HMRECC_PWS_DRAFT.pdf

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT

Administration for Children and Families

Office of Family Assistance

Performance Work Statement For the

Testing Core Components of Healthy Marriage and Relationship Education Programs

Document Revision History

Mod.

No. Description of Changes Requested

By Approved

By Date

00 Base

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

1.6 Period of Performance

1.7 Place of Performance

1.8 Recognized Holidays

2.0 Specific Requirements/Tasks

3.0 Additional Security Requirements

4.0 Background Checks

5.0 Contractor Quality Assurance

6.0 Table of Deliverables

7.0 Required Travel and Other Direct Costs (ODCs)

8.0 Government Furnished Property/Equipment/Information

9.0 Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms

**Note: as a matter of policy, some agencies require the government to prepare the PWS, the guidance at FAR 37.602(a) stipulates that “a Performance work statement (PWS) may be prepared by the Government or result from a Statement of objectives (SOO) prepared by the Government where the offeror proposes the PWS.”

https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-37#FAR_37_602

Performance Work Statement (PWS) for the

Testing Core Components of Healthy Marriage and Relationship Education Programs

1.0 General

2.0

2.1 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 Family Assistance (OFA) is to strengthen families by promoting the dignity of work, supporting marriage, and safeguarding the integrity of public benefits.

The purpose of this task order is to conduct a rigorous, large-scale impact evaluation to test core components for Healthy Marriage and Relationship Education (HMRE) program implementation and to achieve improved participant outcomes.

2.2 Objective

The objective of this contract is to test a prioritized subset of theorized core components using a rigorous study design to assess their impact on HMRE program implementation and participant outcomes. Core components are defined as essential functions and principles, common elements, program components, ingredients, or kernels that define the program and are judged as being necessary to produce outcomes in a typical service setting when implemented effectively.1,2. The end product of value of this contract is a final report summarizing the study and synthesizing information across the organizations included in the federal evaluation, including research findings, core components tested, and lessons learned.

Work performed under this contract will:

• Utilize existing memos and reports, to be provided by the Government after contract award, as well as ongoing work that identify and describe theorized core components to inform the impact and implementation study design.

• Refine a draft conceptual model(s) and as needed further refine to reflect the final study design.

1 Blase, K., & Fixsen, D. (2013). Core intervention components: Identifying and operationalizing what makes programs work.

https://aspe.hhs.gov/report/core-intervention-components-identifying-and-operationalizing-what-makes-programs-work

2 Ferber, T. Sileo, A., & Wiggins, M.E. (2019). Advancing the use of core components of effective programs one pager. Advancing the Use of Core Components of Effective Programs One Pager - The Forum For Youth Investment (forumfyi.org) https://aspe.hhs.gov/report/core-intervention-components-identifying-and-operationalizing-what-makes-programs-work https://forumfyi.org/knowledge-center/advancing-core-components-one-pager/

• Work with identified programs to assess interest and feasibility, establish memoranda of understanding as applicable, coordinate with finalized sites to refine the research design, and support implementation and data collection.

• Design and carry out rigorous impact studies to determine whether the core components are effective on a number of identified key program outcomes.

2.3 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. Offerors responding to this PWS 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. Offerors are expected to draw on their own expertise to propose the most effective approach to addressing the tasks. The Contractor is expected to work with the Contracting Officer’s Representatives (CORs) to refine the activities and proposed plans once contract is awarded.

Background Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood (HMRF) Grant Programs Since 2006, the Office of Family Assistance (OFA) has administered federal funding for Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood (HMRF) programs, which aim to strengthen families through healthy marriage and relationship education and responsible fatherhood services. These programs are designed to promote healthy family relationships and economic stability, with the ultimate goal of improving the long-term well-being of children and families. In 2025, OFA awarded a fifth cohort of five-year grants under this authority.

The HMRF authorizing legislation (42 U.S.C. § 603(a)(2)) and Section 413 (42 U.S.C. § 613) directs the Secretary to assess the effects of these programs on child well-being, family stability, economic mobility, poverty, and related outcomes. This contract will support that mandate by evaluating effective approaches implemented by HMRE grant recipients. Furthermore, this work is particularly important in the current administrative and policy context, which emphasizes strengthening child and family well-being, preventing child maltreatment, and investing in evidence-building to inform federal programs and legislation. Generating actionable evidence on what works, for whom, and under what conditions is critical to ensuring that federal investments in family strengthening programs are effective and aligned with broader child welfare goals.

