Bill Schechter: Welcome to the teleconference on the Safestart Promising Approaches program. We have from now until 3:00 pm Eastern Time this afternoon to talk about this about this program announcement and we are going to break it into two sections; the first section will have to do with the program itself. I hope everybody has opened in front of them either on their computer and hard copy on their desk, a copy of the program announcement, that's 53 pages long, and the August 12th version of the Frequently Asked Questions, which is also available on the OJP website. I would like to introduce the people from The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention that's, OJJDP for people that don't like to take that long to say all that and the national evaluators for Phase I.

So, the following people are online speakers. Katherine Dark-Schmitt who is in charge of the evaluation, the overall coordinator for the Promising Approaches Program announcement. Bill Schechter that would be me. Cecilia Duquela-Fuentes. Inga James from the Association for the Study & Development of Community. Lisa Lunghofer from Caliber Associates. Susan Chibnall. Janet Griffith and Kate Abbruzzese are all from Caliber and the Association for the Study Development of Community, sometimes called ASDC, are the National Evaluation Team for Phase I of Safestart that would be the 11 existing demonstration sites that started in 1999 and 2000.

At this point we are going to have a bit of talking about the overall program announcement and then we will have questions and answers on the general program announcement part of this and then we will move and talk about the evaluation and data collection requirements in the program announcement and then again a brief Q&A. And then we will go to the National Evaluation Team for Phase I. Each of those parties will be making a brief presentation and then there will be Q&A. At the time we move to Q&A, everybody who's listening is on mute until we go to Q&A at which point the session moderator will break in and tell you how to address questions for our consideration. Just a couple of other things that you might want to be aware of, there is a website called www.capacitybuilding.com which is on the Capable Communities website which has a number of resources about Safestart and evaluation of Safestart.

Inga James: Bill, can I break in for a second?

Bill Schechter: Sure.

Inga James: This is Inga James from ASDC, it's actually www.capacitybuilding.net.

Bill Schechter: Okay.

Inga James: Sorry about that.

Bill Schechter: Very good. Thank you.

Inga James: Uh-huh.

Bill Schechter: At any rate it would be helpful if you are on-line to be able to refer to those as we talk. We are going to try not to answer any question that's already in the Frequently Asked Questions for purposes of moving this thing along. If you have a question about a question that's dealt with in the Frequently Asked Questions that's fair game. We are going to try to stick to a schedule a, a time schedule and if we don't get to all the questions during the period that we have set aside for that, we have a longer period at the end that we will make available to ask questions that we didn't get to in the first place.

For those of you who have, and I trust this is everyone, looked at the 53-page program announcement on pages 9 and 10, there's a good summary of the purpose, goals and objectives of this demonstration. This is what we are considering Phase II of the Safestart demonstration, this is an annual appropriation it's a line item in the federal budget. And the first phase had to do with the funding 11 sites around the country, which are listed. They are sites that are not eligible to apply for this round of funding.

This is only the second round of funding this is only the second round of funding under this demonstration. It is somewhat different in that this is focused on actual programs affecting children exposed to violence. The earlier phase had to do also with a more generalized planning process and a community assessment and then developing not only programs but changing policies and other kinds of systems change activities. The notion of this particular demonstration phase is to try to understand which of the approaches that have been developed so far both in safe start and in other similar programs around the country are most effective and which work in what kinds of settings and what the factors that affect that might be.

So, that's a general sort of overview. I would like now to turn to Q&A on the overall program announcement.

Operator: Thank you. If you have a question at this time, please press the “1” key on your touch-tone telephone. If the question has been answered and you wish to remove yourself from the queue, please press the “#” key. One moment please. Our first question is from Jane Sites, Cincinnati Ohio.

Jane Sites: Hello, thank you for taking the call. I am little confused because it's really important to me to know if you are looking for replication of those 11 practices per se, which you do a great job of referencing in the RFP or are you also willing to entertain other evidence-based, as well as best practice literature-based approaches?

Bill Schechter: The answer to your question is the latter.

Jane Sites: Okay, thank you.

Bill Schechter: We don't want to restrict it just to the existing Safestart programs and initiatives but other evidence-based programs and approaches as well.

Jane Sites: Thank you.

Operator: Our next question is from Nathan O'Hara of Santa Barbara , California.

Nathan O'Hara: Regarding local evaluation, it sounds as if you're discouraging local evaluation other than direct collection for the GPRA, does that mean use GPRA outcomes as our outcome objectives in the logic model? Does my question make sense?

Bill Schechter: Could you state it one more time because it had less to do with evaluation I think then what's you are going to use as your objectives, so state it one more time.

Nathan O'Hara: Well, the evaluation of the objectives are whatever outcomes we choose will be what is -- what we must evaluate, then are the outcomes that we are to choose, the GPRA outcomes, it looks like you are discouraging local -- local evaluation from the Frequently Asked Questions?

Bill Schechter: Yeah, I think there are two parts to your question. One is yes your program project that objectives should reflect the kind of information that the performance measures in particular reference. The second part of your question has to do about discouraging local evaluation and I think we will get back -- the short answer to that is yes, and we will get into that in more depth just in a few minutes when we get to the evaluation Q&A.

Nathan O'Hara: Okay, sorry.

Bill Schechter: That's all right.

Operator: Our next question it's from Trina Bauling of Maywood , Illinois.

Trina Bauling: Within the program announcement, you had mentioned -- there was mention that a target population should be 0 to 16 and their families but there is also a mention of a particular emphasis on children 0 to 6. Does this mean that you will not fund products that don't have a priority on 0 to 6 or don't have them included, or does this mean that you will give preference to those proposal that do have that emphasis?

Bill Schechter: Yeah, the target population is -- is infants to age 18, but there will be a particular emphasis on projects that address young children, and part of that is related to the research on the effects of exposure to violence on younger children. To answer the implicit part of your question is that there probably will be a preference to those that at least focus some of their project on infants to age 6

Trina Bauling: Okay, thank-you.

Operator: Our next question is from Nina Agrawal of Bronx, New York.

Nina Agrawal: Hi, my question is regarding the goals and objectives. In certain – in the introductions that you need to refer the targeted group and for each objective, I guess my question is -- is that how specific you need to be in the objective, do you have to define what the assessment criteria or the referral criteria in your objectives, or is that part of the project?

Bill Schechter: I think it's going to be very helpful and will elevate any proposal that is very specific about that upfront. Part of the whole project is one, which envisions not a lengthy planning process to decide what you are going to do and how you are going to do it, but to fund those people that have a good sense of what they are going to do and how they are going to do it.

Nina Agrawal: And so that would be in the project design, not an objective, because it's already been established?

Bill Schechter: I -- I'm sorry; I don't understand your distinction there?

Nina Agrawal: So, it wouldn't be -- so, your referral criteria, assessment criteria, identification criteria, those would be -- things that you would list in the objectives?

Bill Schechter: Right.

Nina Agrawal: Okay. Okay, thank-you.

Operator: I am showing no further questions at this time.

Bill Schechter: Okay. At this point, we would like to turn and focus some attention on the data collection and evaluation aspects of the program announcement and Katherine is going to handle that.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: Thank you. This is Katherine Dark-Schmitt of the Office of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention. Thank you all for joining us this afternoon. I'm going to take just a couple of minutes to go over with you, the data collection requirements under this program announcement and address also local evaluation questions versus the national evaluation questions very briefly before the Safestart Phase I evaluators make their presentation.

