DRAFT Performance Work Statement Tribal Home Visiting Planning Analysis and Communication THV PLACE.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Children Families

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTING SERVICES

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT

Administration for Children and Families

Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation Tribal Home Visiting Planning, Analysis, and Communication Project (THV PLACE)

Performance Work Statement for the

April 2026

Table of Contents

1.0 General

1.1 Introduction

1.2 Objective

1.3 Scope of Work

1.4 Background

1.5 Type of Contract Contemplated

1.6 Period of Performance

1.7 Place of Performance

1.8 Recognized Holidays

1.9 Applicable Documents

2.0 Specific Requirements/Tasks

3.0 Background Checks

4.0 Contractor Quality Assurance

5.0 Delivery or Deliverables

Table 1 Table of Deliverables

6.0 Required Travel and Other Direct Costs (ODCs)

7.0 Special Instructions

Section 508 and Accessibility Standards

8.0 Government Furnished Property/Equipment/Information

Performance Work Statement (PWS) for the

1.0 General

1.1 Introduction

The mission of the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is to foster health and well-being by providing federal leadership, partnership and resources for the compassionate and effective delivery of human services. The mission of the Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE) is to study the ACF programs and the children and families they serve through rigorous research and evaluation projects.

OPRE also supports research and evaluation for the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) Program. HRSA administers the MIECHV program in collaboration with ACF, which oversees the Tribal MIECHV program.

This acquisition will support research and evaluation activities to answer questions of interest to ACF’s Tribal MIECHV program and support effective communication about research findings for decision making and practice at the federal and/or grant recipient level.

1.2 Objective

With the ongoing expansion of the Tribal MIECHV program and new Administration priorities, there is a need for a mechanism to gain quick, initial evidence to guide program and research decision making. There is also a need to maximize learning from existing data and through tailored dissemination that supports research use. The goals of this project are to plan, support, and implement actionable research and evaluation to answer questions of interest to ACF’s Tribal MIECHV program and to effectively translate and communicate these research findings for decision making and practice at the federal and grant recipient level. The activities may include planning and conducting research, secondary analyses of data, reviews of the literature, and developing dissemination materials that translate research findings and support practical application and use.

1.3 Scope of Work

The contractor shall furnish the necessary qualified personnel, equipment, materials, supplies, services, facilities, and otherwise do all that is necessary for, or incidental to, the performance of the work set forth below. Activities under this task order may include: 1) implementing quick turnaround studies on emerging topics of interest; 2) conducting focused literature reviews and environmental scans on priority topics; 3) synthesizing and translating research findings for practical application and use; 4) supporting the development and maintenance of Tribal early childhood learning agendas; and 5) supporting research-practice partnerships to address research questions of interest to home visiting programs in Native communities. Active engagement of key end users will help to ensure the activities answer the priority questions and meet the needs of home visiting policy makers and practitioners.

Offerors responding to this PWS are expected to draw on their own expertise to propose the most effective approach to addressing the tasks and may propose alternative approaches in addition to addressing the tasks as proposed by the government; justification for alternatives (e.g., cost efficiency, etc.) must be provided with any alternatives proposed. The contractor is expected to work with the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) to refine the activities and proposed plans once contract is awarded.

1.4 Background

The Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) Program was created in 2010 and reauthorized through passage of the Jackie Walorski Maternal and Child Home Visiting Reauthorization Act of 2022 (§6101 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, P.L. 117-328). The program funds evidence-based home visiting programs to affect a range of outcomes including maternal health, child health and development, child maltreatment prevention, and family economic well-being. HRSA administers the MIECHV program in collaboration with Administration for Children and Families. HRSA provides funds to states and jurisdictions and ACF provides funds to tribal entities to develop and conduct home visiting programs.

Tribal MIECHV. The most recent authorization sets aside 6% of MIECHV funding for awards to federally recognized Indian tribes (or consortia of tribes), tribal organizations, and urban Indian organizations. The Tribal MIECHV program has the same goals as the overall MIECHV program. It also has four additional goals:

• Provide high quality, culturally relevant, and evidence-based home visiting services in American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) communities.

• Support the development of happy, healthy, and successful AI/AN children and families through those home visiting programs.

• Expand the evidence base around home visiting programs in AI/AN communities.

• Strengthen coordination among various programs that serve AI/AN children and families, to create more comprehensive early childhood support systems.

In addition to the Tribal MIECHV program, that directly funds programs in tribal communities, many state and territory MIECHV awardees provide home visiting services to Native families. MIECHV state/territory awardees in Arizona, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming fund tribal organizations to provide home visiting services to their communities. Additionally, home visiting programs in Native communities may be funded and operated through tribal governments, through states, non-profits or other federally funded programs. It is important to acknowledge the many possible programs that could benefit from further research on home visiting in Native communities.

