[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 173 (Wednesday, September 6, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54044-54052]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-22772]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Children and Families

[Program Announcement No. ACF/ACYF/HS-QRC 2001-01]


Fiscal Year 2001 Discretionary Announcement for Head Start 
Quality Research Centers; Availability of Funds and Request for 
Applications

AGENCY: Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF), ACF, 
DHHS.

ACTION: Announcement of the availability of funds and request for 
applications for research on research-based program improvement 
projects by university faculty or other nonprofit institutions in 
partnership with Head Start programs.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), 
Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF) announces the 
availability of funds for Head Start Quality Research Centers to 
support intervention research and evaluation activities to promote the 
school readiness of preschool age children in Head Start.

DATES: The closing time and date for receipt of applications is 5:00 
p.m. (Eastern Time Zone) November 6, 2000. Applications received after 
5:00 p.m. on the deadline date will be classified as late.

ADDRESS: Mail applications to: ACYF Operations Center, 1815 N.Fort Myer 
Drive, Suite 300, Arlington, Virginia 22209.
    HAND DELIVERED, COURIER OR OVERNIGHT DELIVERY applications are 
accepted during the normal working hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, on or prior to the established closing date.
    All packages should be clearly labeled as follows:
    Application for Head Start Quality Research Centers.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Head Start Research Support 
Technical Assistance Team (1-800) 351-2293, is available to answer 
questions regarding application requirements and to refer you to the 
appropriate contact person in ACYF for programmatic questions. You may 
e-mail your questions to: [email protected]
    In order to determine the number of expert reviewers that will be 
necessary, if you are going to submit an application, you must send a 
post card, call or e-mail with the following information: the name, 
address, telephone and fax number, e-mail address of the principal 
investigator, and the name of the university or non-profit institution 
at least four weeks prior to the submission deadline date to:
    ACYF Operations Center, Head Start Research, 1815 N.Fort Myer 
Drive, Suite 300, Arlington, Virginia 22209, (1-800) 351-2293, E-mail 
[email protected].

Part I. Purpose and Background

A. Purpose

    The purpose of this announcement is to announce the availability of 
funds to support the formation of a Head Start Quality Research Center 
Consortium. This Consortium will include of program-researcher 
partnerships funded under cooperative agreements and designed to 
develop, evaluate, refine, and assist in dissemination of specific 
approaches to enhance Head Start program quality that promotes school 
readiness.

B. Background

    In September 1995, Head Start awarded four cooperative agreements 
to form the Head Start Quality Research Center Consortium. The 
objective of the Consortium was to create ongoing partnerships among 
ACYF, Head Start grantees and the academic research community to 
support applied research on quality program practices and program 
outcomes. During their five-year project period, the QRC Consortium has 
succeeded in building exemplary researcher-program partnerships and 
advancing the Head Start program's understanding of what aspects of 
program quality contribute to positive child and family outcomes. In so 
doing, they have also created or refined tools and strategies for 
assessing classroom quality, conducting parent interviews, and 
assessing child outcomes. As well as extensive local research 
initiatives, their efforts

[[Page 54045]]

contributed to the development of the nationally representative Head 
Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES).
    The current announcement builds on the success of the QRC 
Consortium in two ways. First, it continues the commitment to build 
research capacity in programs through partnership with the academic 
research community, as well as enhancing the responsiveness of that 
community to the programmatic and policy concerns of the population 
Head Start serves. Second, it moves into a new phase of quality 
enhancement research, by supporting the development and evaluation of 
specific program practices designed to promote the school readiness of 
Head Start children.