As you can tell from the program announcement, data collection from children served is the responsibility of the site and that is why there is a $10,000 premium set aside in the budget. Those $10,000 are to be devoted to collecting data from the children served, or on the children served if proxy measures are more appropriate for your population. Loading that data into a spreadsheet, making sure that you are meeting all the confidentiality requirements, and then sending the spreadsheet to OJJDP. The local program sites have no responsibility for analyzing the data or for setting up any kind of local evaluation design. I am sure that you all noticed that we did ask you to address in your application, the issue of control or comparison group. What we have asked for in the application is a brief section written by the applicant on how they would approach identifying a comparison and/or a control group in their community. You are responsible only for suggesting from where such a group might be drawn in your community. You are not responsible for collecting data from them at any point, or setting up an actual design of a compare or control group evaluation, and this is why we have chosen to set the program up this way.

Safestart Promising Approaches will be the focus of an intense national evaluation and that national evaluator will have responsibility of going into each community that is selected as a Safestart Promising Approaches site, and identifying a comparison or control group. And, so, they will be using the suggestions that you make to us in your applications to help them do that. We understand that there has been some concern in the community about the idea that random assignment is an approach that we are asking for and that is addressed in the FAQ. But, I will reiterate that if for contextual or political reasons in your community, you are certain that random assignment to a no-treatment group is not a possibility, your application will not be disqualified on those grounds. However, you will need to tell us explicitly in the application why random assignment to a no-treatment control is not feasible in your community, and you will have to offer a suggestion for a comparison group study instead. At the time, the national evaluator is chosen, and their design is ratified by OJJDP, the national evaluator in concert with OJJDP will make the final decision about which, if any sites, will rely on a control group versus a comparison group design.

As I have said, and to address the gentleman's question earlier, no evaluation by local sites is required. If you have an on-going program, that already has a local evaluation in position or if you will come from the kind of the agency where local evaluation is in your culture, bravo we are always happy to hear that. However, any evaluation plans that you intend to commence or that are ongoing, must not impede the national evaluation, such that any data collection activities you undertake are going to have to be scheduled around and after the national evaluator has finished what they need to do. Certainly, we will work those out with you on a case-by-case basis as necessary. But $210,000 is not a significant amount of funding to provide services and conduct a local evaluation. We were not anticipating that you would use the $210,000 to do a local evaluation, and we will be funding a large national evaluation of the program.

We anticipate that some national evaluation applicants will suggest a local evaluator design, where there would be someone relatively close to you, who would be collecting some or all of the data from your site as a local evaluator. This person would be a contractor to the national evaluator. If such a design is chosen by OJJDP, then the national evaluator would work with you at the site to identify possible applicants, and that decision would be made by the national evaluator and OJJDP with the input of the site.

To address some questions that we got via e-mail ahead of the conference call; sites will have access to the data that you collect from the children you serve and to the data from their comparison or control group for your own use, should you want it. We also had a question about the follow-up design of the data collection schema. This is our anticipation at this point that for four years, the four years of funding, you will be tracking the children that you serve every six months collecting the same variables, including variables on any new exposure to violence. At the same time, the national evaluator will be collecting data from your comparison or control group at probably every 12-month interval and the national evaluator will continue that through the four years of the program. At the end of that four-year period, it is possible but not certain that there would be some sites or maybe many sites who have such a strong data collection design in place, that OJJDP wishes to continue it out into the out years in order to reap the benefits of long-term data collection, and if that happened we would negotiate with the site and with the national evaluator, there would be new funding involved and we would all come to an agreement about what kind of out year data collection would be most useful and most feasible for everyone involved.

However, for the purpose of this application and your own planning, you do not need to anticipate any data collection after the end of the fourth year of funding. At this point, Sean, if you would please allow questions on the data collection and evaluation plans for SSPA, we are going to take about ten minutes of questions on that and then we are going to roll over and have the representatives of the national evaluation team of Safestart Phase I talk about lessons learned.

Operator: Thank you. If you have a question at this point, please press the “1” key on your touch-tone telephone. If your question has been answered or you wish to remove yourself from the queue, press the “#” key. Our first question comes from Robert Ketterlinus of Philadelphia PA.

Robert Ketterlinus: Hello, good afternoon, and thanks for taking my questions. I had a question about whether it would be appropriate in terms of budgeting for the $10,000 set aside for data collection. That, that be used for a consultant to assess the program and collecting the data, designing that data collection process and the systems that are needed to address OJJDP, data collection requirements and also to assist them in designing their approach to the random assignment control group design?

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: Yes, that is responsive to the solicitation but I would caution you in the timing here. If you are suggesting using your -- part of your first year data collection set aside, part of that $10,000 to design your control or comparison approach, you're -- that's too late to get that information into the application.

Robert Ketterlinus: Right. No, but it would be part of the application but if that consultant is part of the --you know, the contractor for the applicant, that would be included in the application and then would work with the national evaluator to do any modifications necessary.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: Yes.

Robert Ketterlinus: That was kind of the model. And then because this is our thinking of having the program staff actually collect data, so does that need to be specified in the budget as additional money on top of the $10,000, let's say the -- there is $10,000 sub contract with the consultant?

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: Let's say, it is sounds like you -- there are circumstances under which you would be perfectly appropriate to have program staff --

Robert Ketterlinus: Uh-huh.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: -- colleting data, particularly when you are looking at clinical outcome.

Robert Ketterlinus: Right.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: It is my understanding of this solicitation that of the $210,000, the $10,000 is anticipated for data collection. And the reviewers will know that, so if you were to indicate that you were budgeting significantly more than that for the purpose of data collection your application would look different than the other applicants' applications they come in.

Robert Ketterlinus: Okay. But if we stayed in the application that the staff – the program staff will collect the data but there is nothing in the line item budget that indicate that there is just $10,000 payment to a consultant to do that part of the project, will that be a problem?

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: That is not a problem --

Robert Ketterlinus: Yeah.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: -- as long as it is part of the funding for your staff to collect those data, perhaps part of the intervention even. Robert Ketterlinus: Okay. Okay, so it doesn't have to be broken out, in other words, of their -- their services -- service dollars?

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: That's correct.

Robert Ketterlinus: Yeah, thank you. I think that's the only question I had. I assume that spreadsheet and all that will be provided by OJJDP?

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: For the actual transmission of data to OJJDP?

Robert Ketterlinus: Yes.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: Yes, I think it's very possible that the national evaluator and OJJDP will tell you what format we would like you to use.

Robert Ketterlinus: Okay. And I think that's all, I have some questions that kind of interface with the national evaluational – event, thank you.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: Thank you.

Operator: Our next question comes from Glenna Wilson of Pittsburgh PA.

Glenna Wilson: Hi there. I have a couple of questions. First of all regarding if we use a comparison group, I just want to be clear that in going with a comparison group rather than a control group, in other words do you think control group would be the random assignment. If we are to review comparison group with similar demographic, similar community you know, census information that, that would be acceptable.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: That is responsive to the solicitation.

Glenna Wilson: Okay. And, then when you refer to local evaluator and coming in to help us choose one, do you mean to have a local of -- if we want to do a local evaluation you would help us choose somebody to assist us with that. Or what you mean by a local evaluator?

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: What I mean is that the national evaluation design for this program has not been finalized because the competition for the national evaluator has not been initiated at this point. It is possible that when the national evaluator is selected, their design will call for --

Glenna Wilson: Okay.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: -- local evaluators and if that is true then the local evaluators will be selected by the national evaluator in consultation with the site and that local evaluator will be a contractor of the national evaluator. So, if you are anticipating any other kind of local evaluation then you would be free to choose the person whom you thought was best. And I will just reiterate from the introduction to this session that if your budget includes a lot of local evaluation plans or a lot dollars budgeted to local evaluation, your application is going to look different than the model that we are expecting under this announcement.