MIECHV Learning Agenda and Efforts to Build Evidence for Home Visiting in Native Communities

The MIECHV Program carries out a continuous program of research and evaluation activities to increase knowledge about the implementation and effectiveness of home visiting programs. ACF and HRSA work together to develop and update the MIECHV Learning Agenda which is a plan for building knowledge to improve the State/Jurisdiction and Tribal MIECHV Programs, and ultimately, improving outcomes for children and families. The MIECHV Learning Agenda is guided by priority questions which highlight gaps in existing knowledge that are critical to answer in order to improve program performance and impact. Many types of evidence are used to address these questions including information and data gathered through performance measurement, needs assessments, continuous quality improvement efforts, research and evaluation, site visits, grant applications, implementation plans, and stories and experiences shared by communities, awardees, and families. The MIECHV program uses what is learned to inform decision making, technical assistance, and practice, and to identify future learning priorities, all with the goal of improving the MIECHV Program. Through intentional and strategic cycles of building evidence and using evidence, MIECHV aims to maximize learning and impact.

Although home visiting has a strong evidence base that demonstrates impacts generally, less is known about home visiting model implementation and effectiveness in Native communities. Since program inception, OPRE has worked closely with the Tribal MIECHV to expand the evidence base on home visiting in Native populations and to increase the representation of Tribal home visiting programs in broader MIECHV learning. Their orientation has been grounded in the Roadmap for Collaborative and Effective Evaluation in Tribal Communities (PDF), which serves as a call to action for ACF to change the narrative on activities related to data, research, and evaluation with Native communities. ACF’s respect for Tribal sovereignty, commitment to building data capacity, and support for continuous learning have shaped Tribal MIECHV’s approach to data, research, and evaluation.

To help inform federal home visiting initiatives in Native communities, the earliest cohorts of Tribal MIECHV grant recipients were required to engage in research and https://mchb.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/mchb/programs-impact/miechv-learning-agenda-overview.pdf https://acf.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cb/tribal_roadmap.pdf https://acf.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cb/tribal_roadmap.pdf https://acf.gov/opre/toolkit/staff-perspectives-transforming-narrative-data-research-and-evaluation-native#book_content_2 evaluation. Initially, they were required to conduct their own rigorous local evaluations (Meyer & Denmark, 2020) which resulted in a number of evaluation studies to understand and strengthen home visiting programs (Morales et al., 2018;

Morales et al., 2020; Roberts et al., 2022). In 2016, some grant recipients had another rigorous evaluation option available, to participate in the community-engaged mixed-methods evaluation Multi-Site Implementation Evaluation of Tribal Home Visiting (MUSE). The MUSE study team partnered with 17 Tribal MIECHV grant recipients to design a study that would return meaningful findings to partnering communities and to ACF. The study has three aims:

1. Identify and describe primary influences shaping Tribal MIECHV program planning.

2. Identify and describe how Tribal MIECHV programs are being implemented.

3. Explore supports and challenges to home visiting implementation in Tribal communities.

Products from this study include an internal memo for program planning, a report focused on Aim 1 (Salvador et al., 2024, Understanding Planning for Tribal Home Visiting Implementation), a brief focused on implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic (Salvador et al., 2025, Continuing Home Visiting Services During COVID- 19), and a final report focused on Aim 2 (Sturmfels et al., 2026, Implementing Home Visiting in Native Communities).

In 2022, the THV program made a change to the data and evaluation requirements for grant recipients. While there continue to be requirements for performance measurement and continuous quality improvement activities, participation in rigorous evaluation is now optional. An ongoing effort, the CIRCLE-HV study provides opportunities for research driven by the priorities of Native communities and braiding research approaches to understand home visiting in these populations. CIRCLE-HV provides 1) awards for Research-Practice Partnerships to research entities that pursue innovative research and evaluation of mutual interest with home visiting programs that serve Native children and families; and 2) is pursuing a cross-site study co-created with seven home visiting programs. These efforts will conclude in 2027, but there is an interest in continuing opportunities for local Research-Practice Partnerships.

