66276 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Notices

separate files in TIFF format. The

Federal Register online via GPO Access

is available via the Internet or as a dialin service. Historical data is available

from January 1994 forward.

Other databases currently available

online through GPO Access include the

Government Manual, Congressional

Record, Congressional Record Index,

including the History of Bills;

Congressional Bills; Public Laws; U.S.

Code; GAO Reports; and a growing list

of important Government documents on

the same day of publication.

Seating is limited. Individuals

interested in attending may reserve a

space by contacting John Berger,

Product Manager, at the GPO’s Office of

Electronic Information Dissemination

Services, by Internet e-mail at

jberger@eids21.eids.gpo.gov; by

telephone on 202–512–1525; or by fax

on 202–512–1262. Seating reservations

for Federal agencies will be accepted for

the January 10th sessions through

Friday, January 5, 1996; and for the

January 17th session through Friday,

January 12th. From January 8–9 and

from January 15–16, reservations will be

accepted from the general public on a

space available basis for the January

10th and January 17th sessions,

respectively.

Michael F. DiMario

Public Printer

[FR Doc. 95–31042 Filed 12–20–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Office of the Secretary

Findings of Scientific Misconduct

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

the Office of Research Integrity (ORI)

has made final findings of scientific

misconduct in the following case:

Ruth Lupu, Ph.D., Georgetown

University Medical Center: On

December 6, 1995, based on an

investigation conducted by Georgetown

University Medical Center, ORI found

that Ruth Lupu, Ph.D., committed

scientific misconduct by submitting a

false letter of collaboration in an

unfunded application to the Public

Health Service (PHS). Letters of

collaboration are a significant factor in

the evaluation of applications.

Dr. Lupu has entered into a Voluntary

Exclusion Agreement with ORI in which

she has accepted ORI’s finding and has

agreed to exclude herself voluntarily, for

the period beginning December 6, 1995,

and ending January 30, 1997, from

serving in any advisory capacity to PHS,

including but not limited to service on

any PHS advisory committee, board,

and/or peer review committee, or as a

consultant.

In addition, Dr. Lupu has voluntarily

agreed to accept the administrative

sanctions imposed by Georgetown

University Medical Center, which

include requirements that:

(1) a letter of reprimand be issued and

retained in her personnel file for two

years; and

(2) her future grant applications,

proposals, and other publications be

subject to special monitoring and

review for two years.

No scientific publications were

required to be corrected as part of this

Agreement.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Director, Division of Research

Investigations, Office of Research

Integrity, 5515 Security Lane, Suite 700,

Rockville, MD 20852.

Lyle W. Bivens,

Director, Office of Research Integrity.

[FR Doc. 95–31048 Filed 12–20–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160–17–P

Findings of Scientific Misconduct

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

the Office of Research Integrity (ORI)

has made final findings of scientific

misconduct in the following case:

Ms. Victoria Santa Cruz, University

of Arizona: Based on an investigation

conducted by the institution, ORI found

that Ms. Victoria Santa Cruz, former

Program Coordinator, College of

Nursing, University of Arizona, engaged

in scientific misconduct by fabricating

interview data on a questionnaire

intended for use in two studies funded

by two Public Health Service (PHS)

grants.

Ms. Santa Cruz did not contest the

ORI findings or administrative actions,

which require that, for a period of three

years, any institution that proposes her

participation in PHS-supported research

must submit a supervisory plan

designed to ensure the scientific

integrity of her contribution. Ms. Santa

Cruz is also prohibited from serving in

any advisory capacity to PHS, including

but not limited to service on any PHS

advisory committee, board, and/or peer

review committee, or as a consultant for

a period of three (3) years.

Because the studies involved are

ongoing, no publications were affected

by the fabricated data, and no clinical

treatment has been based on the results

of the studies.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Director, Division of Research

Investigations, Office of Research

Integrity, 5515 Security Lane, Suite 700,

Rockville, MD 20852.

Lyle W. Bivens,

Director, Office of Research Integrity.

[FR Doc. 95–31049 Filed 12–20–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160–17–M

Administration on Children and

Families

Local Research Partnerships for Early

Head Start Programs: Availability of

Funds and Request for Applications

AGENCY: Head Start Bureau,

Administration on Children, Youth and

Families (ACYF), Administration for

Children and Families (ACF).

ACTION: Availability of funds and

request for applications to conduct

research in Early Head Start programs.

SUMMARY: The Head Start Bureau,

Administration on Children, Youth and

Families has recently awarded grants to

provide comprehensive services to

families with infants and toddlers. A

cross-site evaluation of a subsample of

the total 68 Early Head Start programs

will be performed by Mathematica

Policy Research Institute which was

designated as the National Early Head

Start Evaluation contractor. Additional

site-specific research will be conducted

by research partners who reside in or

near the same subset of Early Head Start

programs and will attempt to determine

the interrelationships of child, family,

program and community variables and

program outcomes (local research). This

announcement describes the

requirements to be met by applicants

seeking to conduct the local research.

DATES: The closing time and date for

receipt of applications is 5 p.m. (Eastern

Time Zone) February 20, 1996.

Applications received after 5 p.m. will

be classified as late.

ADDRESSES: Mail applications to: Early

Head Start Local Research, Department

of Health and Human Services, ACF/

Division of Discretionary Grants, 6th

floor, 370 L’Enfant Promenade, SW,

Washington, DC 20447, Mail Stop 6c462, Attn: Application for Early Head

Start Local Research.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Notices 66277

Hand Delivered, Courier or Overnight

Delivery applications are accepted

during the normal working hours of 8

a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,

on or prior to the established closing

date at: Program Announcement: ACYF/

HS, Administration for Children and

Families, Division of Discretionary

Grants, ACF Mailroom, 2nd Floor

Loading Dock, Aerospace Center, 901 D

Street, SW, Washington, DC 20024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The

ACYF Operations Center, Technical

Assistance Team (1–800–351–2293), is

available to answer questions regarding

application requirements and to refer

you to the appropriate contact person in

ACYF for programmatic questions.

In order to determine the number of

expert reviewers that will be necessary,

if you are going to submit an

application, please send a post card

with or call in the following

information: the name, address, and

telephone and fax number of the contact

person and the name of the organization

four weeks prior to the submission

deadline date to: Administration on

Children, Youth and Families

Operations Center, Ellsworth

Associates, Inc., 3030 Clarendon Blvd.,

Suite 240, Arlington, VA 22201, (1–800–

351–2293).

If you decide to submit after the

notification date, you may still submit a

proposal.

Part I. General Information

A. Table of Contents

This announcement is divided into

four parts, plus appendices:

Part I provides information on the

purpose of the local research effort and

a discussion of issues particularly

relevant to the local research under this

announcement.

A. Table of Contents

B. Definitions

C. Purpose

D. Background

E. Local Research Studies

Part II contains key information such

as eligible applicants, project periods,

special conditions and other

information.

A. Statutory Authority

B. Eligible Applicants

C. Special Conditions

D. Cooperative Agreements

E. Project Duration and Federal Share

Part III presents the criteria upon

which the proposals will be reviewed

and evaluated.

A. Criteria

B. Review Process

• Part IV contains information for

preparing the fiscal year 1996

application.

A. Availability of Forms

B. Proposal limits

C. Check List for a Complete

Application

D. Due Date

E. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980

F. Required Notification of State Single

Point of Contact

Appendix A contains a list of the

Early Head Start grantees.

Appendix B–1 contains the Request

for Proposal for contract to conduct the

evaluation of Early Head Start as

originally published and now funded.

Appendix B–2 contains the tentative

measures proposed for the cross-site

evaluation.

Appendix C includes the relevant

forms necessary for completing the

application.

B. Definitions

Research Partner: The initial

university or non-profit organization

designated in the Early Head Start

grantee’s proposal or a university or

non-profit organization which formed a

partnership with an Early Head Start

grantee for the purpose of conducting

the research under this announcement

after the Early Head Start grant was

awarded.

Cooperative Agreement: A

cooperative agreement is a funding

mechanism which allows substantial

Federal involvement in the activities

undertaken with Federal financial

support. Details of the responsibilities,

relationships, and governance of the

cooperative agreement will be spelled

out in the terms and conditions of the

award. The specific responsibilities of

the Federal staff and grantee staff are

tentatively listed in Part II-D and will be

agreed upon prior to the award of each

cooperative agreement.

C. Purpose

The purpose of this announcement is

to invite universities and non-profit

organizations who agree to be the

research partners of Early Head Start

program grantees to submit proposals

for competitive Cooperative Agreements

to (1) conduct local research studies on

issues related to Early Head Start which

will enrich and expand the National

Early Head Start Research and

Evaluation Study and benefit the field,

and (2) establish the foundation for a

possible longitudinal study of the

mediating and moderating influences on

the developmental progress of Early

Head Start and Head Start children and

families.

D. Background

On March 17, 1995, ACF announced

the availability of funds on a

competitive basis for Early Head Start

Programs. Sixty-eight applicants were

successful and became Early Head Start

grantees on the effective date of

September 30, 1995. (Applicants should

be familiar with this document in order

to prepare a responsive proposal. Copies

of this announcement are available from

the Technical Assistance Team at (1–

800 351–2293.) Along with the

development of the program

specifications for Early Head Start,

ACYF designed a set of research and

evaluation initiatives to establish the

efficacy of the Early Head Start program

and to contribute new knowledge to the

field on factors which influence the

developmental progress of low-income

infant and toddlers and their families.

The plan for the Early Head Start

research and evaluation activities is

based on the premise that the first set of

Early Head Start programs are

prototypes of the Early Head Start

concept of state-of-the-art services for

families with infants and toddlers. They

will operate during a period which will

almost assuredly see major social

reforms and reconfigurations in services

including welfare, health and child care.

Therefore, the lessons learned and the

models that will be developed will

shape the direction of services for

families with infants and toddlers well

into the 21st century. The plan features

(1) a dynamic and iterative formative

evaluation process, designed to be used

in subsequent Early Head Start

programs, that will serve as the

instrument for continuous program

improvement; (2) an impact evaluation

to determine whether and under what

conditions program prototypes were

effective, and (3) an integrated research

base consisting of local research studies

as well as the cross-site study for

generating further hypotheses around a

broad array of potential development

and service issues and possibilities; and

(4) an intended longitudinal study of

both Early Head Start and Head Start.

On May 19, 1995, the first phase of

the competitive award process for the

conduct of the research and evaluation

activities was initiated as a Request for

Proposal for a national contractor to

perform the cross-site evaluation of

Early Head Start (Appendix B–1). The

contract resulting from the competition

for the national contractor was awarded

to Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

This announcement is the second phase,

in which cooperative agreements will be

awarded on a competitive basis to the

research partners of Early Head Start

grantees to conduct local research

studies.
66278 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Notices

E. Local Research Studies

1. Local Research Under This

Announcement

a. Role of Local Researchers

Under the total Early Head Start

Research and Evaluation effort local

researchers will have two significant

roles:

(1) Under this announcement they

will conduct research relevant to the

issues addressed in section E.2.b. below;

and (2) under a subcontract to the

national contractor they will be

responsible for the collection of data for

the cross-site study. The local

researchers will form a consortium with

the other local researchers and the

national contractor to insure that all the

parts of this study form a cohesive

whole. A Technical Review Panel will

by appointed by ACYF to review all the

research and evaluation efforts as a

whole and provide additional input.

(See Appendix B–1 for a more detailed

description.) In order to ensure the

minimum of intrusion for the Early

Head Start programs and to ensure a

cohesive study, no applicants will be

considered for an award under this

announcement unless they agree to

serve as subcontractors to the national

contractor.

b. Concepts

Local research studies are intended to

supplement, complement and enrich the

research that will be conducted in the

cross-site study. (See Appendix B–1 The

Statement of Work for the Cross-site

Evaluation and Appendix B–2 for a list

of the tentative measures proposed for

the cross-site evaluation.) With full

access to the cross-site data collected in

their respective sites, local investigators

will have an opportunity to explore

mediating events or the theoretical

pathways that explain the results that

are obtained. In addition, local research

provides an opportunity to identify

outcomes, that because of data

constraints, are not explored in the

cross-site study or are specific to an

individual site. It also expands the

possibilities for multiple measures of

the same construct. Another advantage

of local research is the enhanced

opportunity for the use of observational,

ethnographic, case study and other

qualitative approaches that inform our

understanding of how the program

functions and explain the particular

outcomes that are achieved.

Four outcome domains and specific

outcomes under each were preliminarily

identified by the Advisory Committee

on Services for Families with Infants

and Toddlers for Early Head Start.

Although no one program is expected to

be equally successful across all

outcomes, these outcomes were

identified by the Committee as

particularly important for continued

child, family and program development.

Child: Health and physical

development; social competency; secure

attachments with parents and other

caregivers; language and cognitive

development; resiliency factors; benefits

to siblings.

Family: Attitudes towards parenting;

parent-child interaction; reduction in

teenage pregnancy and positive birth

outcomes; having a medical home;

parenting, employability and progress

towards self-sufficiency; training and

education; housing; physical and mental

health; substance abuse; home

environment; safety; involvement in the

Early Head Start program; knowledge of

child development; child guidance

beliefs and practices.

Community: Collaboration among

agencies serving children and families;

seamlessness in referrals and actual

service provision; quality of services for

children and families; increase in

services for infants and toddlers; safety.

Staff: Staff-parent/child relationships;

staff continuity; staff professional

development; staff compensation; staff

physical and mental health; staff

qualifications; and staffing patterns.

The major question for the local

studies is ‘‘What mediates and

moderates positive child and family

development within the context of the

specific Early Head Start program and

the local community?’’ Each of the local

research studies may focus on variables

within one of the four outcome domains

listed above. Positive child and family

development are the ultimate objectives

of Early Head Start, and thus, must have

a prominent focus. However, welldesigned local research studies which

focus on particular staff or community

outcomes will be considered if their

relationship to the well-being of

children and families can be

theoretically linked through the existing

literature and investigated within the

time frame of the five-year cooperative

agreement. Investigators focusing on the

same outcome domain may find

additional opportunities for cooperative

research. Depending on the questions

for the local research, investigators may

choose or not choose to incorporate the

control group, which will be part of the

cross-site evaluation, in the local

research study.

Within the framework of the Early

Head Start program design, each site

represents a unique model based upon

the needs, values, resources and cultural

climate of its community. Therefore,

within the array of possible outcomes, it

is highly likely that each program will

place different emphases among them

and work toward additional objectives

that are unique to the particular local

site. It is therefore important for the

local research studies to identify sitespecific outcomes which are not

explored in the cross-site study and to

study intra-site differential impacts and

the reasons for them. The local studies

will enhance the cross-site analysis by

the provision of additional explanatory

material for inter-site differences and by

the identification of additional effects of

Early Head Start programs. The first

data collection point for the child’s

developmental status, attachment,

mother/child interaction and other child

and family measures for the cross-site

analysis will be around the time of the

child’s first birthday. ( See Appendix B–

2 for a list of tentative measures.) If

applicants see a need for earlier data

collection for their local research

studies, they may propose such data

collection using the same or other

measures as part of the local research

data collection and analyses.

c. Study Parameters

—Design

The program sites whose local

research partners receive awards under

this announcement will be sites in

which both local research and the

national cross-site evaluation are

conducted. However, if less than 12

proposals receive an acceptable rating,

additional sites may be selected to

participate only in the national crosssite evaluation to ensure 12 sites for the

cross-site effort. The sites with local

researchers will become the potential

sites to continue on with the follow-up

longitudinal studies. For the cross-site

evaluation, all 12 sites, whether they are

additionally local research sites or not,

will be required to participate in

random assignment of those families

who have applied to the Early Head

Start program and in which there is a

pregnant woman or a child under one

year of age. Such families will be

randomly assigned to either the program

or control group under a system

designed by the national contractor with

participation from the local researchers.

The Early Head Start program must

agree to fully cooperate with the random

assignment as a condition for the

research partner to receive an award

under this announcement.

As noted above, applicants are not

required to utilize the control group in

their local research designs unless the

proposed research questions require

such a design. However, since the cost
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Notices 66279

of the data collection on a number of

child and family measures for the

program and control group will be

covered by the national contractor, the

applicant may wish to consider adding

an additional sample, such as a random

sample of the Early Head Start eligible

population, or other types of

scientifically sound samples. These

samples could contribute valuable

information to the Early Head Start

research and evaluation effort and

would considerably strengthen

longitudinal follow-up efforts.

—Sample

In order to be considered for an Early

Head Start research cooperative

agreement, the applicants must be able

to guarantee that their Early Head Start

program partners have the ability to

recruit a minimum of 150 families

meeting the designated criteria for the

random assignment pool. Specifically,

the families to be recruited must include

a child who is born between June 1,

1995 and June 30,1997 and must not

have had a child enrolled in Head Start

and PCC (Parent and Child Centers)

within the last 12 months, or, in the

case of CCDP (Comprehensive Child

Development Program), the last five

years. Neither may the families to be

recruited have been enrolled in any

other Federal, State or local program

with similar comprehensive services for

the last 12 months. Exceptions to these

requirements will be considered on a

site by site, or family basis after the

research sites have been selected. (Note:

Enrollment in other programs is defined

as participating for a minimum of three

months.) The families in the random

assignment pool, as the term implies,

will be randomly assigned to either the

program or the control group. (A

minimum of 75 in each.) Therefore the

Early Head Start program must have the

ability to enroll a minimum of 75

families who meet the research

requirements during the research

recruitment period of March 1, 1996 and

June 1, 1998 (27 months). The families

must be enrolled some time during the

mother’s pregnancy or before the child

is one year of age. The Early Head Start

programs will be continuously enrolling

families during the course of their

operation. Therefore, the research

sample will be an additive sample

rather than a cohort sample. However,

no family will be recruited into the

research sample if the child is born

before June 1, 1995 or after June 30,

1997. If a research sample family leaves

the program during the 27 month

research recruitment period,

replacement of families can only be

made within the parameters stated

above.

Although there is a 27 month

recruitment and enrollment period for

the research sample, sites may wish to

use all or part of that period to recruit

the requisite sample in accordance with

what works best for their program. (For

example, some programs may not be

ready to recruit or enroll families by

March and other programs may wish to

enroll the majority of their research

sample families as early as possible.)

However, to ensure that the site will

reach the requisite sample size, the

earliest possible enrollment of the full

research sample is encouraged. In

addition, any site which anticipates that

it can secure a sample of over 75

program families and 75 control families

over the recruitment period that meet

the research criteria, may enroll other

families, in excess of the 75 families,

which do not meet the research criteria.

These additional families will not be

included in the research sample.

Programs are encouraged, however, to

achieve the largest research sample

possible, up to 125 families each for the

program and comparison group. Larger

samples would be a major advantage for

any future longitudinal research.

2. Considerations for the Longitudinal

Studies

Longitudinal studies beyond the five

years of the Early Head Start research

and evaluation effort are outside the

scope of the present announcement.

However, it is ACYF’s intent to engage

in such longitudinal studies, given

availability of future funds and the

feasibility of such efforts in five years

time. It will be necessary to lay the

groundwork for such studies from the

beginning of the Early Head Start

research and evaluation effort in order

to ensure that early data necessary for

the longer effort is collected.

Although the longitudinal studies are

related to and embedded in the Early

Head Start Research and Evaluation

Study, they have a number of

sufficiently unique considerations to

warrant a separate discussion.

a. Eligibility—It is anticipated that

universities and non-profit

organizations which receive Early Head

Start research grants under this

announcement will be potential

candidates for follow-on longitudinal

research grants. The exact number of

grants that will be awarded for the

follow-on longitudinal studies will

depend on the availability of funds and

other criteria such as the size of the

sample left at the site, the quality of the

research conducted to date, and the

level of program implementation.

b. Studies—The longitudinal followons can be conceptualized as two

studies which serve different purposes.

Longitudinal Studies of Early Head Start

Longitudinal studies of Early Head

Start will address the contributions of

earlier intervention to the child and

family’s later development.

Longitudinal Studies of Head Start

Since Early Head Start programs are

required to establish formal linkages

with local Head Start programs in order

to provide for the continuity of services

for children and families, the Early

Head Start research sites provide a

unique opportunity for the conduct of

longitudinal studies of Head Start.

Presently, there are no existing studies

of Head Start where the early service

patterns and experiences of children

and families either enrolling in Head

Start or serving as comparisons or

controls are known to the extent that

they will be known in Early Head Start.

That data will be available, at least for

part of the Head Start population, in the

Early Head Start research sites by the

time Longitudinal Studies of Head Start

are underway. In addition, the studies

can make progress in addressing the

question of whom among the Head Start

population Head Start serves.

Design and sampling issues for both

studies will need careful consideration.

Part II Program Information and

Requirements

A. Statutory Authority

The Head Start Act, as amended, 42

U.S.C. 9801 et seq.

B. Eligible Applicants

Universities and other non-profit

institutions which have been designated

by the Early Head Start grantees listed

in Appendix A as their research partner

for the purposes of the impact

evaluation.

A research partner may be the

institution identified in the Early Head

Start grantee’s proposal or a new or

additional research partner that the

Early Head Start grantee has selected for

the purposes of conducting the research

under this announcement.