HMRF Research and Evaluation

To guide HMRF research and evaluation activities, ACF has developed and continues to refine a learning agenda focused on four key areas of inquiry: (1) who participates in HMRF programs, what services they receive, and the outcomes they are working toward; (2) how HMRF programs are implemented in real-world settings, including the resources and supports needed for high-quality implementation; (3) the effectiveness of HMRF programs, including which strategies and approaches produce the strongest outcomes for different populations and contexts; and (4) how data and evidence can be used to strengthen programs and improve outcomes.

https://acf.gov/ofa/programs/healthy-marriage-responsible-fatherhood

A substantial body of research underscores the importance of family stability and relationship quality for child well-being. Studies have consistently found that children living with their married biological parents experience lower rates of maltreatment than those in other family structures, as documented in the Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS-4).3 Research indicates that stable, high-quality marriages are associated with positive child outcomes across emotional, behavioral, cognitive, and physical domains, while family instability is linked to increased behavioral and emotional problems among children. Research indicates that stable, high-quality marriages are associated with positive child outcomes across emotional, behavioral, and cognitive domains, while family instability is linked to increased behavioral and emotional problems; children in stable married-parent families tend to demonstrate better language, academic, and socio-emotional outcomes than those experiencing instability or other family structures.4,5

Prior federal evaluations of HMRF programs have generated important insights but also highlight the need for continued innovation. Large-scale studies such as Building Strong Families (BSF), Supporting Healthy Marriage (SHM), and the Community Healthy Marriage Initiative (CHMI) generally found small or null impacts on key outcomes, such as relationship stability, relationship quality, co-parenting behaviors, and children’s building, though some studies with lower-income populations identified more moderate positive effects. 6,7 Subsequent federal evaluations, including Parents and Children Together (PACT), found improvements in relationship quality, co-parenting, and economic stability in certain program contexts, but mixed effects across outcome domains.8

During the third HMRF grant cohort (2015-2020), ACF conducted additional research through B3, Strengthening Relationship and Education and Marriage (STREAMS), and the Fatherhood and Marriage Local Evaluation and Cross-Site (FaMLE Cross-Site) project to strengthen understanding of program implementation and effectiveness. B3 tested innovative interventions

3 Sedlak, A. J., et al. (2010). Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS–4): Report to Congress. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

4 Osborne, C. and McLanahan, S. (2007). Partnership Instability and Child Well- Being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 1065-1083. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741- 3737.2007.00431.

5 Berger, L. M., & McLanahan, S. S. (2015). Income, Relationship Quality, and Parenting:

Associations with Child Development in Two-Parent Families. Journal of marriage and the family, 77(4), 996–1015. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12197 6 See reports from the Building Strong Families (BSF), Supporting Healthy Marriage (SHM), and the report from the Community Healthy Marriage Initiatives (CHMI) evaluation.

7 Hawkins AJ, Fackrell TA. Does relationship and marriage education for lower-income couples work? A meta-analytic study of emerging research. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy. 2010 Apr 19;9(2):181-91.

Bradley RP, Friend DJ, Gottman JM. Supporting healthy relationships in low-income, violent couples: Reducing conflict and strengthening relationship skills and satisfaction. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy. 2011 Apr 20;10(2):97-116.

8 Friend, Daniel, Amy Overcash, Pamela Holcomb, and Heather Zaveri (2020). Pathways-To-Outcomes Snapshots:

Tools for Building Evidence for Healthy Marriage and Relationship Education (HMRE) Programs. OPRE Brief # 2020-116. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