Glenna Wilson: Okay. And just one final, of course we are going to write into the grant -- you know, putting our consent forms and every thing through IRB and -- you know, even reviewed by various parent groups. However, if we start getting in to data collection with the case variables and run in to difficulties, will the national evaluator be available for technical assistance?

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: Yes, for technical assistance, how do I collect this data, what is the best instruments. The national evaluator will be available to the sites for that.

Glenna Wilson: Okay. All right, thank you.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: Thank you.

Operator: Our next question comes from Sally Dorman of Alfred, New York.

Sally Dorman: Hi, I just had a quick question about the use -- you mention for a four years we would collect the data on children and I was a little unclear, would we do a longitudinal type of data collection on each child that ever -- that enters the program?

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: That is correct.

Sally Dorman: Okay.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: From intake into the program under this funding through the end of the four-year period, in six-month intervals.

Sally Dorman: Okay, so that would all have to be part of their consent to be part of the program?

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: Exactly, yes.

Sally Dorman: Okay.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: Thank you, that's an important issue.

Sally Dorman: Thank you.

Operator: Our next question comes from Leslie Rose of Champagne , Illinois.

Leslie Rose: In regard to the $10,000 for data collection, we are in large agency that has an MIF department, is there any problem with having that done in house by another department?

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: No.

Leslie Rose: Okay, thank you.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: You are welcome.

Operator: Our final question comes from Jane Sites of Cincinnati, Ohio.

Jane Sites: Hi, thank you. Katharine, I have a question about you said the identification of the comparison group that we are not in charge of setting up the design etc. I am finding again for political reasons these sort of sensitive data that is implied in those variables, our support letters -- am I correct, we do need to have those support letters suggesting that comparison group is available, correct?

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: That is correct.

Jane Sites: We are needing to know if there is anything more than what you are suggesting the national eval and the 12 variables either more than that, that will be gathered on that because that is the only way we are going to get good support letters, I believe. Is there anything more than just what we are reading is needed from that comparison group?

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: This is what I can tell you at this point, if the national evaluation design requires some other information then we are going to go in and try to collect it. However, your application at this point need only be cognizant of the requirements we have laid out for you. And if there is some kind of revision at some point and the type of data that we are collecting, we will go back in and try to negotiate getting those from the control or comparison group with the understanding that you have done some leg work on the front and -- and our ability to negotiate may not be limitless.

Jane Sites: All right, thank you. And I think you might have answered this, but I am still not clear on this -- that last was new to me. That every child that -- say child number one who started the first two months of programming will be followed not just for our set intervention which we estimate to be one year plus two year follow up but for the whole four years, that is correct? And will that child's comparison group, who even know they didn't even receive the intervention are they followed for two years or the whole four years?

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: At this point we anticipate that your children -- the children served by the program will followed every six months for four years regardless of the duration of the intervention or how long they spend in the intervention.

Jane Sites: Okay.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: The comparison or control group, we anticipate will be -- will have data collection at, at least two points probably at 12-month intervals. We will look possibly to expanding that to four data collection points at 12-month intervals depending on the set up at your site.

Jane Sites: All right. So, then their time is briefer than actually the child -- the child receiving the direct intervention? Correct --?

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: It is -- it is likely that it will be only of 24-month duration rather than 48, yes.

Jane Sites: Thank you.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: Thank you. Okay, we need to turn at this point to get the national evaluation team from Safestart Phase I on the line. I want to make sure that all the participants in this audio conference are aware as Bill Schechter described in the introduction, that these evaluators are going to be talking about Safestart Phase I, which was initiated in 1999 and is nearing the end of it's lifespan. The program requirements for Safestart Phase I and its national evaluation design were quite different from what you should expect and understand about Safestart Promising Approaches, nonetheless we thought the experience that our evaluators had had working on Safestart Phase I might help inform you as you prepare your applications. I believe we are going to start with Caliber Associates, is that correct?

Bill Schechter: Okay.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: All right. This is Caliber Associates on deck, they are going to introduce themselves, they will speak between 10 and 15 minutes and then we will move right to the presentation by the second half of the evaluation team, ASDC, and then there will be another period for question and answers, thank you. Caliber?

Susan Chibnall: Hi Katharine, this is Susan Chibnall from the Caliber -- Caliber part of the national evaluation team and I do have my colleague Lisa Lunghofer and Kate Abbruzzese with us and then Janet Griffith who is our Principal here at Caliber, who is the Principal Investigator for the project. I am actually going to do most of the talking, with Kate perhaps jumping in to provide some examples. But with the limited amount of time we have -- we are going to try to move through this fairly quickly. We just wanted to really talk about two major pieces of the Safestart processes and that really is the -- the collaborative board or the -- the body that's going to be pulled together to sort of over see -- implement your initiative. And then also some issues around the -- that you might want to think about regarding your intervention specifically. Some of this may not be new to you, but maybe will help jog your thoughts, to remember to think about these things in relation to this new solicitation.

So, first of all just to recognize that the structure and organization of your collaborative body can have some impact on your work, and you may want to think about such issues as who is represented at the table and why? Are these the right people and why are they the right people? And, if they are not the right people who are the right people? I think sometimes we found that, there is you know, in -- in responding to a solicitation or in just responding to the -- to the issue, everybody just comes to the table, and what we have found is that, if that is sort of more thoughtful that it can help the processes along. Although what is the best structure for getting the work accomplished as many of you, who have been involved in collaborative probably know that there are -- there are structures that work better than others.

So, it's important to think about what might be the best structure for getting work accomplished, for example, is a small working group better as opposed to one small management body perhaps. Also to really think through the decision making process, who gets to the make the decisions, why and how. And then also just to think about the -- some of the issues that might be involved in managing several systems that have separate agendas simultaneous. Because while you will be implementing a specific intervention, there will be lots of systems that will involved in helping to plan and implement that intervention itself and then also in monitoring it, and in referring children to it perhaps. So, it will be important to think about how you will manage all those systems and their separate agendas simultaneous.

I think another important issue is to be sure to get everyone on the same page as early as possible. You don't want to spend a lot of time sort of introducing and reintroducing people to what the issues are around children exposed to violence. And, so if you are going to be doing any training among service providers or your collaborative representative, it's important to do that early on. Because what we found is that doing that as early as possible really increases of the awareness of the issue of children exposed to violence and also really help to sort of enhance everyone's commitment to the process that's involved in implementing your best practice strategies.

I think there, I am just going to say two more things about this piece and then I am going to ask Kate if she have any specific examples or if anybody want to -- to put anything else into the mix and then we will move on to a few things about the implementation of your program specifically. And again, for those of you have managed projects, this may not be new. But be certain that you set resources aside for the unexpected and an initiative like this where you are bringing a lot of people to the table to implement something that perhaps is new to your community. Things come up all the time that you may not be able to accept, so be prepared for that.

And I think a very -- a very important point is to be realistic and stay focus in scope. I think we have had a lot of experience with communities that have started out big and only by realizing that they cannot -- they can't implement their grand plan, were they forced to really whittle and whittle and whittle it down to something that was realistic for them. And while that may have been good learning processes for them, it took a lot of time and a lot of effort and so it's important to be realistic and to stay focused in your scope.

Does anybody on the team of anything to add about those issues?