Note: Only one university or non-profit

institution per each Early Head Start grantee

may apply. An applicant must be certified by

the Early Head Start grantee as the designated

research partner. In addition, if a university

or non-profit institution applies on behalf of

one or more investigators as the research

partner of an Early Head Start grantee, the

university or non-profit institution may only

apply as the partner of any other Early Head

Start grantee if applying in behalf of different

investigators.
66280 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Notices

C. Additional Special Requirements

1. In order to be accepted for review,

applications must contain a letter from

the Program Director of the Early Head

Start program certifying that the

applicant is the designated research

partner of that program.

2. The proposed local research study

must not overlay additional

interventions for children, families or

staff which are designed by the local

research partner for research purposes

beyond the existing Early Head Start

intervention designed by the program

for that site. (For example, the local

research may not investigate research

hypotheses that would require the

assignment of families enrolled in the

program to treatment and control

groups.

3. Applicants must agree to enter a

subcontractual or other arrangement

with the national contractor for the

purposes of collecting the data for the

cross-site study and for site-specific

analysis of the cross-site data. The

subcontract with the national contractor

will be in addition to the funds received

under this announcement and will

primarily consist of providing input to

the cross-site design; supervision of

cross-site data collection at the local

site; ensuring quality control; and site

specific data analyses of the cross-site

data.

4. Applicants must agree to work in

a consortium with the other local

researchers and the national contractor

in order to produce an integrated set of

studies.

5. Applicants must present their

proposal to and receive approval from

the Early Head Start program policy

councils (or other appropriate policy

group) prior to submission.

6. Successful applicants must form a

local advisory committee consisting of

staff and parents of the Early Head Start

program, other community agencies and

researchers with expertise in areas

relevant to the local research.

7. Applicants’ Early Head Start

program partner must be able to recruit

and enroll the required number and

types of families as described in Part I,

section E–1–c above.

8. The principal investigator and at

least one other key research team

member must attend a minimum of one

two-day meeting of the local researchers

in Washington, DC in addition to the

two-day meetings with the national

contractor and the Technical Review

Panel. A third day will be provided at

the national contractor meetings in

order for the local researchers to meet

on the issues and coordination of the

local research projects. Successful

applicants must also plan to attend

Head Start’s Third National Research

Conference in Washington, DC June 20–

23, 1996. The applicant will be

responsible for all travel expenses

related to these meetings. These travel

expenses may be included in the

applicant’s budget.

9. Since the research will be

conducted at the Early Head Start

program site, applicants must use their

off-campus research rates for indirect

costs. If the applicant is a non-profit

organization, the applicant is limited to

an indirect cost rate of no more than 15

percent.

10. In submitting an application, the

applicant understands that the data

resulting from the local research is the

property of the ACYF. Therefore, a copy

of the raw data set with accompanying

documentation must be submitted to the

Government in a manner and frequency

that will be specified in consultation

with the consortium during the first

year of the cooperative agreement. It is

not the intention of the Government to

inhibit or restrict presentations and

publications of the results of the local

research by the grantee beyond any

publishing restrictions that will be

agreed upon by the Consortium and

ACYF.

12. The applicant must provide all

required assurances and certifications

including a Protection of Human

Subject Assurance as specified in the

policy described on the HHS Form 596

(attached in Appendix A).

D. Cooperative Agreements

ACYF is utilizing a cooperative

agreement mechanism to support local

research as a means of ensuring close

cooperation and coordination between

and among local researchers, Early Head

Start programs and the National

contractor. Together, these three entities

form the research team. Although the

three entities have equal status on the

research team, each has an area of

primary responsibility: (1) The Early

Head Start program has primary

responsibility for the design and

implementation of program services and

activities; (2) the National contractor has

primary responsibility for the cross-site

study; and (3) the local researcher has

primary responsibility for the local

research study. In applying for a

cooperative agreement under this

announcement, the applicant pledges

close cooperation and coordination with

the other research partners.

1. Responsibilities of the Grantee

The Grantee

• Conducts a local research study

which enhances, enriches or expands

the cross-site data and focuses on one of

the four Early Head Start outcome

domains.

• Designs and conducts the

preliminary research for the

Longitudinal Study of Early Head Start

and the Longitudinal Study of Head

Start.

• Participates as a member of the

consortium of local researchers and the

national contractor.

• Conducts local analyses and

interpretations of the cross-site data.

• Agrees to enter a subcontract or

other financial arrangement with the

national contractor for purposes of

collecting data for the cross-site study.

• Agrees to work as a member of the

research team consisting of the Early

Head Start program, the national

contractor and the local researcher.

2. Responsibilities of the Federal Staff

Federal Staff

• Provide guidance in the

development of the final study design.

• Participate as members of the

national consortium or any policy,

steering or other working groups

established at the consortium level to

facilitate accomplishment of the project

goals.

• Facilitate communication among

consortium members, Early Head Start

grantees and the Federal staff.

• Provide logistical support to

facilitate meetings of the local

researchers.

E. Project Duration and Federal Share

1. Project Duration

Awards, on a competitive basis, are

for a project period of five years.

Continuation applications beyond the

first 12 month budget period, but within

the five-year project period, will be

entertained in subsequent years on a

non-competitive basis, subject to

availability of funds, satisfactory

progress and a determination that

continued funding is in the best

interests of the Government.

2. Federal Share of Project Costs

Federal share of project costs shall not

exceed $150,000 for the first 12-month

budget period inclusive of indirect costs

and shall not exceed $150,000 for the

second and third 12-month budget

period. The Federal share of the fourth

and fifth budget period shall be

negotiated prior to the fourth and/or

fifth year of funding.

3. Matching Requirements

There is no matching requirement;

however, applicants must apply their

indirect cost rate for off-campus
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Notices 66281

research or no more than 15 percent for

non-profit research institutions.

4. Anticipated Number of Projects to be

Funded

It is anticipated that 12 projects will

be funded.

Part III Evaluation Criteria

The criteria presented below will be

applied by the reviewers to the

applicants submission in order to select

the successful applicants. ACYF has

prepared a document entitled ‘‘Helpful

Tips for Preparing a Successful Research

Grant Application.’’ This document can

be obtained from the Technical

Assistance Team at (1–800–351–2293).

A. Criteria

1. Objectives and Significance 25

points

• The extent to which the objectives

of the local research are important and

relevant to the overall Early Head Start

Research and Evaluation effort.

• The extent to which the local

research study makes a significant

contribution to the overall study and to

the broader field.

• The extent to which the related

literature review supports the study

objectives, the questions to be addressed

or the hypotheses to be tested.

• The extent to which the questions

that will be addressed or the hypotheses

that will be tested are sufficient for

meeting the stated objectives.

2. Approach 40 points

• The extent to which the planned

approach reflects sufficient input from

and partnership with the Early Head

Start program.

• The extent to which the research

design is appropriate and sufficient for

addressing the questions of the study.

• The extent to which the planned

approach allows for the identification

and differentiation of site-specific

outcomes.

• The extent to which the planned

research includes quantitative and

qualitative methods.

• The extent to which the planned

measures and analyses both reflect

knowledge and use of state-of-the-art

measures and analytic techniques and

advance the state-of-the-art.

• The adequacy of the anticipated

research sample size for the

requirements of the cross-site study and

for the local research study.

• The extent to which the site in

which the research will be conducted

has a recruitment and enrollment

strategy that meets the requirements set

forth in the design section of the

announcement.

• The extent to which planned site

activities are sufficient preparation for

potential longitudinal studies.

• The extent to which the applicant’s

proposals for resolution of the data

collection issues as a result of the two

types of data collection are realistic and

feasible.

• The applicant has provided all

required assurances.

• The reasonableness of the budget

for the work proposed.

3. Staffing 35 points

• The extent to which the principal

investigator and other key research staff

possess the research expertise necessary

to conduct the local research including

infant/toddler and family development;

the application of advanced statistical

analysis for quantitative and qualitative

data; and the use of quantitative and

qualitative methods as demonstrated by

the technical portions of the

applications and the information

contained in their vitae.

• The extent to which the proposed

staff reflect an understanding of and

sensitivity to the issues of working in a

community setting and in partnership

with program staff and parents.

• The extent to which the proposed

staff reflect a multi-disciplinary team.

• The adequacy of the time devoted

to this project by the principal

investigator and other key staff in order

to ensure a high level of professional

input and attention.

• The extent to which the staffing is

sufficient for conducting the local

research and the data collection and site

analysis of the cross-site evaluation.

B. The Review Process

Applications received by the due date

will be reviewed and scored

competitively. Experts in the field,

generally persons from outside the

Federal government, will use the

evaluation criteria listed in Part III of

this announcement to review and score

the applications. The results of this

review are a primary factor in making

funding decisions. ACYF may also

solicit comments from ACF Regional

Office staff and other Federal agencies.

These comments, along with those of

the expert reviewers, will be considered

in making funding decisions. In

selecting successful applicants,

consideration may be given to achieving

an equitable distribution among

geographic regions of the country and

other considerations necessary to

achieve, to the greatest extent possible,

a research and evaluation sample that is

representative of all Early Head Start

programs.

Part IV Instructions for Submitting

Applications

A. Availability of Forms

Eligible applicants interested in

applying for funds must submit a

complete application including the

required forms included at the end of

this program announcement in

Appendix C. In order to be considered

for a grant under this announcement, an

application must be submitted on the

Standard Form 424 (approved by the

Office of Management and Budget under

Control Number 0348–0043). A copy

has been provided. Each application

must be signed by an individual

authorized to act for the applicant and

to assume responsibility for the

obligations imposed by the terms and

conditions of the grant award.

Applicants requesting financial

assistance for non-construction projects

must file the Standard Form 424B,

‘‘Assurances: Non-Construction

Programs’’ (approved by the Office of

Management and Budget under control

number 0348–0340). Applicants must

sign and return the Standard Form 424B

with their application. Applicants must

provide a certification concerning

lobbying. Prior to receiving an award in

excess of $100,000, applicants shall

furnish an executed copy of the

lobbying certification (approved by the

Office of Management and Budget under

control number 0348–0046). Applicants

must sign and return the certification

with their application.

Applicants must make the appropriate

certification of their compliance with

the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988.

By signing and submitting the

application, applicants are providing

the certification and need not mail back

the certification with the application.

Applicants must make the appropriate

certification that they are not presently

debarred, suspended or otherwise

ineligible for award. By signing and

submitting the application, applicants

are providing the certification and need

not mail back the certification with the

application.

Applicants must also understand that

they will be held accountable for the

smoking prohibition included within

Pub.L. 103–227, Part C Environmental

Tobacco Smoke (also known as The ProChildren’s Act of 1994). A copy of the

Federal Register notice which

implements the smoking prohibition is

included with the forms. By signing and

submitting the application, applicants

are providing the certification and need

not mail back the certification with the

application.

All applicants for research projects

must provide a Protection of Human
66282 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Notices

Subjects Assurance as specified in the

policy described on the HHS Form 596

(approved by the Office of Management

and Budget under control number 0925–

0137) in Appendix C. If there is a

question regarding the applicability of

this assurance, contact the Office for

Protection from Research Risks of the

National Institutes of Health at (301)-

496–7041. Those applying for or

currently conducting research projects

are further advised of the availability of

a Certificate of Confidentiality through

the National Institute of Mental Health

of the Department of Health and Human

Services. To obtain more information

and to apply for a Certificate of

Confidentiality, contact the Division of

Extramural Activities of the National

Institute of Mental Health at (301) 443–

4673.

B. Proposal Limits

The proposal should be doublespaced and single-sided on 81⁄2′′×11′′

plain white paper, with 1′′ margins on

all sides. Use only a standard size font

such as 10 or 12 pitch throughout the

announcement. All pages of the

narrative (including appendices,

resumes, charts, references/footnotes,

tables, maps and exhibits) must be

sequentially numbered, beginning on

the first page after the budget

justification as page number one.

Applicants should not submit

reproductions of larger sized paper that

is reduced to meet the size requirement.

Applicants are requested not to send

pamphlets, brochures, or other printed

material along with their applications as

these pose copying difficulties. These

materials, if submitted, will not be

included in the review process. In

addition, applicants must not submit

any additional letters of endorsement

beyond any that may be required.

The length of the narrative section,

including appendices, should not

exceed 60 pages. Anything over 60

pages will be removed and not

considered by the reviewers. Applicants

are encouraged to submit curriculum

vita using ‘‘Biographical Sketch’’ forms

used by some government agencies.

Please note that applicants that do not

comply with the requirements in the

section on ‘‘Eligible Applicants’’ will

not be included in the review process.

C. Checklist for a Complete Application

The checklist below is for your use to

ensure that the application package has

been properly prepared.

—One original, signed and dated

application plus two copies.

—Attachments/Appendices, when

included, should be used only to

provide supporting documentation

such as resumes, and letters of

agreement/support.

—A complete application consists of the

following items in this order:

(1) Application for Federal Assistance

(SF 424, REV. 4–88);

(2) Budget information—NonConstruction Programs (SF424A&B

REV.4–88);

(3) Budget Justification, including

subcontract agency budgets;

(4) Letter from the Director of the

Early Head Start program certifying that

the applicant is the designated research

partner of the respective program;

(5) Application Narrative and

Appendices (not to exceed 60 pages);

(6) Proof of non-profit status. Any

non-profit organization submitting an

application must submit proof of its

non-profit status in its application at the

time of submission. The non-profit

organization can accomplish this by

providing a copy of the applicant’s

listing in the Internal Revenue Service’s

(IRS) most recent list of tax-exempt

organizations described in Section

501(c)(3) of the IRS code or by providing

a copy of the currently valid IRS tax

exemption certificate, or by providing a

copy of the articles of incorporation

bearing the seal of incorporation of the

State in which the corporation or

association is domiciled.

(7) Assurances Non-Construction

Programs;

(8) Certification Regarding Lobbying;

(9) Where appropriate, a completed

SPOC certification with the date of

SPOC contact entered in line 16, page 1

of the SF 424, REV.4–88;

(10) Certification of Protection of

Human Subjects.

D. Due Date for the Receipt of

Applications

1. Deadline: Mailed applications shall

be considered as meeting an announced

deadline if they are received on or

before the deadline time and date at the

U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services, Administration for Children

and Families, Division of Discretionary

Grants, 370 L’Enfant Promenade, SW.,

Mail Stop 6c-462, Washington, DC

20447, Attention: Early Head Start Local

Research, Applicants are responsible for

mailing applications well in advance,

when using all mail services, to ensure

that the applications are received on or

before the deadline time and date.

Applications handcarried by

applicants, applicant couriers, or by

overnight/express mail couriers shall be

considered as meeting an announced

deadline if they are received on or

before the deadline date, between the

hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., at the U.S.

Department of Health and Human

Services, Administration for Children

and Families, Division of Discretionary

Grants, ACF Mailroom, 2nd Floor

Loading Dock, Aerospace Center, 901 D

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20024,

between Monday and Friday (excluding

Federal Holidays). (Applicants are

cautioned that express/overnight mail

services do not always deliver as

agreed.) ACF cannot accomodate

transmission of applications by fax.

Therefore, applications faxed to ACF

will not be accepted regardless of date

or time of submission and time of

receipt.

2. Late applications: Applications

which do not meet the criteria above are

considered late applications. ACF shall

notify each late applicant that its

application will not be considered in

the current competition.

3. Extension of deadlines: ACF may

extend the deadline for all applicants

because of acts of God such as floods,

hurricanes, etc., widespread disruption

of the mails or when it is anticipated

that many of the applications will

caome from rural or remote areas.

However, if ACF does not extend the

deadline for all applicants, it may not

waive or extend the deadline for any

applicants.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

of 1980, Public Law 96–511, the

Department is required to submit to

OMB for review and approval any

reporting and record keeping

requirements in regulations including

program announcements. This program

announcement does not contain

information collection requirements

beyond those approved under OMB

Control Numbers 0348–0043, 0348–

0044, 0348–0046 and 0925–0137.

F. Required Notification of the State

Single Point of Contact

This program is covered under

Executive Order 12372,

‘‘Intergovernmental Review of Federal

Programs,’’ and 45 CFR part 100,

‘‘Intergovernmental Review of

Department of Health and Human

Services Program and Activities.’’ Under

the Order, States may design their own

processes for reviewing and

commenting on proposed Federal

assistance under covered programs.

* All States and Territories except

Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii,

Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana,

Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,

Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oregon,

Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee,

Virginia, Washington, American Samoa

and Palau have elected to participate in

the Executive Order process and have
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Notices 66283

established Single Points of Contact

(SPOCs). Applicants from these twentyone jurisdictions need take no action

regarding E.O. 12372. Applicants for

projects to be administered by

Federally-recognized Indian Tribes are

also exempt from the requirements of

E.O. 12372. Otherwise, applicants

should contact their SPOCs as soon as

possible to alert them of the prospective

applications and receive any necessary

instructions. Applicants must submit

any required material to the SPOCs as

soon as possible so that the program

office can obtain and review SPOC

comments as part of the award process.

It is imperative that the applicant

submit all required materials, if any, to

the SPOC and indicate the date of this

submittal (or the date of contact if no

submittal is required) on the Standard

Form 424, item 16a.

Under 45 CFR 100.8(a)(2), a SPOC has

60 days from the application deadline to

comment on proposed new or

competing continuation awards.

SPOCs are encouraged to eliminate

the submission of routine endorsements

as official recommendations.

Additionally, SPOCs are requested to

clearly differentiate between mere

advisory comments and those official

State process recommendations which

may trigger the ‘‘accommodate or

explain’’ rule.

When comments are submitted

directly to ACF, they should be

addressed to: Department of Health and

Human Services, Administration for

Children and Families, Division of

Discretionary Grants, 370 L’Enfant

Promenade, SW., Washington, DC

20447. A list of the Single Points of

Contact for each State and Territory is

included as an Appendix to this

announcement.

Dated: December 14, 1995.

Olivia A. Golden,

Commissioner, Administration on Children,

Youth and Families.

Appendix A—List of Early Head Start

Grantees

Alaska

Rural CAP Child Development, Karen

King, P.O. Box 200908, Anchorage,

AK 99520–0908, Telephone: (907)

279–2511, Fax: (907) 279–6343, Email: None

Arizona

Southwest Human Development Ginger

Ward, 202 E. Earll, Suite 140,

Phoenix, AZ 85012, Telephone: (602)

266–5976, Fax: (602) 274–8952, Email: SWHD@PRIMENET.COM

Arkansas

Child Development Inc., JoAnn

Williams, P.O. Box 2110, Russellville,

AR 72811, Telephone: (501) 968–

6493, Fax: (501) 968–7825, E-mail:

ARHYNE@CSWNET.COM

California

The Children First, Manuel Castellanos

Jr., Venice Family Clinic, 604 Rose

Avenue, Venice, CA 90291,

Telephone: (310) 314–7320 x670, Fax:

(310) 314–7641, E-mail: None

Northcoast Children’s Services (NCS),

Siddiq Kilkenny, P.O. Box 1165,

Arcata, CA 95521, Telephone: (707)

822–7206, Fax: (707) 822–7962, Email: None

Sacramento Employment Training

Agency (SETA), Head Start, Catherine

Goins, 3750 Rosin Court, Suite 100,

Sacramento, CA 95834, Telephone:

(916) 263–5342, Fax: (916) 263–3779,

E-mail: None

Colorado

Clayton Mile High Family Futures

Project, Mitzi Kennedy/Adele Phelan,

3801 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.,

Denver, CO 80205, Telephone: (303)

355–2008, Fax: (303) 331–0248, Email: None

Community Partnership for Child

Development, Terry Schwartz, 2132 E.

Bijou, Colorado Springs, CO 80909,

Telephone: (719) 635–1536 x217, Fax:

(719) 634–8086, E-mail: Later date

Family Star, Lereen Castellano/Alicia

Sheridan, 1331 E. 33rd Avenue,

Denver, CO 80205, Telephone: (303)

295–7711, Fax: (303) 295–0958, Email: None

District of Columbia

Edward C. Mazique Parent Child Center,

Cynthia Faust, 1719–13th Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20009, Telephone:

(202) 462–3375, Fax: (202) 939–8696,

E-mail: None

United Cerebral Palsy of Washington

and Northern VA (UCP), Stanley L.