Purpose and Priorities

    Head Start's ultimate goal is to promote the social competence or 
school readiness of children. Social competence is the child's everyday 
effectiveness in dealing with his or her present environment and later 
responsibilities in school and life. For the five-year-old child coming 
to the end of the preschool period and entering school, an important 
test of social competence is whether he or she has acquired the skills, 
understandings and behaviors that help ensure successful functioning in 
this new environment.
    The Goal I Technical Planning Group of the National Education Goals 
Panel, which was charged with operationalizing the term ``ready to 
learn,'' listed five dimensions of early learning, development and 
abilities (Kagan, S.L., Moore, E. & Bredekamp, S. (1995) Reconsidering 
children's early development and learning: Toward common views and 
vocabulary. Washington, D.C. National Educational Goals Panel) [http://www.negp.gov/reports/child-ea.htm].
    This comprehensive view sees school readiness as a multi-faceted 
phenomenon comprising five developmental domains that are important to 
the child's readiness for school: physical well-being and motor 
development, social and emotional development, approaches to learning, 
language use and emerging literacy, and cognition and general 
knowledge. Head Start has translated these domains into the following 
Performance Measures indicators: (1) Emergent literacy, numeracy and 
language skills; (2) improved general cognitive skills; (3) improved 
gross and fine motor skills; (4) improved positive attitudes towards 
learning; (5) improved social behavior and emotional well-being; and 
(6) improved physical health and development.
    One of the key findings of the Head Start FACES Study was the 
empirical link between the quality of the child development 
environment, in this case the Head Start classroom, and the outcomes of 
children in the program. Head Start classrooms were observed to be good 
on average, with a range of quality that is less variable than that 
found in other studies of center-based early childhood programs. Yet 
even within that restricted range, specific aspects of quality, such as 
better child:adult ratios and richer teacher-child interaction and 
language learning opportunities, were related to better child 
performance on assessment tasks, regardless of the child's baseline 
ability. FACES also demonstrated a link between teacher 
characteristics, such as educational attainment, and observed measures 
of classroom quality. Teachers with higher educational levels showed 
more sensitivity and responsiveness and had classrooms with higher-
quality language activities and creative opportunities.
    In terms of child outcomes, FACES found that children graduating 
from Head Start showed significant progress in some domains, like 
vocabulary and pre-writing, but less progress in knowing letters of the 
alphabet or being familiar with concepts about print. Similarly, while 
Head Start children were rated by their teachers as having significant 
growth in social skills--more than the typical child--there was a 
minority of children who still exhibited behavior problems at the end 
of the program year. Interviews with teachers suggest that curricular 
activities and classroom practice may be related to these patterns of 
learning and behavior.
    In addition to the focus on obtaining a national picture of program 
quality and child outcomes, Head Start is currently emphasizing local 
outcome measurement as well. As mandated by the Head Start 
Reauthorization Amendments of 1998, the Head Start Bureau is currently 
developing domains and indicators of child performance that can be used 
by local programs in the context of their own self-assessments. These 
proposed child outcome domains closely parallel those of the Head Start 
Program Performance Measures, including language development, literacy, 
mathematics, science, creative arts, social and emotional development, 
approaches toward learning, and physical development, health and well-
being development (see ACYF-IM-HS-00-18, 8/10/2000, available at 
[http://www.hskids-tmsc.org/publications/im00/im00__18.htm]. Congress 
stipulated more targeted local efforts in tracking and improving child 
outcomes, especially in the areas of literacy/language development, so 
Head Start's regular program monitoring and local program self-
assessment will incorporate review of such child outcome data as one 
measure of program effectiveness.
    With current knowledge in mind, the next generation of the Quality 
Research Center Consortium is aimed at exploring ways to intervene in 
Head Start programs to enhance quality and outcomes, for example, by 
improving curriculum or classroom practice, family involvement, or 
professional development. One important goal is the creation of new 
models and resources for local programs as they move toward considering 
child outcome data more carefully in their efforts at program 
improvement.
    Thus, successful program-researcher partnerships under this 
announcement would form a Quality Research Center Consortium with the 
goal of developing and evaluating program quality enhancements to 
promote child outcomes in school readiness, broadly defined. Each 
partnership team of one or more Head Start grantees and a research 
organization would focus on a particular, self-selected approach to 
enhancing program practices in the family and/or classroom, and would 
evaluate the process of implementation, maintenance of fidelity of the 
intervention, and one or more specific child outcomes related to school 
readiness. The goal would be the development, evaluation and refinement 
of a specific approach with future dissemination to other Head Start 
programs in mind, using the Training and Technical Assistance Network 
or by other means.
    This announcement does not specify the types of quality 
enhancements that may be undertaken, although the focus on improving 
child school readiness-related outcomes suggests areas of particular 
interest. The enhancements should represent a particular area of focus 
on interventions likely to affect child outcomes, rather than 
advocating more general goals like ``quality improvement.'' Specific 
areas of focus might include, but need not be limited to, (1) classroom 
and/or family-involvement activities in the area(s) of emerging 
literacy, language development, numeracy, social-emotional development, 
physical development, approaches to learning, creative expression, 
health, and/or mental health; (2) activities promoting positive 
outcomes in linguistically and culturally diverse populations; (3)

[[Page 54046]]

