PERFORMANCE_WORK_STATEMENT_6-23-2015.pdf

Attachment I

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT

COMMUNITY ELIGIBILITY PROVISION CHARACTERISTICS STUDY

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Section 104(a) of the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (Public Law No. 111-296) amended section 11(a)

(1) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1759a(a)(1)(the law) to provide an alternative to household applications for free and reduced- price meals in high poverty local education agencies

(LEAs) and schools. This alternative is referred to as the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP).

To be eligible, LEAs and/or schools must meet a minimum level (40%) of identified students for free meals in the year prior to implementing the provision; agree to serve free lunches and breakfasts to all students; not collect free and reduced-price applications from households in participating schools, and agree to cover with non-Federal funds any costs of providing free meals to all students above amounts provided in Federal reimbursement.

Reimbursement is based on claiming percentages derived from the identified student percentage (ISP). The

Identified Students are students certified for free meals through means other than individual household applications. The claiming percentages established for a school in the first year may be used for a period of up to four school years and may be increased if direct certification percentages rise in that school.

In accordance with the law, CEP was phased in over a period of several years. The provision was available to eligible LEAs and schools in three States (Illinois, Kentucky, and Michigan) selected by Food and Nutrition

Service (FNS) for the school year (SY) 2011-12. An additional four States (the District of Columbia, New

York, Ohio, and West Virginia) were added for SY 2012-13. FNS selected four more States (Florida, Georgia, Maryland, and Massachusetts) for SY 2013-14. CEP became available nationwide to all eligible LEAs and schools beginning July 1, 2014. As a result, in SY 2014-2015, approximately 14,000 schools in more than 2,000

LEAs serving more than 6.4 million children elected to participate in CEP.

A report was submitted to Congress that presented the results of an evaluation that examined the number of schools and LEAs that were eligible to receive special assistance payments under CEP, and described various attributes of those eligible schools and LEAs that elected or did not elect this provision. The evaluation also examined the impact of electing to receive special assistance payments under CEP on program participation, revenues, availability and type of school breakfast, LEA administrative costs, program integrity, and meal quality. The final report can be found on the FNS website (http://www.fns.usda.gov/community-eligibility-provision-evaluation). The Addendum describes the characteristics of LEAs and schools that participated in

CEP in School Year 2013-14. It also describes how these characteristics differ for those high-poverty LEAs and schools that did not take up CEP.

With the expansion of CEP nationwide, FNS is seeking the services of a contractor to conduct surveys of nationally representative samples of participating and eligible non-participating CEP LEAs to obtain updated information on the characteristics of participating and non-participating districts and schools. This study will examine operational issues and perceived incentives and barriers for adopting CEP as well as the impacts on

NSLP and SBP participation and per meal revenues. The study will update information obtained in the

Implementation Study component of the Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation. It will also examine student participation and per meal revenue generated pre- and post-implementation of CEP. The study will http://www.fns.usda.gov/community-eligibility-provision-evaluation http://www.fns.usda.gov/community-eligibility-provision-evaluation provide a basis to assess the impact of the identified student percentage (ISP) multiplier, set under current policy at 1.6, on program access, coverage, and per meal costs to LEAs and the Federal Government.

2.0 BACKGROUND

The following section provides background information including a brief overview of the National School

Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program. It also provides background information on special assistance alternatives, including CEP, for providing universal meal service in high poverty areas.

The National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program

The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) is a federally assisted meal program operating in almost 100,000 public and non‐profit private schools and residential child care institutions. FNS administers the program at the

Federal level. At the State level, the NSLP is usually administered by State education agencies, which operate the program through agreements with school food authorities (SFAs). School districts that participate in NSLP receive cash subsidies and donated commodities (USDA Foods) from USDA for each meal they serve. The cash subsidies are much larger for those meals served to children certified for free or reduced-price meals.

Any child enrolled in a participating school may purchase a meal through the NSLP. Children from families with incomes at or below 130 percent of the poverty level are eligible for free meals. Children from families with incomes above 130 percent and up to 185 percent of poverty are eligible for reduce-price meals (maximum cost is 40 cents). Children from families with incomes over 185 percent of poverty pay for full-price (paid) meals at rates established by local school food authorities. For the period July 1, 2014, through June 30, 2015, 130 percent of the poverty level is $31,005 for a family of four; 185 percent is $44,123. In 2014, more than 28 million children received a nutritionally balanced lunch each school day. More than 70 percent of these meals were served to low-income children certified to receive free or reduced-price meals.

The School Breakfast Program (SBP) is a federally assisted meal program administered by the FNS that is operating in almost 90,000 public and nonprofit private schools and residential child care institutions. It began as a pilot project in 1966, and was made permanent in 1975. In 2014, more than 12 million children received breakfast each school day. More than 80 percent of these meals were served to low-income children certified for free or reduced-price meals.