Given the expansion of the Tribal MIECHV program and their commitment to data-based decision making and continuous learning, the current project will conduct actionable research that aids in decision making by building off the many strengths of past projects (e.g., community engaged, Tribally-led, iterative learning across projects) and maximizing benefit from existing data and published research. In addition to the research and evaluation projects that MIECHV has supported, the knowledge base about home visiting in Native communities has grown and it is important to build from that work as well as from federally funded research. It is also https://acf.gov/sites/default/files/documents/opre/2_supporting_thv_grantees508.pdf https://acf.gov/opre/report/grantee-led-evaluations-tribal-maternal-infant-and-early-childhood-home-visiting https://acf.gov/sites/default/files/documents/opre/5_evaluation_findings_and_implications508.pdf https://acf.gov/opre/report/grantee-led-evaluations-tribal-maternal-infant-and-early-childhood-home-visiting-0 https://acf.gov/opre/project/multi-site-implementation-evaluation-tribal-home-visiting-muse-2016-2022 https://acf.gov/opre/project/multi-site-implementation-evaluation-tribal-home-visiting-muse-2016-2022 https://acf.gov/opre/project/multi-site-implementation-evaluation-tribal-home-visiting-muse-2016-2022 https://acf.gov/opre/report/continuing-home-visiting-services-during-covid-19-brief-multi-site-implementation https://acf.gov/opre/report/continuing-home-visiting-services-during-covid-19-brief-multi-site-implementation https://acf.gov/opre/project/center-research-practice-collaborations-circle-hv important to honor the efforts of past data collection and maximize what we can learn from those investments.

ACF's Evaluation Policy demonstrates ACF’s commitment to conducting rigorous, relevant evaluations and to using evidence from evaluations to inform policy and practice. The five principles of ACF’s Evaluation Policy are: rigor, relevance, transparency, independence, and ethics. It is expected that the work described above will be carried out in accordance with the following principles.

Rigor. ACF is committed to using the most rigorous methods that are appropriate to both the evaluation questions and the populations, circumstances, and settings that are the focus of study; and that are feasible within budget and other constraints. Rigor is not restricted to impact evaluations, but is also necessary in implementation or process evaluations, descriptive studies, outcome evaluations, and formative evaluations; and in both qualitative and quantitative approaches. Rigor requires ensuring that inferences about cause and effect are well founded (internal validity);

requires clarity about the populations, settings, or circumstances to which results can be generalized (external validity); and requires the use of measures that accurately capture the intended information (measurement reliability and validity). In assessing the effects of programs or services, ACF evaluations will use methods that isolate to the greatest extent possible the impacts of the programs or services from other influences, such as trends over time, geographic variation, or pre-existing differences between participants and non-participants. For such causal questions, experimental approaches are preferred. When experimental approaches are not feasible, high-quality quasi-experiments offer an alternative. ACF will develop and use methods that are appropriate for understanding a range of populations.

Relevance. It is ACF’s policy to integrate existing evidence and opportunities for further learning into all activities. Where an evidence base is lacking, ACF is committed to building evidence through strong evaluations. To be most relevant, ACF will use participatory practices in each phase of evaluation planning, execution, and dissemination as appropriate and feasible. Evaluation priorities should take into account legislative requirements and Congressional interests and should reflect the interests and needs of ACF, HHS, and Administration leadership; ACF program office staff and leadership; ACF partners such as states, territories, tribes, and local grant recipients; the populations served; researchers; and other groups and individuals. Further, evaluations designed, and measurement used under this task order should represent the populations served by ACF. Finally, findings must be disseminated in ways that are clear, accessible, and useful to our audiences; this includes using plain language, adhering to principles of clear communication, and developing products accessible to people with disabilities.

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/opre/report/acf-evaluation-policy

Transparency. ACF values transparency in research and evaluation and is committed to making information about planned, ongoing, and completed evaluations easily accessible.

First, any studies conducted under this contract must be registered with an appropriate registry (e.g., clinicaltrials.gov) prior to the initiation of data collection. Study plans, including analysis plans, should be specified in advance.

Second, ACF is interested in making evaluation data and analyses available for secondary use by other interested researchers. A thoughtful data archive plan will establish procedures and parameters, well in advance of any data collections, to support archiving information and data collected under this task order.

Finally, ACF is interested in ensuring that its research and evaluation work is communicated to a range of relevant audiences throughout the course of project activities. Ongoing and continuous activities are considered essential to a strong communication approach. Audiences that may be appropriate include, but are not limited to: policy-makers, intermediaries, researchers, advocates and opinion leaders, program administrators, training and technical assistance providers, practitioners, and the communities that ACF services. ACF will require contractors to meaningfully engage groups and individuals from the programs and communities involved in studies to improve clarity of presentations, accuracy of interpretations, and effectiveness of external communications activities. ACF is particularly interested in the creation of project external communication plans that identify specific audiences and approaches and products to communicate to those audiences. ACF is also interested in communication plans that use new and emerging media, as well as innovative approaches to communication products that are compatible with the ACF website and other communications platforms.

Independence. ACF’s evaluation policy upholds the idea that independence and objectivity are core principles of evaluation. Agency and program leadership, program staff, service providers, populations and communities studied, and others participate actively in setting evaluation priorities, identifying evaluation questions, and assessing the implications of findings to help ensure the relevance of the work.