Pryor, 3135 Eighth Street, NE,

Washington, DC 20017, Telephone:

(202) 269–1500, Fax: (202) 526–0519,

E-mail: STAN177640@AOL

Florida

Alachua County School District, Donna

Omer, School Board of Alachua

County, 620 East University Avenue,

Gainesville, FL 32601, Telephone:

(904) 955–7605, Fax: (904) 955–6700,

E-mail: None

Metro Dade Community Action Agency,

Regina M. Grace, 395 NW. 1st Street,

Miami, FL 33128, Telephone: (305)

347–4640, Fax: (305) 372–8745, Email: None

Georgia

Berry Chattooga Early Development

Center, Nancy Daniel, 702 South

Congress Street, Summerville, GA

30747, Telephone: (706) 857–1651,

Fax: (706) 857–6610, E-mail: None

Clark Atlanta University Head Start,

Linda Hassan, 350 Autumn Lane,

SW., Atlanta, GA 30314, Telephone:

(404) 696–9585 x104, Fax: (404) 696–

9524, E-mail: None

Georgia Early Head Start Network,

Donna Overcash, Save the Children

Child Care Support Ctr., 1447

Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 700,

Atlanta, GA 30309, Telephone: (404)

885–1578, Fax: (404) 874–7427, Email:

ATLANTA@SAVECHILDREN.ORG

Illinois

City of Chicago, Dept. of Human

Services, Frank McGehee, 510 North

Peshtigo Court, 8th Floor, Chicago, IL

60611, Telephone: (312) 744–0251,

Fax: (312) 744–7530, E-mail: None

The Ounce of Prevention Fund, Portia

Kennel, 188 W. Randolph Street,

#2200, Chicago, IL 60601, Telephone:

(312) 853–6080, Fax: (312) 853–3337,

E-mail: None

Wabash Area Development, Inc., Donna

Emmons, 100 N. Latham, Enfield, IL

62835, Telephone: (618) 963–2387,

Fax: (618) 963–2525, E-mail: None

Indiana

Healthy Beginnings, Hamilton Center,

Anita Lascelles, 620 8th Avenue,

Terre Haute, IN 47804, Telephone:

(812) 231–8335, Fax: (812) 232–8228,

E-mail: None

Iowa

Mid-Iowa Community Action, Susan

Fessler, 1001 South 18th Street,

Marshalltown, IA 50158, Telephone:

(515) 752–7162, Fax: (515) 752–9724,

E-mail: None

Upper Des Moines Opportunity, Inc.,

Mary Jo Madvig, P.O. 519, 101

Robbins Avenue, Graettinger, IA

51342–0519, Telephone: (712) 859–

3885, Fax: (712) 859–3892, E-mail:

None

Kansas

Head Start Parent & Child Center,

Glenda Wilcox, 931 South St. Francis,

Wichita, KS 67211, Telephone: (316)

267–8314, Fax: (316) 267–7185, Email: None

Project EAGLE of the University of

Kansas Medical Center, Martha

Staker, Gateway Centre Tower II,

Suite 1001, 4th & State Avenue,

Kansas City, KS 66101, Telephone:

(913) 281–2648, Fax: (913) 281–2680,

E-mail: None
66284 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Notices

Salina USD #305, Korey PowellHensley, 700 Jupiter, Salina, KS

67401, Telephone: (913) 826–4868,

Fax: (913) 826–4867, E-mail: None

Kentucky

Breckinridge-Grayson Programs, Inc.,

Cleo Lowery, P.O. Box 63, Leitchfield,

KY 42755, Telephone: (502) 259–

4054, Fax: (502) 259–4055 E-mail:

None

Murray Head Start, Judy Whitten, 208 S.

13th Street, Murray, KY 42074,

Telephone: (502) 753–6031, Fax: (502)

759–4906, E-mail: None

Maryland

The Family Services Agency, Inc., Mary

C. Jackson, 640 E. Diamond Avenue,

Suite A, Gaithersburg, MD 20877,

Telephone: (301) 840–2000 x205, Fax:

(301) 840–9621, E-mail: None

Friends of the Family, Inc., Linda R.

Gaither, 1001 Eastern Avenue—2nd

Floor, Baltimore, MD 21202–4364,

Telephone: (410) 659–7701, Fax: (410)

783–0814, E-mail: None

Michigan

Region II Community Action Agency,

Martha York, Center for Family, 817

W. High Street, Jackson, MI 49203,

Telephone: (517) 784–2895, Fax: (517)

788–5998; 784–9226, E-mail: None

Mississippi

Friends of Children of Mississippi, Inc.,

Cathy Gaston/Marvin Hogan, 4880

McWillie Drive, Jackson, MS 39206,

Telephone: (601) 362–1541, Fax: (601)

362–1613, E-mail: None

Missouri

Human Development Corporation, Lois

A. Harris, 929 North Spring Avenue,

St. Louis, MO 63108, Telephone:

(314) 652–5100 x285, Fax: (314) 652–

0813, E-mail: None

KCMC Child Development Corporation,

Shirley Stubbs-Gillette, 2104 East

18th, Kansas City, MO 64127,

Telephone: (816) 474–3751 x603, Fax:

(816) 474–1818, E-mail: None

Nebraska

Central Nebraska Community Services,

Suzan Obermiller, P.O. Box 509, Loup

City, NE 68853, Telephone: (308)

745–0780, Fax: (308) 745–0824, Email: None

New Hampshire

Community Action Program BelknapMerrimack Counties, Inc., Rebecca

Johnson, P.O. Box 1016, Concord, NH

03302–1016, Telephone: (603) 225–

3295, Fax: (603) 228–1898, E-mail:

None

New Jersey

Babyland Nursery, Inc., Mary Smith/

Martin Schneider, 755 South Orange

Avenue Newark, NJ 07106,

Telephone: (201) 399–3400, Fax: (201)

399–2076, E-mail: None

NORWESCAP Head Start

Administration, Linda Kane, 481

Memorial Parkway, Phillipsburg, NJ

08865, Telephone: (908) 454–8830,

Fax: (908) 859–0729, E-mail: None

New York

The Astor Home for Children, Elizabeth

Colkin, 50 Delafield Street,

Poughkeepsie, NY 12601, Telephone:

(914) 452–4167, Fax: (914) 452–0718,

E-mail: None

Chautauqua Opportunities, Inc. Head

Start, Grace Knaak, Municipal Bldg—

5th Floor, 200 E. Third Street,

Jamestown, NY 14701, Telephone:

(716) 661–9430 Fax: (716) 661–9436

E-mail: GKNAAK@EPI

Educational Alliance, Marion Lazar, 197

East Broadway, New York, NY 10002,

Telephone: (212) 475–6200 x6200,

Fax: (212) 982–0932, E-mail: None

Parent & Child Center, Coleen A.

Meehan, 175 Hudson Street, Syracuse,

NY 13204, Telephone: (315) 470–

3324, Fax: (315) 474–6863, E-mail:

None

Project Chance Early Head Start, Bart

O’Conner, 136 Lawrence Street,

Brooklyn, NY 11201, Telephone: (718)

330–0845, Fax: (718) 330–0846, Email: None

North Carolina

Asheville City Schools Preschool and

Family Literacy Center, Robbie H.

Angell 441 Haywood Road, Asheville,

NC 28806, Telephone: (704) 255–

5423, Fax: (704) 251–4913, E-mail:

None

North Dakota

Little Hoop Community College, Beverly

Graywater, P.O. Box 89, Fort Totten,

ND 58335, Telephone: (701) 766–

4070, Fax: (701) 766–1357, E-mail:

None

Ohio

Child Focus—Clermont County Head

Start, Terrie Hare, 1088 Hospital

Drive, Suite A, Batavia, OH 45103,

Telephone: (513) 732–5432, Fax: (513)

732–5440, E-mail: None

Cincinnati-Hamilton County

Community, Action Agency, Verline

Dotson, 2904 Woodburn Avenue,

Cincinnati, OH 45206, Telephone:

(513) 569–1840, Fax: (513) 569–1251,

E-mail: None

Oregon

Southern Oregon Child and Family

Council, Inc., Blair Johnson, 505 Oak

Street, P.O. Box 3819, Central Point,

OR 97502, Telephone: (503) 664–

4730; 857–9255, Fax: (503) 664–6620,

E-mail: Pending

Pennsylvania

Family Foundations, Laurie Mulvey/

Heather Fisher, 1811 Boulevard of the

Allies, Pittsburgh, PA 15219,

Telephone: (412) 281–3511 Fax: (412)

281–3254, E-mail:

MULVEY@VMS.CIS.PITT.EDU

Philadelphia Parent Child Center, Inc.,

Jewel Morrissette-Ndulula, 2515

Germantown Avenue, Philadelphia,

PA 19133, Telephone: (215) 229–

1800, Fax: (215) 229–5860, E-mail:

None

Puerto Rico

Aspira Inc. of Puerto Rico, Edme Ruiz

Torres, Box 29132, 65th Infantry

Station, Rio Piedras, PR 00929,

Telephone: (809) 768–1968, Fax: (809)

257–2725, E-mail: None

New York Foundling Hospital, Zaida

Fernandez, P.O. Box 191274, San

Juan, PR 00919–1274, Telephone:

(809) 753–9082; 753–1321; 753–9080,

Fax: (809) 763–9209, E-mail: None

South Carolina

District #17 Schools, Anita E. Kieslich,

P.O. Box 1180, Sumter, SC 29150,

Telephone: (803) 778–6433, Fax: (803)

469–6006, E-mail: None

SHARE Greenville-Pickens Head Start,

Rubye H. Jones, 652 Rutherford Road,

Greenville, SC 29609, Telephone:

(803) 233–4128, Fax: (803) 233–4019,

E-mail: None

Tennessee

Chattanooga Human Services, Head

Start/PCC, Donna Ginn, 2302 Ocoee

Street, Chattanooga, TN 37406,

Telephone: (423) 493–9750, Fax: (423)

493–9754, E-mail: None

Tennessee CAREs, Barbara Nye,

Tennessee State University, 330 Tenth

Avenue N., Box 141, Nashville, TN

37203, Telephone: (615) 963–7231,

Fax: (615) 963–7214 E-mail: None

Texas

Avance San Antonio Inc., Rebecca C.

Cervantez, 2300 W. Commerce, Suite

304, San Antonio, TX 78207,

Telephone: (210) 220–1788, Fax: (210)

220–3795, E-mail: None

Head Start of Greater Dallas, Inc., Rob

Massonneau, 1349 Empire Central,

Suite 900, Dallas, TX 75247,

Telephone: (214) 634–8704 x484, Fax:

(214) 631–5417, E-mail: None
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Notices 66285

Parent/Child Incorporated, Blanche A.

Russ-Glover, 1000 West Harriman

Place, San Antonio, TX 78207–7900,

Telephone: (210) 226–6232, Fax: (210)

228–0071, E-mail: None

Texas Migrant Council, Inc., John E.

Gonzales, 5102 N. Bartlett Avenue,

P.O. Box 2579, Laredo, TX 78041,

Telephone: (210) 722–5174, Fax: (210)

726–1301, E-mail: None

Utah

Bear River Head Start, Glenna Markey,

75 South 400 West, Logan, UT 84321,

Telephone: (801) 753–0951, Fax: (801)

753–1101, E-mail: None

Vermont

CVCAC Head Start, Marianne Miller,

PO. Box 747, 36 Barre-Montepelier

Road, Barre, VT 05641, Telephone:

(802) 479–1053, Fax: (802) 479–5353,

E-mail: None

Early Education Services, Judith Jerald,

218 Canal Street, Brattleboro, VT

05301, Telephone: (802) 254–3742,

Fax: (802) 254–3750, E-mail: None

Washington

Families First, Peg Mazen, P.O. Box

1997, Auburn, WA 98071, Telephone:

(206) 850–2582, Fax: (206) 850–0220,

E-mail: None

Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe, Jaclyn

Haight, 31912 Little Boston Road, NE,

Kingston, WA 98346, Telephone:

(360) 297–6258, Fax: (360) 297–7097,

E-mail: None

Spokane County Head Start/ECEAP,

Washington State Community College

#17, Patt Earley, 4410 North Market,

Spokane, WA 99202, Telephone: (509)

533–8500, Fax: (509) 533–8599, Email: None

Washington State Migrant Council,

Carlos Trevino, 312 Division,

Grandview, WA 98930, Telephone:

(509) 882–5800, Fax: (509) 882–

1605,E-mail: None

West Virginia

Monongalia County Head Start, Marie

Alsop/Cheryl Wienke,1433 Dorsey

Avenue,Morgantown, WV 26505,

Telephone: (304) 291–9330, Fax: (304)

291–9324,E-mail:

CWIENKE@ACCESS.K12.WV.US

Wisconsin

Renewal Unlimited, Inc. - Head Start of

Central Wisconsin, Suzanne Hoppe,

N6510 Hwy. 51 South, Portage, WI

53901–9603, Telephone: (608) 742–

5329, Fax: (608) 742–5481, E-mail:

None

Appendix B–1—Statement of Work for

the Early Head Start Evaluation

Contract

Request for Contract—The Early Head

Start Research and Evaluation Project

I. Background

The Head Start Act, as amended May,

1994 (42 usc 9801 et seg.) established a

new program for families with infants

and toddlers within the framework of

Head Start. Section 645A of the Head

Start Act, Programs for Families with

Infants and Toddlers states that (a) ‘‘The

Secretary shall make grants in

accordance with the provisions of this

section for—(1) programs providing

family-centered services for low-income

families with very young children

designed to promote the development of

the children and to enable their parents

to fulfill their roles as parents and to

move toward self-sufficiency.’’

The Department of Health and Human

Services calls this new program Early

Head Start. In developing Early Head

Start, the Administration on Children,

Youth and Families (ACYF)/

Administration for Children and

Families (ACF) engaged in an intensive

consultation process to learn from

parents, practitioners, researchers and

academics about the state of the art of

quality programming for pregnant

women and families with infants and

toddlers. As part of the consultation

process, the Secretary of Health and

Human Services formed the Advisory

Committee on Services for Families

with Infants and Toddlers. That

committee issued a report in September,

1994, that provides the blueprint for the

design of the Early Head Start program.

The ACF issued a Program

Announcement of in March, 1995, and

is expected to begin funding programs

by September 30, 1995.

The award of this contract will be

followed by a competition among Early

Head Start program research partners to

establish a limited number of local

research sites. The first part of this

section describes the overall Early Head

Start research and evaluation design,

including activities to be completed

both by the national Contractor and

local researchers; the second part details

the scope of work for the national

evaluation contract.

The Need for Early Head Start Research

and Evaluation

It will be important for the proposed

evaluation, mandated by the Head Start

legislation, to build upon the substantial

body of knowledge that exists and to

expand upon findings from related

studies. The CCDP evaluation will

present results of a rigorous evaluation

of an intensive, comprehensive, multiservice intervention program for

families of infants and toddlers,

implemented across a number of

communities nationwide. Additional

studies currently underway, such as the

National Institute of Child Health and

Human Development (NICHD) Child

Care study and the Healthy Start

evaluation will provide findings and

methods that will contribute to the Early

Head Start research and evaluation.

However, Early Head Start, while

related programmatically to many

predecessors, combines and/or extends

elements in previous programs to

present a unique program for

evaluation. The Early Head Start

program is individualized; intense;

comprehensive; child-service oriented;

two-generational; locally-adapted,

utilizing parents in decision making,

and designed to have four levels of

effect, on infants and toddlers, families,

communities and staff.

II. The Early Head Start Research and

Evaluation Plan

The research and evaluation plan

highlights the first Early Head Start

programs as prototypes of the Early

Head Start concept. The plan features

(1) a dynamic formative evaluation

process, designed to be used in

subsequent Early Head Start programs,

that will serve continuous program

improvement; (2) an impact evaluation

that will enable determination of

whether and under what conditions

program prototypes were effective, and

(3) an integrated research base for

generating further hypotheses around

the broad array of potential program

issues and possibilities.

This research and evaluation plan

features an integrated local and national

evaluation design with nested levels of

program involvement. Level I,

continuous program improvement, is for

all sites; Level II, cross-site impact

evaluation and site-specific, related

research will occur at selected sites. The

impact evaluation is designed to

determine the attribution of outcomes to

the intervention. The research portion of

the study will examine the causally

modeled and directional relationships

among specific child, family, program

and community variables and outcomes.

A. Purposes

Elaboration of the purposes and the

proposed approach proposed for each

follow:

1. Continuous Program Improvement.

The Advisory Committee on Services for

Families with Infants and Toddlers

proposed a new role for program
66286 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Notices

evaluation that would be useful to

programs seeking to develop to a

standard of high quality. A systematic

feedback procedure utilizing formative

evaluation techniques will be developed

as a tool for dynamic program

improvement, and as a prototype

formative evaluation tool in the event of

Early Head Start program expansion.

Thus, the first purpose of this effort is

to support a process for generating and

utilizing program qualitative and

quantitative data, including

management information system data,

in continuous program improvement.

This feature will be addressed

programmatically at all Early Head Start

sites, in most cases with the aid of local

research partners. The national

Contractor will provide support for this

evaluation function through

development of formative evaluation

formats for continuous improvement.

2. Impact. The Head Start Act and the

Advisory Committee on Services for

Families with Infants and Toddlers

called for a study of program

effectiveness. A cross-site impact study

will be conducted by a national

Contractor in a sample of selected sites.

Site-specific analyses, conducted by

local research partners, will identify

local program impacts and elucidate the

processes, pathways, and conditions

under which the program had an effect.

Cross-site and local studies will

complement each other.

3. Additional Research. The Advisory

Committee on Services for Families

with Infants and Toddlers sought to

stimulate the research community to

address the many questions we have

about how best to enhance the

development of low-income infants and

toddlers and their families under

conditions of changing policies and

programmatic variations. The potential

for research under the broad umbrella of

the Early Head Start purposes and in

connection with impact and continuous

programmatic improvement is great.

The Early Head Start research and

evaluation plan thus seeks to bring forth

a new generation of solid research to

enhance current understandings of

optimal developmental circumstances

for low-income infants/toddlers, their

families and communities. Further,

questions related to the program are

expected to be fitted to theoretical

frameworks to encompass and extend

beyond the realm of impact evaluation.

This research will be conducted

primarily at selected research sites by

local research partners

4. Longitudinal Study. Early Head

Start presents a unique opportunity to

conduct longitudinal research on Early

Head Start, Head Start and beyond.

Thus, the research and evaluation plan

emphasizes the underlying longitudinal

nature of the study of Early Head Start,

and is the beginning of a longitudinal

study of Early Head Start children and

families.

B. Studies

The specific studies this project is

expected to generate and the

approximate sequence are as follows:

Studies to Describe Early Head Start

Programs

Studies of Program Quality and Program

Implementation

Studies of Program Impact

Studies of Program Variation

Studies Directed Towards Specific

Policy Concerns

Studies of Program Impact in a

Longitudinal Context

Studies by Local Researchers on

Multiple Topics Pertaining to Early

Head Start

C. Questions

A series of preliminary research

questions have been developed to guide

the formation of the research and

evaluation design.

What are the characteristics of Early

Head Start children and families,

communities and staff and programs?

What are the origins of Early Head Start

programs? Who attends Early Head

Start? How representative are the

children and families who attend Early

Head Start of the Early Head Starteligible population within their

communities? What types of

communities are Early Head Start

programs in? What types of services are

delivered? What are the characteristics

and emphases of local programs?

What are the pathways to quality in

Early Head Start Programs? How do

programs achieve full implementation?

How is quality in Early Head Start

program components defined? What is

the quality of Early Head Start programs

and program components? How long

does it take to attain quality in Early

Head Start programs? What outcomes

are associated with various aspects of

program quality?

Is Early Head Start effective in

supporting the development of children,

family, communities and staff? Which

Early Head Start practices maximize

benefits for children, families,

communities and staff under what kinds

of circumstances? What are the

collective and differentiated impacts of

Early Head Start? How does Early Head

Start support development under

varying conditions of risk? Are there

diffuse effects of the program? Are there

effects that can be attributed to targeted

programs or services in Early Head

Start? Are there mediators between

services and outcomes that can be

identified? What are the benefits of

Early Head Start that translate into

dollars saved?

What child, family, program and

community variables contribute to the

optimal development of low-income

children in Early Head Start programs?

Which Early Head Start practices

maximize benefits for which children

under what conditions? What factors

contribute to resiliency of children in

Early Head Start? What factors

associated with Early Head Start

contribute to optimizing health, social

or cognitive development? Is targeting

specific services for children effective?

Are there strategies that are particularly

effective with high-risk infants? What

are the programs that are achieving

positive outcomes for children doing?

What are the barriers to attaining

positive outcomes for children in Early

Head Start programs?

What Early Head Start factors,

community, family and personal factors

contribute to parent and family-level

outcomes? What factors, under what

conditions, enhance parenting skills

including parent/child interactions for

which parents? What factors contribute

to the parents’ ability to make progress

toward self-sufficiency? What factors

contribute to the health and well-being

of Early Head Start parents? What

factors contribute to male involvement

in the lives of Early Head Start children?

What factors contribute to parental

involvement for which parents in the

Early Head Start program? What family

outcomes are associated with positive

child outcomes, and what are the

pathways from parent to child

development in the context of Early

Head Start? Are there targeted strategies

that specifically benefit some parents?

What changes in communities occur

as a result of the Early Head Start

program? What were the baseline

characteristics of Early Head Start

communities at the time programs

began? What Early Head Start practices

maximize benefits for which

communities under what types of

circumstances? What new

collaborations were established? What

community factors supplemented or

supplanted the Early Head Start success

with families and children? How strong

was the community effect on Early Head

Start programs? Did Early Head Start

have a positive effect on child care

services, or on any other services,

throughout the community?

What is the role of staffing in Early

Head Start programs? What is the role

of staffing and staff development in

creating effective program processes and
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Notices 66287

bringing about positive outcomes for

children, families and communities?

What enables staff to create the

environments and relationships that

promote infant/toddler and family

development? What factors contribute to

staff continuity with children and

families? What role does Early Head

Start professional development play in

staff effectiveness?