Fact sheets about these school-based child nutrition programs are available at:

NSLP: http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Lunch/AboutLunch/NSLPFactSheet.pdf

SBP: http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/SBPfactsheet.pdf

Direct Certification

Student eligibility for free meals is determined by application or by direct certification. Households approved through direct certification do not need to complete an application. Instead, LEAs certify students for free school meals based on documentation from local or State welfare agencies. Children are certified eligible for free meals through computer matching of student enrollment lists against administrative records from the

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP – formerly the Food Stamp Program), the Temporary

Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program, and/or the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations

(FDPIR).

The Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 required all States to establish a system of direct certification of school-age SNAP participants by SY 2008-09. The requirement applies only to children in http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Lunch/AboutLunch/NSLPFactSheet.pdf http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/SBPfactsheet.pdf households participating in SNAP. However, States and LEAs may also directly certify children from TANF and FDPIR households.

Special Assistance Alternatives

Traditionally, school officials annually distribute free and reduced-price meal applications to households of all enrolled children and make eligibility determinations for free and reduced-price meals under the NSLP and

SBP. They also count the number of meals served by type (free, reduced-price, and paid meals) at the point of service on a daily basis to claim Federal reimbursement. In an effort to reduce paperwork and other administrative burdens at the local level, Congress incorporated into the law three alternatives to the traditional requirements for annual determinations of eligibility for free and reduced-price school meals and daily meal counts by type. These alternatives are commonly referred to as Provision 1, Provision 2, and Provision 3.

Provision 1 reduces application burdens by allowing schools where at least 80 percent of the children enrolled are eligible for free or reduced-price meals to certify children eligible for free meals for a 2 year period. Schools continue to take daily meal counts of the number of meals served to children by type as the basis for calculating reimbursement claims.

Provision 2 requires that the school serve meals to participating children at no charge but reduces application burdens to once every 4 years and simplifies meal counting and claiming procedures by allowing a school to receive meal reimbursement based on claiming percentages. Additional 4-year extensions to Provision 2 are possible when certain conditions are met.

Provision 3 requires that the school serve meals to participating children at no charge but reduces application burdens and meal counting and claiming procedures by allowing a school to receive a comparable level of Federal cash and commodity assistance as the school received in the last year in which free and reduced-price eligibility determinations were made, adjusted for enrollment, inflation and operating days if applicable, for a period up to 4 years. Additional 4-year extensions to Provision 3 are possible when certain conditions are met.

Fact sheets and additional information about these Special Assistance Provisions is available at:

http://www.fns.usda.gov/school-meals/provisions-1-2-and-3

Community Eligibility Provision (CEP)

The special assistance provisions described above are most attractive for schools and/or LEAs with high percentages of free or reduced-price meals. However, the need to take applications to reestablish a base year every few years can present challenges, especially if 4-year extensions have been made. Families are no longer accustomed to completing applications and schools and LEAs lose institutional knowledge and encounter difficulties in processing applications.

CEP does not require applications and may be less burdensome and more attractive to schools and LEAs. It also has the potential of increasing student participation by expanding access to free meals. CEP is a 4-year reimbursement option for eligible, high poverty LEAs and schools. An LEA may participate in CEP for all schools in the LEA, only one school, or a group of schools within the LEA depending on the eligibility of the individual schools and financial considerations (based on the anticipated level of Federal reimbursement and other non-Federal support that may be available). The claiming percentages established for a school in the year prior to CEP participation may be used for a period of up to four school years and may be increased if direct certification percentages rise in that school. Participating schools that continue to meet the minimum ISP of 40 percent may immediately begin another 4-year cycle after the initial cycle concludes. Participating schools that fall below the minimum percentage at the end of their 4-year cycle may continue to participate for a “grace year” if their ISP is at least 30 percent. A participating LEA or school may stop participating in CEP during the http://www.fns.usda.gov/school-meals/provisions-1-2-and-3

4-year cycle by notifying the State agency no later than June 30 of the school year prior to when they want to return to traditional counting and claiming procedures or other special assistance alternatives (most commonly

Provision 2).

To be eligible for CEP, the LEA/school must:

Serve all children in the participating schools free breakfasts and free lunches for up to four successive school years.

Have a percentage of enrolled students who were Identified Students as of April 1 of the year prior to participating in CEP that is greater than or equal to 40 percent. For School Year 2016-2017 participation, the percentage of Identified Students is determined as of April 1, 2016.

o The law defines Identified Students as “students certified based on documentation of benefit receipt or categorical eligibility as described in [7 CFR] Section 245.6a(c)(2)…” As provided in the regulation, this primarily includes students who are directly certified for free meals on the basis of their participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly the Food Stamp Program), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and the Food

Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR). It also includes homeless on the liaison list, income-eligible Head Start, pre-K Even Start, migrant youth, runaways, and non-applicants approved by local officials. Foster children certified through means other than an application are also included. It does not include students who are categorically eligible based on submission of a free and reduced-price application.

Pay, from sources other than Federal funds, the costs of serving breakfast and lunches that exceed the

Federal assistance received, including Federal cash reimbursement.