https://acf.gov/opre/project/building-bridges-and-bonds-b3-evaluation-2014-2021 https://acf.gov/opre/project/building-bridges-and-bonds-b3-evaluation-2014-2021 https://acf.gov/opre/project/supporting-healthy-marriages-2003-2014 https://acf.gov/opre/project/community-healthy-marriage-initiatives-chmi-evaluation-2003-2013 https://acf.gov/opre/project/community-healthy-marriage-initiatives-chmi-evaluation-2003-2013 https://acf.gov/opre/project/opre/research/strengthening-relationship-education-and-marriage-services-streams https://acf.gov/opre/project/fatherhood-and-marriage-local-evaluation-famle-and-cross-site-project-2013-2021 https://acf.gov/opre/project/fatherhood-and-marriage-local-evaluation-famle-and-cross-site-project-2013-2021 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00431.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00431.x https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12197 within fatherhood programs and generated key lessons on integrating new components and engaging participants. STREAMS examined enhancements to HMRE service delivery and found mixed but informative impacts across outcomes. One program demonstrated improvements in women’s relationship skills and attitudes and reductions in unintended pregnancies, while no significant effects were observed for outcomes such as relationship stability, co-parenting, intimate partner violence, or emotional well-being. FaMLE Cross-Site synthesized findings from grant recipient-led evaluations, highlighting variation in impacts across contexts and strengthening evidence on implementation and engagement. Together, these studies reinforced the need to identify specific program components and strategies that drive outcomes, informing subsequent core components research.9

More recent federal studies have focused on identifying and strengthening promising program implementation strategies. Studies such as Strengthening the Implementation of Marriage and Relationship Services (SIMR) and Strengthening the Implementation of Responsible Fatherhood Programs (SIRF) used rapid-cycle evaluation methods to test approaches to improve recruitment, retention, and engagement. These efforts identified a range of promising implementation strategies, including enhanced case management, tailored outreach, facilitator training, and peer support models.10

Core Components

Given the variety in HMRF program approaches, populations, and focus areas, there is a need to go beyond determining the “average effects” of HMRF programs. A “core components” framework moves beyond estimating average program effects and instead aims to identify the essential elements of programs that drive outcomes. Core components are defined as essential functions and principles, common elements, program components, ingredients, or kernels that define the program and are judged as being necessary to produce outcomes in a typical service setting when implemented effectively.11,12 Core components might be theoretically justified and supported by past research, evidence-informed and empirically established through associations with outcomes, or evidence-based and empirically tested by design.

Focusing on core components offers several advantages. It enables programs to integrate evidence-based elements into a range of service settings without requiring wholesale adoption of a single model; promotes replication and scalability; and supports programs with limited evaluation capacity in incorporating evidence-based practices. It also aligns with federal priorities to build usable, actionable evidence that can inform program improvement and policy decisions.

9 See reports from the Fatherhood and Marriage Local Evaluation and Cross-Site (FaMLE Cross-Site) project.

10 See reports from the Strengthening the Implementation of Marriage and Relationship Services (SIMR) and Strengthening the Implementation of Responsible Fatherhood Programs (SIRF) projects.

11 Blase, K., & Fixsen, D. (2013). Core intervention components: Identifying and operationalizing what makes programs work.

https://aspe.hhs.gov/report/core-intervention-components-identifying-and-operationalizing-what-makes-programs-work

12 Ferber, T. Sileo, A., & Wiggins, M.E. (2019). Advancing the use of core components of effective programs one pager. Advancing the Use of Core Components of Effective Programs One Pager - The Forum For Youth Investment (forumfyi.org) https://acf.gov/opre/project/strengthening-implementation-marriage-and-relationship-services-simr-2019-2022 https://acf.gov/opre/project/strengthening-implementation-marriage-and-relationship-services-simr-2019-2022 https://acf.gov/opre/project/strengthening-implementation-responsible-fatherhood-programs-sirf-2019-2022 https://acf.gov/opre/project/strengthening-implementation-responsible-fatherhood-programs-sirf-2019-2022 https://acf.gov/opre/project/fatherhood-and-marriage-local-evaluation-famle-and-cross-site-project-2013-2021 https://acf.gov/opre/project/strengthening-implementation-marriage-and-relationship-services-simr-2019-2022 https://acf.gov/opre/project/strengthening-implementation-responsible-fatherhood-programs-sirf-2019-2022 https://aspe.hhs.gov/report/core-intervention-components-identifying-and-operationalizing-what-makes-programs-work

Recent ACF studies, including the Testing Identified Elements for Success in Fatherhood Programs (Fatherhood TIES) and Core Components of Relationship Education (C-CORE) projects, have begun to identify and test core components of responsible fatherhood and relationship education programming, respectively, in HMRF programs. This contract will build on findings from the C-CORE project to support a rigorous impact evaluation of selected core components within HMRE programs funded in the 2025 grant cohort. This project will examine the contexts, populations, and organizational settings in which specific core components are most effective for HMRE programs. By identifying not only what works, but also for whom and under what conditions, this work will support HMRE programs in selecting and adapting approaches that fit their local contexts. The project may also develop practical resources to support the adoption and implementation of effective strategies.