Kate Abbruzzese: -- this is Kate Abbruzzese with Caliber Associates, working with Susan Chibnall. And there are a couple of points I just want to build on what Susan's mentioned. To begin, specifically when asking -- again these are lessons learned from -- from our current and past experiences -- why, are right people there -- to take in to consideration and when possible if -- if changes in leadership are be anticipated either due to a political change in office. Those kinds of anticipating change events have assisted in the transition as they've unfolded during the course of the projects, when possible. Also, to anticipate really when thinking through the structure -- work accomplished that's proposed, anticipating to be flexible enough around the roles of the structure that you have in place, and that the work groups may indeed evolve themselves and once -- once they have reached certain points of accomplishment.

And, sometimes some will certainly remain consistent throughout. And, then to build on a point regarding the -- get everyone on the page -- same page early regarding the training early being very helpful. This -- this is included -- existing training in the community partners that -- and then additional -- training that has been developed locally. So, really both get support at the same point, but also to give them the resources they need to negotiate dialogues being had specifically to the intervention. So, those are some of the contributions I would be sure that folks are aware of at this point.

Susan Chibnall: Okay, thanks Kate. Anything Lis or Janet?

Lisa Lunghofer: No.

Susan Chibnall: Okay, then I will just move -- go ahead and move on. There are just three things that I really want to put out there for you to think about as you are thinking about your interventions specifically. And first and foremost, it's really what barriers can you expect to experience in identifying, assessing, referring and treating your intervention children and families. So, what are the barriers to identifying those kids? How are you going to assess them? What are the barriers you are going to have to deal with in -- in getting referrals? And, then also in treating those kids, it's important to really anticipate these early, because we have had the experience that when people think -- you know, if you build it, they will come, that's really not enough. And that the children and families in these kinds of settings, that is those children and families that are exposed to violence, particularly from families where there is domestic violence or perhaps child abuse and neglect, may be experiencing other kinds of challenges that make it difficult for them to be treated efficiently.

So, think about your community in relation to the possibilities of what might come up as barriers. Again, another issue is that world communities may experience barriers different from those experienced by urban communities. So, if you happen to be in a rural community or if you are in urban community that has a small rural population, you may want to consider the differences that those groups may experience in barriers to treatment.

I think, another important issue is to anticipate challenges to finding qualified personnel to match program components for certain interventions, particularly if you are -- if you are putting into place something new for which you obviously have to hire some new staff. Certainly, if you have qualified staff already in place that are going to be -- be put into the new intervention, this is not as much of an issue, but if you are going to be hiring people, it's important to anticipate challenges to finding qualified people.

And, then I think the final point we want to make is to be sure to examine where -- where your interventions or strategies fit within the context of each of organization involved and how differing agendas and priorities and philosophies may affect implementations. And, I know that the pretty powerful statement just to put out there and say just think about it, because there is a lot of -- there's a lot inherent in that statement. But, again, it's just important to examine where your interventions fit within the context of each of your organizations that is involved and how their agendas, priorities, and philosophies might affect your implementation.

And with that, I will close it up unless Janet or Lisa or Kate has anything to add? Okay, then we will pass the torch to Inga James from ASDC.

Inga James: Thank you, Caliber.

Kate Abbruzzese: Thanks Katherine.

Inga James: Hello. I am with ASDC, the Association for the study & Development of Community. My name is Inga James, and up until this current calendar year, ASDC provided technical assistance and training to local evaluators in the Safestart Phase I project. And so what I wanted to share with you today are some of the challenges that local the evaluation team have had in collecting and managing there local data. So, it will -- hopefully will inform you about some road blocks you can avoid if possible, and also may be bring up some questions you may have that we may be able to help you with. I have divided -- I have divided my talk today into three sections, the first section I want to list some challenges that our sites have experienced in just having internal capacities collect data. The second section will be how to prepare for assessment, data collection and data management and then the third section is one that I know there is a lot of concern about and that is developing controller comparison groups.

So, to start off I would like to give you some idea what our sites have faced in trying to shore up their internal capacity for collecting and managing data. And, one of the challenges that our sites have found early on was that the data collection methods and systems that they set up for Safestart did not necessarily mesh easily with their systems that they were already running in their programs. So, they -- they tried to introduce something that was very new to their data collection process that did not necessarily blend well and they found that they had a lot of difficulty and that their procedures didn't build on existed -- existing data collection efforts. One of the things I know that -- that they have tried -- several sites have tried is actually using MIS systems that other agencies in the community are working with. So, what they can do is they can easily share data back and forth with other agencies that may be working with children exposed to violence or other family services that are happening in the community. So, that's one example of the way that you can kind of get around.

A second challenge that our sites have found is -- and this is -- this has been a fairly hefty challenge, is that they have -- they have had difficulty at times in encouraging or convincing families to sign consent forms to be the part of a researcher evaluation. And they are -- they are willing to sign consent forms to participate in services, but when it comes down to producing a consent form to participate in evaluation work or research, the families are more reticent, and so several sites have had to work very hard on this issue. They found it to be a particular problem within the immigrate communities primarily because at least they believe primarily because many of the immigrants are undocumented are concerned about where their information may go. One -- I know one thing that – and probably many of you already have this in place. But to have multilingual consent forms that are -- have -- have been double translated and back translated in order that they are as simple as possible and easy to understand and is as non-threatening as possible. Another thing that agencies are doing is working with other grassroots agencies in the community that already are working with the target groups in order to have some sort of collaboration on the importance of receiving an informed research consent.

The third challenge in building internal capacity that our sites have -- have seen is again happened earlier on, and that is that line staff are, the people that are actually providing the services, have varying interest in collecting data and in completing paperwork and that kind of thing. And so it's important early on to buy in the line stuff to the importance of this because I think the solicitation is fairly clear that cooperation with the national evaluation is going to be critical and so, that -- that's a hurdle that should be addressed early on.

The second section then, as far as preparation for assessment, data collection and management has -- have to do with what you actually do than with the data once you have it or how do actually collect the data itself? On our website, which is website that Bill Schechter mentioned early -- earlier was www.capacitybuilding.net. You are going to find quite a -- quite a lot of resources on there. One of which is a listing of the different assessment tools that has be validated to show different dynamics or dimensions with children exposed to violence. And the reason I am bringing this up is because our sites struggled for a long time finding and certifying the right assessment tool to use to assess children exposed to violence and to -- to determine what the impact of that exposure is. So, the recommendation is -- is to select a -- an assessment tool early and then make it workable within -- within your community and your site. And one recommendation is to use maybe local experts or local academic institutions who may have knowledge of this subject area.

with mental health contractors, they don't provide their services to these children in house, but they provide -- they contract with mental health professionals or other agencies or organizations to provide their services, and that has at times, presented a problem in data collection. Because, it's -- it's an absolutely -- a new -- a new requirement that these contractors have not faced before. And oftentimes there is a training issue, and a time -- and resource issue that has to be addressed upfront. And I -- I would encourage and our sites found that the -- the quicker they address this issue, the better off they were, because contractors tend to have a difficult time finding the time to comply with data collection requirements, and may not have the same impetus to do it that that -- the Safestart site does.

And that goes as well for the partner agencies that might be working in the collaborative, understanding what the partner agencies' capacities for collecting data and for managing and -- and understanding the data are as important as well. And I know that a lot of our sites, when they were -- actually writing the original proposal, worked with many of the organizations in the community to produce the proposal.

I know -- I think the solicitation says you must have at least one letter of commitment from another agency, but if you are working with other agencies early on in order to produce the proposal to begin with, you are going to have a good idea of what their internal data collection capacities are and you are going to know kind of what the training needs will be and whether there is going to be hurdles to overcome after the funding has been awarded.

The last thing has to do with IRB approval. Oftentimes, what we found is some sites were very narrow in their IRB proposal, in that they asked for --

Bill Schechter: What's an IRB?