Not collect free and reduced-price applications from households in participating schools during the period of participation in CEP.

Count total breakfasts and lunches served to students daily.

Not be a residential child care institution (RCCI as that term is set forth in the definition of “School” in 7

CFR 210.2).

Reimbursement for a school in the First Year under CEP is based on the percentage of Identified Students as of

April 1 of the school year prior to the first year of electing CEP. The percentage of Identified Students is multiplied by a factor of 1.6 to determine the total percentage of meals reimbursed at the Federal free reimbursement rate. (The percentage derived from this calculation must not exceed 100 percent). The remaining percentage of meals, equaling up to 100 percent, is reimbursed at the Federal “paid” reimbursement rate. Schools apply the claiming percentages to the total number of reimbursable meals served to determine the total reimbursement amount.

For the second, third and fourth years of a school’s participation in CEP, the school may use the initial percentage of Identified Students used for determining reimbursement in the first year, or the percentage of

Identified Students as of April 1 of the preceding year, whichever is higher. A participating school that meets the minimum Identified Student percentage of 40 percent in fourth year of the 4-year cycle may immediately begin another 4-year cycle after the initial cycle concludes. Schools that elect CEP in the school year beginning

July 1, 2016 must meet the Identified Students minimum of 40 percent as of April 1, 2020 in order to begin another 4-year cycle. The Identified Students percentage from April 1, 2020 would be used for reimbursement for the first year of the new cycle.

Participating schools that fall below 40 percent Identified Students in the fourth year of their 4-year cycle, may continue to participate for a “grace year” if the percentage of Identified Students is at least 30 percent. If schools achieve the required 40 percent minimum percentage of Identified Students as of April 1 of the grace year, they may begin a new 4-year cycle in the following school year. All other schools must return to normal counting and claiming procedures in the following school year. A participating LEA or school may stop participating in CEP during the 4-year cycle by notifying the State agency not later than June 30 of the school year prior to when they want to return to normal counting and claiming procedures.

The law establishes several notification and public reporting requirements for State agencies, LEAs and USDA to help ensure that eligible and potentially eligible LEAs and schools are aware of CEP and how it might benefit their LEA or school. By April 15 th of each year, all State agencies are required to notify LEAs of district-wide eligibility status and provide guidance and information about CEP. By May 1, State agencies must post the

LEA district-wide and school level lists on their website and send the link to FNS. LEAs must submit school level eligibility information to the State agency by April 15 if this school level data is not readily available at the State level. Interested and eligible LEAs must notify their State agency of their intent to participate in CEP and provide identified student and total enrollment to the State agency by June 30 (the election deadline was extended to August 31 for the 2014-15 and 2015-16 school years to facilitate national implementation)..

A Child Nutrition Division policy memorandum that provides guidance and Q&As that address common questions as CEP is implemented nationwide is available at: http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/cn/SP16-

2015os.pdf .

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities recently released a report that assesses the CEP take-up in each

State for the 2014-15 school year, the first year the provision was available nationwide. This report is available at: http://www.cbpp.org/research/community-eligibility-database-take-up-of-community-eligibility-this-school-year.

3.0 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

Research Objectives:

(I) Describe the characteristics of eligible LEAs and schools that elect to receive special assistance payments under CEP and those that do not elect to receive these special assistance payments.

(II) For those eligible schools and LEAs that do not elect to participate in CEP, provide:

a. a description of the barriers to participation; and

b. identification of changes to the special assistance option that would make eligible schools and LEAs more likely to elect to receive special assistance payments.

(III) For those eligible schools and LEAs that elect to participate in CEP, provide:

a. the number of schools and LEAs and the student enrollment served;

b. the number of schools and LEAs that switched from Provision 1, 2 or 3 and the student enrollment served;

c. the Identified Students Percentage and the percentage of enrolled students who were certified to receive free or reduced-price meals in the school year prior to CEP election and a description of how the ratio between those percentages compares to 1.6;

d. the number and share of schools and LEAs in which more than 80 percent of students are certified for free or reduced-price meals; and

e. whether any of the schools or LEAs stopped electing to receive special assistance payments under this provision and, if so, why.

(IV) The impact of electing to receive special assistance payments under CEP on

a. the type of breakfast program offered;

http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/cn/SP16-2015os.pdf http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/cn/SP16-2015os.pdf http://www.cbpp.org/research/community-eligibility-database-take-up-of-community-eligibility-this-school-year http://www.cbpp.org/research/community-eligibility-database-take-up-of-community-eligibility-this-school-year

b. program participation;

c. attendance; and

d. per meal revenues.

(V) Assessment of the appropriateness and adequacy of the 1.6 multiplier by examining

a. the ratio of free/reduced-price students to the identified student population times various designated CEP multipliers,

b. the expected revenues generated using various CEP multipliers compared with the expected revenues under conventional meal reimbursement rates and procedures, and

c. the acceptability of LEAs/schools of various CEP multipliers

Research Questions:

More specifically, the study is designed to address, but not limited to, the following research questions:

State Level Questions:

(1) How difficult is it to implement CEP?