professional development activities designed to enhance classroom 
behavior management or other classroom practice; (4) program 
improvement activities in the areas of family involvement and service 
provision. In selection of these focus areas, applicants should be 
guided by both the Program Performance Standards and the child school 
readiness-related outcomes listed above from the Program Performance 
Measures.
    The first phase would consist of a planning period during which 
researchers and program staff would build upon their collaborative 
relationship and agree on and pilot the procedures for implementation 
of the intervention. Ideally, this partnership would involve 
researchers paying attention to stated program needs and strengths, not 
simply imposing a finished intervention on the site. This planning 
period would extend from award of the cooperative agreement to the 
beginning of the subsequent program year, approximately 9-10 months in 
length. This phase would require obtaining a thorough understanding of 
current program practice and quality in order to focus on exactly those 
aspects of the program to be targeted in the intervention. Baseline 
information on relevant aspects of program quality and practice would 
be collected.
    Following the planning period, the chosen approach would be 
implemented in the primary site, or home program, by the program-
researcher partnership, most commonly at the beginning of the next 
program year, and studied for key aspects of implementation. Aspects 
would include, but not be limited to, such questions as: (1) What is 
the theory of change supporting the use of this particular intervention 
to improve school readiness? (2) what levels of staff qualifications 
are required? (3) what training and materials are needed? (4) how is 
classroom or program practice or parent involvement affected? (5) can 
fidelity of the intervention be maintained over the program year? (6) 
what are possible program or family barriers to acceptance? And 
finally, (7) how effective is the approach in improving children's 
school readiness skills and abilities (as outlined above)? Pre- and 
post-intervention assessment of child outcomes in the comprehensive 
domains of school readiness would be required, even if the intervention 
is targeting one or two domains as most likely to be affected.
    In a second phase, assuming the intervention approach proved 
promising and efficacious, it would be replicated to one or more 
additional Head Start program sites, with support from the developers, 
and its implementation and effectiveness again studied. This secondary 
site could be a site/center or centers under the direction of the first 
grantee that had not previously participated in the intervention and 
research, or a site/center or centers under the direction of a 
different grantee. It could be another site participating in the 
Consortium, if appropriate, in order to maximize the collaborative 
benefits of the initiative. In either case, the cooperation of the 
participating secondary site must be ensured and verified using the 
same methods as for the primary site. At this point, in order to best 
test the effectiveness of the intervention, it would be important to 
include the use of more rigorous designs, including control or 
comparison groups, for example, random assignment of classrooms or 
centers to intervention/no-intervention options.
    The overall objective would be the development of well-tested and 
refined models of quality enhancements for dissemination to Head Start 
programs more broadly, with the involvement of the Training and 
Technical Assistance Network and through other means.
    Although the program-researcher partnerships funded under this 
announcement would be responsible for the development, implementation 
and maintenance of the intervention, an external evaluation team, most 
likely from a contracting firm, would provide pre- and post-
intervention data collection and analysis of a core set of cross-site 
measures of program quality, parent involvement and satisfaction, and 
child outcomes. This type of centralized data coordination center 
mechanism has been found to be important in maximizing the systematic 
collection of cross-site knowledge obtained from research consortia. 
The cross-site data would be returned in a timely manner to local 
program-researcher partnerships to serve as a base for local analyses, 
as well as eventually made available in public use datasets. Additional 
local measures and data analysis of implementation and outcomes could 
be carried out by the local program-researcher teams, as well, using 
project funds. This arrangement allows local researchers to 
particularly consider qualitative or more intensive data collection 
approaches to augment the available core measures. Cooperative 
agreement budgets should include costs of data collection for local 
measures, assuming a common core of data to be provided by the external 
data collection center. This cross-site research effort by the data 
coordinating center is designed to build on current FACES findings/
instruments regarding both classroom quality and practices, and parent 
and child outcomes, however, local researchers will have some input 
into final decisions about the core measures to be used. For purposes 
of calculating participant burden, the current FACES child direct 
assessment is completed in approximately 30 minutes per child. For a 
full listing of the measures used in the 1997-2000 FACES study, please 
see [http://www2.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/hsb/hsreac/faces].
    The most common timeline for program-researcher partnership designs 
would involve the following phases of project work. Note that these 
project phases may not correspond exactly with annual funding periods:
    (1) Phase I Planning Period, from award of cooperative agreement to 
the beginning of the next academic/program year, including development 
of intervention plan in collaboration with program, piloting, staff 
training, pre-intervention assessments of classroom and/or program 
quality;
    (2) Phase II Primary Intervention Implementation Period, including 
pre-post measurement of classroom quality and child outcomes and 
assessment of implementation fidelity;
    (3) Phase II Transitional Period including (a) continuation of 
intervention at initial site with potential transfer to management by 
program and (b) selection of and planning with secondary site for 
implementation of intervention and more rigorous evaluation to take 
place in Phase III;
    (4) Phase III Secondary Intervention Implementation Period with 
more rigorous evaluation component;
    (5) Phase III Transitional Period with continuation of more 
rigorous evaluation component and potential development of materials 
for wider dissemination via the Training and Technical Assistance 
Network or by other means.
    As indicated in the phases outlined above, during the Phase II 
Transitional Period, decisions would be made by ACYF about the projects 
selected to continue into Phase III, based on criteria of successful 
implementation of the intervention, study characteristics (e.g., 
adequate sample size, minimal attrition, etc.) and positive outcomes. 
Similarly, during Phase III, if funded, decisions would be made by ACYF 
about the projects approved to develop materials for wider 
dissemination via the Training and Technical Assistance Network or by 
other means.
    Subsequent to award of these cooperative agreements and formation

[[Page 54047]]

of the Quality Research Center Consortium, other cross-site and 
collaborative initiatives are welcomed, such as cases in which a subset 
of Quality Research Center Consortium members share a particular 
intervention focus. Both local intervention approaches and local 
evaluation instruments may be used across multiple sites to maximize 
the information gained in the collaborative studies.

Cooperative Agreements

    ACYF is utilizing a cooperative agreement mechanism, a funding 
mechanism that allows substantial Federal involvement in the activities 
undertaken with Federal financial support. Details of the 
responsibilities, relationships and governance of the cooperative 
agreement will be spelled out in the terms and conditions of the award. 
The specific responsibilities of the Federal staff and project staff 
will be identified and agreed upon prior to the award of each 
cooperative agreement. At a minimum, however, the following roles and 
responsibilities will characterize the Quality Research Center 
Consortium:

1. Responsibilities of the Grantee

The Grantee
    Conducts a local intervention and research project designed to 
develop, evaluate, refine and assist in dissemination of specific 
approaches to enhance Head Start program quality to promote child 
outcomes in school readiness.
    Cooperates with one or more local Head Start programs in the 
design, implementation, and evaluation of the intervention.
    Cooperates with an external evaluation team in the collection of 
core process and outcome data.
    Participates as a member of the Consortium with other researchers, 
program partners, external evaluators, and Federal staff.

2. Responsibilities of the Federal Staff

Federal Staff
    Provide guidance in the development of the final study design, 
including selection of core measures.
    Participate as members of the Consortium or any policy, steering, 
or other working groups established at the Consortium level to 
facilitate accomplishment of the project goals.
    Facilitate communication and cooperation among the Consortium 
members.
    Supervise the activities of the external evaluation team.
    Provide logistical support to facilitate meetings of the 
Consortium.