What are the effects of program

variations? What are the identifiable

program variations in Early Head Start?

What can be said about the types of

variations and their effects?

What can we learn through Early

Head Start to maximize collective

effectiveness of policies and programs

that promote the development of lowincome children and their families?

What is the role of Early Head Start for

promoting parents’ pathways to work?

How do comprehensive Early Head Start

services add to the effects of child care

on children and families? What are the

barriers and pathways to the successful

integration of children with special

needs into Early Head Start? These

questions will be addressed in a report

directed towards specific policy

concerns by the national Contractor and

the Contractor may be asked to provide

additional special reports around

related issues.

How do Early Head Start and Head

Start families and comparable groups

who do not participate in Early Head

Start develop over time? What are the

developmental trajectories of Early Head

Start and comparison group children

and families under varying experiences

and varying degrees of risk?

D. Design

The Early Head Start program is

designed as a prototype of an on-going

service program as opposed to an

intervention designed by an investigator

for theory building or hypothesis

testing. Thus, while Early Head Start

was planned to accommodate

evaluation, the evaluation design

primarily has been fitted to the program.

This programmatic emphasis has

shaped numerous research and

evaluation design elements as well as

the overall two-tier nature of the

research and evaluation plan. All Early

Head Start programs will participate in

either one or both levels of the research

and evaluation.

Level I: All program sites will

participate in formative evaluation

activities which are designed to assist

programs in continuous improvement

towards program quality. The Level I

evaluation activities also will be

instituted for all subsequent Early Head

Start programs under conditions of

program expansion. The following are

features of Level I.

• Sites will use data from a uniform

management information system,

together with local qualitative and

quantitative data in a formative

evaluation process.

• In most cases, sites will utilize a

local research partner for this aspect of

the evaluation.

• The national Contractor will

provide standard formats for the use of

these data during the first year of the

project, and will make the

characteristics of this format available to

sites added in subsequent years through

collaboration with the Training and

Technical Assistance Contractor.

Level II: A sample of sites (12) will

participate in Level II activities focusing

on evaluating the effectiveness of the

Early Head Start utilizing approaches to

generate both breadth and depth in

impact evaluation . The following are

characteristics of Level II activities.

• There will be a cross-site impact

study, conducted by a national

Contractor, that will be complemented

by local studies of program impact.

• The local research partners may

apply through a competitive process for

grants to carry out research studies at

their local sites. The sites whose local

research partners receive these grants

will become sites for the cross-site

impact evaluation. In the event that

there are not sufficient numbers of sites

whose local research partners have

submitted an acceptable proposal or if a

better distribution of Early Head Start

programs is required than the research

site pool represents, as programs were

alerted in the Early Head Start program

announcement, ACYF may select

further sites for evaluation. Data

collection at these sites would be

conducted directly by the national

Contractor.

• The impact evaluation will follow

an experimental model. The program

will recruit double the number of

families needed to fill program

openings. Families then will be assigned

into program and comparison groups by

random assignment, most likely midway

through the first fiscal year. The

recruitment and random assignment

process will continue until October 1,

1996, when programs are expected to

attain full enrollment, and, thereafter, as

openings occur.

• Only those programs that are fully

implemented and operating as the

program was designed, with criteria to

be determined as an evaluation task,

will be included in the final impact

evaluation. Additional criteria for

impact evaluation may be proposed by

ACYF as well. It is anticipated that 12

sites will participate in the final impact

evaluation, however, 15 sites will be

selected as preliminary impact sites to

provide an ample pool of sites for

impact evaluation.

• To fit the service emphasis of the

program, subjects will be continuously

recruited into the program to fill

program openings as they occur. That is,

this is not a cohort study. Sample sizes

will build over time.

• While programs are encouraged to

give preference to subjects who are

pregnant and have infants under a year

of age, they may serve children up to

three years of age. However, to focus the

sample and to have a potential

longitudinal sample of children who

began the program early, the research

sample will be comprised only of

pregnant women and families with

infants up to one year of age. This

requirement will apply to families

recruited at the time the program begins

as well as to replacement families.

• Programs will range in size from 75

to 150 families. The impact evaluation

sample, due to continuous recruitment,

may exceed 150 program (and an equal

number of comparison group) families

but shall be capped at 175 program (and

an equal number of comparison group)

families for any one site. Site samples

need to include at least 50 program

families (with an equal number of

comparison families).

• In addition to documenting the

services received by program families in

the Early Head Start program, it will be

necessary to document the needs and

service use by comparison families to

determine if the individualized services

provided by the Early Head Start

program had an impact beyond what

comparison families received in their

communities. Therefore, the same needs

assessment will need to be conducted

on control families and their service

usage will need to be tracked in a

manner as similar to the experimental

group as possible.

• Comparison group families will be

given an annotated list of community

services. Pregnant women will receive

an initial referral to prenatal care. All

families, program and comparison,

participating in the evaluation study

will receive approximately $20/

interview period for their participation

in the study. Both the national

Contractor and local researchers are

encouraged to solicit material goods to

give to families for completing

interviews. These goods may be donated

locally or nationally and could include

diapers, infant clothing, or educational

toys.

• Program families who drop out will

be followed, to the extent possible. An
66288 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Notices

evaluation task will be to develop a plan

for tracking comparison and program

group dropout research sample families

and for defining the minimum amount

of time that constitutes program

involvement.

E. Desired Outcomes

The Early Head Start program targets

specific outcome variables in the four

program areas. It will be important for

this evaluation to focus on those

outcomes likely to be associated with

involvement in Early Head Start,

outcomes that realistically could be

expected in a program of this nature. It

will also be important to target potential

interim outcomes, outcomes most likely

to be apparent after the first 2–3 years

of the study. Preliminary outcomes as

proposed by the Advisory Committee on

Services for Families with Infants and

Toddlers include:

Child: Health and physical

development; social competency; secure

attachments with parents and other

caregivers; language and cognitive

development; resiliency factors; benefits

to siblings.

Family: Attitudes towards parenting;

parent-child interaction; reproductive

sequelae; having a medical home;

parenting employability and progress

towards self-sufficiency; training and

education; housing; physical and mental

health; substance abuse; home

environment; safety; involvement in the

Early Head Start program; knowledge of

child development; child guidance

beliefs and practices.

Community: Collaboration among

agencies serving children and families;

seamlessness in referrals and actual

service provision; quality of services for

children and families; increase in

services for infants and toddlers; safety.

Staff: Staff-parent/child relationships;

staff continuity; staff professional

development; staff compensation; staff

physical and mental health.

F. Data Sources

For purposes of definition and

discussion, data are referred to as either

(1) process or (2) outcome data. Process

data refer to those data that document

program use and other experiences of

families; outcome data refer to those

qualities the program seeks to bring

about. These data may be thought of,

respectively, as independent and

dependent variables. It is recognized

that some data fit both definitions and

that under different circumstances the

same data element could be either

process or product, independent or

dependent, or, mediating, variables.

A family-level management

information system will be introduced,

with technical assistance, at the outset

of Early Head Start. This information

system, known as the Head Start Family

Information System (HSFIS) will

include data elements focused on

intake; needs assessment; use of direct

and referred services; family and child

health information and other

information related to parent

employment, housing, education and

services. Primarily, HSFIS data will be

referred to as process data, however,

some of the HSFIS data also can be

viewed as interim outcome and outcome

data. Program staff will enter and utilize

HSFIS data. Program staff will enter

initial family background data for all

Early Head Start families prior to the

random assignment process. HSFIS data

will be available for the evaluation of

the Early Head Start program.

Comparison family services use and

health data will be recorded frequently

in a special HSFIS module that will be

identical to or parallel to HSFIS-entered

program data. It is proposed that these

data will be entered by a Community

Family Coordinator/s, who will form a

relationship with the comparison group

families, paralleling to some extent the

context in which HSFIS data for

program families will be entered by

program staff. The Community Family

Coordinator services will be

subcontracted by the national

Contractor, as feasible, through the local

researchers.

Additional process data (qualitative

and quantitative) may be collected

locally or nationally as determined by

researchers at either level. This may

include process data that cannot be

collected through the HSFIS in

comparable ways for the comparison

and program families and will therefore

have to be collected using the same, vs.

parallel data collection procedures.

Outcome variables and the

measurement for those variables will be

identified and developed for the crosssite evaluation, for both project and

comparison families, by the national

Contractor with input from the local

research team. Collection will be

contracted through the national

Contractor to the local researchers.

Local research data will be collected

by local researchers through grants

made directly from ACYF to the local

researcher.

G. The Structure

In this research and evaluation design

the primary responsibility of the

national Contractor will be to coordinate

and administer the cross-site evaluation

in the 12 impact evaluation sites. This

includes financial and administrative

responsibility for all data collected for

the cross-site-evaluation, including both

process and outcome data for both

comparison and project families. The

national Contractor may use as much

program-collected data (HSFIS) as the

Contractor and ACYF deem appropriate

and, as feasible, is encouraged to

subcontract other local data collection

to local researchers. The national

Contractor has an additional

responsibility to provide a standard

format for continuous programmatic

improvement.

The local program research partners

will be responsible for designing and

conducting local research in areas

relating to the overall research and

evaluation questions. Local researchers

will be funded through individual

grants with ACYF to carry out locallyrelevant research. Local researchers will

be expected to be reliable subcontractors

for the cross-site project. These same

local researchers will be expected to

serve the continuous improvement

needs of their sites and to provide local

impact evaluation reports to accompany

the cross-site reports required by this

research and evaluation design.

A consortium will provide the

mechanism for the coordination

required by the project. A Technical

Work Group, meeting with the

consortium, will advise both the crosssite studies and the local research

projects.

H. Challenges to the Evaluation

The unique design for the Early Head

Start program and the requirements for

research and evaluation present specific

interesting challenges that both local

researchers and the national Contractor

will need to address. These include:

—Program variation within and between

sites. The evaluation is expected to

stimulate unique approaches for

process data measurement to meet the

challenge of documenting the variety

of programs that will be offered across

sites and the individualized nature of

services within sites.

—Changing conditions over time. The

evaluation is expected to take into

account a shifting range of ages. The

age range will shift from a less-thantwo year range at the outset to nearly

five years towards program

completion, due to continuous

enrollment. Further, the evaluation

will need to accommodate the

transition of children out of the

program at age 3 into Head Start or

other programs and to plan for

extending this study longitudinally.

—Decoupling of parent and child data

collection. Because Early Head Start is

not a cohort study, the periodicity of

child assessments by child age may
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Notices 66289

need to be decoupled from periodicity

in assessing parent variables.

—Measuring the true nature of services

delivered by Early Head Start at both

the child and family levels. This

challenge requires assessing a number

of features associated with services,

such as professional standards of

quality, duration, intensity, quality of

relationships and goodness of fit

between the program services and

individual needs.

—Delineating whether the services

received are a function of the program

or of the families’ own initiative from

other sources in the community.

Since this study is not conducted in

the isolation of a laboratory, families

may seek and receive services from

other community service providers.

Therefore, it is important to determine

what services families receive outside

the program.

—Documenting services received by the

comparison group. We cannot assume

a no-treatment comparison group.

While some comparison group data

has been collected through parent

interview, in other studies these data

are usually collected at fairly long

intervals with limited checking of

reliability. The current study requires

a careful documentation of

comparison group services for

interpretation of study findings.

—Framing the role of relationships. For

very young children the relationships

with parents and caregivers are

central to development and these

relationships are often influenced by

the relationships between parents and

program staff and the relationships of

both to the community at large. The

evaluation is challenged to assess the

central role of relationships in this

program.

—Measuring the effect of Early Head

Start on communities and the effect of

communities on Early Head Start.

Early Head Start is designed to impact

not only children and families but

also communities. It is designed to

have a ripple effect on all the

programs for young children in a

community. It is an important

challenge for the evaluation to

determine how to measure the

community at baseline and how to

measure change. Reciprocally, Early

Head Start programs are nested in

communities. The evaluation is

challenged to reflect the variance of

communities and to document the

effect these communities have on

Early Head Start’s ability to carry out

its purposes.

—Conducting impact evaluation

exclusively at fully-implemented

programs. The evaluation is

challenged to determine criteria and

timing for assessing full

implementation in order to focus the

evaluation on programs that are

fulfilling the intent of the Early Head

Start program.

—Determining meaningful effects. It

will be important for the national

Contractor and local researchers to go

beyond the question of whether Early

Head Start had a simple effect.

Researchers are challenged to

conceptualize the Early Head Start

data set for use with complex

analytical approaches involving

meaningful aggregations and pattern

analyses to account for varying

degrees of risk, program variation and

time.

—Fitting national and local evaluations

together. The evaluation is challenged

to bring two kinds of knowledge about

Early Head Start together—that

gathered across sites and that gathered

from in-depth analyses within sites. A

number of premises have been already

made about this feature of the

evaluation. For example, it is central

to this project that local researchers

and the national Contractor be equals

in evaluating this project. It is

presumed that there are questions that

each can answer best from their

unique perspectives. Local

researchers are in a position to truly

delve into the causes and effects and

pathways to outcomes. They can use

in depth and observational as well as

qualitative measures to determine a

program’s effect. The local researchers

are expected to address ‘‘what’s in the

box’’ at their site using multiple

measures and methods in site-specific

studies. The local researchers will

also need to work together to lay the

groundwork for continuation of the

study beyond the five-year funding

period. The national evaluation

Contractor, on the other hand, will

need to address those questions that

cross-site data will enable answering,

including those focused on program

variation, and those requiring large

samples for ample cells sizes required

for examination of how the program

worked for which children and

families under which conditions. The

research and evaluation was designed

to bring forth both types of studies,

and both types of studies are

important to the story this evaluation

is expected to tell. It will be necessary

for every report to reflect this dual

and complementary input and for the

researchers at both levels to affirm the

role of the other. Their task as

partners in this evaluation will be to

determine at each step of the project

how their two efforts fit together.

—Attrition. Given the five year nature of

this program and the intention to

continue to follow the original Early

Head Start families, it will be

important for the partners in this

project to coordinate to keep families

in the sample. The evaluation is

challenged to develop an array of

sample-retention ideas that may range

from local solicitation of gifts,

newsletters and birthday cards to

relationship-building to maintain

subjects’ interest. It will also be

necessary to develop a clear plan for

determination of which families who

leave the project will be followed for

research purposes under what

conditions.

C–2 Scope of Work for the National

Contractor

Specifically, the national Contractor

will:

1. Provide a description of Early Head

Start, from its inception through Year 1

for the Early Head Start programs, in all

sites, with special emphasis on the 12

research sites, relying primarily on

HSFIS data, but complemented by site

profiles from research sites.

2. Conduct a study of program quality

and implementation in Early Head Start

(preliminary) impact study sites

programs (estimate 12). This study will

be used in the selection of fullyimplemented sites for inclusion in the

final impact evaluation, and to present

a story of the development of quality for

future Early Head Start programs;

3. Design and carry out an effective

cross-site impact evaluation (estimate 12

sites) that addresses evaluation

challenges and determines whether

Early Head Start had an impact on

children, families, communities or staff,

and that addresses differential

effectiveness by age of entry, need, subpopulation, and by program features,

duration and intensity;

4. Conduct a study of program

variation in the impact evaluation sites

(estimate 12 sites) and its effects;

5. Establish an infant sample for

future longitudinal study in impact

evaluation sites (estimate 12 sites), to

carefully track all subjects to minimize

attrition for the longitudinal study and

to include cross-site analyses of data in

a longitudinal context in the Final

Report of this project;

6. Conduct timely analyses and

reports (in all years) with Early Head

Start data in the context of critical

policy issues, e.g., examining the value

added of Early Head Start

comprehensive services for children in

full-time child care and in the transition

from welfare to work, as requested by
66290 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Notices

the ACYF and/or the Technical Work

Group; and

7. Prepare an Interim Report in

September, 1997, and a Final Report for

this project which fully integrate the

cross-site and local studies, drawing

upon the strengths of each.

C–3 Tasks

As part of this Early Head Start

evaluation effort, the Contractor shall

access, collect, utilize, analyze and

synthesize information regarding the

implementation, operation and

effectiveness of Early Head Start

programs.

The work for this contract will be

conducted in five sequential 12 month

phases and the activities that will be

accomplished include the following:

In Phase I, the Contractor shall:

(1) Participate in an orientation

meeting;

(2) Develop a coordination strategy for

working with other Contractors

involved with Early Head Start;

(3) Conduct a literature review;

(4) Select a cadre of consultants;

(5) Select a Technical Work Group;

(6) Prepare a revised study design;

(7) Prepare a process data collection

plan;

(8) Conduct a feasibility study;

(9) Prepare a logistical proposal for

the consortium;

(10) Prepare a site visit protocol;

(11) Convene the consortium;

(12) Prepare a final study design;

(13) Conduct site visits to all impact

evaluation sites;

(14) Prepare a protocol for the data

collection instruments;

(15) Prepare a data collection and

analysis plan;

(16) Prepare an Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) clearance package;

(17) Prepare a revised work plan;

(18) Develop criteria for selection of

impact sites.

In Phases II-V, the Contractor shall:

(19) Conduct annual site visits to

impact evaluation sites.

In ALL Phases, the Contractor shall:

(20) Conduct cross-site data

collection;

(21) Conduct a minimum of two

consortium meetings a year in

Washington, DC;

(22) Establish a protocol of all new or

additional data collection instruments

and prepare OMB clearance packages

for all new or additional data collection

instruments;

(23) Provide timely data entry and

return of data disks to sites;

(24) Process and analyze the data

collected;

(25) Provide a format for continuous

program improvement and support its

use.

In addition, in all phases the

Contractor shall prepare deliverables as

necessary for the work completed in

each Phase, including monthly progress

reports and in-depth annual progress

reports, and the following reports

within an agreed-upon time: ‘‘Report of

Characteristics of Early Head Start

Programs,’’ ‘‘Pathways to Quality

Study,’’ ‘‘Impact Study,’’ ‘‘Study of

Program Variations,’’ ‘‘Studies Directed

Toward Specific Policy Concerns,’’ an

Interim Report, and a Final Report

which shall include a synthesis of the

results of the final data analyses, reports

of site researchers and a summary of the

five-year project. In all Phase reports,

the national impact study will be

supplemented and integrated with the

studies from the local research sites.

A. PHASE I

Task 1—Orientation Meeting With the

Federal Project Officer (FPO)

Within one week of the effective date

of the contract, the Contractor shall

meet with the Federal Project Officer

(FPO), and other relevant Federal staff

to review the background of the project,

and the work to be conducted. The FPO

will provide the Contractor with

available copies of the relevant grant

proposals for ACYF-funded Early Head

Start grantees. The Contractor shall

propose an agenda for the meeting,

indicate who would attend on behalf of

the Contractor, list the types of study

design modifications or other problems

that would require FPO decisions at that

meeting, and shall provide a project

summary for distribution to ACYF staff.

Specific topics to be discussed at the

meeting include: Revisions to the

proposed work plan in the Contractor’s

proposal; arrangements for maintaining

regular contact with the FPO and

relevant Federal staff via the INTERNET

network and other means of

communication; arrangements for initial

contacts and ongoing cooperation with

program sites; arrangements for

information to be supplied upon

selection of research sites and plans for

carrying out the Phase I tasks. The

meeting shall provide an opportunity to

discuss any clarifications of the

Contractor’s proposed approach, the

nature of the project, the schedule of

work, and the progress report

requirements and other deliverables.

There shall be an additional meeting

with the consortium in the second half

of Phase I.

TASK 2—DEVELOP A COORDINATION

STRATEGY FOR WORKING WITH

OTHER CONTRACTORS—HSFIS and

TRAINING/TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

CONTRACTORS

During all phases of the project,

effective coordination with the Federal

staff, Federal Contractors working on

related projects and evaluations and

outside stakeholders will be important

to the success of the project. The

Contractor shall work with the FPO and

other Federal staff to establish and

maintain cooperative working

arrangements and in weeks two through

six of Phase I shall establish a list of

tasks and a communication plan for

approval by ACYF. It is particularly

important that procedures be

coordinated with the HSFIS Contractor,

including procedures for

communication and bi-annual meetings

in Washington, DC; procedures for

ensuring readiness of grantees to utilize

the HSFIS at the outset of Early Head

Start; feasibility of HSFIS process data

collection for project and comparison

groups; procedures for transferring

HSFIS reports to the national evaluation

Contractor and for reports to the HSFIS

Contractor. It will also be necessary to

coordinate with Training and Technical

Assistance personnel at ACYF and with

the Contractor for Early Head Start

Training and Technical Assistance,

planning for two yearly meetings with

that Contractor and ACYF staff in

Washington, DC. Reports shall be given

to ACYF from each of the meetings.

TASK 3—PREPARE A LITERATURE

REVIEW

The Contractor shall conduct a

thorough review of the existing

literature on programs and evaluations

of services to families with infants and

toddlers, including documents

produced by ACYF, foundations and

reports of evaluations, published and

not published. To place this evaluation

in a national context, the Contractor

shall review and synthesize relevant

research and evaluation findings based

on reliable research methodologies

about the effects of services to families

with infants and toddlers. This report

shall synthesize findings from services

to families for infants and toddlers and

those from services related to any

portion of Early Head Start, present

methodological issues and creative

solutions to those issues, identify gaps

in the findings and methodologies and

outline how this study will fill those

gaps. This report shall also include the

Contractor’s recommendations for

adding to or refining the evaluation

research questions. The draft report
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Notices 66291

shall be submitted by the beginning of

the second month of Phase I and the

final report shall be submitted at the

beginning of the third month of Phase I.