(2) What are the common misconceptions about CEP in non-participating LEAs?

(3) How are the notification and public reporting requirements for State agencies implemented? Are these requirements difficult to meet?

(4) How difficult is the loss of free and reduced-price application data for allocating educational benefits to economically disadvantaged students?

(5) Do State Agencies receive timely information (e.g., lists of eligible and near-eligible schools, notification of desire to participate) from LEAs with one or more eligible schools?

(6) What do State Agencies do to confirm that the enrollment and number of Identified Students in individual schools an LEA has identified as eligible are correct?

(7) How much time is saved on administrative reviews of CEP schools by not having to review applications?

(8) Have State Agencies had to alter their financial payment system to accommodate the meal reimbursement payments for schools/LEAs participating in CEP?

(9) How many LEAs elect the option district-wide, for one school, or by groups of schools?

LEA Level Questions (For participating and eligible non-participating LEAs separately):

(1) How appealing is CEP to high poverty LEAs? To high poverty schools?

(2) For those eligible schools/LEAs that do not elect CEP, what are the barriers to participation?

(3) For those eligible schools/LEAs that do not elect CEP, what changes could be made to the special assistance provision to make it more appealing? How are the LEAs educating and informing the public about CEP?

(4) What are the characteristics of eligible LEAs/schools that elect this option and those that do not elect this option?

(5) Are LEAs/schools operating under Provision 2 or 3 more likely to switch to CEP or remain on

Provision 2 or 3?

(6) If the multiplier was set at 1.3 instead of 1.6 would CEP still be appealing to high poverty

LEAs/schools?

(7) How much administrative burden has been reduced with the election of CEP? What is the associated cost savings to the LEA?

(8) Have LEAs been able to reallocate staff as a result of not having to take applications?

(9) How does the total meal reimbursements from the blended rates of CEP compare with the total meal reimbursements received in prior years?

(10) How much do the identified student percentages differ from year to year?

(11) How often do LEAs use the first year identified student percentage (established in the year prior to electing the option) instead of using more recently established percentages?

(12) Have any LEAs elected out of the option? If so, what were the reasons?

(13) What portion of the identified student percentage is from direct certification and what portion is from other students not subject to verification?

Impact Questions:

(1) What is the impact of electing to receive special assistance payments under CEP on the School

Breakfast Program?

a. Did any LEAs/schools initiate a School Breakfast Program in order to participate in CEP?

b. In LEAs/schools with a School Breakfast Program already in place, what alternative models (e.g., kiosks, breakfast in the classroom, etc.) of breakfast service were tried in lieu of the traditional cafeteria setting? Which of these have been retained as ongoing routine practices?

(2) What is the impact of electing to receive special assistance payments under CEP on attendance and program participation?

a. How did attendance and program participation in NSLP and/or SBP change?

b. Are changes in program participation sustainable over a multiple years or are changes in program participation seen in the first year only?

c. How did changes in attendance and program participation vary by grade level (e.g., elementary, middle, high school)? For NSLP, SBP, and total meals?

d. To what extent did changes in program participation reflect changes in the number of actual participants, frequency of participation, or both? For NSLP, SBP, and total meals?

e. To what extent did the changes in program participation impact meal production costs? For NSLP, SBP, and total meals?

(3) What is the impact of electing to receive special assistance payments under CEP on revenues generated for reimbursable meals?

a. How do per meal revenues under CEP compare to per meal revenues that were generated under the traditional meal reimbursement structure?

b. How do revenues under CEP compare to revenues that would be generated under other special assistance alternatives (Provision 1, 2, or 3)

c. How much local funding is needed compared to these other alternatives?

(4) What are the School Foodservice Director’s perceived impacts of electing to receive special assistance payments under CEP on:

a. Rates of attendance and tardiness;

b. Student health (e.g., visits to the school nurse);

c. Student behavior (e.g., number of disciplinary incidents); and

d. Meal quality.

GENERAL TECHNICAL APPROACH

The following section provides a brief description of the design parameters that must be addressed in the development of an analytic approach to address the major research issues.

General Approach

The general overall design is intended to obtain a clear picture of the characteristics of LEAs and schools that are participating in CEP in SY 2016-17 and those eligible LEAs and schools that elected not to participate. The study shall examine operational issues at the State Agency level and the acceptability of CEP to LEAs, the incentives and barriers, and the implications of opting for this provision on a number of outcome variables. It is anticipated that data will be collected from three groups: (1) State Agencies administering NSLP/SBP; (2) eligible LEAs that have elected to participate in CEP in at least one school; and (3) eligible LEAs that elect not to participate in CEP. It is expected that data collection will occur primarily in School Year 2016-17.

The eligible participating LEAs would include those LEAs that elected CEP for the entire school district or for a subset of schools. Listings of eligible LEAs, participating and not participating, should be available from State

Agencies by September 1, 2016.