Key Intervention Questions

    The proposed intervention should be designed with the following key 
questions in mind; these and related questions will be addressed in 
evaluating the success of its implementation. While each of these 
questions need not be addressed specifically in the proposal, the 
design of the intervention and evaluation should show evidence that 
such questions have been considered.
    Intervention program content: What is the theoretical justification 
for the intervention program, and to what extent does the intervention, 
as implemented, adhere to its theoretical basis? What is the 
preliminary evidence that the approach will be effective? What are the 
expected short-term and/or long-term outcomes for children, and what 
are the mediating variables that are expected to effect those outcomes 
(i.e., what is the logic model)? How are mediating variables and 
outcomes measured? What is the range of program elements that are 
affected, either positively or negatively? To what extent can 
procedures be documented and manualized, and what is the process for 
achieving this? What is the range of activities to be undertaken? How 
does the intervention conform to or deviate from existing procedures in 
the site? What is the process of continuous improvement, and how are 
changes, and benefits of those changes, documented over time?
    Classroom, program, and community context: What are the structures 
and supports necessary to implement the intervention program? What are 
the key activities that are conducted to include or gain support from 
community stakeholders and collaborators, with program administrators 
and policy councils, with classroom teachers and other staff, with 
parents of children in the classrooms? What are the contextual 
variables that might influence how the intervention is implemented: 
e.g., culture, neighborhood characteristics, organizational climate, 
level of poverty in the community, teacher backgrounds, education, 
motivation, skills and attitudes, levels of support (financial and 
otherwise), competing priorities within a program or classroom, 
management and organizational structures? What are the relationships 
among the individuals who are stakeholders and/or participants in the 
intervention?
    Target population(s): Who is expected to benefit from the program? 
Is it a universal or selected intervention? Who are the intended 
participants (children, families, staff)? How are age, gender, 
language, disability and other key child characteristics, as well as 
cultural issues, addressed? To what populations are evaluation results 
likely to be generalizable?
    Intervention program delivery: Who gets what, from whom, and how 
much? What is the intensity of the intervention, the frequency of 
contact, the length of each contact, the number of contacts and the 
duration of treatment? To what extent is the program individualized, 
and what are the supports for individualization (e.g., periodic 
assessments of needs and progress). What is the level of participation, 
and who is most and least likely to participate? Who delivers the 
program? What is the level of education, training, and supervision that 
is required of intervention staff? To what extent do external staff 
(researchers, program developers, trainers) have to remain involved, 
and in what capacities? What are the barriers to implementation, and 
how are challenges resolved? What level of support is necessary to 
sustain the program after the initial implementation period? What 
modifications and adaptations are made for children with special needs 
to be successful?
    Replication/dissemination: What are the considerations in choosing 
sites for replication? What are the variations in context, target 
populations, and program delivery that affect the implementation 
process in new sites, and how might they affect the outcomes of the 
intervention program? What are the lessons learned in the initial 
implementation process that facilitate replication? What new, 
unanticipated issues arise? To what extent does the original 
intervention program have to be modified to adapt to local conditions? 
What are the key elements that have to be sustained to maintain 
effectiveness of the intervention?

Part II. Priority Areas

Statutory Authority

    The Head Start Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9801 et seq.
CFDA: 93.600

Head Start Quality Research Centers

    Eligible Applicants: Universities, four-year colleges, and non-
profit institutions on behalf of researchers who hold a doctorate 
degree or equivalent in their respective fields.
    Planning Period: The first year of the awards under this 
announcement is primarily a planning period that is to be used for 
piloting the interventions to be delivered, training staff, and

[[Page 54048]]

establishing or strengthening sound working relationships with the Head 
Start program partners. Noncompetitive awards in subsequent years are 
contingent upon an approved ready-to-be-implemented intervention plan 
at the end of the planning period and at the beginning of each 
subsequent program year, as well as the availability of funds. The 
applicant should still submit a full project description containing the 
information below under the Competitive Criteria and General 
Instructions in order for the application to be judged against the 
criteria.

Additional Requirements

     The principal investigator must have a doctorate or 
equivalent degree in the respective field, conduct research as a 
primary professional responsibility, and have published or have been 
accepted for publication in the major peer-review research journals in 
the field as a first author or second author.
     The proposed intervention plan must be responsive to the 
goal of supporting progress toward school readiness for children in 
Head Start.
     The proposed evaluation plan should specify which measures 
of implementation quality and standardized assessments of child 
development outcomes are to be used.
     The applicant must apply the University's or nonprofit 
institution's off-campus research rates for indirect costs.
     The applicant must enter into a partnership with a Head 
Start program for the purposes of conducting the research.
     The applicant must be willing to work with an external 
contracting firm for the collection of cross-site data, in coordination 
with any local data collection activities.
     The application must contain a letter from the Head Start 
program certifying that they have entered into a partnership with the 
applicant and the application has been reviewed and approved by the 
Policy Council.
     The principal investigator must agree to attend four 
quarterly meetings of the research consortium each year including Head 
Start's Sixth National Research Conference on June 26-29, 2002, as well 
at the Conference in the year 2004.
     The budget should reflect travel funds for such purposes.
     Contact information, including an e-mail address, for the 
principal investigator must be included in the application.
    Project Duration: The announcement is soliciting applications for 
project periods of up to five years. Awards, on a competitive basis, 
will be for the first one-year budget period. Applications for 
continuation of cooperative agreements funded under these awards beyond 
the one-year budget period, but within the established project period, 
will be entertained in subsequent years on a non-competitive basis, 
subject to availability of funds, satisfactory progress of the grantee 
and a determination that continued funding would be in the best 
interest of the Government.
    Federal Share of Project Costs: The Federal share of project costs 
shall not exceed $250,000 for the first 12-month budget period 
inclusive of indirect costs and shall not exceed $250,000 per year for 
the second and third through fifth 12-month budget periods.
    Matching Requirement: There is no matching requirement.
    Anticipated Number of Projects to be Funded: It is anticipated that 
4-6 projects will be funded.