The Contractor shall provide ACYF with

copies of each document referenced in

the literature review and shall deliver a

an IBM PC-compatible 3–1⁄2 inch

diskette. ACYF shall reserve the right to

make the literature review, or parts of

the document, available to the public.

TASK 4—SELECT A CADRE OF

CONSULTANTS

The Contractor shall establish a cadre

of consultants from relevant academic,

professional, consulting and serviceprovider communities and recommend

names within two weeks of the contract

effective date. The intent is to have a

cadre of professionals available for more

intensive involvement on the design

and implementation than is feasible

with the Technical Work Group (TASK

5). Contractor shall provide the names

and vitaes of potential consultants.

The Contractor shall not secure their

formal commitment prior to the award

of the contract, and without prior

approval of ACYF. The Contractor shall

provide the names and vitae of potential

consultants, including their specific

qualifications relevant to this study.

Prior to final approval, the Contractor

shall provide a sufficiently detailed

description of the specific work

(including total projected hours per task

or subtask to be done by this cadre, and

a timeline for its completion). The

Contractor will be responsible for all

expenses of these consultants, including

air fare, per diem and honorarium. The

number of persons in the cadre and the

quantity of consultation shall be the

decision of the Contractor in

cooperation with ACYF. The Contractor

shall propose an estimate of consultant

use.

The Contractor shall report on

expenditures for professional

consultants as a separate line item in

monthly expense vouchers and shall

provide a separate monthly report on

activities of consultants.

TASK 5: SELECT AND CONVENE A

TECHNICAL WORK GROUP

The Technical Work Group will

advise the entire Early Head Start

research and evaluation project,

including national impact and local

research activities. Within two weeks

following the contract effective date, the

evaluation Contractor shall recommend

eighteen experts in relevant fields, such

as: Infant and toddler development;

home visitation; child care; Head Start;

parent-child relationships; family

systems; teen parenting; services

research; prevention and intervention

research; ethnic diversity and minority

issues; health delivery systems; parent

education; mental health; adult

education; family ecology; community

development; staff development;

assessment of child development;

research methodology; statistics,

instrument development, tests and

measurement. The Contractor shall be

prepared to make modifications in the

list, as suggested by ACYF, based on

additional and/or alternative candidates

who might bring additional strengths to

the Technical Work Group and to

complete a group of twelve. All

Technical Work Group members will

require the approval of the ACYF

Commissioner. In addition, the

Technical Work Group must include

rotating representation from research

and program sites. Technical Work

Group meetings will be held in

conjunction with national-local research

consortium meetings but there may be

additional meetings called by the

Contractor as needed. The Technical

Work Group will provide guidance for

this entire project, advising the crosssite evaluation study and local research,

to produce a comprehensive picture of

the complex story of the impact of Early

Head Start. Therefore, available time of

the Technical Work Group will need to

be appropriated accordingly. A portion

of each Technical Work Group meeting

shall be allotted to local researchers

issues.

Phase I meeting schedule: During

Phase I of the project the Contractor

shall convene the meetings of the

Technical Work Group. With the

exception of the first meeting, these

meetings shall be held during the

consortium meetings. Within two

months, or earlier if determined

advisable in the orientation session, of

Phase I a meeting will be convened to

solicit initial comments and suggestions

regarding the overall scope of the

evaluation and issues related to

implementing the set of proposed

evaluation activities; to review the draft

of the literature and resource review

plan; to review the draft design and

sampling plan and process data

collection plans and for consultation in

selection of local research partners.

Within six months (with final

determination to be set by the Early

Head Start program timetable) but as

early as within four months of Phase I

the Technical Work Group will convene

in the consortium to be introduced to

local researchers and their projects;

advise local projects; establish

representation from the consortium for

the Technical Work Group; establish

sampling plans; plan site visits; and to

establish the preliminary data collection

instruments protocol. Nine months

following the beginning of Phase I,

members will participate in and report

on site visits, including creating site

profiles; consult for process evaluation;

recommend a final design; recommend

a data collection instruments protocol

for the cross-site studies; meet with

local researchers to plan specifications

for their studies; and review the overall

research and evaluation plan for Early

Head Start. All expenses of the

Technical Work Group including

honorarium, per diem, travel and

lodging to Technical Work Group or

consortium meetings shall be covered

by the national Contractor. Any sitespecific consulting done by the

Technical Work Group at site locations,

with the exception of that done during

site visits, shall not be the responsibility

of the national Contractor.

TASK 6—PREPARE A REVISED STUDY

DESIGN

Within four and one half months after

the beginning of Phase I, the Contractor

shall prepare a revised design and

sampling plan.

Design and Sampling Plan: The

Contractor shall develop a design and

sampling plan based on random

assignment methodology. The design

and sampling plan also shall

specifically include:

• A discussion of the issues and

approach the Contractor will use to

manage and coordinate with program

and research staff, the recruitment and

random assignment of families into

project and comparison groups in 12

(preliminary) evaluation sites, including

discussion of issues pertaining to the

implementation of experimental design

in low-income communities, steps that

will be taken to ensure comparability of

program and comparison families and

how to ensure minimization of

differential response rates and bias, over

time;

• A discussion of how the Contractor

will meet ethical challenges for

comparison families presented by an

experimental design, to be addressed, to

some extent by presenting an annotated

list of community services to

comparison families, by a referral

process for families that have identified

crises, and for pregnant women to

receive a focused initial referral for

prenatal services;

• A discussion of how the Contractor

will resolve challenges related to the

burden on families, compensation, and

attrition, and a discussion of procedures

to be put into place to maintain families’

interest, including predetermined plans
66292 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Notices

for Contractor to provide a payment of

approximately $20/interview period for

project and comparison families; efforts

of the national Contractor or efforts to

encourage local sites to leverage

additional material resources (such as

diapers, infants clothing or toys); efforts

of a part-time Community Family

Coordinator at each site, who will be

subcontracted by the national

Contractor, to form relationships with

and collect data from the comparison

group families (and to some extent,

program families). (See TASK 7, for

elaboration);

• A discussion of how the Contractor

will address the challenge of

documenting the nature of services

received by the program families, given

program variation between and within

sites in type of program delivered,

quality, duration, intensity, and

goodness of fit between program and

need; and a discussion of how the

Contractor will address the challenge of

documenting the types of services

comparison group families received.

• A discussion of how the Contractor

will meet other challenges to the design

as presented in Section C–1–II–H

Challenges to the Evaluation, on page 19

of this document, and not directly

addressed in any other segment of the

Contractor’s proposal, including

measuring changing conditions over

time; framing the role of relationships;

measuring and determining full program

implementation (See also TASK 18);

• A discussion of the importance of

the Contractor’s plan for determining

the representativeness of the Early Head

Start sample in impact evaluation

communities, utilizing existing data

sources;

• A discussion of the implications of

the design and how the Contractor will

collect data to place impact evaluation

programs in a community context,

including a baseline measure of

community infrastructure; and

• A discussion of any other

challenges the Contractor identifies for

this evaluation and the Contractor’s

proposal for resolving those challenges.

TASK 7—PREPARE A PROCESS

EVALUATION PLAN

There are multiple challenges to the

process evaluation of the Early Head

Start program that shall be addressed in

a process evaluation plan to accompany

the study design (TASK 6) four months

after the beginning of Phase I. (1) In

Level I sites the Contractor shall

develop a process report,

‘‘Characteristics of Early Head Start

Programs Report,’’ which will be a

description of FY ’95 and FY ’96

programs, using HSFIS data. (2) In Level

II sites it will be necessary to begin

documenting the characteristics, needs

and the nature of services for both

program and comparison group families,

including the characteristics of

programs and communities from the

outset of Early Head Start.

The Contractor shall have overall

responsibility for collecting the process

data required for this study, but shall

coordinate with local researchers and

program personnel. It is recommended

that a part-time Community Family

Coordinator be employed or

subcontracted at each site who will

coordinate local process data collection;

maintain a relationship with

comparison families; document the

service use and provide emergency

services for comparison families; and

track families who have moved or have

left the program. The Contractor shall

also be responsible for the collection of:

• A baseline intake interview for

comparison and program families in

Level II sites. The baseline intake

interview may be completed by program

staff using the HSFIS, before random

assignment of recruited families.

• A needs assessment for comparison

and project groups, which may be

gathered by the program personnel

(program) and a Community Family

Coordinator (comparison) families using

identical formats, or utilizing an

alternative format proposed by the

Contractor.

• Establishing comparability of

process data between program and

comparison groups, utilizing a programentered HSFIS data and parallel

comparison group HSFIS data entry. It

is anticipated that collection of serviceuse and health data will be conducted

by the program personnel (for program

families) and that a Community Family

Coordinator will form a relationship

with and enter such data for comparison

group families, using a special module

of HSFIS. However, the Community

Family Coordinator will interview both

project and comparison families for data

for which comparability of parallel

entry cannot be established or the

Contractor shall propose an alternative

format.

• Additional data collection

procedures and a timetable for process

data collection from comparison and

project families.

• A plan for developing site-specific

profiles that will characterize each of

the FY ’95 impact evaluation sites. This

task may cross reference with TASK 10,

PREPARE A SITE VISIT PROTOCOL.

Year 1 site profiles for impact

evaluation sites will be jointly authored

by national and local researchers and

local program personnel.

• An approach that would be used in

drawing up a cross-site descriptive

study of the FY ’95 and FY ’96 Early

Head Start programs utilizing HSFIS

data, supplemented by site profiles from

research sites.

• Within two months after the

beginning of Phase I, the Contractor

shall be prepared to submit an OMB

package. See TASK 16, PREPARE AN

OMB CLEARANCE PACKAGE) of

process data collection instruments in

the eventuality all or part of a HSFIS

evaluation module is not deemed

comprehensive or desirable for process

data collection.

• An approach that would be used in

drawing up a cross-site descriptive

study of FY 95 programs with special

emphasis on describing the 12 research

sites, using HSFIS data supplement by

site profiles from research sites.

TASK 8—CONDUCT A FEASIBILITY

STUDY IN 3 SITES

Within two months of the beginning

of Phase I, the Contractor shall discuss

rationale for and submit a protocol for

an evaluation feasibility study protocol

and within three months of Phase I shall

conduct a feasibility study in 3 sites in

order to determine if assumptions about

the evaluation design are valid. This

study shall involve site visits which

shall have tasks to: determine the status

of the HSFIS in the site; determine

program-use needs assessment;

determine viability of entering

comparison and project group data with

HSFIS software; determine feasibility of

establishing adequate sample size for

experimental design; and estimate the

feasibility of measuring the level and

quality of services available in the

community for referral services. A

report from this study shall be

submitted within four months of Phase

I.

TASK 9— PREPARE A LOGISTICAL

PROPOSAL FOR A NATIONAL-LOCAL

RESEARCH CONSORTIUM

Within three months of Phase I, the

Contractor shall be responsible for

proposing a consortium logistics plan

which shall be submitted to ACYF for

approval the seventh month after the

beginning of Phase I, following review

by the consortium members. This plan

shall include the logistical approach to

bi-annual consortium meetings in

Washington, DC, to be attended by the

Contractor, the Technical Work Group

and local researchers from impact

evaluation sites; a discussion of timeuse divided into equal day-long

segments in order to meet the three

needs of the consortium (impact study

planning; local research, and Technical
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Notices 66293

Work Group consultation); a discussion

of areas of the impact study for which

the Contractor will seek input from the

local researchers, i.e., site visit

protocols; data collection instruments;

data collection procedures; workplan; a

discussion of the areas for which the

national Contractor, the Technical Work

Group and the local researchers will

need to work closely together as

partners, i.e., preventing attrition,

integrating the national and local

research efforts, publication issues, and

data use. The Contractor is encouraged

in preparing these discussions to review

other consortium arrangements such as

that utilized by LONGSCAN. The

Contractor will be responsible for

logistical expenses associated with the

consortium, as well as for all of the

expenses of the Technical Work Group.

Local researchers will cover their own

travel, lodging, registration and other

expenses. The national Contractor shall

also provide for honoraria and expenses

of any speakers, if necessary, and

subject to prior approval from the FPO.

TASK 10— PREPARE A SITE VISIT

PROTOCOL

The third month of Phase I, the

Contractor shall develop a draft site visit

protocol which details procedures for

site visits. The purposes of the site visits

will be to review continuous program

improvement evaluation procedures at

all FY ’95 (and FY ’96 research sites). In

impact evaluation sites, additional

purposes will be to establish site

profiles, to review staffing for

Community Family Coordinators; to

establish relationships with the local

researchers and to understand the local

research projects; to establish the

procedures for random assignment, and

to establish local procedures for data

collection. The FPO and other ACYF

representatives will review the draft

protocol and return it within one week

to the Contractor who shall present a

final protocol to ACYF by the fourth

month of Phase I. As part of the protocol

development process by the third month

of Phase I the Contractor shall provide

the FPO with a draft letter of

introduction for the ACYF

Commissioner to send to Early Head

Start sites that will participate in site

visits. The letter shall identify the

Contractor, describe the purpose of the

project, and inform the Early Head Start

programs about plans for the site visits

and specify other contacts, including

community and research

representatives. A letter shall also be

provided to the FPO for the researchers

at the sites, identifying their roles in the

site visit and describing the purpose of

the visit. Prior to conducting the site

visits, the Contractor shall submit a

memorandum to the FPO outlining a

schedule for the visits and an outline of

a standardized format for site visit

reports that shall be submitted to the

FPO within two weeks after each visit.

Each proposed three-person site visit

team shall be comprised of, but not

limited to, representatives of the

national Contractor; the Technical Work

Group, and program or research staff

from other sites. ACYF staff may be

represented as well.

TASK 11—CONVENE THE

CONSORTIUM

Upon selection of research sites,

within four months of Phase I and/or

within one month of the selection of

research sites, the Contractor shall

convene a meeting of the consortium in

Washington, DC, including ACYF, the

national Contractor, local researchers

and the Technical Work Group. The

Contractor shall carry out the logistical

plan as proposed previously, dividing

the consortium time into thirds for

addressing needs of the cross-site

impact evaluation, local research

development and advise for both from

the Technical Work Group. At the initial

consortium meeting, the Contractor

shall provide opportunities for

identification of each of the local

research sites’ research purposes;

discuss the logistical plan with the

consortium; establish committees as

identified by the logistical plan;

establish a work plan; establish any

subcommittees; discuss issues for

immediate and future data collection;

review process data to be collected by

HSFIS and otherwise; review sample

selection procedures; review the

preliminary site visit protocol; and

name site visit teams. The national

Contractor shall communicate about this

meeting with ACYF for a potential joint

meeting with program staff. The

national Contractor is responsible for all

costs associated with consortium

meetings, including hotel, break out

rooms, expenses of Technical Work

Group, except for the direct expenses of

the local researchers and federal staff.

TASK 12—CONDUCT SITE VISITS TO

ALL FY ’95 EARLY HEAD START

IMPACT EVALUATION SITES

From the fifth through seventh month

of Phase I and/or within two months of

the selection of research sites, the

Contractor shall begin site visits as

specified in the Site Visit Protocol. A

draft report and sample site profiles

shall be submitted to the FPO by the

sixth month of Phase I. Site visit reports

and profiles on every Early Head Start

site evaluation site shall be submitted to

ACYF by the seventh month of Phase I.

For planning purposes, the Contractor

shall allow for site visits of 2 days in

length for each site (with the actual

length of the visits varying somewhat as

a function of the size and complexity of

the program, as well as the intended

tasks to be accomplished.) All expenses

from the site visits shall be handled

through the national contract.

TASK 13—PREPARE A FINAL DESIGN

It is anticipated that information

provided by the Early Head Start site

visits, by the interactions with the local

researchers and by the meetings with

the consortium, Technical Work Group

and the FPO will call for changes and

clarifications in the evaluation design

and implementation plan. Based on this

information the Contractor shall prepare

a draft revised technical evaluation

design and analysis report by the

seventh month of Phase I and final plan

by the eighth month of Phase I which

consists of the following components:

A. Statement of Evaluation Outcomes

A list of research and policy

questions, both general and specific,

that the study shall address. Each

specific question shall be logically

connected with the general question to

which it relates, as well as being

organized according to the overall

conceptual model of the study.

For each specific question the

theoretical hypothesis, required data

elements and data source(s) shall be

identified.

For each specific question, a

discussion of any measurement issues

for obtaining realistic and valid

outcomes and the approach to resolving

those measurement issues shall be

included.

B. Revised Study Design (See TASK 6)

C. Revised Process Data Collection Plan

(See TASK 7)

TASK 14—ESTABLISH A PROTOCOL

FOR ALL DATA COLLECTION

INSTRUMENTS

By the ninth month following the

award of this contract, the Contractor

shall submit to the FPO a complete draft

protocol for data collection instruments

for studies for Phase II of the evaluation

and a proposed protocol for data

collection instruments for Phases III–V

of this study. It is expected that the

Contractor will seek input from local

researchers through the consortium but

that final responsibility for this protocol

rests with the Contractor. This protocol

will have multiple sets of data

collection instruments (or interview

guides). The first set includes
66294 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Notices

instruments to assess quality in site

program activities and the second set

will include instruments to measure the

programs’ impact on children, families,

communities and staff. A third set will

include instruments to determine the

variations in programs and may overlap

with other sets. It is anticipated that

information shall be gathered through

interviews with parents and staff as well

as through observation of children,

parents, home environments, and staff.

The Contractor’s approach to

measurement, including discussion of

measurement issues, for the several

studies of this evaluation shall be

presented. The Contractor shall identify

strategies for searching for measurement

instruments, for including measurement

instruments utilized in related studies

of infant/toddler development or family

services; and for pilot testing the data

collection instruments. It is anticipated

that community-level outcomes may

involve the development of new data

collection instruments. It is possible

that some of the quality, variations or

policy-related data may be collected by

the national Contractor using cross-site

survey methods or qualitative

assessments.

The instruments selected or

developed shall be clearly linked to the

conceptual design of the study, services

delivered and expected outcomes. The

set of instruments for the quality study

shall generate information in critical

areas such as:

• Child relationships with caregivers.

• Child and parent continuity in

relationship with program providers.

• Parent perceptions of, expectations

of, and satisfaction with the program.

• Staff perceptions of the quality of

their program.

• Parent relationships with case

managers and other key Staff.

• Goodness of fit between parent/

child needs and services delivered.

• Availability, access and quality of

services in the community.

• Availability, access and quality of

parent education activities.

• Quality of home visitation.

• Perceptions of the program by

community members.

• Child care environment.

The studies of impact shall generate

information in critical areas not

contained in the HSFIS or gathered as

process data and including:

• Child development.

• Child security of attachment.

• Child risk and resiliency factors.

• Home environment.

• Child care environments.

• Parent-child relationships.

• Other caregiver-child relationships.

• Parenting attitudes.

• Parent knowledge of child

development.

• Parent attitudes about guidance.

• Support for parenting.

• Perceptions of conflict and/or

violence in the neighborhood.

• Perception of parent involvement

activities.

• Community collaboration.

• Community development of

services.

• Staff professional development.

• Staff-children/family relationships.

• Sibling health and development.

For each of the proposed data

collection instruments, the Contractor

shall attach an analysis of the

instruments with regard to any prior use

in other studies of a similar nature, their

psychometric properties and their

acceptance by experts in the field as

appropriate measures. The Contractor

shall attach the results from pilot

studies of each of the instruments in the

final protocol. The Contractor shall

prepare complete protocols of all

instruments, and a training plan for all

data collectors. The Contractor shall

revise the instruments plan based on

input from the FPO and the consortium,

including the Technical Work Group,

and shall submit final data collection

instruments to the FPO for approval by

the end of the tenth month of Phase I.

TASK 15—SUBMIT A DATA

COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS PLAN

The Contractor shall prepare a data

collection and analysis plan that links

each study question to the data

collection instruments, proposed

respondents/data sources and study

methods and the final design and

sampling plan (TASK 11). The

Contractor shall provide a graphic that

displays this information.

The national Contractor shall be

responsible for all the costs of data

collection for all of the national studies

as described in this document,

including the cost of compensating

families for interviews. Local

researchers will also be encouraged to

generate additional material resources

for families. Impact data collection may

be, and it is anticipated in most cases,

will be, subcontracted to the local

researcher, in response to the

Contractor’s call for an application

containing data collection plan and

qualifications of staff. The local

researcher shall have first

subcontracting opportunity at the first

collection period. However, if, after that,

due to a lack of quality or timeliness in

previous data collection; or the local

researcher does not want to subcontract;

or there is no local researcher at the site,

the national Contractor may subcontract

with other qualified researchers for local

data collection. Subcontracts shall be

renewed on an annual basis.