The examination of the impact on attendance, participation and per meal revenues should be restricted to the comparison of data obtained from the year prior to implementing CEP with data from the years of implementing

CEP. The impact component of this study should include an evaluation methodology and analysis plan that will identify impacts attributable to participation in CEP while controlling for external factors. One can hypothesize that the implementation of CEP may have a direct impact on participation, and the availability and type of breakfast offered. This is likely to be greater in schools/LEAs switching from the traditional system rather than existing special assistance alternatives (Provision 1, 2, or 3). However, a study designed for the impact component of this research must control for external factors that could contribute to observed changes in outcomes and be robust within the resources available for this study.

Sampling Design and Sampling Frame

By May 1 of each year, State agencies must publish lists of LEAs and schools that are eligible or near-eligible for CEP on their State agency websites. The Child Nutrition policy memo related to the annual notification and publication requirements as well as the strongly recommended USDA-developed reporting template can be found at: http://www.fns.usda.gov/community-eligibility-provision-annual-notification-and-publication-requirements-0

The individual State data will need to be aggregated across all State agencies to produce a complete sampling frame of LEAs eligible for CEP. A complete listing of LEAs participating in CEP should be available from

State Agencies by September 1 of each school year.

The primary sampling strategy should produce estimates generalizable to all LEAs that are eligible to participate in CEP and those that actually participate in CEP. FNS requires a representative sample of LEAs that will yield population estimates with a precision of +5 percent at the 95 percent level of confidence. Length of time on CEP and size of the LEA’s ISP should be considered as potential stratification variables. Offerors should provide initial sample size estimates for the LEA samples and various subgroups, the expected number of responders, the associated expected margin of error and minimum detectable differences expected.

Data Collection

There are numerous methods that could be used to collect information on CEP, including mail questionnaires, telephone interviews, web-based surveys, in-person interviews, record abstraction, or some combination of the above. In presenting a data collection plan, offerors should determine from whom and how best to collect program information from State agencies and LEAs in a timely and accurate fashion. Offerors should justify their data collection plan and discuss the approaches they will use to ensure a response rate of at least 80 percent

Study and Analysis Plan

Offerors shall include a study plan in their proposal which presents the details of how they will address the research questions and objectives discussed in the Performance Work Statement from both a technical and management perspective. The study design plan shall include:

a refined set of research questions and evaluation objectives;

a description of the important variables to be examined and how they relate to the research questions;

http://www.fns.usda.gov/community-eligibility-provision-annual-notification-and-publication-requirements-0 http://www.fns.usda.gov/community-eligibility-provision-annual-notification-and-publication-requirements-0 a sampling plan covering the recommended sample sizes and methods of selecting LEAs/schools;

instrument specifications and development plans;

a data collection plan that discusses the approaches to be used to ensure at least an 80 percent response rate and plans for a non-response analysis should the rate fall below 80 percent.

a detailed description of tasks to organize and structure the work. This section must include the proposed scheduling and sequencing of tasks and the identification of any key non-deliverable dates.

description of the deliverables;

staffing and management plans including the names of key personnel, the qualifications of all personnel including generic personnel, time loading chart for key and generic staff by task, specific project-level management procedures for oversight of the project and for ensuring adequate commitment of corporate resources to the project. This section should also describe the expertise of key personnel in relation to their assignments and the actual and expected assignments outside this contract.

Analysis components of this plan shall include:

proposed outcome measures;

rationale for all analyses and the link between the proposed analysis and the corresponding research question and evaluation objective;

description and rationale for analytic techniques;

data verification activities;

decision rules for dealing with missing, incomplete and out-of-range data;

data transformation activities and data reduction plans;

draft table shells and graphs for the final report.

The majority of analyses of the implementation component of this study will be descriptive in nature with the contractor providing descriptive tables, charts and appropriate explanatory text. Descriptive statistics should be presented for each tabulated item for the total population and by relevant classification variables. For some analyses, in addition to simple descriptive statistics, multivariate techniques may be required to control for external factors when describing the impact of participating in CEP on various variables of interest.

4.0 SCOPE OF WORK

This study is intended to obtain a better understanding of the acceptability of CEP to LEAs, the incentives and barriers for LEAs, and the implications of opting for this provision on student attendance, program participation, and per meal revenue. It also seeks to gain a better understanding of the operational issues that

State Agencies encounter administering this provision. Finally, the study will provide a basis to assess the impact of the identified student percentage (ISP) multiplier on program access, coverage, and per meal costs to

LEAs and the Federal Government. Although current legislation sets the ISP multiplier at 1.6 and allow the

Secretary of Agriculture to establish the multiplier between 1.3 and 1.6, this assessment of ISP multiplier will not be restricted to those limitations.

5.0 TASKS

This section is intended to be illustrative of the tasks, products and deliverables of the proposed study and provide a statement of the scope of work, sequence, and relationship among the activities that could be undertaken by the selected contractor.