Part III. Competitive Criteria and General Instructions

Project Description

    Purpose: The project description provides a major means by which an 
application is evaluated and ranked to compete with other applications 
for available assistance. The project description should be concise and 
complete and should address the activity for which Federal funds are 
being requested. Supporting documents should be included where they can 
present information clearly and succinctly. Applicants are encouraged 
to provide information on their organizational structure, staff, 
related experience, history of collaboration with Head Start programs, 
and other information in support of their candidacy. Awarding offices 
use this and other information to determine whether the applicant has 
the capability and resources necessary to carry out the proposed 
project. It is important, therefore, that this information be included 
in the application. However, in the narrative the applicant must 
distinguish between resources directly related to the proposed project 
from those that will not be used in support of the specific project for 
which funds are requested.
    General Instructions: Cross-referencing should be used rather than 
repetition. ACF is particularly interested in specific factual 
information and statements of measurable goals in quantitative terms. 
Project descriptions are evaluated on the basis of substance, not 
length. Extensive exhibits are not required. (Supporting information 
concerning activities that will not be directly funded by the 
cooperative agreement or information that does not directly pertain to 
an integral part of the cooperative agreement funded activity should be 
placed in an appendix.) Pages should be numbered and a table of 
contents should be included for easy reference.
    Introduction: Applicants are required to submit a full project 
description shall prepare the project description statement in 
accordance with the following instructions.
    Project Summary/Abstract: Provide a summary of the project 
description (a page or less) with reference to the funding request.
    Results Or Benefits Expected: Identify the results and benefits to 
be derived. For example, using a comprehensive review of the current 
literature, justify how the research questions and the findings will 
add new knowledge to the field and specifically how it will improve 
services for children and families.
    Approach: Outline a plan of action that describes the scope and 
detail of how the proposed work will be accomplished. Account for all 
functions or activities identified in the application. Cite factors 
which might accelerate or decelerate the work and state your reason for 
taking the proposed approach rather than others. Describe any unusual 
features of the project such as design or technological innovations, 
reductions in cost or time, or extraordinary social and community 
involvement.
    Provide quantitative quarterly projections of the accomplishments 
to be achieved for each function or activity in such terms as the 
proportion of data collection expected to be completed. When 
accomplishments cannot be quantified by activity or function, list them 
in chronological order to show the schedule of accomplishments and 
their target dates.
    Identify the kinds of data to be collected, maintained, and/or 
disseminated. Note that clearance from the U.S. Office of Management 
and Budget might be needed prior to a ``collection of information'' 
that is ``conducted or sponsored'' by ACF, especially some forms of 
cross-site data collection. List organizations, cooperating entities, 
consultants, or other key individuals who will work on the project 
along with a short description of the nature of their effort or 
contribution.
    Additional Information: Following is a description of additional 
information that should be placed in the appendix to the application.

[[Page 54049]]

    Staff and Position Data: Provide a biographical sketch for each key 
person appointed and a job description for each vacant key position. A 
biographical sketch will also be required for new key staff as 
appointed.
    Organization Profiles: Provide information on the applicant 
organization(s) and cooperating partners such as organizational charts, 
financial statements, audit reports or statements from CPAs/Licensed 
Public Accountants, Employer Identification Numbers, names of bond 
carriers, contact persons and telephone numbers, child care licenses 
and other documentation of professional accreditation, information on 
compliance with Federal/State/local government standards, documentation 
of experience in the program area, and other pertinent information. Any 
non-profit organization submitting an application must submit proof of 
its non-profit status in its application at the time of submission. The 
non-profit agency can accomplish this by providing a copy of the 
applicant's listing in the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) most recent 
list of tax-exempt organizations described in Section 501(c)(3) of the 
IRS code, or by providing a copy of the currently valid IRS tax 
exemption certificate, or by providing a copy of the articles of 
incorporation bearing the seal of the State in which the corporation or 
association is domiciled.
    Dissemination Plan: Provide a plan for distributing reports and 
other project outputs to colleagues and the public. Applicants must 
provide a description of the kind, volume and timing of distribution.
    Budget and Budget Justification: Provide line item detail and 
detailed calculations for each budget object class identified on the 
Budget Information form. Detailed calculations must include estimation 
methods, quantities, unit costs, and other similar quantitative detail 
sufficient for the calculation to be duplicated. The detailed budget 
must also include a breakout by the funding sources identified in Block 
15 of the SF-424.
    Provide a narrative budget justification that describes how the 
categorical costs are derived. Discuss the necessity, reasonableness, 
and allocability of the proposed costs.