Inga James: I am sorry, Internal Review Board, and what that is that is -- that's approval that one must get in order to share any kind of information about -- for research purposes about children, particularly in this case. And so, it -- I think it's discussed in the solicitation, it's also discussed in the frequently asked questions about where to go for an IRB approval. But, I think it's important that you state very explicitly that your raw data will be shared with the National Evaluation Team and OJJDP, because if you are not explicit in stating that raw data is being shared, then the IRB may only approve that aggregate data is shared. And that -- and that causes a problem, because the National Evaluation is going to request and acquire raw data.

So I think it's important that -- that's real explicit in your proposal to the internal review board. The last thing I wanted to discuss has to do with developing comparison groups and control groups, and I -- I hear your concerns and your frustration in some of the questions that came out earlier, and believe me you are not alone. We've -- we've struggled with this, throughout this Safestart Phase, and so -- some things that we have learned, and hopefully can pass on to you, is what I would like to talk about next. One way in -- to get around the control comparison problem that we found that works many times is to use children that are wait-listed for services, as a comparison group. These are the -- these are children that have already been identified and assessed as needing services but for whatever reason because of sending and personnel resource needs, you are not able to serve them at the time. So, they can then be access as a comparison or control child.

We also have our communities or our Safestart sites have gone into other communities, neighboring communities that may have very similar demographics, a very similar crime rate, very similar population base and identify and assess children or there may already be an agency doing that in the neighboring communities and use them as a comparison or control. So, nobody is being denied services, it's just that they are not in your catchment area. And you can -- another reason to have a really good collaborative base is that communities can help each other out with this. I mean -- I am sorry organizations can help each other out with this and other agencies may be able to produce a group of comparison -- kids that can be used for that purpose.

I know that some sites are using head start children, for example, who are not enrolled in services but may come from a similar background or similar family situation as the Safestart kids. And then the other thing to keep in mind even though it's not going to be your sole responsibility to generate these comparison group children is that it's expected that there will be at least 30 comparison group kids to make up a comparison group. So we need to have at least 30 and if -- if the national evaluation decides to -- to measure many different variables, that number will have to increase exponentially. So, we are not talking about a small number of children, often time.

The other, the last thing is, and this I would recommend thinking about early and it's a problem in research of all areas and that is that we should develop a plan or a strategy early on to retain comparison group children in the study. Oftentimes, because they are not getting any services people are not following up with them, naturally like a service provider would. They move away and nobody hears from them and there is -- so there is a great attrition rate in a comparison group. But there are things that can be done and I know the national evaluator will be looking to -- the local community to figure out strategies for retaining comparison -- the comparison group members in the study, so that we don't lose that data.

I think that's all I have got for right now, and so I will turn it back over to Katherine Dark-Schmitt.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: Inga, thank you so much, and thank you to the entire net for being willing to be a part of these calls. Before we open the last 30 minutes of this call up to questions again, I want to address a couple of questions that came in via e-mail. The first question is, where in the application do we discuss why we chose this intervention, Bill Schechter do you want to tackle that please?

Bill Schechter: Yes, that most appropriately goes in the project design section of your program narrative and if you are familiar with what the program narrative has to have at least five sections and they have point values and the peer reviewers that will be reviewing these applications. We will look very carefully at these and it's the third is the problems to be addressed, the goals and objectives, project design, data collection and submission and requirements and the organizational capacity, capability and management. So, you'd want to put the rationale for the particular approach or intervention that you have chosen in the project design section.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: Second question we got via e-mail is, do we want the letters of support in hard copy? How are they to be submitted with the application? And I will address that briefly. The application process is entirely electronic, so those letters, the agreement letters to support memoranda of co-operation and agreement should be scanned in. If scanning in is not feasible for your organization there is a technique called write faxing, you can find out about how either of these options would work by calling the GMS helpdesk. That number is listed on page iii of the program announcement. Those are the technical folks that can walk you through the actual submission of your application online.

Bill Schechter: And GMS stands for?

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: The Grant Management System. All right, Sean, at this point we are going to open the queue back up for questions please?

Operator: Thank you. If you have a question at this time, please the “1” key on your touch-tone telephone. If your question has been answered or you wish to remove yourself from the queue, please press the “#” key. Our first question comes from Robert Ketterlinus of Philadelphia PA.

Robert Ketterlinus: Thank you. I guess Katherine this might be addressed to you about the evaluation component, national evaluation. In the August 12 fax, there was an encouragement, I think, for collecting process data implementation process data. And I am wondering whether or not the national evaluator is going to be doing any process evaluation data collection, or will it be strictly focused on outcome evaluation. And will an application be looked on more highly if there is some sort of data collected about implementation that might be fed back into the processes of fine-tuning the implementation. And then I also had just a real quick question whether or not OJJDP has requirements regarding minimum follow up rates on the -- on the national evaluation, and whether or not local programs are going to be responsible for that?

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: I will address the second question first, if that's all right.

Robert katterlinus: Sure.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: We have not established minimum follow up rates at this stage. We think it will be appropriate to have those kinds of discussions both with the site program staff and the national evaluator after the sites are selected and we have a feed for the communities in which we are going to be working. This will be collaborative in that we are -- of course are interested in helping the sites as much as we can, to improve the robustness of the evaluation.

Robert Katterlinus: Uh-huh.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: There are -- there is language in the program announcement that indicates that if sites are not able or are not responsive to the data collection requirement, they may be eliminated from future funding --.

Robert Katterlinus: Uh-huh.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: We don't intend to have to use that stick, we intend to work with you as best we can to keep the retention numbers up, we are certainly aware of the whole raft of problems that can beset a group that is being followed over time.

Robert Katterlinus: Okay.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: And your first question – I thought that second one was going to be the quick one.

Robert Katterlinus: Uh-huh.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: First question was about --?

Robert Katterlinus: About the implementation process --.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: Oh thank you.

Robert Katterlinus: -- for the, yeah --.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: The national evaluation is an outcome evaluation; it is not focused on process evaluation.

Robert Katterlinus: Okay.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: That said, of course the national evaluator will have to be fairly familiar with what you are doing, since they are in a position to understand help us to approach your outcome.

Robert Katterlinus: Right.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: In terms of should the local sites be conducting process evaluation, I think a strong application would include some plan for monitoring the implementation of the intervention at your site and having some sort of feedback loop in place --.

Robert Katterlinus: Uh-huh.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: -- so that midcourse corrections or improvements could be made of necessary.

Robert katterlinus: Right.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: You might choose to do that through the formal mechanism of a process evaluation, or you might choose some other mechanism and -- and any method that -- that achieves that goal would be appropriate under the solicitation.

Robert Katterlinus: Thank you very much.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: Thank you.

Operator: Our next question comes from Sally Dorman of Alfred, New York.

Sally Dorman: Hi, I had a series of questions.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: I think I've learned I can now only take them one at a time, Sally -- can you – if we piece these out one at a time?

Sally Dorman: Yes, almost definitely.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: Thank you.

Sally Dorman: Most definitely. About the $10,000 that for evaluation, do we describe how we are going to -- you know, use that for the data collection in such or I -- or should I just assume that goes to the national evaluator, I think I was a little confused about that.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: The 10,000 the -- the disbursement of the $10,000 is the -- will be, it will be spent by the site, it will be awarded to the sites, spent by the site and you do need to account for that in both your budget and your narrative. So please do draft some text about who and how and when those $10,000 will be employed in an effort to collect the data.

Sally Dorman: And, then on page 18, it talks a little about how -- you know, being involved in this grant and all the partners that they would give up the fee for service. And I guess what I am wondering about if -- you know, would there be a -- could we change the grant for say the mental provision for clients or do clients get the services for free or -- you know, that whole issue around there?