The evaluation will be designed to estimate the causal effects of the proposed core components on participant outcomes, including relationship quality, family stability, and related indicators of adult and child well-being. The study is expected to primarily focus on adult participants served by HMRE programs, while remaining attentive to implications for broader family outcomes. By building on prior descriptive, implementation, and formative research, this study will provide critical evidence on whether and under what conditions specific program strategies improve outcomes for families.

Ultimately, this evaluation will contribute to a stronger evidence base to guide federal investments in family strengthening programs, support continuous program improvement, and advance the broader goal of promoting child well-being and family stability.

ACF’s Evaluation Policy

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 these principles.

2.4 Type of Contract

The contract type is Time & Materials.

2.5 Period of Performance

The period of performance of this contract shall be one (1) base period of fifteen (15) months, one (1) optional period of eighteen (18) months, two (2) optional period of fifteen (15) months, and one (1) optional period of thirteen (13) months.

2.6 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.

https://acf.gov/opre/project/testing-identified-elements-success-fatherhood-programs-fatherhood-ties https://acf.gov/opre/project/testing-identified-elements-success-fatherhood-programs-fatherhood-ties https://acf.gov/opre/project/core-components-relationship-education-c-core https://acf.gov/opre/report/acf-evaluation-policy

2.7 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

3.0 Specific Requirements/Tasks

BASE

Period of Performance: 15 months

Purpose: The Contractor shall engage in a range of activities to: (1) finalize proposed study design and conceptual model(s), (2) develop data collection materials, and (3) begin study site recruitment and selection.

End Products of Value:

• Final approved study design detailing at a minimum identified core components, research questions, conceptual model(s), proposed study sites, proposed study participants, and proposed data sources.

Task 1: Project Management and Team Communication Effective communication between the Contractor and the federal government, coordinated through the Contracting Officer’s Representative(s) (COR(s)), 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 five (5) days of 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(s) no less than two (2) working days prior to the discussion. Within one

(1) week of the discussion date, the Contractor shall submit to the COR(s) 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 and cadence of meetings may be changed as agreed upon by the COR(s). The Contractor shall submit a proposed agenda for each call at least two (2) working days in advance of the scheduled date to the COR(s) 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 four (4) business days in advance of the call date. The Contractor shall submit a summary of meetings to the COR(s) for review and approval no later than five (5) 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(s) monthly, on a regular schedule proposed by the Contractor and approved by the COR(s) and before or concurrently with submission by the Contractor of invoices related to that period of performance.

Subtask 1.1: Work Plan Within one (1) month of the award date, the Contractor shall submit a concise, summary work plan based on the technical proposal, but refined and revised to reflect additional or clarifying information received during the initial discussion with the COR(s) held under Task 1 or via other means. The work plan shall include the timeline for key tasks, activities, and products and identify lead personnel for the activities that reflect the requirements of the project. The work plan shall be a concise, fluid document that is updated as needed. The Contractor shall be prepared to discuss an updated work plan and budget progress on a schedule determined with the COR(s) to reflect changes and ensure adherence.

Subtask 1.2: Collaboration and Coordination with Related Projects and Staff The Contractor shall work with related projects and staff, as needed. These contractors include but are not limited to other federal projects, such as Fatherhood TIES, other entities under contract with HHS, or other government agents, in order to build upon existing work.

Subtask 1.3 Data Inventory The Contractor shall also develop a data inventory to document information about the data assets created or utilized while executing the contract. The data inventory shall document information about the status, size, and format of the data; whether data are individual or aggregate-level;

whether data are identifiable (i.e., contain sensitive or personal information); whether there is associated metadata available including codebooks and data dictionaries; and whether there are limitations on use or disposition described in data use agreements or informed consent forms.

The data inventory shall be regularly updated at least every six (6) months through the period of performance, or more frequently as directed by the COR.

Task 2: Transition-In Activities

The Contractor shall be responsible for coordinating with the COR(s) and other government-designated entities, including prior contractors and consultants, to ensure a smooth transition of all relevant project materials, data, and knowledge generated under previous task orders. This includes, but is not limited to, prior research findings, reports and memoranda, conceptual models, data collection instruments, analytic plans, datasets (as permitted), documentation, and any other resources necessary to support successful execution of this contract.