The Contractor shall develop an

overall data collection plan which

clearly outlines timelines for all

proposed data collection activities,

including a theoretically-based

justification for each proposed data

collection activity. The data collection

plan shall include:

• A discussion of issues around the

timing of data collection and a proposed

timetable for data collection. It is also

anticipated that the impact data shall be

collected at multiple points in time, to

correspond with predetermined targets

around children’s age and parent and

staff length of time in the program.

Thus, data collection activities

involving parents and children may

need to be decoupled, leading to the

likelihood that data collection in any

one site may be relatively continuous.

The Contractor shall discuss a preferred

approach to this issue;

• Procedures for contacting and

tracking families over time;

• A discussion of recommended

procedures for the follow-up of

incomplete data;

• Theoretical justification,

procedures and timelines for assessment

strategies proposed by the Contractor in

additional areas not already mentioned

in the presentation related to data

collection of the program process;

• Theoretical justification,

procedures and timelines for assessment

strategies proposed by the Contractor

related to data collection of child,

family, community or staff outcomes;

• Theoretical justification,

procedures and timelines for conducting

observations and other data collection

focused on program quality or

variations;

• A discussion of a quality control

component which addresses the training

of data collection staff at the local Early

Head Start program sites, continuity of

data collection staff and methods for

ascertaining reliability and effectiveness

of data collectors;

• Procedures for identifying and

assessing the quality of existing data, as

well as procedures for negotiating with

sites to access and utilize existing

sources of data, particularly as they

pertain to community data for

determining the representativeness of

the Early Head Start recruited families;

and

• Procedures for establishing,

maintaining and overseeing the

subcontractors cooperative relationships

with the Early Head Start programs that

shall maintain the independence and

objectivity required for a third party
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Notices 66295

evaluation, but will allow for the

effective management of data collection

activities.

The Contractor shall discuss the data

analysis challenge (Section I–I),

including a discussion focused on

determining the magnitude of effect

across diffuse program services, and

propose solutions to these challenges.

The Contractor shall identify the

specific types of data analyses that will

be employed for each phase of data

collection and for each data element,

within the context of the revised study

design, including the unit of analysis,

possible aggregations and method of

display in the final report.

The draft data collection and analysis

plan shall be submitted to the FPO by

the end of the eleventh month after

contract effective date. The FPO will

review this plan with other ACYF staff

and submit comments to the Contractor

within one week. The Contractor shall

make the required corrections and

resubmit the plan in final form to the

FPO by the end of twelfth month after

contract effective date.

TASK 16—PREPARE AN OMB

CLEARANCE PACKAGE

The Contractor shall develop an

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) clearance package for the study,

including all data collection

instruments and transmittal

memorandum in accordance with OMB

and the ACF guidelines. The package

shall include, but not be limited to, the

following:

• A justification and introduction to

the study. This includes a justification

of why the study is needed; how, by

whom and for what purpose the

information will be used; why existing

information cannot be used and a

summary of study components;

• Data collection plan. This includes

both a description of and a justification

for the study design, including the

sample plan; design of data collection

instruments with a question by question

justification; results of pretesting data

collection instruments; and a data

analysis plan;

• Tabulation and publication plans;

• Consultation with outside agencies;

• Respondent burden estimate;

• Confidentiality statement.

The OMB package shall be submitted

to the FPO by the end of the eleventh

month of Phase I. The FPO will provide

up to four sets of comments to the

Contractor over a period of three weeks.

The Contractor shall then submit the

final OMB package to the FPO by the

end of the twelfth month of Phase II.

The Contractor shall allow at least 120

days for OMB approval.

TASK 17—REVISE THE INITIAL WORK

PLAN INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSAL

Based on the progress of work covered

by Tasks 1–16, the Contractor shall

produce a revised work plan for each of

the remaining Phases of the contract

(Phases II–V), by the twelfth month after

the contract effective date. Key issues to

be addressed in both the initial and

revised work plan shall include:

• Effective coordination of this

project with Federal staff and

designated Contractors, including

HSFIS Contractor; Training and

Technical Assistance Coordinator; Early

Head Start sites, the consortium and the

Technical Work Group;

• Identification of issues to be

resolved for data collection with plans

and timelines for how those issues will

be addressed;

• Identification of logistical issues in

the workings of the consortium and

plans for addressing these issues. A

schedule of consortium meetings;

• A proposed protocol of measures

with timelines and identification of data

collectors for each data collection point;

• Data collection, analyses and

reporting plans for later phases of this

project;

• A schedule for subsequent site

visits;

• Any other remaining tasks.

TASK 18—SELECT FINAL CRITERIA

FOR INCLUSION IN IMPACT

EVALUATION

The Advisory Committee on Services

to Families with Infants and Toddlers

recommended establishing criteria for

Early Head Start program evaluation,

including the recommendation that no

Early Head Start program shall be

evaluated that is not fully implemented.

Twelve months after the beginning of

Phase I, the Contractor, with input from

the Technical Work Group, shall submit

a draft plan for determining whether

sites demonstrate viability for impact

evaluation. This plan shall include

criteria for defining the minimum

threshold for program implementation;

standards for demonstrating whether

comparability between comparison and

project families was maintained;

adequate power, and any other criterion

deemed important to a valid evaluation

of impact, i.e., absence of saturation of

Head Start-like services in the

community. As criteria for full

implementation, the review shall

include consideration of measures of

implementation associated with the

Early Head Performance Standards;

Head Start Performance Measures; and

program quality in general. This review

and the plan shall be submitted to

ACYF. On approval of the criteria, site

visit teams will rate sites, beginning

with research sites, on each criterion;

this rating shall involve a site visit

which may be combined with a

previously scheduled site visit or with

other planned data collection. Ratings

will be forwarded to ACYF, who will

make the final determination of which

sites shall be included in the evaluation.

Three months after the beginning of

Phase II or on a modified timetable as

proposed by ACYF or the national

Contractor and approved by ACYF, final

determination shall be made by ACYF

regarding which and how many sites to

include in the final impact evaluation.

As a conservative estimate, the

Contractor shall plan to conduct an

impact evaluation at 12 sites.

B. PHASES II–V

TASK 19—CONDUCT ANNUAL SITE

VISITS

Within one month of each new Phase,

the Contractor shall develop a revised

protocol for annual site visits to, at a

minimum, all sites included in the

evaluation. Protocols for the site visits

shall be developed with input from the

consortium, including the Technical

Work Group, and be submitted to ACYF

for final approval within three months

of each new Phase. Site visits shall

follow the approved protocol and shall

include verification of data collection

procedures; availability and use of

program data, including HSFIS data, for

continuous program improvement;

follow through on research plans, and

continued documentation of the nature

of the program. Written reports shall be

submitted to ACYF and the site within

three weeks of each visit. The written

report shall include an updated site

profile, authored jointly by the

Contractor and the local researcher,

where applicable. The Contractor may

be asked to conduct site visits to new

Early Head Start sites for purposes the

same as for FY ’95 program sites. The

proposal shall include a per-site cost to

cover the possibility of additional Early

Head Start program site visits in

subsequent years.

C. ALL PHASES

TASK 20—CONDUCT CROSS-SITE

DATA COLLECTION

The Contractor shall conduct crosssite data collection for the national

impact studies (for both the project and

comparison groups) in an estimated 12

selected Early Head Start sites, either

directly providing for data collection or

by subcontracting with local evaluators,

as determined on an annual basis.
66296 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Notices

Upon approval of the OMB Clearance

Package, the Contractor shall conduct

the appropriate data collection activities

(outlined in the OMB clearance

package) at the selected Early Head Start

programs. The Contractor shall develop

a plan to have senior evaluation staff

conduct periodic site visits during data

collection periods for the purpose of

monitoring on-site evaluation staff,

ensuring quality control and

maintaining good working relationships

with local research and program staff.

The Contractor shall develop

procedures for monitoring local staff to

make sure they carry out their

evaluation responsibilities.

Where appropriate, the Contractor

also shall consider the potential need

for the use of security guards to

accompany researchers in cases where

their safety is at risk.

As the data collection in this project

has a longitudinal nature, whenever

possible, data collectors with

demonstrated effectiveness shall

maintain continuity with families; the

Contractor shall have developed

compensatory procedures for

maintaining reliability of measurement.

In each site, the Contractor shall

continue to design and implement

methods for understanding the services

provided to both the treatment and

comparison groups and at the

community level. The Contractor shall

continue to build the profile begun at

each site to describe the general

character of each program and shall

continue to examine methods for

documenting the program. Finally, the

Contractor shall continue to explore

methods for understanding the

communities’ impacts on and from

Early Head Start programs. The

Contractor shall work closely with

researchers at local sites in these tasks.

TASK 21—CONDUCT A MINIMUM OF

TWO MEETINGS A YEAR WITH THE

CONSORTIUM

Within the first three months

following the beginning of each new

phase, the Contractor shall convene the

consortium, including the local

researchers and the Technical Work

Group, in Washington, DC., to conduct

the business of the consortium

according to the consortium workplan.

A minimum of two consortium meetings

shall be convened each year, and no six

month period shall pass without a

consortium meeting. The possibility of

meeting in connection with Early Head

Start program personnel shall be

considered for at least one of the two

meetings and ACYF shall guide the

decision on whether a program-research

meeting is advised. There shall be

support for at least two meetings of each

of the consortium subcommittees per

year, as necessary. The Contractor shall

deliver ACYF consortium reports with

embedded Technical Work Group

reports within one month following

each consortium meeting. The

Contractor shall be responsible for all

costs associated with consortium

meetings (See TASK 11), except for the

direct costs of local researchers and the

federal staff. If the Contractor

coordinates with program personnel,

only the research and evaluation portion

of the costs of the consortium shall be

the responsibility of the national

Contractor.

TASK 22—ESTABLISH A PROTOCOL

OF ALL MEASURES FOR EACH NEW

PHASE OF THE PROJECT AND

PREPARE AND SUBMIT NEW

CLEARANCE PACKAGES FOR

SUBMISSION TO THE OFFICE OF

MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET (OMB),

AS NECESSARY

Within the first three months of each

new phase, and as needed, the

Contractor shall review the work plan to

determine acceptability of the protocol

for each new phase of measurement and

the need to obtain OMB clearance.

Measures added shall be submitted with

input from the local researchers and the

Technical Work Group, to ACYF, pilot

tested and approved by the consortium

according to procedures developed in

the original protocol before being

submitted to OMB. Procedures under

TASK 14, TASK 15 and TASK 16 shall

be adopted for subsequent measures.

TASK 23—PROVIDE SITES WITH

DATA FILES AND SUMMARY

REPORTS

The objective of continuous program

improvement necessitates the timely

turnaround of all data. Therefore, it will

be necessary for impact data submitted

from local sites to the national

Contractor to be cleaned, entered and

returned on disk to the local site within

three months of its submission to the

national Contractor. The national

Contractor will need to develop

procedures for working with sites that

do not maintain quality and timeliness

standards within the subcontracting

structure.

Within six months of each Phase, a

site-level printout for all impact

evaluation sites shall be generated with

sites identified only by number to

maintain confidentiality, presenting the

data, as predetermined in the data

analysis plan, in summary form for each

site and summed or averaged, as

appropriate, across sites. From these

printouts, sites shall be able to compare

their own results with those of other

sites. This report shall include HSFIS

data. The national Contractor shall be

required to submit, receive and report to

ACYF a brief assessment of their own

activities in the task of timely data turn

around. To this end, initiated by the

national Contractor, local programs will

briefly evaluate the Contractor’s

timeliness and formatting of returned

data. This brief report shall be due to

ACYF by the eleventh month of each

Phase, and will be submitted to the

ACYF together with printouts of data

returned to sites.

TASK 24—PROVIDE FORMATS FOR

CONTINUOUS PROGRAM

IMPROVEMENT

All Level I sites are expected to utilize

formative evaluation procedures for

continuous program improvement as a

component of program management.

Many Level I sites will identify a local

university or research institution

partner to assist them in completing this

task; Level II sites will be expected to

participate in continuous program

improvement activities in addition to

conducting research. The national

Contractor shall be a partner in

formative evaluation tasks for

continuous program improvement by:

Conducting site visits to all 12

evaluation sites in order to informally

assess site preparedness for continuous

program improvement and to provide

on-site guidance for initiating this

function at the local level; developing a

standard format for orienting

subsequent Early Head Start sites (FY

’96 and beyond) to continuous program

improvement activities; providing

annual formative evaluation training,

either directly or through the Training

and Technical Assistance Contractor, to

all program sites, during annual

program consortium meetings in

Washington, DC. or utilizing an

alternative format; participating in biannual coordination meetings with the

Training and Technical Assistance

Contractor to ascertain that capacity for

this new management function develops

in all sites, and coordinating with the

HSFIS Contractor through bi-annual

meetings to assure that HSFIS data are

being utilized for continuous program

improvement. The Contractor shall

provide a continuous program

improvement report in the twelfth

month of each Phase.

TASK 25—ANALYZE THE DATA

The Contractor shall conduct and

complete analyses of national

evaluation data on a timetable jointly

agreed upon by ACYF and the

Contractor, and based on the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Notices 66297

methodology approved under TASK 15.

After preliminary analyses during each

Phase, the Contractor may revise the

analytical plan based on the quality and

completeness of the database or on

refinements of the conceptual

hypotheses. Procedures for data analysis

shall be reviewed by the Technical

Work Group after each Phase of data

collection and analysis.

Recommendations for any revisions in

the data analysis plan shall be

submitted to the FPO for review and

approval. In addition, the Contractor

shall reserve 5% of the budget for

analyses requested by ACYF or the

Technical Work Group for analyses

focused on policy or not specified in the

contract.

C–4 Deliverables

a. Literature and Research Review,

Draft and Final: The Contractor shall

produce a draft and final literature

review. The draft report shall be

submitted to the FPO by November 1,

1995. The FPO shall provide comments

within two weeks. The final version of

the revised literature review shall be

submitted to the FPO by December 1,

1995.

b. Revised Draft Study Design and

Process Data Plan: The Contractor shall

submit a revised study design and

sampling plan and process data plan by

January 31, 1996. This shall be an

updated version of the design and

sampling plan submitted in the

Contractor’s Best and Final proposal

and shall reflect input from the

Technical Work Group and ACYF. It

shall be in draft form. The process data

plan shall reflect the progress of HSFIS

implementation as well.

c. Feasibility Study to Test

Assumptions of the Design—Protocol

and Report: By November 31, 1995, the

Contractor shall submit a feasibility

protocol, updated from the proposal to

reflect knowledge of sites available for

the feasibility study. This shall be a

pilot study of the sampling, design and

process evaluation procedures

proposed. Working with ACYF, program

sites for this study will be selected and

the Contractor shall report findings by

January 31, 1996.

d. Consortium Logistics Plan, Draft

and Final: The draft and final Logistics

Plan shall be submitted, respectively, by

December 31, 1995 and April 30, 1996.

This document shall be an update from

procedures submitted with this contract

and shall propose operations procedures

that will guide the coordination of

consortium logistics for the cooperative

aspects of this project.

e. Site Visit Draft and Final Protocols,

Draft and Reports: After review by the

Technical Work Group, the draft of the

site visit protocol shall be submitted to

the FPO by the end of December 1995.

ACYF will make recommendations, and

the final site visit protocol shall be

submitted to the FPO for approval by

January 31, 1996. By the beginning of

the March 1996, (the week after the first

site visit), the Contractor shall submit a

draft site visit report for approval by the

FPO. The draft report shall include a

schedule of events, an analysis of data

from interviews and assessments, a

summary of any additional issues

raised, and an updated and expanded

profile of the program and its

evaluation. The FPO shall provide

feedback to clarify expectations about

content and format within two weeks.

The final version of the first site visit

report shall be submitted to the FPO for

approval by the end of the March 1996.

For each remaining site visit, a draft of

the site visit report shall be submitted

to the FPO one week after the site visit.

The final version of each report shall be

submitted to the FPO for approval three

weeks after the site visit. The report for

the last of the site visits shall be

submitted no later then the end of April

1996.

f. Study Design, Draft and Final: The

study design report shall be due April

30, 1996, reflecting input from the

Technical Work Group, the consortium,

and from site visits. The FPO shall

review the design, obtain comments

from other ACYF staff, and provide

comments to the Contractor within two

weeks. The Contractor shall then make

corrections to the design and submit a

final study design for review and

approval by the FPO. The final study

design shall be submitted by May 31,

1996.

g. Data Collection Instruments

Protocol, Draft and Final: With input

from the consortium including the

Technical Work Group, the Contractor

shall develop, or select existing data

collection instruments to be submitted

to the FPO by the end of the June 1996.

The Contractor shall attach an analysis

of the instruments with regard to any

prior use in other studies of a similar

nature, their psychometric properties,

their acceptance by experts in the field

as appropriate measures, and their

performance in pre-tests and field

testing. The FPO shall provide

comments to the Contractor within two

weeks. The Contractor shall revise the

instruments based on the comments by

the FPO and shall submit final data

collection instruments to the FPO for

approval by July 31,1996.

i. Data Collection and Analysis Plan,

Draft and Final: With input from the

consortium including the Technical

Work Group, the Contractor shall

present a draft data collection and

analysis plan to the FPO by August 31,

1996 that shall be a complete plan for

the data collection for this project and

shall present a plan for analysis to

answer the original study questions. The

FPO shall review this plan, returning it

to the Contractor for revisions and

request its return by the September 30,

1996.

j. Revised Work Plan, Draft and Final:

A draft of the Phase I Revised Work Plan

shall be submitted to the FPO for

approval by July 31, 1996. The FPO

shall provide feedback within one week.

The final version shall be submitted by

September 30, 1996. The work plan may

be revised once the data collection is

underway to make use of new

information or strategies which emerge

over time. Proposed changes shall be

indicated in the monthly technical

progress reports and shall require the

prior written approval of the FPO before

changes are implemented.

k. OMB Clearance Package: The draft

OMB package shall be submitted to the

FPO by August 31, 1996. The FPO shall

provide up to four separate sets of

comments to the Contractor over a

period of two weeks. The Contractor

shall then submit the final OMB

package to the FPO for approval by the

end of the September 1996. The

Contractor shall allow at least 120 days

for OMB approval. An early OMB

package shall be developed within the

first several months on a schedule to be

determined by the Contractor and FPO.

l. Report of Site Qualifications for

Evaluation: The draft criteria, finalized

criteria and report of sites’ qualification

for criteria shall be submitted to ACYF

respectively, September 30, 1996,

November 30 and December 31, 1996.

m. Phase II—V Site Visit Protocols,

Reports: Following the schedule

established for the Phase I site visit

reports, a draft of the site visit protocol

shall be submitted to the FPO by the

third month of each Phase and a draft

report shall be submitted one week after

the first site visit. The final version of

each report shall be submitted to the

FPO three weeks after the site visit.

n. Monthly and Annual Progress

Reports: The Contractor shall provide

brief monthly technical progress reports

to the FPO which clearly indicate the

contract tasks which were to be

performed in the prior month, a

description of the progress made in

completing these tasks, problems

encountered or remaining from the prior

month, expected approach to resolve

problems from the prior month, tasks for

the current month, and any budgeting

implications or significant concerns to
66298 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Notices

be addressed by the FPO. In addition,

the monthly progress reports shall

provide a brief review of the status of

the contract budget for the respective

Phase, with separate presentations (by

tasks and subtasks) of the original

amount budgeted, funds expended to

date, funds expended in the prior

month, and the remaining balance of

funds in the contract. The first two

monthly progress reports shall contain a

communication plan which details how

all relevant parties shall be updated

regarding project activities. This

communication plan shall be updated as

necessary in the monthly progress

report.

At the end of each project year, the

Contractor shall prepare an in-depth

annual progress report, summarizing the

status of the evaluation cross sites and

in each site as well as activities of the

evaluation and the consortium,

accomplishments, and problems

encountered during the year. This report

shall also include a detailed plan for

activities in each site during the coming

year. Within one month of submitting

the annual report for approval, the

Contractor shall provide an in-depth

briefing on the progress of the study and

initial findings in Washington, DC, for

ACYF staff. Following those briefings,

after receiving input from ACYF staff,

the Contractor may be required to

present a similar briefing for a

Congressional audience. In all briefings,

the Contractor may be required to

collaborate with local researchers

involved with Early Head Start

evaluation.

o. New Data Collection Instruments

Protocols and OMB Clearance: Within

three months of the beginning of each

new phase or as is necessary, the

Contractor shall submit a protocol and

OMB clearance for any new measures to

be added to or changed from the

originally approved protocols. The form

of these deliverables shall be similar to

form specified above for Data Collection

Instruments Protocol, Draft and Final,

and OMB Clearance Package.

p. Consortium and Technical Work

Group Reports: Within one month after

each consortium meeting and

subcommittee meetings and within one

month of each Technical Work Group

meeting a written report shall be

submitted to ACYF. All meetings of

these bodies shall be reported in

separate reports, even though Technical

Work Group meetings may be embedded

in the consortium meetings.

q. Collaborative Contractor

Coordination Reports: One week

following each meeting with the HSFIS

or Training and Technical Assistance

Contractor, a report shall be submitted

to ACYF and to the relevant Contractor.

r. Reports of Data Returned to Sites:

Timeliness and Usefulness of Data

Turnaround: Reports of data disks

returned to sites, site printouts, and

reports of assessments of the

Contractor’s activities at local sites shall

be submitted to ACYF by August 31st of

each Phase.

s. Reports of Activities to Support

Continuous Program Improvement: By

September 30th of each Phase, a report

shall be submitted summarizing the

Contractor’s role in Continuous Program

Improvement activities and progress.

t. Phase Reports: For each Phase, the

Contractor shall produce Draft and Final

Report/s that shall incorporate data

collected and analyzed around the

intended purposes and plan of the

project. These reports shall be due in

draft form August 31 and in final form

September 30 of each Phase, or as

determined between ACYF and the

Contractor. Each report shall have

attached relevant local researchers’

reports, and provide an overview that

integrates national and local findings.