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: That -- that language is very specific to Office of Justice program funding under our financial guidelines. When we say no fees are permitted what we mean is that no for-profit organization may submit an application in which they have included a percentage of the budget that is their profit or fee. It means nothing more than that. So, all payments that are necessary for staff, for treatment services, for equipment, those are all allowable under the grant, you don't even need to worry about that language about waving of fees unless you or one of your co-applicants or anyone to whom you may be giving money from this grant is a for-profit organization.

Sally Dorman: Oh, okay -- okay. Because --

Bill Schechter: That has nothing to do with user fees as -- as such.

Sally Dorman: Okay. I understand because we -- we have like a sliding fee scale and --

Bill Schechter: Uh huh.

Sally Dorman: -- most of the clients actually don't pay because of that, but -- so, we were concerned if we were not allowed to use that sliding fee, but we are not a for-profit agency.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: That's right because --

Sally Dorman: -- not an issue --

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: -- the -- the prohibition here is -- is for fees used in another context. It sounds like you are fine.

Sally Dorman: Okay -- okay. And then, the last question goes to -- it -- it seems as though this project is more for tertiary prevention types of activities. So, primary prevention activities targeted at all children, those would not be allowable?

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: Bill Schechter?

Bill Schechter: Yes, I am -- I am not sure exactly what you mean by ‘tertiary' and I certainly don't think I would characterize the -- the program as being only for tertiary prevention. So, what do you mean by it?

Sally Dorman: ‘Tertiary' meaning the -- someone had -- is a victim, already identified versus primary prevention would be for everyone in the population. So, we do a lot of violence prevention in schools and we --

Bill Schechter: Uh huh.

Sally Dorman: -- target the whole school community --

Bill Schechter: Uh huh -- uh-huh.

Sally Dorman: -- versus just the kids at risk, and I was wondering would those activities qualify?

Bill Schechter: Well, and -- and I think the answer to that is not a simple answer, but it really has to do with the kinds of data you are going to be responsible for collecting --

Sally Dorman: Yeah.

Bill Schechter: -- and reporting on. And if, what you are doing is so primary in your terms that you can't specifically identify children and -- and follow them over the course of time, meaning the requirements for data collection --

Sally Dorman: Right.

Bill Schechter: -- then, it's probably not appropriate. That doesn't rule out, however, a prevention strategy as part of your promising approach.

Sally Dorman: Okay. Thank you, I think that's the last -- the question.

Operator: Our next question comes from Glenna Wilson of Pittsburgh , PA.

Glenna Wilson: I have two questions, one as -- is it allowable to write into the budgeting cost for incentives in order to recruit and retain participants?

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: Yes.

Glenna Wilson: Okay. And secondly, our -- is our indirect cost allowed such as the -- the lead agencies cost of simply housing the program and operating it?

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: We addressed this in the FAQ, indirect costs are allowable, and you must supply evidence of your federally approved indirect cost rate.

Glenna Wilson: Okay -- okay. Thank you very much.

Operator: Our next question comes from Charity Cason of Riverside, California.

Charity Cason: I -- you spoke about sample size when you were talking about your comparison group and I was wondering if there is some sort of sample size requirement with population being served?

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: Bill Schechter?

Bill Schechter: I think that what Inga was referring to before would be -- would be really an important consideration. There has to be a sufficient number of children served in order to have the research and evaluation component provide any meaningful results.

Charity Cason: Okay.

Bill Schechter: Also, that will undoubtedly be one of the things that the reviewers are looking at as they review your proposal to see the number of children and family served with the amount of money you are asking for.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: Bill, this is Katherine Dark-Schmitt again, I want to expand further on Bill's response, and this is a question we get frequently. There is no minimum expectation set, the reviewers do not have a number in their head that they will be looking at to approve or disapprove an application for funding. What they will be looking at is your population, the number of children whom could possibly be in your catchment area and that's to accommodate rural areas, tribal groups, other folks who are working in less densely populated area. And as Bill says, they will also be looking to see that your cost per child given the length of your intervention and the depth and intensity of your intervention aligns with a number of children that you predict serving.

Charity Cason: Okay. So there -- there is nothing established in terms of power by the national evaluator?

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: There is not.

Charity Cason: Okay, thank you.

Operator: Our next question comes from Jill Tyler of Tucson, Arizona .

Jill Tyler: Good afternoon. During Phase I, did the sites have any concerns regarding follow-up with the children, here in Tucson we found that tracking children exposed to violence has been difficult due to the transient nature of this population, I was just hoping for some guidance on this?

Bill Schechter: Uh-huh.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: Susan, could you address this first and then turn it over to Inga when Caliber is finished?

Susan Chibnall: Well, actually we didn't have a component to the national evaluation in Phase I, that was specific to -- we don't have the kind of outcome study in Phase I that was proposed for Phase II. However, there have been some issues at the local level. The sites in Phase I were required to have a local evaluation in addition to participating in the national evaluation. And I will let Inga talk about the kinds of issues sites may have had locally tracking kids.

Inga James: Thank you Susan. This is Inga James. Yes, retaining children in services or for follow-up after services has been a challenge for all the reasons that you mentioned, and sites have had to be extremely creative with how they -- they are dealing with that. And I think that they are still working through some of those issues and trying to figure out the best way to cut down on their attrition rate using the resources that they have in their community, some of the other organizations that they work with and some of the -- just the grassroots kind of work that's going on. I know that one organization has -- or actually was a mental health provider that contracts with the Safestart site has developed a relationship with a DSS worker, Department of Social Services worker. Who -- who then helps or track families that may have disappeared because of their transient nature, because of -- of having to leave a situation that's violent for one thing, and others are doing similar creative collaborative building with other organizations that may have better handle on where people are going and -- and how to track them. But, yes it's -- it is definitely a -- difficult situation and I guess our recommendation would be to make use of the resources that are in your specific community.

Jill Tyler: Thank you.

Operator: Our next question comes from Nathan O'Hara of Santa Barbara , California.

Nathan O'Hara: Yes, hello. I have several questions actually to do with budgeting. First off we -- we have several collaborators working together in this project and of course some agency. Is your expectation that the collaborators will come in -- come under the contract line item on the budget or under -- will be using the budget detail worksheet and spelling out all expenses?

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: Bill?

Bill Schechter: Yes, you -- you should use the detailed budget worksheet although it's not absolutely required and generally, that's where you would enter amounts that are shared by your collaborators under the contract section.

Nathan O'Hara: Okay. I -- I am a little confused, do you want a separate budget detailed worksheet for each?

Bill Schechter: No -- no -- no – unh-unh.

Nathan O'Hara: So, one budget detailed worksheet, but we wouldn't put the --?

Bill Schechter: You would list, if you intend to sub contract basically, which is how that would be seen.

Nathan O'Hara: Typically, yeah.

Bill Schechter: Yeah, you would have to specifically list who you are subcontracting with and why, and for what?

Nathan O'Hara: So each subcontractor -- each collaborator other than the lead agency will be a subcontractor, is that right?

Bill Schechter: If -- if there is money flowing to them as part of this.

Nathan O'Hara: Oh okay -- okay, great. And then a little different issue but on - on the issue of collaborators, you want an MoU signed by each collaborator as well as a letter of commitment from each one, is that correct?

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: Bill?

Bill Schechter: One or the other and Frequently Asked Questions deal --

Nathan O'Hara: Oh, I am sorry.

Bill Schechter: -- with that – no, that's fine. Deal with that issue because different people in different communities use those terms in different ways, and what we are really looking for is evidence of commitment of at the least two collaborating organizations and agencies.