Task 1.1 Prepare a Revised Study and Analysis Plan

Based on the outcomes of the initial technical planning meeting, the contractor shall review whether the research approach presented in the Study Plan submitted as part of the Best and Final Offer meets the study requirements. If needed, the Contractor shall prepare and submit a revised Study and Analysis Plan that updates the original Study Plan. The Revised Study and Analysis Plan shall not change the Scope of Work nor have a substantive impact on overall anticipated costs. No revisions or changes to the contract shall occur without the approval of the Contracting Officer. This document shall serve as the framework for the study.

Deliverable: Draft Study and Analysis Plan

Deliverable: Revised Study and Analysis Plan

Task 1.2 Develop Data Collection Instruments

The contractor shall conduct a pretest of the data collection forms with a maximum of 9 respondents. Prior to conducting the pretest, the contractor shall submit draft instruments and the associated detailed instructions to

FNS for review. This instrument package will be reviewed by FNS. Subsequent comments shall be incorporated into the pretest package. The results of the pretest will be used to refine the data collection instruments prior to their submission for OMB approval.

Deliverable: Data Collection Instruments and Procedures

Deliverable: Revised Data Collection Instruments and Procedures

Deliverable: Report on Pre-Test Results

Deliverable: Final Version of Data Collection Instruments and Procedures

Task 1.3 Prepare OMB Clearance Package

When developing the project schedule, the contractor shall allow, a minimum of 52 weeks for OMB’s final approval from the submission of the 60-day notice to FNS to final OMB approval. The approval process may take less than this amount of time; the contractor is advised that the amount of time for clearance is directly related to the quality of the initial submission of the OMB package.

The contractor shall prepare and submit a draft and final version of the Federal Register 60 Day Notice for publication that meets all the requirements of the Office of the Federal Register Document Drafting Handbook.

The contractor shall summarize all public comments received in response to the published Federal Register

Notice and draft responses to each comment to be sent by FNS. The summary of comments shall include a summary of the actions taken to address the comments. The summary of public comments shall be included in the Supporting Statement. Individual responses to public comments will be provided as an appendix to the

OMB package.

The contractor shall submit to FNS a package requesting OMB approval for all information collection activities, including copies of all recruiting materials and data collection instruments and a supporting statement as set forth in 5 CFR 1320, Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public, the USDA Information Collection Package

Submission Guidelines and OMB guidance including, but not limited to, OMB Guidance on Agency Survey and http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/write/handbook/ddh.pdf http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/inforeg/pmc_survey_guidance_2006.pdf

Statistical Information Collections and Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on

Race and Ethnicity.

****** Note that scripts are required to be prepared and included in the OMB package for all communications

(either by telephone, mail, email, or internet) with all persons and organizations contacted for data collection purposes. If web-based data collection is included, screen shots of web-based versions of instruments shall be included in the information collection package. If required, versions of the data collection instruments translated into other languages, such as Spanish, must be included in the OMB package.

The contractor shall provide a clearance package that provides narrative addressing each of the supporting statements (Parts A and B) with appropriate appendices. The contractor shall provide all the information necessary for completing the 83-I form. The link for the 83-I form:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/83i-fill.pdf.

The OMB package shall provide an explicit, concise description of the direct links between the study objectives, research questions, variables, instrument items, data analysis plans and desired products.

For purposes of calculating response burden, the time required in communications with respondents and separately for non-respondents contacted in the project must be included in the burden table. The OMB package shall be submitted in MS Word format. The burden table may be submitted in MS Excel as an appendix.

The Information Collection Request package will be reviewed by the FNS Office of Policy Support (OPS), the

FNS Planning and Regulatory Affairs Office (PRAO), USDA’s Office of the Chief Information Officer

(OCIO), and USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) prior to being submitted to OMB for review and approval. Revisions to the package may be required after each level of review. The contractor shall update the OMB package after each set of required revisions and edits, as necessary. Given the short timeframe for this study set by the Act, FNS will work to help facilitate an expedited review of the package. Preparation of a high-quality initial draft, followed by timely responses to required revisions, will greatly facilitate the OMB approval process. The contractor shall participate in a conference call presentation of the study to OMB and/or draft responses to questions from OMB, as requested.

The 60-day notice shall not be approved until it is published in the Federal Register. The OMB package shall not be approved by the COR until OMB provides final clearance. For reference, recently published FNS Federal

Register Notices are available online at www.federalregister.gov. Recently cleared FNS OMB packages are available online at www.reginfo.gov.

Deliverable: Draft 60-day Notice

Deliverable: Final 60-day Notice

Deliverable: Draft OMB package

Deliverable: Revised OMB package

Deliverable: Final OMB package

Task 1.4 Obtain Compiled Listings of Eligible and participating SFAs from State Agencies and

Assemble Sampling Frame, Draw Samples of SFAs

The contractor shall, in accordance with the Study Plan and Analysis Plan, assemble the sampling frame and draw a nationally representative probability sample of SFAs participating in CEP and a nationally representative sample of eligible SFAs not participating in CEP. The contractor shall contact FNS’s seven Regional Offices and relevant State Agencies to inform them of the purposes of the data collection efforts and obtain contact information for the sampled SFAs.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/inforeg/pmc_survey_guidance_2006.pdf http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg_1997standards/ http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg_1997standards/ http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/83i-fill.pdf http://www.federalregister.gov/ http://www.reginfo.gov/

Progress on the selection of the primary sample of SFAs and status of SFA recruitment shall be described in the monthly progress reports. A brief summary report shall be submitted to FNS at the completion of the recruitment process that documents the sampling process, problems encountered and their solutions, results of the recruitment process and characteristics of the final sample.