While active engagement of groups and individuals who are invested in the outcomes of evaluation can support relevance as well as the accuracy of program implementation details, it is important to insulate evaluation functions from undue influence and from both the appearance and the reality of bias. To promote objectivity, ACF protects independence in the design, execution, analysis, and reporting of evaluations, as outlined in the evaluation policy.

ACF aims to be informed by the practice and empirical knowledge available to inform such topics as measurement choices, technical assistance, training and site support, and the contextualizing of findings. Meaningful involvement of groups and individuals in the evaluation may increase the rigor of the activities of the task order itself as well as understanding, acceptance, and utilization of evaluation findings.

Groups and individuals who are invested in the outcomes of research or evaluation include agency and federal, state or local program leadership, program staff (both at ACF and at the grantee or other programs being evaluated), service providers, developers of innovations or practices, participants in the programs, and the communities where programs occur. As appropriate, groups and individuals should have the opportunity for input at multiple phases of a project, but this input must be accomplished in a transparent way while safeguarding the objectivity and independence of the study.

Ethics and Data Safety. ACF-sponsored evaluations are conducted in an ethical manner; safeguard the dignity, rights, safety and privacy of participants; and comply with both the spirit and the letter of relevant requirements such as regulations governing research involving human subjects. ACF will expect contractors to meaningfully engage groups and individuals from the programs and communities involved in studies to ensure programmatic, cultural, linguistic and historical nuances are accurately and respectfully addressed from the initial study design, through execution, analyses and reporting.

ACF is committed to ensuring that data collected as part of this contract are maintained and stored securely. For the purposes of this section:

• Personally Identifiable Information (PII) is defined as information that can be used to distinguish or trace an individual’s identity, such as their name, social security number, biometric records, alone or when combined with other personal or identifying information, which is linked or linkable to a specific individual, such as date and place of birth, mother’s maiden name, and so on.

The Role of Active Engagement for OPRE Projects

OPRE defines active engagement as the intentional involvement of groups and individuals who are invested in the outcomes of the research or evaluation. This should occur in all relevant phases of the project. The purpose of active engagement is to improve the quality, rigor, and relevance of OPRE projects and facilitate the uptake of findings. OPRE seeks input from people with practice and empirical expertise to inform project activities. This includes but is not limited to refinement of conceptual models, developing research questions, measurement choices, evaluation technical assistance, training and site support, the contextualization of findings, and external communication priorities.

To this end, OPRE expects contractors to develop plans and implement strategies to maximize opportunities for active engagement in ACF projects that are appropriate to the goals of each phase of a project’s life cycle. Approaches can range from shared ownership of projects (e.g., co-creation) and community based participatory research to consultation for specific activities.

Opportunities to provide input shall be considered for all phases of the project from refining research questions to external communication of findings, as appropriate for the scope and goals of the project.

Groups and individuals to actively engage may include but are not limited to service providers;

developers of interventions, innovations, or practices; program participants; subject matter experts; federal, grantee, or other program staff; federal, state, or local leadership; groups and individuals in programs’ communities; individuals with experience in human services programs;

and those in broader fields of study related to human services research and evaluation.

To promote objectivity, ACF protects independence in the design, conduct and analysis of evaluations, as outlined in the agency evaluation policy. Active engagement input shall be obtained in a transparent way while safeguarding the objectivity and independence of the study, to insulate evaluation functions from undue influence and from both the appearance and the reality of bias.

OPRE’s Approach to Research and Evaluation with Native Communities

OPRE takes an intentional approach to research, evaluation, and evaluation technical assistance with tribal communities that is aligned with the Roadmap for Collaborative and Effective Evaluation in Tribal Communities (PDF) and grounded in ACF’s Evaluation Policy to promote rigor, relevance, transparency, independence, and ethics. We design our research and technical assistance to maximize learning from ongoing OPRE activities. We strive to be responsive to a history of trust violations and adhere to tribal cultural principles regarding data that emphasize both protection and benefit. We also utilize the principles of active engagement to assure that our projects with tribal communities promote opportunities for co-creation of knowledge and incorporate community voice.

1.5 Type of Contract Contemplated

Time and Materials.

1.6 Period of Performance

This contract consists of a Base and three Optional periods. Including all Optional Periods (if executed), the total period of performance for the contract will not exceed 60 months from date of award.

https://acf.gov/opre/report/acf-evaluation-policy https://acf.gov/opre/report/making-evaluations-rigorous-and-relevant-role-active-engagement-development-learning

The period of performance for the Base is 60 months (estimated September 30, 2026- September 29, 2031)

The anticipated period for the Optional Periods are shown below, although the Government is not obligated to exercise any Option and the dates below are estimates:

Optional Period 1: 48 months (estimated September 30, 2027-September 29, 2031) Optional Period 2: 36 months (estimated September 30, 2028-September 29, 2031) Optional Period 3: 24 months (estimated September 30, 2029-September 29, 2031)

1.7 Place of Performance

The work to be performed under this task order will be performed at the Contractor’s address and may include multiple states and localities.

