseload within one year of funding. So just to clarify, the targeted caseload “size” is actually the number of families being served at the completion of the first year, correct?

Answer – Applicants should provide their target caseload number, the maximum number of families they plan to serve once fully implemented, in their application. In general, for those applying for an implementation grant, we expect programs to be able to reach this by the end of the first year. Applicants should consult with model

12

requirements and the caseload target plan and timeline should reflect these requirements.

55. Question – We did not receive the Sample Excel Budget Template for the RFP. Can we request a copy of this template? Answer – Yes, interested parties may request a copy of the Excel Budget Template by e-mailing the Family Home Visiting Grants e-mail inbox, Health.FHVGrants@state.mn.us.

56. Question - One of our partners developed an excel budget template that allows for budget figures, budget justification, and the 4 budget periods all on the same page. We are wondering if it would be allowable for us to use this format versus using the MDH created Excel or Word templates. We would use all of the other MDH created forms, including the MDH created budget summary form. Please advise if this is allowable for this grant application, or if would cause disqualification or a point reduction if we do not use one of the budget justification templates created by MDH.

Answer - You are welcome to and encouraged to use your own Excel templates. However, please note that you are held accountable for including the required information requested in the RFP and we ask that you consider printing guidelines stated in the Excel instructions. The instructions to the Excel template state:

These templates are meant as examples only. Similar to the Word document in the RFP, the templates do not include all of the expenses that applicants might propose. Anyone wishing to use these examples must have the appropriate advanced Excel skills required to edit, modify, and make changes to the worksheets. We would anticipate that an Advanced Excel user (e.g. accountant) will already have templates similar to these and will use these examples for clarity and comparison. We do not guarantee that they are error free and once edits are made, the user must rely on their own skills and checking to make sure that formulas are correct and that the budgets are accurate.

Applicants who do not feel comfortable with Excel should use the Word Budget Templates provided in the RFP. Regardless of which format is used (Excel or Word) the instructions on pages 19, 20, and 25-32 in the RFP should be followed. No additional points will be awarded if an applicant uses Excel or Word to submit their Budget and Justification.

57. Question - In our application, we have 5 different partner agencies completing individual budget justification forms (which includes their indirect time), plus the primary applicant/fiscal host completing their own form, for a total of 6 different budget justification forms. The instructions seem to indicate that the primary applicant combines all of the budget information from partner agencies, and includes those amounts into one budget summary sheet for each of the budget periods, listing partner budgets in the “Other” category. Since the partner agencies already included their indirect costs within their individual budgets, our budget summary sheet would just show the indirect cost for the applicant/fiscal host agency, correct? We also would have each partner agency and the primary applicant fill out their own individual

13

form regarding indirect cost justification. Just want to confirm that we are doing that correctly. It seems a bit confusing when we are doing one budget summary form, since the indirect category is listed after the “other” category. Answer – Partnering agencies should include their indirect costs in their individual budgets. The primary applicant can request for their indirect rate (e.g. 10%) to cover their full subtotal, including other partner agency budgets. The indirect rate and what is included must be submitted to MDH and must meet the following criteria: justified and allowable costs and fit with the effort needed to support the proposed grant.

58. Question - Will grantees be expected to report on all outcomes listed in the RFP or only those that are relevant and measured in the model grant program? For example, if a measure (such as birth outcomes) targets a population that is not being served (pregnant women) by the EBHV model program, are grantees expected to report on them? Answer - Awardees will be expected to report data for the Minnesota Family Home Visiting Evaluation Measures listed in Appendix D, on page 46 of the RFP. If the awardee does not serve the population targeted in a given evaluation measure, that awardee will not be evaluated on that measure. For example, grantees that do not enroll clients prenatally would not be evaluated on the Preterm Birth measure, which only includes infants born to mothers who were enrolled in home visiting before 37 weeks of gestation.

59. Question - How do you expect outcomes to be reported for this grant? Will nonprofit organizations be required to directly report through Red Cap or can they upload reporting to a server or data system at MDH? Answer – Please refer to page 16 of the RFP (section H, Data Collection and Reporting), where the options for reporting evaluation data for this grant are described.