Nathan O'Hara: Okay.

Bill Schechter: And, it's not a minimum of two it's at the least two. Nathan O'Hara: Right, yeah we have got four, right now.

Bill Schechter: Okay. So, what we are looking for is evidence of commitment. Not just evidence of support.

Nathan O'Hara: Got it okay. And then my final question is on the organization charts. I assume -- I am assuming you want a project organizational chart, but then other folks in the collaborative says that -- do they want organizational charts for our agencies in the sense they were cooperating on the budget, of that is the component of their agency that has been involved?

Bill Schechter: Well, the primary thing that -- that we want is the project chart, although under program attachments there is a provision for supplemental material demonstrating organizational capacity, capability and readiness --

Nathan O'Hara: Right.

Bill Schechter: -- and that's where you -- if people desire to do so, you would attach those kinds of things --

Nathan O'Hara: It looks like the --.

Bill Schechter: -- but -- project chart we want.

Nathan O'Hara: It looks like there is no pages on the -- on the -- program attachment section, is that correct? Oh dear!

Bill Schechter: The short answer to your question is, no there isn't. But consider this act that reviewers are reviewing these.

Nathan O'Hara: Okay, I am with you -- I am with you -- so. Okay that's my question, thank you so much.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: Thank you.

Operator: Our next question it comes from Judy Hines Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

Judy Hines: Thank you. We are in the beginning stages of developing collaboration and we don't feel we are ready for this grant this year, although it's certainly addresses the areas that we're focusing on. We are wondering if there is likely to be a Phase III, if there would be another opportunity a year down the road for a grant like this?

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: Bill.

Bill Schechter: That's not been decided yet, so I would not depend on that.

Judy Hines: Okay, thank you.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: Bill do you want to mention something about Safe & Bright Futures?

Bill Schechter: Yes, there is a simultaneous program announcement emanating from the Department of Health & Human Services called Safe & Bright Futures, that also has a deadline of September 9 rather than September 10, that deals with the intersection of domestic violence and child abuse and neglect. It's designed somewhat differently, it has up to 30 grants for planning $75,000 a year for two years and then of those 30 will re-compete for implementation grants -- eight implementation grants of $500,000 a year for up to four years. So, that's also on the street as we say at the same time. Now, that also is probably not going to be a recurring although it might be but it's not designed as a recurring annual program announcement.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: But we offer that since you mentioned that your collaboration might not be ready to implement at this point and Safe & Bright Futures offers two years of a planning in collaboration --

Bill Schechter: Uh-huh.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: -- development period before implementation must begin.

Judy Hines: Thank you.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: Thank you.

Operator: Our next question comes from Jane sites of Cincinnati , Ohio.

Jane Sites: Hi. Just a quick question, when looking over the national eval and the case variable questions -- I can only assume and I am hoping I'm correct here, that you are talking about new instance at each quarter or semi annual questioning period, correct? In other words, if we get a child involved and do what we hope is to keep them safe, the fact that they were abused at age three and now we are talking to them at five, that would be as no abuse for that section or that session, correct?

Bill Schechter: Um.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: Jane, can you talk around that question a little more?

Jane Sites: Well, we have ran into this a little bit were we have been using some trauma events surveys already in our population on the model we want to use and if you are not careful how you collect the data it becomes -- looks accumulative like they are actually getting re-abused, if you will, each time you measure. Where in fact, you know, you have to be careful in your collection that in fact you are talking about just during that collection period was there a new incident, and you witnessing of violence.

Bill Schechter: Right.

Jane Sites: So, can we be assured that the national evaluators are going to be aware of that, and can we respect that boundary when we do our own on target children?

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: So are you -- are you specifically asking when you collect the six-month follow up data, are you -- are we only interested in any new incidents of violence that may have occurred in the past six months?

Jane Sites: Well -- two part, well the first just -- each other. Am I correct, we are doing the quarterly as well as the semi annual?

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: Yeah, well we will take your indications for both, there was a mistake in the chart at the back of the program announcement, which makes it look like we are interested in child variables collected quarterly. They are actually only bi-annual because we made a mistake in the program announcement we will accept your data collection plans based either on quarterly or semi annually.

Jane Sites: Right, I am -- I am referring to the page 38, is that what you're saying -- those should all be semi annual?

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: Everything that has to do starting with type of violence witnessed and down, should bi-annual not quarterly.

Jane Sites: Okay. Right I think I did -- either way the same question --

Bill Schechter: Yeah.

Jane Sites: -- we are talking about new incidents each time we are collecting, correct?

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: Bill, do I hear you ready to jump in on --?

Bill Schechter: Well, I think that the basic question is -- deals with the fact that data you are collecting will be on a child, not on in a child over time, not on incidents, okay? That's part of the answer to your question.

Jane Sites: Well, because you know, you get in to some very specific issues, the length the time and the linear distance, etc. And I just assume we are talking about any new incident of violence during the collection period as opposed to the initial referral that --

Bill Schechter: Yeah -- yeah, I see what you're --

Jane Sites: It's a little tricky --

Bill Schechter: Yeah -- uh-huh.

Jane Sites: -- now it really skewed our data and I am wondering if that has been taking in to consideration?

Bill Schechter: Well, in a way that's almost like recidivism rate right, I mean what you are looking at is -- at these children over time and every time some incident occurs it's sort of starts the clock ticking again. That's the problem you're referring to?

Jane Sites: That's what I am assuming that on the semi annual basis, if the child -- and we have every reason to know, has been violence free -- it's that the word for it --

Bill Schechter: Right -- right.

Jane Sites: -- then in fact, we hope to have flat line on lot of these, right, as opposed to continually reporting the initial insert or entry.

Bill Schechter: Uh-huh.

Jane Sites: That was really hard for us to understand how you wanted that gathered. We have flipped ours to make sure that we are doing similar in to just new incidents, so that it doesn't look like it's accumulative, you know for what might be just one issue.

Bill Schechter: Katherine, it might be wise to sort of caucus with folks on that before we answer that.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: Okay. Jane we are going to -- we are going to talk about that issue directly and we will post the response to the FAQ, and you know how to reach me?

Jane Sites: I sure do, thank you Katherine.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: Okay, sure.

Jane Sites: Thank you.

Operator: Our next question comes from Jennifer Brennan of Elmsford , New York.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: (Over speaking, indiscernible) but there is a big overlap in our numbers.

Operator: Ma'am, your line is open.

Bill Schechter: Hello?

Jennifer Brennan: Hi, I am sorry did you say Jennifer Brennan?

Bill Schechter: Yes.

Jennifer Brennan: I am sorry. A number of our questions were answered already, but I just -- just for clarification on the number of times that the data will – you said bi-annual, do you mean twice a year or you mean, bi -- every two years?

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: I mean at six-month intervals.

Jennifer Brennan: Okay. That's right, so – okay, so twice a year semi annually then. The other question that I had was the MOU that every thing is electronic, does it require a signature if there -- there are certain collaborators that we will be working with who can e-mail me on their letterhead an MOU, but they may not have the capability to have the signature. So, is that a problem?

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: Bill?

Bill Schechter: Yes. I -- I think what you need to do -- and again this is a question for the GMS help – helpdesk and the number's listed in both the program announcement and the Frequently Asked Questions. There is an ability to essentially fax a signed copy and get it electronically in to GMS, now if your question has to do with whether or not you can collect only an e-mail without a so called electronic signature --

Jennifer Brennan: Fine.

Bill Schechter: -- that's a different question, I mean --

Jennifer Brennan: That is my question.

Bill Schechter: And -- and that -- and that's a question much broader than -- than just applying for a -- a program. I don't think that's going to be possible.