1.8 Recognized Holidays

New Year’s Day Labor Day Martin Luther King Jr.’s Birthday Columbus Day President’s Day Veteran’s Day Memorial Day Thanksgiving Day Independence Day Christmas Day Juneteenth

1.9 Applicable Documents

Clear Communications Checklist Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) Plain Language Checklist

2.0 Specific Requirements/Tasks

The Base and Option of this order include similar tasks, and the Option may be exercised multiple times with different Optional Periods. However, the needs for these tasks may vary significantly based on the specific programmatic focus of each Optional Period/CLIN, the particular need of the COR or other federal staff for each activity, and the requirements to complete each individual activity. The Contractor will be provided with specification for each effort within a task when the work is initiated. The Contractor shall be prepared to work on multiple efforts simultaneously, including several simultaneous efforts within a task (e.g., multiple dissemination products, a variety of information sharing efforts, and several expert consultant agreements all within one Optional Period), as well as managing several activities across multiple open Option Periods. As such, the Contractor shall have capacity, experience, and expertise to provide appropriate support for several concurrent tasks across multiple program areas as well as appropriate management and communication to oversee all of the resulting tasks and efforts simultaneously

Task 1: Project Management and Team Communication Effective communication between the Contractor and the federal government, coordinated through the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR), and successful management of the project as a whole are essential to the success of this Service Component, and the project more broadly. The need for communication begins at the very start of the contract. Within 2 weeks contract award, the Contractor shall initiate communication with the COR and other federal staff to schedule a project orientation to discuss a range of topics, including, but not necessarily limited to, clarification of ACF’s interests and objectives for the project, conducting work on an efficient schedule and budget, coordination with other ACF program offices, methodologies to be employed, timelines for early project deliverables, and the challenges anticipated and potential solutions. The Contractor shall send an agenda and any relevant materials to the COR no less than three (3) working days prior to the discussion. Within five (5) working days of the project orientation, the Contractor shall submit to the COR a memorandum summarizing major decisions reached and follow-up issues identified during this discussion.

Ongoing communication is also necessary to ensure successful completion of this service component, and should be both verbal (e.g., regularly scheduled conference calls) and written (e.g., monthly progress reports). The Contractor shall propose a schedule for bi-weekly meetings to update federal staff on progress and issues. Key Contractor staff, sub-Contractor staff, and/or consultants shall participate as needed to address progress and issues for discussion. The schedule for meetings may be changed as agreed upon by the COR. The Contractor shall submit a proposed agenda for each call at least three (3) working days in advance of the scheduled date to the COR for comment. If there are materials that federal staff will need to review prior to the call date, such materials shall be submitted at least three (3) working days in advance of the call date. The Contractor shall submit a summary of meetings to the COR for review and approval no later than three (3) working days after each regular meeting.

In addition to the ongoing conference calls, the Contractor shall submit written monthly progress reports throughout the period of the service component, which includes the following information: activities completed and progress on each task for the report month, including expenditure data by task, monthly and cumulative expenditures, and the balance remaining. All IT-related expenses shall be highlighted for ease of reporting. The Contractor reports shall include details related to project performance. Monthly progress reports shall be submitted to the COR monthly, on a regular schedule proposed by the Contractor and approved by the COR and before or concurrently with submission by the Contractor of invoices related to that period of performance.

Task 2: Active Engagement Plan

For the current study, the contractor shall develop an approach, a plan, and implementation strategies that maximize opportunities for active engagement that are appropriate to the goals of each phase of this project’s life cycle.

The objectives of active engagement for this contract are to help identify and prioritize emerging questions of interest, to ensure that the planned approach to answer the questions and communication about results benefits from the deep knowledge and perspectives of groups and individuals who are invested in the work.

Groups and individuals to actively engage may include but are not limited to:

• Federal MIECHV staff and contracted TA providers

• Tribal MIECHV Grant recipients and MIECHV awardees and local implementing agencies

• Model developers

• Program staff and program participants;

• subject matter experts;

• groups and individuals in programs’ communities;

• those in broader fields of study related to Tribal early childhood and human services research and evaluation.

There are a variety of strategies and mechanisms that can be used to actively engage groups and individuals who are invested in the outcomes of the work conducted under the Base, such as one-on-one meetings, listening sessions, or convening expert work groups, which could be held in person or virtually. Strategies and mechanisms used shall be appropriate for the audience being engaged and for the goal of the engagement. When planning active engagements, all efforts shall be made to maximize use of already occurring opportunities for gathering, such as grant recipient meetings and conferences.