The Contractor shall receive all Government-furnished or Government-funded materials, including data and associated documentation, in accordance with applicable data rights and privacy requirements, and shall use these materials to inform and build upon prior work. This includes incorporating findings and products from related projects (e.g., C-CORE) as directed by the COR(s).

The Contractor shall document transition activities and provide regular updates during scheduled project management meetings (Task 1).

At the direction of the COR(s), the Contractor shall carry out transition-in activities, which may include:

• Developing and submitting a Transition-In Plan for COR(s) approval, outlining the approach to receiving, reviewing, and integrating prior materials and coordinating with relevant entities;

• Implementing all COR(s)-approved transition activities;

• Participating in transition meetings and providing agendas, materials, and summaries of discussions, including key decisions and follow-up actions.

The Contractor shall participate in training or knowledge transfer sessions with HHS staff, prior contractors, or other designated entities, as needed, to support a smooth transition and ensure full understanding of prior work, data systems, and evaluation approaches. The Contractor shall be prepared to receive and incorporate such materials and training within a timeframe approved by the COR(s).

All transition-in activities shall be conducted on a schedule proposed by the Contractor and approved by the COR(s), with the goal of ensuring continuity, minimizing disruption, and enabling timely progression into study design and implementation activities.

Task 3: Plan and Implement Active Engagement Approach

For the purposes of this solicitation, active engagement is defined as the intentional involvement of individuals and groups with a stake in the outcomes of the research or evaluation. Active engagement shall occur across all relevant phases of the project and is intended to improve the quality, rigor, and relevance of ACF-funded work and support the use of findings. ACF seeks input from individuals with practice-based and empirical expertise to inform key activities, including refining conceptual models, developing research questions, selecting measures, providing evaluation technical assistance, supporting implementation, contextualizing findings, and informing external communications.

The Contractor shall develop and implement an active engagement approach that maximizes meaningful opportunities for input across all phases of the project lifecycle. Engagement strategies may include, but are not limited to, co-creation, community-based participatory approaches, advisory groups, and targeted consultation. Opportunities for input shall be incorporated, as appropriate, from study design through dissemination.

Groups and individuals to be engaged may include, but are not limited to, service providers;

program participants; intervention developers; subject matter experts; federal, state, tribal, and local program staff and leadership; community members; and researchers and practitioners in relevant fields.

All active engagement activities shall be conducted in accordance with the ACF Evaluation Policy and must preserve the independence and objectivity of the evaluation. Input shall be obtained transparently and incorporated as appropriate, while ensuring that evaluation design, conduct, analysis, and reporting remain free from undue influence or bias.

The Contractor shall tailor and implement this approach for the HMRF context, including engagement with grant recipients, federal partners, and field experts. Active engagement shall be ongoing throughout the project to ensure that findings are relevant, feasible, and useful for informing policy and practice.

Subtask 3.1: Active Engagement Plan

No later than one (1) month after contract award, or on a schedule determined with the COR(s), 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.

Additionally, the plan should include explicit discussion of how independence of research and evaluation findings will be protected from both the appearance and reality of bias throughout the planning for and execution of active engagement. 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.

Groups with which to actively engage shall include (but are not limited to) the following:

• HMRE program practitioners

• Previous or current participants in HMRE programming

• Researchers and evaluators, particularly those with experience with core components methods

• Federal partners working with HMRE and related or relevant programs.

• HMRE curriculum developers

• Technical assistance providers for HMRE programming

The Contractor shall coordinate with and incorporate findings and discussions summarized by other projects, such as Fatherhood TIES, C-CORE, SIMR/SIRF, and PACT. Other relevant projects may be identified by the COR(s) and/or the Contractor.

Subtask 3.2 Implementation of Active Engagement Activities

The Contractor shall implement all activities in the COR-approved Active Engagement Plan in Subtask 3.1. The Contractor shall submit any draft and final deliverables in the Active Engagement Plan to the COR for review and approval on a schedule proposed by the Contractor and approved by the COR(s).