General

    The following guidelines are for preparing the budget and budget 
justification. Both Federal and non-Federal resources shall be detailed 
and justified in the budget and narrative justification. For purposes 
of preparing the budget and budget justification, ``Federal resources'' 
refers only to the ACF cooperative agreement for which you are 
applying. Non-Federal resources are all other Federal and non-Federal 
resources. It is suggested that budget amounts and computations be 
presented in a columnar format: first column, object class categories; 
second column, Federal budget; next column(s), non-Federal budget(s), 
and last column, total budget. The budget justification should be a 
narrative.

Personnel

    Description: Costs of employee salaries and wages.
    Justification: Identify the project director or principal 
investigator, if known. For each staff person, provide the title, time 
commitment to the project (in months), time commitment to the project 
(as a percentage or full-time equivalent), annual salary, cooperative 
agreement salary, wage rates, etc. Do not include the costs of 
consultants or personnel costs of delegate agencies or of specific 
project(s) or businesses to be financed by the applicant.

Fringe Benefits

    Description: Costs of employee fringe benefits unless treated as 
part of an approved indirect cost rate.
    Justification: Provide a breakdown of the amounts and percentages 
that comprise fringe benefit costs such as health insurance, FICA, 
retirement insurance, taxes, etc.

Travel

    Description: Costs of project-related travel by employees of the 
applicant organization (does not include costs of consultant travel).
    Justification: For each trip, show the total number of traveler(s), 
travel destination, duration of trip, per diem, mileage allowances, if 
privately owned vehicles will be used, and other transportation costs 
and subsistence allowances. Travel costs for key staff to attend ACF-
sponsored quarterly meetings and the Head Start research conference 
should be detailed in the budget.

Equipment

    Description: Costs of tangible, non-expendable, personal property, 
having a useful life of more than one year and an acquisition cost of 
$5,000 or more per unit. However, an applicant may use its own 
definition of equipment provided that such equipment would at least 
include all equipment defined above.
    Justification: For each type of equipment requested, provide a 
description of the equipment, the cost per unit, the number of units, 
the total cost, and a plan for use on the project, as well as use or 
disposal of the equipment after the project ends. An applicant 
organization that uses its own definition for equipment should provide 
a copy of its policy or section of its policy which includes the 
equipment definition.

Supplies

    Description: Costs of all tangible personal property other than 
that included under the Equipment category.
    Justification: Specify general categories of supplies and their 
costs. Show computations and provide other information which supports 
the amount requested.

Other

    Enter the total of all other costs. Such costs, where applicable ad 
appropriate, may include but are not limited to insurance, food, 
medical and dental costs (noncontractual), professional services costs, 
space and equipment rentals, printing and publication, computer use, 
training costs, such as tuition and stipends, staff development costs, 
and administrative costs.
    Justification: Provide computations, a narrative description and a 
justification for each cost under this category.

Indirect Charges

    Description: Total amount of indirect costs. This category should 
be used only when the applicant currently has an indirect cost rate 
approved by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) or 
another cognizant Federal agency.
    Justification: An applicant that will charge indirect costs to the 
cooperative agreement must enclose a copy of the current rate 
agreement. If the applicant organization is in the process of initially 
developing or renegotiating a rate, it should immediately upon 
notification that an award will be made, develop a tentative indirect 
cost rate proposal based on its most recently completed fiscal year in 
accordance with the principles set forth in the cognizant agency's 
guidelines for establishing indirect cost rates, and submit it to the 
cognizant agency. Applicants awaiting approval of their indirect cost 
proposals may also request indirect costs. It should be noted that when 
an indirect cost rate is requested, those costs included in the 
indirect cost pool should not also be charged as direct costs to the 
cooperative agreement. Also, if the applicant is requesting a rate 
which is less than what is allowed under the program, the authorized 
representative of the applicant

[[Page 54050]]

organization must submit a signed acknowledgement that the applicant is 
accepting a lower rate than allowed.
Total Direct Charges, Total Indirect Charges, Total Project Costs. Self 
explanatory

Part IV.

A. Criteria

    Reviewers will consider the following factors when assigning 
points.
1. Results or Benefits Expected  25 points
     The research questions are clearly stated.
     The extent to which the questions are of importance and 
relevance for low-income children's development and welfare.
     The extent to which the research study makes a significant 
contribution to the knowledge base.
     The extent to which the literature review is current and 
comprehensive and supports the need for the intervention and for its 
evaluation, the questions to be addressed or the hypotheses to be 
tested.
     The extent to which the questions that will be addressed 
or the hypotheses that will be tested are sufficient for meeting the 
stated objectives.
     The extent to which the proposal contains a dissemination 
plan that encompasses both professional and practitioner-oriented 
products.
2. Approach  40 points
     The extent to which the intervention is adequately 
described, responsive to the key questions outlined in the background 
section above, and represents a research-based, cost effective quality 
program enhancement that meets the goal of supporting the school 
readiness of children in Head Start.
     The extent to which the research design is appropriate and 
sufficient for addressing the questions of the study.
     The extent to which child outcomes in the comprehensive 
domains of school readiness are the major focus of the study.
     The extent to which the planned research specifies the 
measures to be used and the analyses to be conducted.
     The extent to which the planned measures are appropriate 
and sufficient for the questions of the study and the population to be 
studied.
     The extent to which the planned measures and analyses both 
reflect knowledge and use of state-of-the-art measures and analytic 
techniques and advance the state-of-the art.
     The extent to which the analytic techniques are 
appropriate for the question under consideration.
     The extent to which the proposed sample size is sufficient 
for the study.
     The scope of the project is reasonable for the funds 
available for these cooperative agreements.
     The extent to which the planned approach reflects 
sufficient input from and partnership with the Head Start program.
     The extent to which the planned approach includes 
techniques for successful transfer of the intervention and research to 
an additional site or sites.
3. Staff and Position Data  35 points
     The extent to which the principal investigator and other 
key research staff possess the research expertise necessary to conduct 
the study as demonstrated in the application and information contained 
in their vitae.
     The principal investigator(s) has earned a doctorate or 
equivalent in the relevant field and has first or second author 
publications in major research journals.
     The extent to which the proposed staff reflect an 
understanding of and sensitivity to the issues of working in a 
community setting and in partnership with Head Start program staff and 
parents.
     The adequacy of the time devoted to this project by the 
principal investigator and other key staff in order to ensure a high 
level of professional input and attention.