Active engagement may be undertaken as part of any tasks in the BASE and optional services components but will be particularly critical to Task 4: Identifying Priority Questions and Rigorous Strategies, Task 6: Implementing Quick Turnaround Studies, Task 6: Conducting Focused Literature Reviews and Environmental Scans, Task 7: Synthesizing and Translating Research Findings, Task 8: Supporting the Development and Refinement of Tribal Early Childhood Development Learning Agenda. Active engagement may occur during multiple phases of projects but will be particularly important for the conceptualization phases and communication phases.

The Contractor shall provide a plan for active engagement in project tasks and deliverables. To accomplish the goals of including meaningful and appropriate active engagement while upholding the principle of independence in ACF sponsored evaluations, the plan should begin with a clearly articulated rationale for the Contractor’s approach to active engagement to guide the entire project and achieve its purpose. This rationale shall guide engagement across all tasks and any options. The approach to active engagement shall describe the reason for inclusion of the individuals and groups proposed to be engaged, how and when they will be engaged, and how input will be addressed and incorporated to achieve the purpose of the study.

The plan should follow from this approach and:

• delineate the project tasks and activities where active engagement will occur;

• demonstrate how active engagement in these tasks and activities will meet specific goals of this project;

• identify potential individuals and groups who may be involved in the active engagement and indicate why or to what end they will be engaged, how they will be engaged, and the timeline for when the project plans to engage them;

• describe the budget considerations associated with the proposed active engagement; and

• delineate how the plans for active engagement will be refined throughout the project.

For the current study, at a minimum, the following tasks should include active engagement in Task 4: Identifying Priority Questions and Rigorous Strategies, Task 5: Implementing Quick Turnaround Studies on Emerging Topics of Interest, Task 6: Conducting Focused Literature Reviews and Environmental Scans, Task 7: Supporting the Development and Refinement of Tribal Early Childhood Development Learning Agenda, Task 8: Synthesizing and Translating Research Findings. Additionally, the plan should include explicit discussion of how the independence of research and evaluation functions and findings will be protected from both the appearance and reality of bias throughout the planning for and execution of active engagement.

The Contractor shall submit a draft plan to the COR no later than two (2) months after contract award and a final deliverable to the COR no later than three (3) months after contract award. If appropriate, a Memorandum of Understanding with some individuals and groups may be warranted, particularly in high-stakes evaluations or sensitive relationships. The Contractor’s plan shall be updated throughout the project as necessary to document the decisions and agreements made around areas of active engagement.

Task 3: Expert Consultation

In coordination with the COR and additional federal staff, the Contractor shall identify and engage external experts in areas related to actionable research and evaluation and effective communication of findings for Tribal home visiting programs.

Such experts shall provide expert consultation as well as supplement project team expertise in the development of requested products. Activities may include participating in workgroups, reviewing literature reviews, questionnaire drafts, research syntheses, ad hoc papers, briefs, and presentations and other similar activities. For each request for expert consultation and in coordination with the COR and additional federal staff, the Contractor shall identify potential experts from relevant academic, professional consulting, and service-provider and participant communities, with expertise in the specific need of the government. Examples of expertise include research use; best practices in TA; learning agendas; early childhood home visiting;

Tribal early childhood, core components, early childhood workforce. Other areas of required expertise may be identified over the course of this contract. Identification and selection of the experts will occur on an as needed basis and in accordance with a process approved by the COR.

Upon COR approval of the expert selection, the Contractor shall contact experts to obtain their consent and availability for agreed upon consultation or work. The Contractor shall contact experts within two (2) weeks after a specific work request for consultative services is made by the COR and finalize written agreements with experts within thirty (30) days after contact is made, for those experts who agree to the request. The Contractor shall receive written approval from the COR prior to contacting any potential consultants.

Upon execution of any sub-contract or independent consulting agreement, the Contractor shall monitor and manage the successful completion of the agreed upon work. If requested, the Contractor shall provide the COR with a copy of the consultation agreement. The Contractor shall include the timeline of the consultation, including when delivery of the end product(s) of value to the Government will be, in the monthly progress report. The COR may require Consultants to present the results of their work for government information sharing projects or for other purposes. If travel is required for this, the Contractor shall pay the Consultants’ transportation and per diem expenses.

Task 4: Identifying Priority Questions and Rigorous Strategies

The Contractor shall develop an overall plan for identifying priority learning questions for ACF’s Tribal MIECHV program and for identifying rigorous strategies to answer those questions (e.g., focused literature review, new data collection or secondary analyses, synthesis/translation of research). The most rigorous strategy shall match the question and consider available resources and timelines.