Task 4: External Communications

Subtask 4.1 Develop External Communication Plan

ACF wants information about and findings from its research and evaluation projects to be shared with relevant audiences throughout the course of the project. The Contractor shall develop an external communication plan for this project that describes:

• Overarching project communication goals;

• Key types of information the project expects to convey (e.g. project site selection; project implementation findings; interim impact findings; etc.) and projected timeline for when this information will be available;

• Key audiences for different types of project information;

• A detailed strategy – including proposed products – for communicating specific information to specific audiences;

• Communication resources (e.g. staff, budget);

• Metrics that will be used to gauge the impact of communication activities and a plan for collecting and analyzing metrics and applying insights;

• A schedule for revisiting the communication plan throughout the project’s duration, tracking progress on the plan, and revising as necessary; and

• A schedule for COR(s) review of communication deliverables.

Examples of external communication products may include, but are not limited to:

• Introductions or announcements of project and project participants

• Project newsletters

• Conference presentations

• Interim and final reports

• Briefs

• Special topics reports

• Briefings to ACF and/or other relevant policy officials or program administrators

• Scholarly journal articles

• Technical papers/memoranda

• Videos

• Data visualizations

• Infographics

• Social media content

• Other multimedia content

ACF encourages innovative approaches to research communication and outreach. To the extent possible, the Contractor shall apply modern best practices to the development of all external communication products. All deliverables shall be compatible with the ACF website and other communication platforms. Before work begins on web-based or other multimedia content the Contractor shall consult with the COR(s) and other relevant ACF communications staff to ensure computability.

The Contractor shall ensure that all external communication products meet or exceed Section 508 compliancy standards. Materials needed to make multimedia content 508 compliant, including but not limited to .srt caption files and alt text, shall be delivered to the COR(s) as a component of the final deliverable package. At a minimum all written deliverables must pass an Adobe Acrobat accessibility check, and the Contractor shall deliver verification of this check to the COR(s) as a component of the final deliverable package. For written deliverables the Contractor shall use a clear and consistent heading and tagging scheme, provide human-generated descriptive alt text for all images and graphics, use simple formatting in tables (i.e. no merged cells, multiple simple tables vs. complex tables). Any deliverable submitted to the Contractor that is not 508 compliant is subject to rejection or to be returned to the Contractor for remediation.

The contractor shall ensure that all written components of deliverables meet federal plain language guidelines (https://plainlanguage.gov/media/FederalPLGuidelines.pdf). Plain language is a priority for ACF to ensure that deliverables created are clear, accessible, and useful to relevant audiences. Any deliverables that do not adhere to the Plain Language Guidelines will be returned to the Contractor for revision.

Reports exceeding 15 pages shall include a 1-2 page overview section written in plain language, highlighting the key findings. Longer reports may also require an executive summary, at the direction of the COR(s). Highly technical materials shall usually be placed in appendices. In addition, the Contractor shall adhere to ACF’s requirements regarding the publication of documents, including formatting, inclusion of the logos, report number, and inclusion of other important information. Documents that do not meet ACF’s guidelines will not be approved for release. The COR(s) will provide these guidelines to the Contractor upon award.

ACF reserves the right to request that the Contractor submit contract deliverables for independent or external review. This request may come at the time of development of the external communication plan or as products are developed. If independent or external review of deliverables is requested, the COR(s) will provide additional information about the structure and nature of this peer review.

The Contractor shall submit a draft external communication plan to the COR(s) on a schedule determined in consultation with the COR(s). A final plan shall be submitted within three weeks of receipt of feedback from the COR(s). Deviations from the final plan require prior approval of the COR(s).

Subtask 4.2: Develop Project Description

The Contractor shall develop a brief, one- or two-page Project Description for use by the Contractor and ACF that provides an overview of the project and communicates the purpose of the project. The first draft of the project description shall be submitted to the COR(s) no later than one week after the project orientation. The Contractor shall revise the draft project description based on COR(s) feedback and shall submit a revised document on a schedule proposed by the contractor and approved by the COR(s). The Contractor shall update the project description over the course of the contract at the request of the COR(s) in order to ensure that the project description adequately provides up-to-date information about the project.

Subtask 4.3: Cover Sheet for all Written Deliverables

To help support ACF’s understanding of how documents are produced, the Contractor shall develop a document coversheet for use when submitting drafts of deliverables prepared for publication. The cover sheet shall identify, at minimum, the following information:

• The version of the document (draft, first round of revisions, etc.)