B. The Review Process

    Applications received by the due date will be reviewed and scored 
competitively. Experts in the field, generally persons from outside the 
Federal government, will use the evaluation criteria listed in Part IV 
of this announcement to review and score the applications. The results 
of this review are a primary factor in making funding decisions. ACYF 
may also solicit comments from ACF Regional Office staff and other 
Federal agencies. These comments, along with those of the expert 
reviewers, will be considered in making funding decisions. In selecting 
successful applicants, consideration may be given to other factors 
including but not limited to geographical distribution.

Part V. Instructions for Submitting Applications

A. Availability of Forms

    Eligible applicants interested in applying for funds must submit a 
complete application including the required forms. In order to be 
considered for a cooperative agreement under this announcement, an 
application must be submitted on the Standard Form 424 (approved by the 
Office of Management and Budget under Control Number 0348-0043). Each 
application must be signed by an individual authorized to act for the 
applicant and to assume responsibility for the obligations imposed by 
the terms and conditions of the cooperative agreement award. Applicants 
requesting financial assistance for non-construction projects must file 
the Standard Form 424B, Assurances: Non-Construction Programs (approved 
by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0348-0040). 
Applicants must sign and return the Standard Form 424B with their 
application. Applicants must provide a certification concerning 
lobbying. Prior to receiving an award in excess of $100,000, applicants 
shall furnish an executed copy of the lobbying certification (approved 
by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0348-0046). 
Applicants must sign and return the certification with their 
application.
    Applicants must make the appropriate certification of their 
compliance with the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988. By signing and 
submitting the application, applicants are providing the certification 
and need not mail back the certification with the application.
    Applicants must make the appropriate certification that they are 
not presently debarred, suspended or otherwise ineligible for award. By 
signing and submitting the application, applicants are providing the 
certification and need not mail back the certification with the 
application.
    Applicants must also understand that they will be held accountable 
for the smoking prohibition included within P.L. 103-227, Part C 
Environmental Tobacco Smoke (also known as The Pro-Children's Act of 
1994). A copy of the Federal Register notice which implements the 
smoking prohibition is included with the forms. By signing and 
submitting the application, applicants are providing the certification 
and need not mail back the certification with the application.
    All applicants for research projects must provide a Protection of 
Human Subjects Assurance as specified in the policy described on the 
HHS Form 596 (approved by the Office of Management and Budget under 
control number 0925-0418). If there is a question regarding the 
applicability of this assurance, contact the Office for Protection from 
Research Risks of the National Institutes

[[Page 54051]]

of Health at (301)-496-7041. Those applying for or currently conducting 
research projects are further advised of the availability of a 
Certificate of Confidentiality through the National Institute of Mental 
Health of the Department of Health and Human Services. To obtain more 
information and to apply for a Certificate of Confidentiality, contact 
the Division of Extramural Activities of the National Institute of 
Mental Health at (301) 443-4673. All necessary forms are available on 
the ACF website at http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ofs/grants/form.htm.

B. Proposal Limits

    The proposal should be double-spaced and single-sided on 8 \1/2\" 
x  11" plain white paper, with 1" margins on all sides. Use only a 
standard size font no smaller than 12 pitch throughout the proposal. 
All pages of the proposal (including appendices, resumes, charts, 
references/footnotes, tables, maps and exhibits) must be sequentially 
numbered, beginning on the first page after the budget justification, 
the principal investigator contact information and the Table of 
Contents. The length of the proposal starting with page 1 as described 
above and including appendices and resumes must not exceed 60 pages. 
Anything over 60 pages will be removed and not considered by the 
reviewers. The project summary should not be counted in the 60 pages. 
Applicants should not submit reproductions of larger sized paper that 
is reduced to meet the size requirement. Applicants are requested not 
to send pamphlets, brochures, or other printed material along with 
their applications as these pose copying difficulties. These materials, 
if submitted, will not be included in the review process. In addition, 
applicants must not submit any additional letters of endorsement beyond 
any that may be required.
    Applicants are encouraged to submit curriculum vitae using 
``Biographical Sketch'' forms used by some government agencies.
    Please note that applicants that do not comply with the 
requirements in the section on ``Eligible Applicants'' will not be 
included in the review process.