Deliverable: List of sampled SFAs

Deliverable: Letter to Regional and State Directors

Deliverable: Summary Report on SFA Sample

Task 1.5 Collect Study Data

Following OMB approval, the contractor shall begin collecting study data. Data collection shall proceed according to the plan set forth in the Revised Data Collection Plan. Bi-weekly status reports shall be submitted to FNS for the duration of this task. These reports shall include the progress that has been made, problems encountered and attempted solutions. If problems are encountered that cannot be resolved by the contractor, FNS shall be notified immediately. When data collection is complete, the contractor shall prepare a brief memorandum summarizing the data collection effort.

Deliverable: Bi-Weekly Data Collection Progress Reports

Deliverable: Data Collection Summary Memo

Task 1.6 Create Study Data Base and Analyze Study Data

As the study data is received, the contractor shall undertake procedures to build a data base and create analytic files consistent with the procedures described in the Revised Study and Analysis Plan. Quality control measures should be implemented to ensure the integrity of the data.

The contractor shall conduct analyses in accordance with the approved Revised Study and Analysis Plan. If changes in the analytic framework have occurred since the approval of this plan, the contractor shall submit a

Memorandum of Intent outlining these changes for FNS approval. The contractor shall provide FNS with copies of draft analytic tables for FNS review during this time.

Deliverable: Draft Analytic Tables

Deliverable: Memorandum of Intent (If Necessary)

Task 1.7 Prepare Study Reports

The contractor shall prepare a draft, revised and final report that details the results of analyses conducted in

Task 7. A detailed outline and subsequent drafts of the final report shall be submitted to FNS for review and comment. At a minimum, this report shall contain the following:

• a separately bound executive summary of the major study findings;

• an introduction which provides the study background data;

• a delineation of the study issues, objectives and research questions;

• a discussion of the study design and methodology, including sampling, data collection procedures, outcome measures, and analytic techniques;

• a presentation of the major findings of the study including tables, graphics, flowcharts, descriptions and interpretive narrative;

• a discussion of the study limitations;

• study conclusions; and

• technical appendices necessary to fully document all analytic procedures used, including the final data collection instruments.

The contractor shall submit to FNS a draft, revised and final report. FNS shall provide comments on the draft and revised final report within 3 weeks of submission. The contractor shall submit one unbound camera-ready copy of the final report and executive summary to be used for printing of additional reports. A copy of the final report and executive summary, including all tables and appendices, shall also be submitted to FNS in electronic format in a microcomputer word processing format agreeable to FNS.

Deliverable: Draft of the Final Report and Executive Summary

Deliverable Revised Final Report and Executive Summary

Deliverable Final Report and Executive Summary

Task 1.8 Prepare and Submit Data Files

At the time of submission of the draft final reports, the contractor shall provide a copy of the restricted use data files used for generating the analyses presented in the first draft of these final reports and also provide the documentation that was used by the contractor when running these draft files.

For the final deliverables for this task, the contractor shall prepare and submit to FNS three sets of CDs that include the raw data files and data analytic files used to produce all results that appear in the final reports.

These files shall be provided in micro-computer format for use with PC SAS or other suitable analytic software selected by FNS. In addition, the contractor shall provide full documentation for these data files including:

File structure (data set name, record format, record length, block size, and number of records);

Code book (record layout including variable names, variable format, variable labels, value labels, and missing values);

Formulation of any calculated variables; and

Computer code (SAS/SPSS, etc.) used to clean the data, assemble the analytic data bases, and generate all tables, graphs and flowcharts that appear in the final report.

A separate set of three “Public Use” CDs that eliminates confidential information and is ready for copying and dissemination to the public shall be prepared and submitted to FNS. These public use data CDs should include a file that provides the codebook and documentation of these data sets.

Deliverable Restricted Use Data Files with Documentation

Deliverable: Revised Restricted Use Data Files with Documentation

Deliverable: Public-Use Data Files with Documentation

Task 1.9 Dissemination of the Study Findings

The contractor shall conduct one half-day briefing session at FNS Headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia presenting an overview of the study, the study design, and final results. This presentation shall include visual display materials and handouts. Copies of the visual display materials and handouts shall be submitted to FNS for review two weeks prior to the presentation.

Deliverable: Draft Briefing Materials

Deliverable: Revised Briefing Materials

6.0 PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

The period of performance for this effort shall be for thirty-six (36) months from the date of award.