• The lead authors of the deliverable

• Additional staff involved with editing or reviewing the document https://plainlanguage.gov/media/FederalPLGuidelines.pdf

• The level of effort from each staff person

• Whether the deliverable is consistent with the guidelines reflected in the Clear Communication Checklist (attached)

Subtask 4.4: Ongoing External Communication Activities

Ongoing and continuous activities are essential to a strong communication approach for the Base and the project more broadly. The Contractor shall undertake activities necessary to meet the goals of the project’s external communication plan. The nature and frequency of these activities will be determined in communication with the COR(s) based on the approved communication plan. The Contractor shall submit draft and final external communication products to the COR(s) for review and approval on a schedule proposed by the Contractor and approved by the COR(s).

Task 5: Finalize and Refine Research Design Plan

As part of Task 3, bidders will be provided with draft memos, reports, and other background materials that can be used to inform a proposed approach to test the recommended components or combination of components (see Attachments XYZ). The successful awardee will receive all approved foundational ACF reports and memos to inform the refinement and finalization of that proposed research design. This will include a report with recommended core components for prioritization and accompanying memos summarizing the systematic review and meta-analysis findings.

Subtask 5.1: Finalize Core Components for Testing

The Contractor will receive a preliminary list of recommended core components for testing that were identified and prioritized through a systematic review conducted by the C-CORE project and a subsequent meta-analysis.

The Contractor shall make final recommendations that include proposed outcomes for evaluation and proposed research questions that address the effectiveness of the components. It is possible that the recommendation will be a series of components or a single component. Final recommendations shall be submitted within 1 month of award, or upon a schedule to be determined in consultation with the COR(s). Components and conceptual models (Subtask 5.2) may also be shared through discussions with the COR(s), during kick-off discussions, and/or through a preliminary draft of the Research Design Memo.

Subtask 5.2: Finalize Conceptual Models The Contractor should plan to develop conceptual models of the theories of change related to the approved priority components. The conceptual model(s) is intended to describe the inputs and activities for HMRE programs; define target mechanisms or to be measured; and link to specific the outcomes theorized to improve after the end of program services and attributed to a particular core component or combination of components based upon an explanatory theory or theory of change. As with Subtask 4.1, the Contractor may receive a preliminary draft of potential conceptual models related to the identified components. Each conceptual model shall include contextual information, including population characteristics and implementation factors (e.g., program setting), to demonstrate how different contexts may be moderate effects of the components. Ideally these models should be finalized in partnership with identified sites to ensure that the study design and final research questions align with their specific programs.

Final conceptual model(s) will be submitted within 1 month of the finalized recommendations of components (subtask54.1) for test(s) being submitted, or upon a schedule to be determined in consultation with the COR(s).

Subtask 5.3: Finalize Research Design The Contractor shall develop research/evaluation design plan(s) to test the recommended components or combination of components identified in subtask 5.1. The research design plan(s) shall focus on research questions that can feasibly be assessed, data for addressing research questions, approaches to data collection, and guides for ensuring cohesion to research design.

The research design plan(s) will draw from the work conducted in subtask 5.1, 5.2, and 8.1.

For each approved conceptual model, the Contractor shall develop a research/evaluation design that supports assessment of impacts of each core component or selected combinations of core components. All research/evaluation design(s) must rigorously compare core components (and/or combinations of core components) against an equivalent and systematically varied comparison group or condition. (Statistical comparability would need to be able to be established between the program group and the comparison group before the test is implemented.)

In each research/evaluation design, the Contractor shall provide sufficient detail on the sample(s)/settings(s) (e.g. schools, community centers) needed to execute and evaluate each conceptual model appropriately. This includes but is not limited to information about target populations, representativeness, and sample size. The Contractor shall include power analyses, including the Contractor’s assessment about the necessary size of the sample to detect significant differences in outcomes, and if necessary, differences between subgroups on key outcomes. The final research design should also include proposed timelines and a high-level proposal of proposed data collection methods to be used and finalized under the Data Collection Plan (Task 6).

Within 10 months of award of contract, or upon a schedule to be determined in consultation with the COR(s), the Contractor shall submit the research/evaluation design plan(s) to the COR(s) and shall submit a revised memorandum within two weeks of receipt of comment.

Task 6. Develop Data Collection Instruments and Protocols The Contractor shall develop the data collection instruments and protocols necessary to address research questions for each refined evaluation design approved by the COR(s).