This task shall involve developing and maintaining a dynamic list of prioritized questions and rigorous strategies which will be reviewed and updated with the COR and relevant federal staff on a regular schedule and in response to emerging interest. This task will enable the government to make choices about questions to pursue and to weigh different options.

Active engagement will be critical to this task. Contractor shall submit a draft workplan for identifying priority learning questions and rigorous strategies no later than three (3) months after contract award. Within two (2) weeks of receiving comments from the COR, a revised workplan will be submitted to the COR for approval. Once a workplan is approved, the Contractor shall implement the workplan.

The Contractor shall develop an internal memo, on a schedule proposed in the workplan, with priority questions and strategies. Upon receipt the COR will review and meet with the contractor to select a priority for implementation. Once the COR has selected a priority, the Contractor shall begin to further plan that strategy in the corresponding task, which includes but may not be limited to, Task 5: Implementing Quick Turnaround Studies, Task 6: Conducting Focused Literature Reviews and Environmental Scans, and Task 7: Synthesizing and Translating Research Findings to Support Practical Application and Use.

Task 5: Implementing Quick Turnaround Studies

As directed by the COR, the contractor shall develop, plan and implement quick turnaround studies that address research questions identified in Task 4. These studies may range in scope, intensity, and mode, depending on federal interest and the topic selected. The contractor shall continue to consult with the COR on the appropriate timeline, magnitude, and medium once a topic and general approach has been identified in Task 4. Example foci that might emerge from active engagement with the Tribal MIECHV program staff, Tribal MIECHV grant recipients, and Native communities include but are not limited to tracking outcomes of program expansion, exploring the feasibility of new program initiatives and/or TA approaches, exploring implementation or measurement questions related to core aspects of Tribal Home Visiting, and conducting secondary analysis of existing data sets to further refine existing measures. The results of a quick turnaround study may be for internal or external use and dissemination, depending on the topic and as determined by the COR.

Subtask 5.1- Quick Turnaround Study Plan For each study assigned by the COR, the Contractor shall draft a Quick Study Plan designed to address ACF’s questions of interest within allocated resources. The Contractor’s response shall clearly demonstrate that the Contractor possesses the necessary subject matter, technical, and programmatic expertise to successfully complete the study and the level of resources required to conduct the requested work. The Contractor’s initial Plan shall, at minimum:

• Briefly summarize learning questions and goals as relevant context for the study

• Propose a methodology, task structure, deliverables, and a staffing plan designed to achieve ACF’s stated goals and objectives of the study

• Identify whether the questions of interest could be analyzed using existing MIECHV administrative or research datasets (with proper approvals) and/or

• Identify efficient modes of primary data collection to reliably answer questions of interest

• Identify whether the activity will require Institutional Review Board (IRB) review and Tribal Research approvals;

• Propose a budget and a timeline for the study;

• Identify potential risks to timely completion within the stated budget, and suggest an approach to their mitigation;

• Request from ACF any additional initial information the Contractor deems necessary for developing a realistic and complete proposal.

The initial Quick Turnaround Study Plan shall be prepared and delivered to the COR within four (4) weeks of the COR approving a topic, unless otherwise directed by the COR. Input from ACF shall be incorporated to finalize expectations for the study process, data collection materials, products, and timeline within three (3) weeks of receipt of comments from the COR. The Plan must be approved by the COR, with consent from other relevant federal staff, prior to the commencement of the Quick Turnaround Study Task. If necessary, any modifications to the Quick Turnaround Study Task must receive prior approval by the COR.

Subtask 5.2: Quick Turnaround Study Task

This task shall support the Contractor’s implementation of the quick turnaround study as described in the approved proposal. Quick turnaround studies may include, but are not limited to,

• Implementing additional active engagement to refine study plans

• Finalizing data collection materials, protocols, and other related documents

• Conducting or supporting the conduct of data collection activities (focus groups, talking circles, surveys)

• Developing analysis plans for primary or secondary data

• Conducting data quality checks

• Analyzing quantitative and/or qualitative data

• Writing up draft results

• Implementing additional active engagement for interpretation of results

• Drafting internal memos or brief reports summarizing and presenting the results

• Completing any required Tribal Research Review processes for communication of results

The Contractor shall submit any draft and final deliverables (e.g., questions, study designs, data collection materials, analysis plans, outlines, storylines, written summaries, memos, reports) specified in the Quick Turnaround Study Plan to the COR for review and approval on a schedule proposed by the Contractor and approved by the COR.