The reports shall be presented in the

following approximate sequence:

‘‘Report of Characteristics of Early

Head Start Programs’’ which shall be an

analysis of first year HSFIS data together

with site profiles from impact

evaluation sites, co-authored by local

researchers and program staff.

‘‘Pathways to Quality Study’’ which

shall be an analysis of quality data from

sites in describing the various

procedures and successes of programs

in attaining program quality. There shall

be attached local studies focused on

improving program quality. The

national Contractor shall provide an

overview that integrates findings from

the national and local studies.

‘‘Impact Studies’’ of this project shall

compare program to comparison groups

and also address the question: for which

children and families were there

impacts under which conditions? Local

research studies focused on this

question shall be attached and the

national Contractor shall provide an

overview that integrates findings from

the national and local studies.

The ‘‘Study of Program Variations’’

shall first describe, then examine in

depth the site profiles in relation to

impact data collected to examine the

questions pertaining to which children

and families benefitted under what

conditions of Early Head Start program

variations. Local research reports that

address the question shall be included

and integrated.

‘‘Studies Directed Towards Specific

Policy Concerns,’’ shall examine

potential studies nested in the data set,

i.e., analyzing across sites the added

effect of Early Head Start to child care

and in transition from welfare to work.

‘‘Studies of Impact in a Longitudinal

Context’’ shall be an analysis of findings

in a longitudinal context. Local research

reports that address the question of

change over.

u. Interim Report: The Contractor

shall produce an Interim Report, due

September 1, 1997, which will

summarize findings to date for the

study. This report may require

integration with other studies and

evaluations of services for infants and

toddlers, such as the CCDP evaluation.

v. Final National Report: The

Contractor shall produce a Final Report

which provides a national assessment of

Early Head Start program

implementation and program impacts

across the programs examined. This

report shall be comprehensive of the

entire 5-year duration of the project and

shall include and integrate findings

from local studies, but maintaining the

integrity of the separate studies.

The Report shall draw conclusions

about the following issues (as well as

other relevant issues raised during the

course of the evaluation):

(1) Were nationally-defined Early

Head Start objectives met?

(2) Were program implementation

objectives realized?

(3) To what extent were continuous

improvement objectives realized?

(4) To what extent and under what

conditions were programs able to

implement quality services?

(5) What short- and long-term impacts

did Early Head Start programs have on

children, families, communities and

staff?

(6) For which children, families,

communities and staff under which

conditions was Early Head Start able to

realize its objectives? What else was

learned about child, family, community,

staff effects through Early Head Start?

(7) To what extent did different

prototypes of Early Head Start variation

emerge and what kinds of outcomes

were associated with various

prototypes?

(8) What was learned through

analyses of subgroups in Early Head

Start with additional implications for

public policy;

(9) What were the longitudinal effects

of Early Head Start under a variety of

conditions, including risk and program

variation;

(10) How did the study of Early Head

Start programs advance the methods of

program evaluation?

In the Report, the Contractor shall

discuss how the contents of this Report
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Notices 66299

relate to any findings and

recommendations presented in previous

work produced under this contract. The

Contractor also shall provide a

discussion of the findings in relation to

the literature in the field. The

discussion of the literature shall be

based on a revised version of the

preliminary literature review. These

revisions shall take into account new

work in the field as well as information

produced by Contractors under related

studies.

The Contractor shall submit a draft

outline of the final report to the FPO by

the end of the ninth month before the

end of Phase V. The FPO will have four

weeks to review and approve the

outline. The outline shall include a

framework for a stand-alone Executive

Summary. The draft final report based

on the approved outline shall be

submitted by the end of the tenth month

before the end of Phase V. The FPO

shall have four weeks to comment on

the report and to obtain comments from

other HHS staff and the Technical Work

Group and the consortium. The

Contractor shall plan to revise the draft

at least twice based on comments from

the FPO and other ACYF staff prior to

submitting the final report to the FPO

for approval. The Contractor shall make

a presentation to Federal staff four

weeks after submission of the draft final

report. Issues raised in response to the

presentation shall be considered in

preparing the final version of the report.

The final report and a camera ready

copy of the final report shall be

submitted to the FPO for approval by

the end of the 60th month after contract

effective date. The final report shall

include a stand-alone Executive

Summary which must not exceed fifteen

pages in length. A copy of the Report of

Evaluation Outcomes and of the

Executive Summary shall be submitted

on IBM PC compatible 3.5 inch 1.4

megabyte DS/HD diskettes in

Wordperfect 5.1. In order to

accommodate a publishing plan, the

Contractor shall submit line item quotes

reflecting the exact costs of research,

writing, editing and copy preparation

associated with the copies of the Final

National Report and the Executive

Summary (including one unbound

camera-ready copy of each report).

w. Data Files: The Contractor shall

produce a public use data diskette for an

IBM PC Compatible 3.5 inch 1.4 MB DS/

HD diskette at the conclusion of each

Phase and at the end of the project for

purposes of data archiving.

Documentation shall include file and

record layout, data dictionary including

coding keys, a dump of the first and last

20 records of the data set and a

summary of the processing including

edit conditions and software used for

analysis. The file shall contain no

personal identifiers or confidential

information.

It is the intent of ACYF that data

should be publicly available for

secondary analysis and publication of

results as soon as possible following the

completion of the contract. Prior to the

end of the five year project, however,

approval of the FPO and consideration

by the consortium shall be required for

publications, presentations or other uses

of the data that are based on that

national evaluation, at either a national

or local level. Data tapes may be

released for analyses by phases with

first priority for a six-month period of

time going to the Technical Work Group

and researchers involved with the

project.

Appendix B–2

TABLE 1.—COMPONENTS OF PROPOSED CHILD AND FAMILY ASSESSMENTS

Assessment point (child’s age)

14 months 24 months 36 months

Direct Child Assessments:

Cognitive and Language Development:

Bayley Scales of Infant Development ....................................................................................... X X X

Expressive Language ................................................................................................................ .................... .................... X

Receptive Language .................................................................................................................. .................... .................... X

Social Competence:

Bayley Behavioral Rating Scale ................................................................................................ X X X

Emotional and Self Regulation:

Bayley Behavioral Rating Scale ................................................................................................ X X X

Maternal Interview:

Parenting and the Home Environment a ........................................................................................... X X X

Social Support Networks for Families b ............................................................................................ X X X

Child’s Social and Emotional Outcomes c ........................................................................................ X X X

Child’s Language Development (MacArthur Communicative Development) ................................... X X ....................

Quality of Parent-Caregiver Relationship ......................................................................................... X X X

Home and Family Observations:

Home Observation for Measurement of the ..................................................................................... X X X

Attachment Q-Sort (Mother-Child) .................................................................................................... X X X

Videotaping—Mother-Child Tasks .................................................................................................... .................... X ....................

aProposed measures include Concepts of Development Questionnaire, Knowledge of Infant Development Inventory, Aggravation Related to

Parenting Scale, Parent Attitude toward Child Expressiveness Scale, Parent Attributions Test, Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment, Family Functioning Style, and Family Environment Rating Scale. bProposed measures include Social Support Scale and Family Social Network Scale.

cProposed measures include Infant Characteristics Questionnaire, Adaptive Social Behavior Inventory, and a behavioral problem checklist.

TABLE 2.—COMPONENTS OF PROPOSED PARENT SERVICES INTERVIEWS

Parent interviews

Timing (months since enrollment)

Baseline 6 12 18 24 36

Service Needs and Use ................................................... X X X X X X

Family Health Outcomes .................................................. .................... X X X X X

Parent Involvement .......................................................... .................... .................... X .................... X X

Progress Toward Economic Self-Sufficiency ................... .................... .................... X .................... X X
66300 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Notices

TABLE 2.—COMPONENTS OF PROPOSED PARENT SERVICES INTERVIEWS—Continued

Parent interviews

Timing (months since enrollment)

Baseline 6 12 18 24 36

Perceptions of Community ............................................... .................... .................... X .................... X X

Child Health and Physical Development Outcomes ........ X X X X X X

Benefits to Siblings—Health ............................................. X X X X X X

TABLE 3.—COMPONENTS OF PROPOSED CHILD CARE QUALITY ASSESSMENTS

Assessment point (child’s age)

14 months 24 months 36 months

Observation of Child Care Setting and Provider-Child Interactions a ...................................................... X X X

Provider Survey ....................................................................................................................................... X X X

Attachment Q-Sort (Caregiver-Child) ....................................................................................................... X X X

aProposed measures include Infant-Toddler Environment Rating Scale, Family Day Care Rating Scale, Early Childhood Environment Rating

Scale, Adult Involvement Scale, and Arnett Scale of Provider Sensitivity.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Notices 66301

Appendix C
66302 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Notices
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Notices 66303

BILLING CODE 4184–01–C
66304 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Notices

Instructions for the SF 424

This is a standard form used by applicants

as a required facesheet for preapplications

and applications submitted for Federal

assistance. It will be used by Federal agencies

to obtain applicant certification that States

which have established a review and

comment procedure in response to Executive

Order 12372 and have selected the program

to be included in their process, have been

given an opportunity to review the

applicant’s submission.

Item and Entry

1. Self-explanatory.

2. Date application submitted to Federal

agency (or State if applicable) and applicant’s

control number (if applicable).

3. State use only (if applicable).

4. If this application is to continue or

revise an existing award, enter present

Federal identifier number. If for a new

project, leave blank.

5. Legal name of applicant, name of

primary organizational unit which will

undertake the assistance activity, complete

address of the applicant, and name and

telephone number of the person to contact on

matters related to this application.

6. Enter Employer Identification Number

(EIN) as assigned by the Internal Revenue

Service.

7. Enter the appropriate letter in the space

provided.

8. Check appropriate box and enter

appropriate letter(s) in the space(s) provided:

—‘‘New’’ means a new assistance award.

—‘‘Continuation’’ means an extension for an

additional funding/budget period for a

project with a projected completion date.

—‘‘Revision’’ means any change in the

Federal Government’s financial obligation

or contingent liability from an existing

obligation.

9. Name of Federal agency from which

assistance is being requested with this

application.

10. Use the Catalog of Federal Domestic

Assistance number and title of the program

under which assistance is requested.

11. Enter a brief descriptive title of the

project. If more than one program is

involved, you should append an explanation

on a separate sheet. If appropriate (e.g.,

construction or real property projects), attach

a map showing project location. For

preapplications, use a separate sheet to

provide a summary description of this

project.

12. List only the largest political entities

affected (e.g., State, counties, cities).

13. Self-explanatory.

14. List the applicant’s Congressional

District and any District(s) affected by the

program or project.

15. Amount requested or to be contributed

during the first funding/budget period by

each contributor. Value of in-kind

contributions should be included on

appropriate lines as applicable. If the action

will result in a dollar change to an existing

award, indicate only the amount of the

change. For decreases, enclose the amounts

in parentheses. If both basic and

supplemental amounts are included, show

breakdown on an attached sheet. For

multiple program funding, use totals and

show breakdown using same categories as

item 15.

16. Applicants should contact the State

Single Point of Contact (SPOC) for Federal

Executive Order 12372 to determine whether

the application is subject to the State

intergovernmental review process.

17. This question applies to the applicant

organization, not the person who signs as the

authorized representative. Categories of debt

include delinquent audit disallowances,

loans and taxes.

18. To be signed by the authorized

representative of the applicant. A copy of the

governing body’s authorization for you to

sign this application as official representative

must be on file in the applicant’s office.

(Certain Federal agencies may require that

this authorization be submitted as part of the

application.)

BILLING CODE 4184–01–P
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Notices 66305
66306 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Notices

BILLING CODE 4184–01–C
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Notices 66307

Instructions for the SF–424A

General Instructions

This form is designed so that application

can be made for funds from one or more grant

programs. In preparing the budget, adhere to

any existing Federal grantor agency

guidelines which prescribe how and whether

budgeted amounts should be separately

shown for different functions or activities

within the program. For some programs,

grantor agencies may require budgets to be

separately shown by function or activity. For

other programs, grantor agencies may require

a breakdown by function or activity. Sections

A,B,C, and D should include budget

estimates for the whole project except when

applying for assistance which requires

Federal authorization in annual or other

funding period increments. In the latter case,

Sections A,B,C, and D should provide the

budget for the first budget period (usually a

year) and Section E should present the need

for Federal assistance in the subsequent

budget periods. All applications should

contain a breakdown by the object class

categories shown in Lines a–k of Section B.

Section A. Budget Summary

Lines 1–4, Columns (a) and (b)

For applications pertaining to a single

Federal grant program (Federal Domestic

Assistance Catalog number) and not requiring

a functional or activity breakdown, enter on

Line 1 under Column (a) the catalog program

title and the catalog number in Column (b).

For applications pertaining to a single

program requiring budget amounts by

multiple functions or activities, enter the

name of each activity or function on each

line in Column (a), and enter the catalog

number in Column (b). For applications

pertaining to multiple programs where none

of the programs require a breakdown by

function or activity, enter the catalog

program title on each line in Column (a) and

the respective catalog number on each line in

Column (b).

For applications pertaining to multiple

programs where one or more programs

require a breakdown by function or activity,

prepare a separate sheet for each program

requiring the breakdown. Additional sheets

should be used when one form does not

provide adequate space for all breakdown of

data required. However, when more than one

sheet is used, the first page should provide

the summary totals by programs.

Lines 1–4, Columns (c) Through (g.)

For new applications, leave Column (c)

and (d) blank. For each line entry in Columns

(a) and (b), enter in Columns (e), (f), and (g)

the appropriate amounts of funds needed to

support the project for the first funding

period (usually a year).

For continuing grant program applications,

submit these forms before the end of each

funding period as required by the grantor

agency. Enter in Columns (c) and (d) the

estimated amounts of funds which will

remain unobligated at the end of the grant

funding period only if the Federal grantor

agency instructions provide for this.

Otherwise, leave these columns blank. Enter

in columns (e) and (f) the amounts of funds

needed for the upcoming period. The

amount(s) in Column (g) should be the sum

of amounts in Column (e) and (f).

For supplemental grants and changes to

existing grants, do not use Column (c) and

(d). Enter in Column (e) the amount of the

increase or decrease of Federal funds and

enter in Column (f) the amount of the

increase or decrease of non-Federal funds. In

Column (g) enter the new total budgeted

amount (Federal and non-Federal) which

includes the total previous authorized

budgeted amounts plus or minus, as

appropriate, the amounts shown in Columns

(e) and (f). The amount(s) in Column (g)

should not equal the sum of amounts in

Column (e) and (f).

Line 5—Show the totals for all columns

used.

Section B. Budget Categories

In the column headings (1) through (4),

enter the titles of the same programs,

functions, and activities shown on Lines 1–

4, Column (a), Section A. When additional

sheets are prepared for Section A, provide

similar column headings on each sheet. For

each program, function or activity, fill in the

total requirements for funds (both Federal

and non-Federal) by object class categories.

Lines 6a-i—Show the totals of Lines 6a to

6h in each column.

Line 6j—Show the amount of indirect cost.

Line 6k—Enter the total of amounts on

Lines 6i and 6j. For all applications for new

grants and continuation grants the total

amount in column (5), Line 6k, should be the

same as the total amount shown in Section

A, Column (g), Line 5. For supplemental

grants and changes to grants, the total

amount of the increase or decrease as shown

in Columns (1)–(4), Line 6k should be the

same as the sum of the amounts in Section

A, Columns (e) and (f) on Line 5.

Line 7—Enter the estimated amount of

income, if any, expected to be generated from

this project. Do not add or subtract this

amount from the total project amount. Show

under the program narrative statement the

nature and source of income. The estimated

amount of program income may be

considered by the federal grantor agency in

determining the total amount of the grant.

Secton C. Non-Federal-Resources

Lines 8–11—Enter amounts of non-Federal

resources that will be used on the grant. If

in-kind contributions are included, provide a

brief explanation on a separate sheet.

Column (a)—Enter the program titles

identical to Column (a), Section A. A

breakdown by function or activity is not

necessary.

Column (b)—Enter the contribution to be

made by the applicant.

Column (c)—Enter the amount of the

State’s cash and in-kind contribution if the

applicant is not a State or State agency.

Applicants which are a State or State

agencies should leave this column blank.

Column (d)—Enter the amount of cash and

in-kind contributions to be made from all

other sources.

Column (e)—Enter totals of Columns (b),

(c), and (d).

Line 12—Enter the total for each of

Columns (b)–(e). The amount in Column (e)

should be equal to the amount on Line 5,

Column (f), Section A.

Secton D. Forecasted Cash Needs

Line 13—Enter the amount of cash needed

by quarter from the grantor agency during the

first year.

Line 14—Enter the amount of cash from all

other sources needed by quarter during the

first year.

Line 15—Enter the totals of amounts on

Lines 13 and 14.

Section E. Budget Estimates of Federal Funds

Needed for Balance of the Project

Line 16–19—Enter in Column (a) the same

grant program titles shown in Column (a),

Section A. A breakdown by function or

activity is not necessary. For new

applications and continuation grant

applications, enter in the proper columns

amounts of Federal funds which will be

needed to complete the program or project

over the succeeding funding periods (usually

in years). This section need to be completed

for revisions (amendments, changes, or

supplements) to funds for the current year of

existing grants.

If more than four lines are needed to list

the program titles, submit additional

schedules as necessary.

Line 20—Enter the total for each of the

Columns (b)–(e). When additional schedules

are prepared for this Section, annotate

accordingly and show the overall totals on

this line.

Section F. Other Budget Information

Line 21—Use this space to explain

amounts for individual direct object-class

cost categories that may appear to be out of

the ordinary or to explain the details as

required by the Federal grantor agency.

Line 22—Enter the type of indirect rate

(provisional, predetermined, final or fixed)

that will be in effect during the funding

period, the estimated amount of the base to

which the rate is applied, and the total

indirect expense.

Line 23—Provides any other explanations

or comments deemed necessary.

Assurances—Non-Construction Programs

Note: Certain of these assurances may not

be applicable to your project or program. If

you have questions, please contact the

awarding agency. Further, certain Federal

awarding agencies may require applicants to

certify to additional assurances. If such is the

case, you will be notified.

As the duly authorized representative of

the applicant I certify that the applicant:

1. Has the legal authority to apply for

Federal assistance, and the institutional,

managerial and financial capability

(including funds sufficient to pay the nonFederal share of project costs) to ensure

proper planning, management and

completion of the project described in this

application.

2. Will give the awarding agency, the

Comptroller General of the United States, and

if appropriate, the State, through any

authorized representative, access to and the

right to examine all records, books, papers,

or documents related to the award; and will
66308 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Notices

establish a proper accounting system in

accordance with generally accepted

accounting standards or agency directives.

3. Will establish safeguards to prohibit

employees from using their positions for a

purpose that constitutes or presents the

appearance of personal or organizational

conflict of interest, or personal gain.

4. Will initiate and complete the work

within the applicable time frame after receipt

of approval of the awarding agency.

5. Will comply with the Intergovernmental

Personnel Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. §§ 4728–

4763) relating to prescribed standards for

merit systems for programs funded under one

of the nineteen statutes or regulations

specified in Appendix A of OPM’s Standards

for a Merit System of Personnel

Administration (5 C.F.R. 900, Subpart F).

6. Will comply with all Federal statutes

relating to nondiscrimination. These include

but are not limited to: (a) Title VI of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964 (P.L. 88–352) which

prohibits discrimination on the basis of race,

color or national origin; (b) Title IX of the

Education Amendments of 1972, as amended

(20 U.S.C. §§ 1681–1683, and 1685–1686),

which prohibits discrimination on the basis

of sex; (c) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation

Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. § 794),

which prohibits discrimination on the basis

of handicaps; (d) the Age Discrimination Act

of 1975, as amended (42 U.S.C. §§ 6101–

6107), which prohibits discrimination on the

basis of age; (e) the Drug Abuse Office and

Treatment Act of 1972 (P.L. 92–255), as

amended, relating to nondiscrimination on

the basis of drug abuse; (f) the

Comprehensive Alcohol Abuse and

Alcoholism Prevention, Treatment and

Rehabilitation Act of 1970 (P.L. 91–616), as

amended, relating to nondiscrimination on

the basis of alcohol abuse or alcoholism; (g)

§§ 523 and 527 of the Public Health Service

Act of 1912 (42 U.S.C. 290 dd-3 and 290 ee3), as amended, relating to confidentiality of

alcohol and drug abuse patient records; (h)

Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42

U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.), as amended, relating to

nondiscrimination in the sale, rental or

financing of housing; (i) any other

nondiscrimination provisions in the specific

statute(s) under which application for

Federal assistance is being made; and (j) the

requirements of any other nondiscrimination

statute(s) which may apply to the

application.