Subtask 6.1: Identify constructs and measures For each evaluation, the Contractor shall develop a comprehensive list of all constructs recommended to be measured. The Contractor shall cross-walk all constructs with the key research questions and data sources and shall justify why the constructs will satisfactorily answer the relevant research question(s).

The Contractor shall recommend a comprehensive list of all measures/questions. The Contractor shall cross-walk all measures/questions with the constructs recommended and shall justify why the measures/questions are the best options for measuring the constructs. The justification may include past evidence of each measure’s psychometric properties (including, but not limited to:

reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change), populations on which it has been normed and used, its appropriateness for use with the target population of the evaluation, or an assessment of its suitability for longitudinal data collection with the population under study. Additionally, the Contractor should consider utilizing existing surveys and data collection efforts the HMRE grant recipients already participate in through the nFORM data system.

Subtask 6.2: Develop Data Collection Instruments and Protocols The Contractor shall integrate all measures/questions into data collection instruments and protocols. The Contractor shall cross-walk all instruments with measures/questions, constructs, and research questions, and, where appropriate, provide justification for decisions made in developing instruments. The Contractor shall develop protocols for all data collection instruments (including protocols for simple, straight-forward instruments) and shall justify why the protocols developed are the best options for addressing the research questions.

For all evaluation designs, the Contractor shall consider whether common data elements shall be collected across some or all sites. The protocols shall include processes for obtaining consent and assent, as appropriate.

Subtask 6.3: Develop Data Collection Memo At the direction of the COR(s), for each evaluation, the Contractor shall produce a memo or memos on the recommended:

• Constructs;

• Measures/questions; and

• Data collection instruments and protocols, including timelines.

Within one month of the approval of each research/evaluation design, the Contractor shall submit the final (in the case of multiple memos) or sole (in the case of a single memo) memorandum and shall submit a revised memorandum within two weeks of receipt of comments. As necessary, the Contractor shall enter into agreements to access the proposed data including nFORM and any other data sources.

Subtask 6.4: Pre-testing Data Collection Instruments and Protocols, and Refinement The Contractor shall conduct a pre-test of the data collection instruments for length, clarity, and appropriateness of protocol for data collection (e.g., obtaining informed consent from participants, use of computer assisted or web‐based data collection procedures). Participants shall be representative of the populations being served in each identified study site. As necessary, the Contractor shall refer to Base Task 9, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Clearance for Data Collection and Institutional Review Board (IRB) Approval.

Within two weeks of completion of any pre-testing, the Contractor shall submit to the COR(s) a memorandum describing the pre-test, its results, and recommended adjustments to data collection instruments and protocols; the Contractor shall revise the memorandum within two weeks of receipt of comment.

Task 7: Site Selection Subtask 7.1: Finalize Site Selection The Contractor shall consider the necessary characteristics of organizations or agencies needed to support the proposed study design and propose criteria to assess sites for inclusion.

Considerations should include, but are not limited to:

• community readiness (e.g., community awareness/knowledge of identified implementation issues, community buy-in, etc.)

• contextual environment (including policies, local political environment, other local context)

• organizational priorities and goals, including willingness to engage in evaluation activities and methods

• implementation challenges identified by the organization

• amenability and interest of programs to adopting the component(s) to be tested as identified in Subtask 4.1

• existing data infrastructure and capabilities

• target population

• program capacity

• operational information (e.g., monthly enrollment levels, level of active participation)

• assessment of reasonable placement of random assignment

The Contractor will receive a preliminary list of site recommendations and shall use other available information (grant recipient applications, websites, etc.) as well as discussions with federal staff (or other knowledgeable persons) and directly with organizations to refine the list of recommendations. The Contractor shall obtain COR(s) approval prior to contacting any individuals or organizations.

The Contractor shall submit recommendations for a final set of organizations and information to support their recommendations to the COR(s) no later than forty-five (45) days from contract award, or upon a schedule determined in consultation with the COR(s).

Subtask 7.2: Establish Agreements with Selected Programs/Organizations Prior to contacting and reaching agreement with the organizations and no later than one (1) month after the COR(s) has approved the inclusion of the organization, the Contractor shall submit a draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) outlining the roles and responsibilities of the involved parties and key elements proposed, including expectations, financial support, and performance benchmarks. The Contractor shall address comments received from the COR(s) within two (2) weeks.

ACF expects that organizations participating in this study will require financial support to…