60. Question - Will applicants receive feedback on proposals that are not funded in this competitive grant round? Answer - A brief summary of constructive feedback on an applicant’s proposal will be provided after grant agreements are fully executed and when the applicant submits a request for such information to the Family Home Visiting Grants e-mail inbox, Health.FHVGrants@state.mn.us

61. Question – The rate you use in your RFP and Excel examples is $0.535 per mile rate for mileage. The IRS mileage rate was recently increased to $0.545 per mile. Should we use the new 2018 IRS rate in our RFP response budget?

Answer – Yes, please use the 2018 IRS rate ($0.545 per mile) for your budget proposal. That will help eliminate the number of budget proposals that may need to be revised to reflect this new rate for those individuals/organizations who are awarded a grant.

62. Question – What documentation does a State funded Early Head Start program need to submit to indicate approval for expansion? Answer – The Minnesota Department of Education has provided MDH with the current State Fiscal Year 2018 Head Start allocation chart to verify current Early Head Start grantees. Early Head Start applicants should submit a copy of their signed State Fiscal

14

Year 2018 Part B Head Start Program Plan as part of their grant application. A letter from the Minnesota Department of Education is not required.

Questions and Answers Added January 26, 2018

63. Question - When will we know if/what training might be offered by MDH for the purposes of our budget planning for the RFP? Answer - A training update that included general information about our training plan for 2018 went out in January editions of Tuesday Topics. As part of that plan, MDH will offer model required trainings for programs currently implementing the Healthy Families America model. Priority registration for these trainings will be given to grantees that do not have training costs built into their MDH grant budgets. For those applying to the EBHV RFP, training costs must be included in the application and budget. As stated on page 14-15 in the RFP, applicants should plan on securing the required trainings for each model, directly from the model developer, without the assistance of MDH. This should be reflected in the applicant’s budget, as stated in the budget section instructions starting on page 19 of the RFP. There are also a couple of questions and answers regarding training that are included in the RFP Q&A document posted online (see questions 33 and 41).

64. Question – Are there any updates from Healthy Families America (HFA) about required trainings, as that could impact the training needs we include in our work plan and budget? Answer – For any prospective sites in Minnesota that received core training from Great Kids, Inc. (GKI) from 2010 to present, and have had no interruption/change in their employment with the agency as a home visitor and/or supervisor since receiving the training, HFA will grant an exception to needing additional required training to those staff upon affiliation. At that time HFA will provide the site with a letter specifying the staff within the program whose previous training will be approved. Any sites needing additional clarification should e-mail Christi Peeples – cpeeples@preventchildabuse.org.

65. Question - The RFP asks for SMART objectives; can you provide any examples of an appropriate SMART objective for a planning grant? Or rather, in light of the fact that it would be a planning grant, how specific should SMART objectives be? Will there be the opportunity to change said objectives should we receive a planning grant?

Answer – On page 24 of the EBHV Grant RFP, under Form B Work Plan, there is an example of a SMART objective. Objectives should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound.

66. Question - In our application budgets, are we expected to include any anticipated third party reimbursements or in-kind similar to other grants?

15

Answer - Applicants should address third party billing in the application narrative, which is requested on the bottom of page 15 in the EBHV Grant RFP. Applicants should also address this in their Budget Justification.

67. Question – Does each partner have to complete Form D for each grant year to attach to the grant application? Answer – Yes. As stated on page 25 of the RFP, each partner providing evidence-based home visiting services is required to complete a Budget Justification form (Form D) for each of the budget periods. The lead partner/fiscal host should include the total budgets of partner agencies under the “Other” budget category.

68. Question - Is staff training in an evidence-based model an allowable cost for the EBHV grant? Page 15 of the RFP states that applicants should plan on securing required training 'without the assistance of MDH', but it is not stated whether that means financial or logistical assistance (or both). (General staff training is listed as an allowable cost on page 28 in the 'other' section of the budget justification overview, but what types of training are allowable are not stated.) Answer – Yes, staff training for model required training or training that supports implementation of the model is an allowable cost and should be included in the work plan and budget.

69. Question – If we are applying for planning grant, are we required to attend the annual home visiting conference and the CQI learning collaborative? The RFP does not specifically state it. Answer – No. The annual home visiting conference and CQI learning collaborative are not required activities for planning grants.

Minnesota Department of Health

PO Box 64882

St. Paul, MN 55164

651-201-4090

Health.FHVGrants@state.mn.us

Issued 12/11/2017

Last Updated 1/26/2018

Upon request, this material will be made available in an alternative format such as large print, Braille or audio recording.