7.0 SCHEDULE OF DELIVERABLES

The contractor shall assume that the time between drafts of each contract deliverable is equally divided between the time designated for FNS review and the time designated for contractor revisions. For major deliverables

(e.g., study plan, OMB package, final report) the contractor shall allow 20 work days for FNS review and approval. For minor deliverables, the contractor shall allow no more than 10 work days for FNS review and approval.

SCHEDULE OF DELIVERABLES

TASK DELIVERABLE NO. COPIES DUE DATE

TECHNICAL PLANNING MEETING

AGENDA

1ELECTRONIC

1 week from contract award

TECHNICAL PLANNING MEETING

SUMMARY MEMO

1ELECTRONIC

1 week from technical planning meeting

DRAFT STUDY AND ANALYSIS

PLAN

1 ELECTRONIC

3 HARD COPIES

REVISED STUDY AND ANALYSIS

PLAN

1 ELECTRONIC

3 HARD COPIES

DRAFT DATA COLLECTION

INSTRUMENTS

1ELECTRONIC

3 HARD COPIES

REPORT ON PRE-TEST RESULTS 1ELECTRONIC *

REVISED DATA COLLECTION

INSTRUMENTS

1 ELECTRONIC

3 HARD COPIES

3 DRAFT 60-DAY NOTICE 1 ELECTRONIC *

FINAL 60-DAY NOTICE 1 ELECTRONIC *

DRAFT OMB CLEARANCE

PACKAGE

1 ELECTRONIC

REVISED OMB CLEARANCE

PACKAGE

1 ELECTRONIC

FINAL OMB CLEARANCE PACKAGE

1 ELECTRONIC

5 HARD COPIES

4 LIST OF SAMPLED SFAS 1 ELECTRONIC *

LETTER TO REGIONAL AND STATE

DIRECTORS

1 ELECTRONIC *

SAMPLE RECRUITMENT SUMMARY

MEMORANDUM

1 ELECTRONIC *

BI-WEEKLY STATUS REPORTS ON

DATA COLLECTION

1 ELECTRONIC

MEMORANDUM –DATA

COLLECTION SUMMARY

1 ELECTRONIC *

6 DRAFT ANALYTIC DATA TABLES 1 ELECTRONIC *

MEMORANDUM OF INTENT (IF

NECESSARY)

1ELECTRONIC

DRAFT FINAL REPORT WITH

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 ELECTRONIC

REVISED FINAL REPORT WITH

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 ELECTRONIC

FINAL REPORT WITH EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

1 ELECTRONIC

(WORD &

PDF) 10 HARD

COPIES

RAW DATA FILES /ANALYTIC

DATA FILES AND DOCUMENTATION

(RESTRICTED USE )

1 CD *

REVISED RAW DATA FILES

/ANALYTIC DATA FILES AND

DOCUMENTATION (RESTRICTED

USE )

1 CD *

FINAL DATA FILES AND

DOCUMENTATION (RESTRICTED

USE AND PUBLIC USE )

3 SETS OF CDS *

9 DRAFT BRIEFING MATERIALS 1 ELECTRONIC *

REVISED BRIEFING MATERIALS 1 ELECTRONIC *

10 MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORTS 1 ELECTRONIC 15

th of Each Month

*To Be Proposed By Offeror

8.0 PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY

Performance-based contracts include a Performance Requirements Summary (PRS) prepared by the

Government that is specific to that Contract. In general, the PRS will set forth the expected outcomes

(objectives) of the contract, the service(s) required of the contractor to attain the objectives, a performance standard per outcome. It is the intent of the Government to maintain consistency in standards and associated reduction schedules for same or similar outcomes from contract to contract. The PRS is not an exclusive remedy and inclusion of the PRS does not preclude the Government from using any other remedy available by law or contract terms, including reductions in payment in accordance with any clause for inspection of services.

The Government shall monitor quality assurance in accordance with the PRS below:

Attachment 1-A

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY

PERFORMANCE

MEASURE

PERFORMANCE STANDARD PERFORMANCE

DELIVERABLE

MONITORED

SURVEILLANCE

METHODOLOGY

PERFORMANCE

RATING

SURVEILLANCE

FREQUENCY

MONITORING

PERFORMED

Quality of Products or Services

Complete per the approved Study Plan Accurate per the approved Study Plan Drafts reflect FNS’s feedback on prior drafts Based on state-of-the-literature research methods according to peer-reviewed academic journals Well-written with proper grammar

If sampling is used in this study, sample size must be: The nationally representative sample selected for this study shall be sufficient to provide national estimates at ±.05 level of precision with .95 level of confidence. Design effects and coefficients of variation shall also be considered. The primary sampling strategy should produce estimates generalizable to all LEAs that are eligible to participate in CEP and those that actually participate in CEP. The minimum detectable differences applicable to the variables of interest and at 95% level of confidence (at 0.80 power), and 90% level of confidence for subgroup analyses.

The contractor will incorporate nonresponse rates into their sampling design, specifically high turnover rate or identify others variables that may impact…