7. Will comply, or has already complied,

with the requirements of Titles II and III of

the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real

Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970

(P.L. 91–646) which provide for fair and

equitable treatment of persons displaced or

whose property is acquired as a result of

Federal or federally assisted programs. These

requirements apply to all interests in real

property acquired for project purposes

regardless of Federal participation in

purchases.

8. Will comply with the provisions of the

Hatch Act (5 U.S.C. §§ 1501–1508 and 7324–

7328) which limit the political activities of

employees whose principal employment

activities are funded in whole or in part with

Federal funds.

9. Will comply, as applicable, with the

provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C.

§§ 276a to 276a-7), the Copeland Act (40

U.S.C. § 276c and 18 U.S.C. §§ 874), and the

Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards

Act (40 U.S.C. §§ 327–333), regarding labor

standards for federally assisted construction

subagreements.

10. Will comply, if applicable, with flood

insurance purchase requirements of Section

102(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of

1973 (P.L. 93–234) which requires recipients

in a special flood hazard area to participate

in the program and to purchase flood

insurance if the total cost of insurable

construction and acquisition is $10,000 or

more.

11. Will comply with environmental

standards which may be prescribed pursuant

to the following: (a) institution of

environmental quality control measures

under the National Environmental Policy Act

of 1969 (P.L. 91–190) and Executive Order

(EO) 11514; (b) notification of violating

facilities pursuant to EO 11738; (c) protection

of wetlands pursuant to EO 11990; (d)

evaluation of flood hazards in floodplains in

accordance with EO 11988; (e) assurance of

project consistency with the approved State

management program developed under the

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16

U.S.C. 1451 et seq.); (f) conformity of Federal

actions to State (Clear Air) Implementation

Plans under Section 176(c) of the Clear Air

Act of 1955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et

seq.); (g) protection of underground sources

of drinking water under the Safe Drinking

Water Act of 1974, as amended, (P.L. 93–

523); and (h) protection of endangered

species under the Endangered Species Act of

1973, as amended (P.L. 93–205).

12. Will comply with the Wild and Scenic

Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.)

related to protecting components or potential

components of the national wild and scenic

rivers system.

13. Will assist the awarding agency in

assuring compliance with Section 106 of the

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as

amended (16 U.S.C. 470), EO 11593

(identification and protection of historic

properties), and the Archaeological and

Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C.

469a–1 et seq.).

14. Will comply with P.L. 93–348

regarding the protection of human subjects

involved in research, development, and

related activities supported by this award of

assistance.

15. Will comply with the Laboratory

Animal Welfare Act of 1966 (P.L. 89–544, as

amended, 7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.) pertaining to

the care, handling, and treatment of warm

blooded animals held for research, teaching,

or other activities supported by this award of

assistance.

16. Will comply with the Lead-Based Paint

Poisoning Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 4801

et seq.) which prohibits the use of lead based

paint in construction or rehabilitation of

residence structures.

17. Will cause to be performed the required

financial and compliance audits in

accordance with the Single Audit Act of

1984.

18. Will comply with all applicable

requirements of all other Federal laws,

executive orders, regulations and policies

governing this program.

lllllllllllllllllllll

Signature of Authorized Certifying Official

lllllllllllllllllllll

Title

lllllllllllllllllllll

Applicant Organization

lllllllllllllllllllll

Date Submitted

BILLING CODE 4184–01P
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Notices 66309
66310 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Notices

BILLING CODE 4184–01–P
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Notices 66311

Certification Regarding Debarment,

Suspension, and Other Responsibility

Matters—Primary Covered Transactions

By signing and submitting this proposal,

the applicant, defined as the primary

participant in accordance with 45 CFR Part

76, certifies to the best of its knowledge and

believe that it and its principals:

(a) are not presently debarred, suspended,

proposed for debarment, declared ineligible,

or voluntarily excluded from covered

transactions by any Federal Department or

agency;

(b) have not within a 3-year period

preceding this proposal been convicted of or

had a civil judgment rendered against them

for commission of fraud or a criminal offense

in connection with obtaining, attempting to

obtain, or performing a public (Federal, State,

or local) transaction or contract under a

public transaction; violation of Federal or

State antitrust statutes or commission of

embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery,

falsification or destruction of records, making

false statements, or receiving stolen property;

(c) are not presently indicted or otherwise

criminally or civilly charged by a

governmental entity (Federal, State of local)

with commission of any of the offenses

enumerated in paragraph (1) (b) of this

certification; and

(d) have not within a 3-year period

preceding this application/proposal had one

or more public transactions (Federal, State, or

local) terminated for cause or default.

The inability of a person to provide the

certification required above will not

necessarily result in denial of participation in

this covered transaction. If necessary, the

prospective participant shall submit an

explanation of why it cannot provide the

certification. The certification or explanation

will be considered in connection with the

Department of Health and Human Services

(HHS) determination whether to enter into

this transaction. However, failure of the

prospective primary participant to furnish a

certification or an explanation shall

disqualify such person from participation in

this transaction.

The prospective primary participant agrees

that by submitting this proposal, it will

include the clause entitled ‘‘Certification

Regarding Debarment, Suspension,

Ineligibility, and Voluntary Exclusion—

Lower Tier Covered Transaction.’’ provided

below without modification in all lower tier

covered transactions and in all solicitations

for lower tier covered transactions.

Certificatin Regarding Debarment,

Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary

Exclusion—Lower Tier Covered

Transactions

(To Be Supplied to Lower Tire Participants)

By signing and submitting this lower tier

proposal, the prospective lower tier

participant, as defined in 45 CFR Part 76,

certifies to the best of its knowledge and

belief that it and its principals:

(a) are not presently debarred, suspended,

proposed for debarment, declared ineligible,

or voluntarily excluded from participation in

this transaction by any federal department or

agency.

(b) where the prospective lower tier

participant is unable to certify to any of the

above, such prospective participant shall

attach an explanation to this proposal.

The prospective lower tier participant

further agrees by submitting this proposal

that it will include this clause entitled

‘‘certificatin Regarding Debarment,

Suspension, Ineligibility, and Voluntary

Exclusion—Lower Tier Covered

Transactions.’’ Without modification in all

lower tier covered transactions and in all

solicitations for lower tier covered

transactions.

Certification Regarding Lobbying

Certification for Contracts, Grants, Loans,

and Cooperative Agreements

The undersigned certifies, to the best of his

or her knowledge and relief, that:

(1) No Federal appropriated funds have

been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of

the undersigned, to any person for

influencing or attempting to influence an

officer or employee of any agency, a Member

of Congress, an officer or employee of

Congress, or an employee of a Member of

Congress in connection with the awarding of

any Federal contract, the making of any

Federal grant, the making of any Federal

loan, the entering into of any cooperative

agreement, and the extension, continuation,

renewal, amendment, or modification of any

Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative

agreement.

(2) If any funds other than Federal

appropriated funds have been paid or will be

paid to any person for influencing or

attempting to influence an officer or

employee of any agency, a Member of

Congress, an officer or employee of Congress,

or an employee of a Member of Congress in

connection with this Federal contract, grant,

loan or cooperative agreement, the

undersigned shall complete and submit

Standard Form-LLL, ‘‘Disclosure Form to

Report Lobbying,’’ in accordance with its

instructions.

(3) The undersigned shall require that the

language of this certification be included in

the award documents for all subawards at all

tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and

contracts under grants, loans, and

cooperative agreements) and that all

subrecipients shall certify and disclose

accordingly.

This certification is a material

representation of fact upon which reliance

was placed when this transaction was made

or entered into. Submission of this

certification is a prerequisite for making or

entering into this transaction imposed by

section 1352, title 31, U.S. Code. Any person

who fails to file the required certification

shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less

than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for

each such failure.

State for Loan Guarantee and Loan Insurance

The undersigned states, to the best of his

or her knowledge and belief, that:

If any funds have been paid or will be paid

to any person for influencing or attempting

to influence an officer or employee of any

agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or

employee of Congress, or an employee of a

Member of Congress in connection with this

commitment providing for the United States

to insure or guarantee a loan, the

undersigned shall complete and submit

Standard Form-LLL ‘‘Disclosure Form to

Report Lobbying,’’ in accordance with its

instructions.

Submission of this statement is a

prerequisite for making or entering into this

transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31,

U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the

required statement shall be subject to a civil

penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more

than $100,000 for each such failure.

lllllllllllllllllllll

Signature

lllllllllllllllllllll

Title

lllllllllllllllllllll

Organization

lllllllllllllllllllll

Date

BILLING CODE 4184–01–P
66312 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Notices

BILLING CODE 4184–01–P
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Notices 66313

Certification Regarding Environmental

Tobacco Smoke

Public Law 103–227, Part C—

Environmental Tobacco Smoke, also known

as the Pro-Children Act of 1994 (Act),

requires that smoking not be permitted in any

portion of any indoor facility owned or

leased or contracted for by an entity and used

routinely or regularly for the provision of

health, day care, education, or library

services to children under the age of 18, if

the services are funded by Federal programs

either directly or through State or local

governments, by Federal grant, contract, loan,

or loan guarantee. The law does not apply to

children’s services provided in private

residences, facilities funded solely by

Medicare or Medicaid funds, and portions of

facilities used for inpatient drug or alcohol

treatment. Failure to comply with the

provisions of the law may result in the

imposition of a civil monetary penalty of up

to $1,000 per day and/or the imposition of an

administrative compliance order on the

responsible entity.

By signing and submitting this application

the applicant/grantee certifies that it will

comply with the requirements of the Act. The

applicant/grantee further agrees that it will

require the language of this certification be

included in any subawards which contain

provisions for children’s services and that all

subgrantees shall certify accordingly.

OMB STATE SINGLE POINT OF

CONTACT LISTING*

ARIZONA

Janice Dunn, Arizona State

Clearinghouse, 3800 N. Central

Avenue, Fourteenth Floor, Phoenix,

Arizona 85012, Telephone: (602)

280–1315, FAX: (602) 280–1305

ARKANSAS

Mr. Tracy L. Copeland, Manager, State

Clearinghouse, Office of

Intergovernmental Services,

Department of Finance and

Administration, 1515 W. 7th St.,

Room 412, Little Rock, Arkansas

72203, Telephone: (501) 682–1074,

FAX: (501) 682–5206

ALABAMA

Jon C. Strickland, Alabama

Department of Economic and

Community Affairs, Planning and

Economic Development Division,

401 Adams Avenue, Montgomery,

AL 36103–5690, Telephone: (205)

242–5483, FAX: (205) 242–5515

CALIFORNIA

Grants Coordinator, Office of Planning

and Research, 1400 Tenth Street,

Room 121, Sacramento, California

95814, Telephone: (916) 323–7480,

FAX: (916) 323–3018

DELAWARE

Francine Booth, State Single Point of

Contact, Executive Department,

Thomas Collins Building, P.O. Box

1401, Dover, Delaware 19903,

Telephone: (302) 739–3326, FAX:

(302) 739–5661

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Charles Nichols, State Single Point of

Contact, Office of Grants Mgmt. and

Dev., 717 14th Street, N.W.—Suite

500, Washington, D.C. 20005,

Telephone: (202) 727–6554, FAX:

(202) 727–1617

FLORIDA

Suzanne Traub-Metlay, Florida State

Clearinghouse, Intergovernmental

Affairs Policy Unit, Executive

Office of the Governor, The Capitol

(Room 1603), Tallahassee, Florida

32399–0001, Telephone: (904) 488–

8114, FAX: (904) 488–9005

GEORGIA

Tom L. Reid, III, Administrator,

Georgia State Clearinghouse, 254

Washington Street, S.W.—Room

401J, Atlanta, Georgia 30334,

Telephone: (404) 656–3855 or (404)

656–3829, FAX: (404) 656–7938

ILLINOIS

Tim Golemo, State Single Point of

Contact, Department of Commerce

and Community Affairs, 620 East

Adams, Springfield, Illinois 62701,

Telephone: (217) 782–1671, FAX:

(217) 782–6620

INDIANA

Frances E. Williams, State Budget

Agency, 212 State House,

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204,

Telephone: (317) 232–2972, FAX:

(317) 233–3323

IOWA

Steven R. McCann, Division for

Community Assistance, Iowa

Department of Economic

Development, 200 East Grand

Avenue, Des Moines, Iowa 50309,

Telephone: (515) 242–4719, FAX:

(515) 242–4859

KENTUCKY

Ronald W. Cook, Office of the

Governor, Department of Local

Government, 1024 Capitol Center

Drive, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601–

8204, Telephone: (502) 573–2382,

FAX: (502) 573–2512

MAINE

Joyce Benson, State Planning Office,

State House Station #38, Augusta,

Maine 04333, Telephone: (207)

287–3261, FAX: (207) 287–6489

MARYLAND

William G. Carroll, Manager, State

Clearinghouse for

Intergovernmental Assistance,

Maryland Office of Planning, 301

W. Preston Street—Room 1104,

Baltimore, Maryland 21201–2365,

Staff Contact: Linda Janey,

Telephone: (410) 225–4490, FAX:

(410) 225–4480

MISSISSIPPI

Cathy Mallette, Clearinghouse Officer,

Department of Finance and

Administration, 455 North Lamar

Street, Jackson, Mississippi 39202–

3087, Telephone: (601) 359–6762,

FAX: (601) 359–6764

MISSOURI

Lois Pohl, Federal Assistance

Clearinghouse, Office of

Administration, P.O. Box 809,

Room 760, Truman Building,

Jefferson City, Missouri 65102

Telephone: (314) 751–4834, FAX:

(314) 751–7819

NEVADA

Department of Administration, State

Clearinghouse, Capitol Complex,

Carson City, Nevada 89710,

Telephone: (701) 687–4065, FAX:

(702) 687–3983

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Jeffrey H. Taylor, Director, New

Hampshire Office of State Planning,

Attn: Intergovernmental Review

Process

Mike Blake, 21⁄2 Beacon Street,

Concord, New Hampshire 03301,

Telephone: (603) 271–2155, FAX:

(603) 271–1728

NEW JERSEY

Gregory W. Adkins, Assistant

Commissioner, New Jersey

Department of Community Affairs

Please direct all correspondence and

questions about intergovernmental

review to:

Andrew J. Jaskolka, State Review

Process, Intergovernmental Review

Unit, CN 800, Room 813A, Trenton,

New Jersey 08625–0800, Telephone:

(609) 292–9025, FAX: (609) 633–

2132

NEW MEXICO

Robert Peters, State Budget Division,

Room 190 Bataan Memorial

Building, Santa Fe, New Mexico

87503, Telephone: (505) 827–3640

NEW YORK

New York State Clearinghouse,

Division of the Budget, State

Capitol, Albany, New York 12224,

Telephone: (518) 474–1605

NORTH CAROLINA

Chrys Baggett, Director, N.C. State

Clearinghouse, Office of the

Secretary of Admin., 116 West

Jones Street, Raleigh North Carolina

27603–8003, Telephone: (919) 733–

7232, FAX: (919) 733–9571

NORTH DAKOTA

North Dakota Single Point of Contact,

Office of Intergovernmental

Assistance, 600 East Boulevard

Avenue, Bismarck, North Dakota

58505–0170, Telephone: (701) 224–

2094, FAX: (701) 224–2308

OHIO

Larry Weaver, State Single Point of

Contact, State Clearinghouse, Office

of Budget and Management, 30 East

Broad Street, 34th Floor, Columbus,
66314 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Notices

Ohio 43266–0411

Please direct correspondence and

questions about intergovernmental

review to:

Linda Wise, Telephone: (614) 466–

0698, FAX: (614) 466–5400

RHODE ISLAND

Daniel W. Varin, Associate Director,

Department of Administration,

Division of Planning, One Capitol

Hill, 4th Floor, Providence, Rhode

Island 02908–5870, Telephone:

(401) 277–2656, FAX: (401) 277–

2083

Please direct correspondence and

questions to:

Review Coordinator, Office of

Strategic Planning

SOUTH CAROLINA,

Omeagia Burgess, State Single Point

of Contact, Grant Services, Office of

the Governor, 1205 Pendleton

Street—Room 477, Columbia, South

Carolina 29201, Telephone: (803)

734–0494, FAX: (803) 734–0385

TEXAS

Tom Adams, Governors, Officer,

Director, Intergovernmental

Coordination, P.O. Box 12428,

Austin, Texas 78711, Telephone:

(512) 463–1771, FAX: (512) 463–

1888

UTAH

Carolyn Wright, Utah State

Clearinghouse, Office of Planning

and Budget, Room 116 State

Capitol, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114

Telephone: (801) 538–1535, FAX:

(801) 538–1547

VERMONT

Nancy McAvoy, State Single Point of

Contact, Pavilion Office Building,

109 State Street, Montpelier,

Vermont 05609 Telephone: (802)

828–3326, FAX: (802) 828–3339

WEST VIRGINIA

Fred Cutlip, Director, Community

Development Division, W. Virginia

Development Office, Building #6,

Room 553, Charleston, West

Virginia 25305, Telephone: (304)

558–4010, FAX: (304) 558–3248

WISCONSIN

Martha Kerner, Section Chief, State/

Federal Relations, Wisconsin

Department of Administration, 101

East Wilson Street—6th Floor, P.O.

Box 7868, Madison, Wisconsin

53707, Telephone: (608) 266–2125,

FAX: (608) 267–6931

WYOMING

Sheryl Jeffries, State Single Point of

Contract, Herschler Building, 4th

Floor, East Wing, Cheyenne,

Wyoming 82002, Telephone: (307)

777–7574, FAX: (307) 638–8967

TERRITORIES

GUAM

Mr. Giovanni T. Sgambelluri,

Director, Bureau of Budget and

Management Research, Office of the

Governor, P.O. Box 2950, Agana,

Guam 96910, Telephone: 011–671–

472–2285, FAX: 011–671–472–2825

PUERTO RICO

Norma Burgos/Jose E. Caro,

Chairwoman/Director, Puerto Rico

Planning Board, Federal Proposals

Review Office, Minillas

Government Center, P.O. Box

41119, San Juan, Puerto Rico

00940–1119, Telephone (809) 727–

4444, (809) 723–6190, FAX: (809)

724–3270, (809) 724–3103

NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS

State Single Point of Contact,

Planning and Budget Office, Office

of the Governor, Saipan, CM,

Northern Mariana Islands 96590

VIRGIN ISLANDS

Jose George, Director, Office of

Management and Budget, #41

Norregade Emancipation Garden

Station, Second Floor, Saint

Thomas, Virgin Islands 00802

Please direct all questions and

correspondence about

intergovernmental review to:

Linda Clarke, Telephone: (809) 774–

0750, FAX: (809) 776–0069

[FR Doc. 95–31009 Filed 12–20–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4184–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Office of the Assistant Secretary for

Housing—Federal Housing

Commissioner

[Docket No. FR—3917–N–36]

Notice of Proposed Information

Collection for Public Comment

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant

Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing

Commissioner, HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The proposed information

collection requirement described below

will be submitted to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) for

review, as required by the Paperwork

Reduction Act. The Department is

soliciting public comments on the

subject proposal.

DATES: Comments due: February 20,

1996.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are

invited to submit comments regarding

this proposal. Comments should refer to

the proposal by name and/or QMB

Control Number and should be sent to:

Oliver Walker, Housing, Department of

Housing & Urban Development, 451—

7th Street, SW, Room 9116, Washington,

DC 20410.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Oliver Walker, Telephone number (202)

708–1694 (this is not a toll-free number)

for copies of the proposed forms and

other available documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Department will submit the proposed

information collection to OMB for

review, as required by the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.

Chapter 35, as amended).

The Notice is soliciting comments

from members of the public and

affecting agencies concerning the

proposed collection of information to:

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed

collection of information is necessary

for the proper performance of the

functions of the agency, including

whether the information will have

practical utility; (2) Evaluate the

accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the

burden of the proposed collection of

information; (3) Enhance the quality,

utility, and clarity of the information to

be collected; and (4) Minimize the

burden of the collection of information

on those who are to respond; including

through the use of appropriate

automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology,

e.g., permitting electronic submission of

responses.

This Notice also list the following

information:

Title of Proposal: Request for Credit

Approval of Substitute Mortgagor.

OMB Control Number: 2502–0036.

Description of the need for the

information and the proposed use:

Section 204(b) of the National Housing

Act (P.L. 479, 48 Stat. 1246, 12 U.S.C.

1701 et. seq.) provides that the Secretary

of Housing and Urban Development

(HUD) may at any time, under such

terms and conditions as he may

prescribe, consent to the release of the

mortgagor from his liability under the

mortgage or the credit instrument

secured thereby, or consent to the

release of parts of the mortgaged

property from the lien of the mortgage.

Agency form numbers: HUD–92210.

Members of affected public:

Individuals or households.

An estimation of the total numbers of

hours needed to prepare the information

collection is 10,000, number of

respondents is 10,000, frequency

response is monthly and the response is

one hour.

Status of the proposed information

collection: Extension of a currently

approved collection.