Task 6: Conducting Focused Literature Reviews and Environmental Scans

As directed by the COR, the Contractor shall identify, review, and synthesize literature or resources that are relevant to research questions or topics of interest identified in Task 4 as best pursued through literature review or environmental scan. The literature review(s) should be detailed and seek to identify research gaps and limitations but may not need to be exhaustive.

The literature review(s) shall not be duplicative of previous and ongoing efforts, shall build upon the work conducted for MIECHV, and shall appropriately leverage existing reviews (e.g., published reviews by academic scholars, professional organizations, or government-sponsored contractors). Environmental scans may include additional resources not included in the literature review, such as program documents, policy and guidance documents, technical assistance resources, information related to curriculum development, and presentations or publications from related projects and studies. For topics where less is known and where appropriate, the Contractor may augment the review through discussions with key informants. Results of literature review and/or environmental scans may be for internal or external use and dissemination, depending on the topic and as determined by the COR.

Within three (3) weeks of a topic being approved by the COR, the Contractor shall submit a draft workplan for completing the literature review and/or environmental scan. Within two (2) weeks after receiving comments from the COR, a revised workplan will be submitted to the COR for approval. Once a workplan is approved, the Contractor shall implement the workplan.

The Contractor shall submit any draft and final deliverables (e.g., outlines, storylines, written summaries) specified in the workplan to the COR for review and approval on a schedule proposed by the Contractor and approved by the COR.

Task 7: Synthesizing and Translating Research Findings to Support Practical Application and Use

To ensure that research findings from this or other MIECHV-funded projects are communicated and useful for decision making and practice, the Contractor shall support MIECHV in the following areas:

• Translating research findings into information that can directly inform MIECHV policy and technical assistance

• Developing practice-ready, tribally relevant products that present translated research findings and can be immediately used to inform decision making and practice

• Coordinating with federal staff, TA staff, or other federal contractors to support the translation of research findings and tailoring dissemination to the desired audiences

The Contractor shall translate findings from but not limited to, projects under this or other MIECHV contracts and grants, and well as external sources. The Contractor shall support application at the federal and grant recipient level. Results produced may be for internal or external use and dissemination, depending on the topic and as determined by the COR.

Within three (3) weeks of the COR requesting support for these activities, the Contractor shall submit a draft workplan. Two (2) weeks after receiving comments from the COR on the plan, a revised workplan will be submitted to the COR for approval. Once a workplan is approved, the Contractor shall implement the workplan.

The Contractor shall submit any draft and final deliverables (e.g., outlines, storylines, written summaries, materials for webinars and office hours) specified in the workplan to the COR for review and approval on a schedule proposed by the Contractor and approved by the COR.

Task 8: Supporting the Development and Refinement of Tribal Early Childhood Development Learning Agenda (supplement to MIECHV Learning Agenda)

A learning agenda is an iterative, dynamic process that supports ongoing, continuous learning about a program with the goal of generating and using evidence to support improvements and future learnings. Learning agendas involve collaboratively (1) identifying critical questions that, when answered, will help programs be more effective, and (2) answering those questions using the most appropriate tools. It is a planned approach to learning and improving program performance through evaluation and analysis. Implementing a learning agenda approach creates an environment that encourages individuals, offices, and teams to reflect on and learn from their experience and from others. A learning agenda is flexible, and once it is integrated into a processes, can help staff and partners build knowledge in a planful way and learn rapidly to enable iterative course corrections and improvements.

The purpose of this task is to support the development of a supplement to the MIECHV Learning agenda which was described in the background. The supplement to the MIECHV learning agenda will be focused on implementation of home visiting and other early childhood programs, including but not limited to child care and Head Start, in tribal communities. This Learning Agenda is hereinafter referred to as the Tribal Early Childhood Development Learning Agenda.

The Contractor shall support the COR and other federal staff in the development, continuous maintenance, and refinement of the Tribal Early Childhood Development learning agenda. This may include, but is not limited to, the following activities:

• Review, summarize, and synthesize information across projects and activities using existing materials produced by or about the program. Examples of existing materials include findings from research studies, performance measurement data, and technical assistance needs assessments. The goal of this work is to provide the program with concise summaries of what has been learned to date, to support further analysis and guide future learning and implementation. As needed, work with federal staff and other entities under contract to ACF who are working on the MIECHV Learning Agenda.

• Work with federal staff to determine the scope of new information or materials needed. This may include leading interviews and/or conducting information gathering sessions.

• Create, update, and maintain a process for organizing all materials, both existing and new, that are reviewed.

• Recommend processes to support ongoing summarizing and synthesizing of learnings, including options for how AI, machine learning, and other technologies could be used to help summarize and synthesize. Implement processes approved by the Government.

• Develop new documents as needed that summarize and visually display the information (e.g., briefs, slides) and develop practice-ready…