C. Checklist for a Complete Application

    The checklist below is for your use to ensure that the application 
package has been properly prepared.
    --One original, signed and dated application plus two copies.
    --Attachments/Appendices, when included, should be used only to 
provide supporting documentation such as resumes, and letters of 
agreement/support.
    A complete application consists of the following items in this 
order:
    Front Matter:
     Cover Letter.
     Table of Contents.
     Principal Investigator including telephone number, fax 
number and e-mail address.
     Project Abstract.
    (1) Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424, REV. 4-92);
    (2) Budget information-Non-Construction Programs (SF424A&B REV.4-
92);
    (3) Budget Justification, including subcontract agency budgets;
    (4) Letters (A) from the Head Start program certifying that the 
program is a research partner of the respective applicant and (B) that 
the Policy Council has reviewed and approved the application;
    (5) Application Narrative and Appendices (not to exceed 60 pages);
    (6) Proof of non-profit status. Any non-profit organization 
submitting an application must submit proof of its non-profit status in 
its application at the time of submission. The non-profit organization 
can accomplish this by providing a copy of the applicant's listing in 
the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) most recent list of tax-exempt 
organizations described in Section 501(c)(3) of the IRS code or by 
providing a copy of the currently valid IRS tax exemption certificate, 
or by providing a copy of the articles of incorporation bearing the 
seal of incorporation of the State in which the corporation or 
association is domiciled.
    (7) Assurances Non-Construction Programs;
    (8) Certification Regarding Lobbying;
    (9) Where appropriate, a completed SPOC certification with the date 
of SPOC contact entered in line 16, page 1 of the SF 424, REV.4-92;
    (10) Certification of Protection of Human Subjects.

D. Due Date for the Receipt of Applications

    1. Deadline: The closing time and date for receipt of applications 
is 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Time Zone) November 6, 2000. Mailed applications 
shall be considered as meeting an announced deadline if they are 
received on or before the deadline time and date at: ACYF Operations 
Center, 1815 N. Fort Myer Drive, Suite 300, Arlington, Virginia 22209.
    Attention: Application for Head Start Quality Research Centers
    Applicants are responsible for mailing applications well in 
advance, when using all mail services, to ensure that the applications 
are received on or before the deadline time and date.
    Applications hand carried by applicants, applicant couriers, or by 
overnight/express mail couriers shall be considered as meeting an 
announced deadline if they are received on or before the deadline date, 
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday-Friday (excluding 
holidays) at the address above. (Applicants are cautioned that express/
overnight mail services do not always deliver as agreed.)
    ACF cannot accommodate transmission of applications by fax or e-
mail. Therefore, applications faxed or e-mailed to ACF will not be 
accepted regardless of date or time of submission and time of receipt.
    2. Late applications: Applications which do not meet the criteria 
above are considered late applications. ACF shall notify each late 
applicant that its application will not be considered in the current 
competition.
    3. Extension of deadlines: ACF may extend an application deadline 
when justified by circumstances such as acts of God (e.g., floods or 
hurricanes), widespread disruptions of mail service, or other 
disruptions of services, such as a prolonged blackout, that affect the 
public at large. A determination to waive or extend deadline 
requirements rests with the Chief Grants Management Officer.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, the 
Department is required to submit to OMB for review and approval any 
reporting and record keeping requirements in regulations including 
program announcements. All information collections within this program 
announcement are approved under the following current valid OMB control 
numbers: 0348-0043, 0348-0044, 0348-0040, 0348-0046, 0925-0418 and 
0970-0139.
    Public reporting burden for this collection is estimated to average 
40 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, 
gathering and maintaining the data needed and reviewing the collection 
of information.
    The project description is approved under OMB control number 0970-
0139 which expires 10/31/2000.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number.

[[Page 54052]]

F. Required Notification of the State Single Point of Contact

    This program is covered under Executive Order 12372, 
Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs, and 45 CFR part 100, 
Intergovernmental Review of Department of Health and Human Services 
Program and Activities. Under the Order, States may design their own 
processes for reviewing and commenting on proposed Federal assistance 
under covered programs.
    *All States and Territories except Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, 
Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, 
Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, 
Oregon, Palau, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, 
Virginia, Washington, and American Samoa have elected to participate in 
the Executive Order process and have established Single Points of 
Contact (SPOCs). Applicants from these twenty-three jurisdictions need 
take no action regarding E.O. 12372. Applicants for projects to be 
administered by Federally-recognized Indian Tribes are also exempt from 
the requirements of E.O. 12372. Otherwise, applicants should contact 
their SPOCs as soon as possible to alert them of the prospective 
applications and receive any necessary instructions. Applicants must 
submit any required material to the SPOCs as soon as possible so that 
the program office can obtain and review SPOC comments as part of the 
award process. It is imperative that the applicant submit all required 
materials, if any, to the SPOC and indicate the date of this submittal 
(or the date of contact if no submittal is required) on the Standard 
Form 424, item 16a.
    Under 45 CFR 100.8(a)(2), a SPOC has 60 days from the application 
deadline to comment on proposed new or competing continuation awards.
    SPOCs are encouraged to eliminate the submission of routine 
endorsements as official recommendations.
    Additionally, SPOCs are requested to clearly differentiate between 
mere advisory comments and those official State process recommendations 
which may trigger the accommodate or explain rule.
    When comments are submitted directly to ACF, they should be 
addressed to: William Wilson, Head Start Bureau, 330 C Street S.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20447, Attn: Head-Start Quality Research Centers. A 
list of the Single Points of Contact for each State and Territory can 
be found on the web site http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/spoc.html

    Dated: August 30, 2000.
Patricia Montoya,
Commissioner, Administration on Children, Youth and Families.
[FR Doc. 00-22772 Filed 9-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-P