Jennifer Brennan: Okay, so I would have to do the facts --?

Bill Schechter: Yeah, because there is not an agreement on whether that's in -- in any way legally binding.

Jennifer Brennan: Right.

Bill Schechter: As you probably already know.

Jennifer Brennan: Right -- right. Okay.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: Go ahead.

Jennifer Brennan: Last question here. We were wondering what was the anticipated target number in terms of children served. Is there any sense of what the projects and the scope of the projects in terms of that?

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: We addressed this a few minutes ago. There is no minimum requirement for the number of the children served. The reviewers will look both at the length and intensity of your intervention and at the community from which you are drawing children to have a sense about whether what you have proposed seems reasonable and a good use of the fund.

Jennifer Brennan: Okay, thank you.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: You are welcome. Sean, can you give me an indication of how many questions we have on queue?

Operator: Yes, we have two more left.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: Excellent.

Operator: Our next question comes from Gwen Bouie-Haynes of Jackson , Mississippi.

Gwen Bouie-Haynes: History, I am Gwen Haynes and I am with a private non-profit agency that works with victims of domestic violence and we are interested in collaborating with another agency that's a homeless service provider in the community. I am particularly interested in the IRB clearance, as mentioned in the RSP. Is it customary that universities and colleges would provide such an approval to one who is not connected or affiliated with the university?

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: Bill, do you want to do this, or shall I?

Bill Schechter: You can go ahead, my -- my sense is that and I -- and I believe you have some institutions of higher learning there, especially if they were a land-grant institution, would almost feel obliged to do that. But then that varies from place to place, so Katherine go ahead.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: That would have been my response as well. I believe there are some institutions who might perform what they would call a courtesy review for you, but they would certainly that there -- there is no requirement that they do so if they are not part of your project.

Gwen Bouie-Haynes: That's fine okay. And my second question is, I presume that the budget request would be based upon a 12-month cycle initially?

Bill Schechter: Yes, the first 12 months.

Gwen Bouie-Haynes: Okay.

Bill Schechter: The $210000 budget for the first 12 moths.

Gwen Bouie-Haynes: Okay, thank you.

Inga James: Can I jump in there about the IRB approval?

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: Thank you, Inga, yes.

Inga James: Yes, this is Inga James. One thing I would recommend is -- I think most public institutions yes would read as a courtesy to a non-profit in the community. But, I think that because first of all you are not affiliated with the institution, therefore they would have no control over your research practices. And second of all because they don't know you they would probably not want to put it through what they call an expedited review, which can take any where from a couple of days to two or three weeks. They may send it to the full review committee – committee, which sometimes meets only quarterly. So, you should probably plan in a little extra time because of that.

Gwen Bouie-Haynes: Okay.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: Thank you Inga.

Inga James: Uh-huh.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: And I would remind folks that it is not necessary to have IRB clearance at the time your application is submitted, you just must have initiated the process so that you can document in your application when IRB clearance is anticipated if it has not been received at the time that you submit. Sean, are we finished with question queue?

Operator: We have one more question.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: Okay, we will take that one.

Operator: It's from Elizabeth Kirkland of Samoa.

Elizabeth Kirkland: History, I am actually from American Samoa . Our site -- our site is actually a little bit different. They are actually two Samoa 's, yeah. Our site is a little bit different from the mainland US sites, so my questions are a little bit different from the others. Firstly we don't have a psychologist available on island for this program and I actually e-mailed Katherine about this earlier but -- and -- and actually nor do we have a university on island. Can we pay for travel expenses to hire a psychologist from off island to come in?

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: Bill?

Bill Schechter: I don't know a definitive answer to that, but my sense is yes. But I think the reviewers again will look at that in terms of the feasibility of what it is you are proposing, and the expenses involved in terms of the number of children you are able to serve.

Elizabeth Kirkland: Right – right. We would also -- can we pay for anything associated with hiring experts in data management as well. I would assume that, that's also going to be something that's kind of --?

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: Yes.

Elizabeth Kirkland: Okay. Also, we are working with the Family Court system here. I am getting a lot of data from, specially -- and we're also working with the Department of Public Safety here, I'm getting a lot of data from them about children who are actually perpetrators of violence. Would they also be, with those children who are perpetrators of violence, would they also be considered children who are exposed to violence? I mean in a lot of cases they are the same. They are children who have been exposed to violence but in this case would they be the same, as children who are exposed to violence?

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: Bill?

Bill Schechter: Now that's an interesting -- I assume by children you mean they are less than 18, and --

Elizabeth Kirkland: Correct.

Bill Schechter: -- I can't think of a good reason to say no.

Katherine Dark Schmitt: Bill, I wanted -- this is Katherine Dark-Schmitt again. I -- I think it's highly likely that children who are perpetrators of violence have also -- they are the victims of --

Bill Schechter: Sure.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: -- violence in the past. And so my -- my read of the program announcement, is that we are looking for children who have been victims of violence, and I see no prohibition against including children who may also may have been perpetrators.

Bill Schechter: Right.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: Bill would you say that --

Bill Schechter: -- no, I -- I think you are absolutely right.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: Okay.

Bill Schechter: -- and as you probably know as well, that occurs within families as well external to families, so.

Elizabeth Kirkland: Right -- right. Well and that actually brings up another question that I have. Here we have the village system, and what occurs within the village system is that a lot of this sharing that is taking place within agencies does not take place within the village system. In other words, the village system doesn't talk to official agencies like us here at the Department of Human & Social Services or, you know Child Protective Services or whatever the case may be. Can we have some kind of a section in our proposal to include the village system in order to, not leave out any -- any child who would otherwise be left out and not be counted?

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: Bill?

Bill Schechter: Again, I see no -- no reason that would rule that out.

Elizabeth Kirkland: Okay, and one last question for you. The problem that we have here is that prior to this grant opportunity everyone was basically doing their own thing on island in -- in terms of data collection and whatever. Nobody was really talking to one another where data collection is concerned. So, every one has their own data. Should we include as attachments all of our collaborators and take referral forms, and then construct one overall and take referral form for this particular project?

Bill Schechter: I think that problem and solution are to be part of your project design, and you should treat it that way.

Elizabeth Kirkland: Okay. That's all I had.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: Thank you.

Elizabeth Kirkland: Thank you.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: Sean, have we cleared the question queue?

Operator: Yes, we have.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: All right. Well, I want to thank everyone for participating this afternoon and remind you that the transcript of this call will be available as soon as the consultants are finished transcribing it. And, you will also be able to call and listen to a replay of this teleconference 24x7. Information for where to find the transcript and how to listen to the replay will be available on the Frequently Asked Questions document. In the meantime, if you need a question about the technical requirement of the solicitation address, you can leave us a phone message at 202-307-1341, and we do check the voice-mail box frequently and earnestly return calls, I promise.

Thank you very much for your participation. Speakers, if you will stay on the call to debrief. Everyone else thank you. You are welcome to join a future teleconference if that would be useful to you.

Bill Schechter: Thank you everyone.

Operator: Ladies and gentlemen thank you for your participation in today's conference. This concludes the conference, you may now disconnect. Good day.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: Sean, thank you so much. That was wonderful.

Operator: You're welcome.

Bill Schechter: Thank you.

Operator: Give me one moment to transfer you in to this sub- conference.

Katherine Dark-Schmitt: Excellent, thank you very much.

AMBER Alert | Faith-Based & Community Initiatives | Helping America's Youth
National Sex Offender Public Registry | OJP Reentry Initiative

USA.gov | Privacy | Policies & Disclaimers | FOIA | Site Map | AskJJ
A component of the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice