Bill Schechter: Thank you everyone welcome to the Safe Start Promising Approaches audio conference. My name is Bill Schechter. I'm from OJJDP, that's the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and I'd like to give you an overview of what we are going to try to accomplish in the next hour and a half.

First I want to introduce the other speakers that are with us today -- they include Katherine Darke Schmitt from OJJDP and we have then representatives from two of the national evaluators of the first phase of the Safe Start National Demonstration, and from Caliber Associates we have Kate Abbruzzese, Susan Chibnall, Janet Griffith and Lisa Lunghofer -- and from the Association for the Study and Development of Community, ASCC we have David Chavis and Inga James.

I'd like to tell you what we are going to try to do -- first we are going to spend a few minutes talking about the program announcement in general terms, and then we are going to entertain 10 or so minutes of questions and answers about the program announcements in general terms. And then we will focus on the evaluation data collection side of the program announcements, and Katherine will be explaining some of those details and then we will entertain questions and answers about the data collection/evaluation plan component of the -- of the program announcement. And then we will turn to the national evaluators for phase one, and I should explain that Promising Approaches is phase two of a -- of a Multi-Year national demonstration. Phase one started about five years ago in 11 sites around the country, and the evaluators are going to be talking about what they have learnt from that demonstration. That demonstration is slightly different in it's approach, and the way it's been carried out in Promising Approaches but I think you will find that the results and observations that they have will be relevant, as you think about your own application under Promising Approaches. Each of them will speak for about 10 minutes and then we will turn to the questions and answers on the results and findings of the national evaluators, and then we will have time at the end, for general questions and answers.

There are a couple of things that I want to remind you of, and it would bee very good if everybody had in front of them the 53 page program announcement, that's available on the website, and also the several page frequently asked questions -- document that's also available on the website. I should also remind you that, transcripts of these audio conferences are available at the same place. This is the third or four, there will be one more in about a week. Another very good resource that you will all hear about a little bit later, on the evaluation and data collection side of things is the website for capable communities called www.capacitybuilding.net.and that has information on a valuation plan, finding assessment tools and so forth, from the 11 sites, in the first phase.

So at this time, I want to answer a couple of questions that have already been sent in. Now the first question is -- my understanding is that the emphasis of this program is on direct service delivery. However, one of the quarterly outcomes of the number of workers trained, is the training component imperative in the Safe Start Promising Approaches Program. You know, imperative might be too strong a word, but that is a performance measure, and one of the lessons learnt in the first phase of the -- of the national demonstration is that, in order to prepare people to effectively understand and deliver services training as necessary, and that's training whether it's for the front-line providers or for parents and other care givers. The second question has to do with when funds might be expected, when decisions will be made on the up to 14 grantees, and when funds will start to flow. And again that's addressed in the frequently asked question, and you should for planning purposes, indicate a 12 month budget that begins July 1 of 2005. We expect the review to take place this fall in Winter and announcements in the Spring and awards made late Spring or early Summer.

So at this point -- unless one of my colleagues have something they want to add at this point, let's open it up for questions and answers on the general aspects of the program announcement.

Operator: Thank you. If you have any question at this time 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 is from Jane Sites.

Jane Sites: Hi. This is a very general question it's coming actually from a lot of our typists. They just have a hard time believing this is a very beginning question, about the use of font 12 on tables and figures. And that is also a huge question for all of us, with a 30 page limit. Is that exactly how you meant it to be interpreted?

Bill Schechter: Say -- say again the question.

Jane Sites: It's a very general question about the preparation. It's very clearly says one inch margins but font 12 on our table charts and figures.

Bill Schechter: Yeah, it's 12 points font, right.

Jane Sites: Even on the charts and tables and figures?

Bill Schechter: No, I don't think that's necessary. What we are, we are trying to get at is the -- the narrative because we don't want it to be any longer than 30 pages --

Jane Sites: Oh well, that's --.

Bill Schechter: -- that have margins and -- and readability.

Jane Sites: Okay, and you are quite sure on that because you clearly say that in the announcement and it's becoming quite a struggle -- do not use anything but a font 12 on charts and tables. So it's not necessary, right? Just so it's readable?

Bill Schechter: Right.

Jane Sites: Okay.

Bill Schechter: Definitely readable.

Jane Sites: Thank you very much.

Operator: Our next question is from Mary Brown.

Mary Brown: Yeah, is there a under training, it has occurred to us that, to train adequately the people in our area -- that -- the people, the staff will need to be trained in a -- sort of a train the trainer format. Is there training available in the Safe Start Promising Approaches and the lessons that have been learnt by the demonstration locations already?

Bill Schechter: If you are asking whether that's a component of the phase one of the Safe Start, it is a component in every one of them. And I think as you probably hear a little bit later on, and during the evaluation questions and answers, maybe the evaluators can address the -- the role that training has made in producing outcomes.

Mary Brown: Well, what -- what I'm really asking is -- you know, I went on the side that the -- you know, children exposed to violence side, looking for training in technical assistance and -- and it seemed to indicate that - that organization provided training in the Safe Start model and what -- what I'm really asking is -- the way that we are designing our program, the project manager would be doing the training throughout the community, and community outreach, and for that person to be trained and thoroughly in the Safe Start model or lessons that have already been learnt is there -- you know, a -- a training that's already setup, that goes on, or do we just send that person to training that -- you know, that are within our -- you know, already on network?

Bill Schechter: There is no sort of regularly schedule Safe Start (indiscernible) -- a number of the resources listed in the back of the program announcement do offer training of -- and usually on a customized tailored basis. I know some of the existing Safe Start sites have entertained questions and -- and requests for that sort of thing so --

Mary brown: Uh-huh.

Bill Schechter: -- that would also be available. I think your observation about the staff meeting training before they go out and train other people is -- is -- is a legitimate one.

Mary Brown: And so we just need to -- you know, call each one of those individually and see whose training will fit our needs --

Bill Schechter: Right.

Mary Brown: -- rather than there being --.

Bill Schechter: Yeah, then it depends on the kind of training that -- that you are looking for.

Mary Brown: Okay -- okay. In my other question is, in the $210,000, you know, cap and it says $10,000 is for the data collection.

Bill Schechter: Right.

Mary Brown: Does that mean that if we have a staff member, whose -- has part of their responsibility is the data management and collection, making sure that all that information is collected from each child. Then does that mean that $10,000 can be used towards that person's salary or does that mean that $10,000 is something that sort of set aside that we don't -- that -- that sites don't get -- don't use for their data collection but that's used for a national effort?

Bill Schechter: No. That -- that's for the local site to use in collecting the data that will be then submitted to the national evaluation effort, but that -- that -- you should budget for that and -- and stipulate how you are going to spend it.

Mary Brown: Okay. Great. Thank you very much.

Bill Schechter: Sure.

Operator: Our next question comes from Alison Ramsay.

Alison Ramsay: Hi. As a general question, would you -- are you looking for a community-wide programs that address all kinds of children exposed to all kinds of violence? Or are you interested in a very narrow focus program such as -- just looking at improving school readiness in pre-school children whose been exposed to domestic violence? Something with very -- very narrow focus?

Bill Schechter: I think that really depends on -- there -- I think there will be a variety of Approaches proposed.

Alison Ramsay: Uh-huh.

Bill Schechter: And it really comes down to what you think, in your community, is most needed and what you feel most confident in -- in that particular Approaches effectiveness.

Alison Ramsay: So in the narrative, we would mean -- to talk about why we have selected this very narrow focus?

Bill Schechter: Oh, well -- yes.

Alison Ramsay: Okay.

Bill Schechter: That would be very helpful. The reviewers would be looking for that sort of rational.

Alison Ramsay: Okay. Thank you very much.

Operator: Our next question comes from Carol Horwitz.

Carol Horwitz: Oh, can you hear me?

Bill Schechter: Yes.

Carol Horwitz: Lets see, can you hear me?

Bill Schechter: Yes.

Carol Horwitz: Can you hear me?

Bill Schechter: Yes.

Carol Horwitz: Okay. My question was about the Control Group and I am a little bit confused. I have read through the -- the guidelines several times now. Now do we actually find a Control Group or do you --?

Bill Schechter: May I ask you to hold that question to the -- the question and the answer period that's going to come up shortly after Katherine addresses the evaluation and data collection issues?

Carol Horwitz: Okay.

Bill Schechter: Okay, make sure that you get back in the queue when the time comes.

Carol Horwitz: Okay.

Bill Schechter: Thanks.

Operator: Our next question comes from Linda Martin.

Linda Martin: Yes, I was asking -- in the frequently asked questions and answers that says fees for service can be reimbursed directly associated with providing -- providing the treatment. If the -- if one organization is a for profit and the other collaborative organization is a not for profit, can the for profits organization handle that or does the payroll have to go through the not for profit collaborative?

Bill Schechter: I don't think there is any particular preference one way or another on that. The -- what the -- the -- the waiving of the fee or process obviously applies to for profit entities but that does not preclude any of the entities charging a -- a user fees for part or some of the services that they are offering. And -- and so there is not any particular preference or guidance one way or another --

Linda Martin: Okay, so you could charge a --

Bill Schechter: -- to handle that.

Linda Martin: -- and it's like -- an evaluation or therapeutic an hourly -- therapeutic for each hour --

Bill Schechter: Yeah.

Linda Martin: -- of therapeutic contact.

Bill Schechter: Yeah, various -- proposals would probably come in with a variety of approaches but a common one that -- that the people have already expressed and asked questions about is whether they can use a sliding scale that many agencies already have in place to charge for services or offer free or reduced price services.

Linda Martin: Okay.

Bill Schechter: That answers your question?

Linda Martin: Yeah -- yeah because I wasn't sure when it said you waive -- profit.

Bill Schechter: Yeah.

Linda Martin: In other words, you can't put an add-on.

Bill Schechter: Right.

Linda Martin: But -- but you can actually still go ahead and charge what your fees would be.

Bill Schechter: Right.

Linda Martin: Okay, that's -- that's really helpful. Thank you.

Bill Schechter: Sure.

Operator: Our next question comes from Karen Broussard.

Karen Broussard: Yes, hi. Again, I just -- I just have a logistical question again and I did not see it in the frequently asked questions. On places -- on the application where a signature is required, how do you want us to submit those to you? Should those be submitted by hard copy and by the September 10th date. What is the best way to make that happen?

Bill Schechter: No, everything is done on-line but there are provisions within the grant management system and you should call the help number that's there to ask how to do that.

Karen Broussard: Okay.

Bill Schechter: I believe it's a technique called Write Back thing or something like that.

Karen Broussard: Oh, okay. Okay, so the help number for grants management.

Bill Schechter: Right.

Karen Broussard: And my second --.

Bill Schechter: The first part of the program announcement has several pages on how to apply.

Karen Broussard: Right. I just did not understand, I guess.

Bill Schechter: Yeah, it's all right.

Karen Broussard: How to do that signature piece of it, I know it's just logistics but it's an important logistics and the other one also is, and I maybe behind the -- the eight ball on this one, is obtaining and this may have to come through grants -- grants management as well. Obtaining -- what is the most efficient and quickest way in obtaining a -- indirect cost rate?

Bill Schechter: To the answer your question, simply there is no quick way.

Karen Broussard: Okay, good.

Bill Schechter: If you do not already have one, it's -- it's -- some -- often times lengthy process --

Karen Broussard: Uh-huh.

Bill Schechter: -- several months. At least several weeks because --

Karen Broussard: Uh-huh.

Bill Schechter: -- what you have to do is have an accountant go through and audit certain expenses within your organization and -- according to a certain format.

Karen Broussard: Right.

Bill Schechter: And that's established by whoever your principal federal funder is and then you must negotiate the rate --

Karen Broussard: Uh-huh.

Bill Schechter: -- that the accountant -- your accountant arrived at, with the relevant Federal Agency. And so it can take weeks, if not months to obtain one.

Karen Broussard: I understand there is a provisional rate that can be assigned?

Bill Schechter: That might be true, although I don't have any direct experience with how long that takes here.

Karen Broussard: Uh-huh.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: Bill, may I address this?

Bill Schechter: Sure.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: This is Katherine Darke Schmitt from OJJDP.

Karen Broussard: Hi.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: It is permissible to submit an application with an estimated indirect rate and what would happen is if your proposal --

Bill Schechter: Right.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: -- was selected for funding, you would not -- the funds would not come to you until you had been through this process that Bill had described.

Karen Broussard: Okay, so you said it's permissible to -- say it again.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: To send us a budget that has an estimated indirect cost rate.

Karen Broussard: Okay. Okay, great.

Bill Schechter: With a notation that it's been applied for and --

Karen Broussard: Got it.

Bill Schechter: -- then there would be -- if you were successful, there would be special condition on your award --

Karen Broussard: Understand.

Bill Schechter: -- that you couldn't spend that money until --

Karen Broussard: Right.

Bill Schechter: -- there was evidence.

Karen Broussard: Right -- right. Well, hopefully there would be enough time if the award was made.

Bill Schechter: Yes.

Karen Broussard: Okay great. Okay thanks.

Bill Schechter: Sure.

Operator: Our next question comes from Jane Sites.

Jane Sites: Hi, thanks again. Just one last clarification on the gaps in services in the community. And I think your RSP does a great job at presenting how under-researched this whole area is. When we present our memos of understanding from our co-applicants, if they clearly present the need in their words and we can document that let's say, a county data. Is that sufficient, or are you really wanting to see some formal process of needs assessment for various counties or communities?

Bill Schechter: Well, obviously that's one of the -- the factors that the reviewers will look at is how you document this -- what the need is. And so there is probably no exact answer on that. There -- in other words, there is not a formula that -- that the reviewers will be going by.

Jane Sites: All right, thank you.

Bill Schechter: Sure.

Operator: Our next question comes from Carol Horwitz.

Carol Horwitz: I got my question answered, never mind.

Bill Schechter: Okay, good for you.

Operator: Our next question comes from Glenda Cooper.

Glenda Cooper: Hi, I have a question about indirect cost rate.

Bill Schechter: Sure.

Glenda Cooper: We are applying on behalf of a tribe and we will be the lead applicant. However, we will also be representing the minority of the population that we hope to serve. Is there anyway we could split the indirect cost rate between two agencies?

Bill Schechter: Explain what you have in mind for that.

Glenda Cooper: Well, we would like to include as much as the community as we can. However our -- our population group is really only going to be a small percentage of the people that we are targeting. And we just want to make sure that we are not running programs for -- primarily non-Indian people. If that's the case, then perhaps we should not be the lead or we should find a way to split the indirect cost rate and make another agency also a primary applicant.

Bill Schechter: Yeah, that's -- that's really a local option decision that you are going to have to make as you figure out which of the members of your collaborative is going to serve as the -- as the applicant or the lead agency.

Glenda Cooper: Would that be all right if we are not able to split the indirect cost rate to act as the lead applicant but yet only be able to serve a small portion of our target group?

Bill Schechter: Oh, I -- I think that -- yeah, that's not an issue.

Glenda Cooper: Okay, thank you.

Operator: Our final question comes from Dawn Suleri.

Dawn Suleri: Yes, I have a question about the children to be served under this grantee and we are considering a focus on children from zero to three and because that is definitely an undeserved group. I am wondering if it's feasible for us to -- to focus on that group and if there are implication about having to do with performance variables, some of those don't seem as relevant to children in the zero pre-age group.

Bill Schechter: Yeah, and that will be something of an issue as you choose the kind of assessment to all that you will use for accessing the children on the impact of violence. And that's a -- that's a decision that you should really address well in your proposal.

Dawn Suleri: So, as long as we address it, then we won't be -- we won't be uncompetitive by -- by using that focus?

Bill Schechter: I wouldn't think so, no.

Dawn Suleri: Okay, I have an additional question which is in terms of the numbers served.

Bill Schechter: Uh-huh.

Dawn Suleri: Are you looking for any particular size -- you know, what we are doing essentially is we have chosen a model and then we are working backwards to figure how many we can serve using that model, given the amount of money of the grantee. But we are concerned that this size -- the number served maybe small and do you have any guidance to give us in terms of numbers served?

Bill Schechter: No, other than a caution that obviously they are going to be probably more proposals than will be funded and the number served and the intensity of service will be one of the factors that the reviewers look at.

Dawn Suleri: Uh-huh. So -- I mean, obviously they -- they want to see effective service because that very often is expensive, so it will bring down the numbers served.

Bill Schechter: That's -- that's one -- that's one of the perspective on it for sure.

Dawn Suleri: But there is no threshold like if we -- we are only able to serve say, 50 that wouldn't automatically put us out there.

Bill Schechter: No there -- there is no defined threshold --

Dawn Suleri: Okay.

Bill Schechter: -- in the program announcement during the sort of the --

Dawn Suleri: Okay.

Bill Schechter: -- implicit criteria.

Operator: I'm showing no further questions.

Bill Schechter: Okay, at this point I would like to turn it over to Katherine and she is going to talk little bit about the evaluation and data collection requirement.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: Thank you Bill. Hello everyone, thank you for participating this afternoon. All right, we have got some returnees on the line and hopefully we will continue to give consistent information and address your questions about data collection and local and national evaluation of Safe Start Promising Approaches Program. I will begin my remarks by saying that there is no local evaluation components of Safe Start Promising Approaches. Sites have no responsibility at all for local evaluation. The reason for this is that the Federal government has determined that it will be most efficient to contract with a National Evaluator through a separate competitive process to filled and implementing designed for national evaluation. Now that National Evaluator will rely on the data that you are to be collecting and submitting quarterly and biannually. And in addition the National Evaluator will have the responsibility of collecting data from the comparison and Control Group at each site. So the $10,000 set aside for data collection is for use by the site for any purpose that is necessary to collect the data from the children you serve, putting it into a spread sheet and sending that spread sheet to OJJDP and you will be collecting data on every child served. The variables that we expect to be collected are listed in the program announcement. We understand that some of those -- particularly school aged variables are less relevant for younger populations, but we have (indiscernible) into a clear idea of what outcomes we are interested in by telling you what variables to measure, so please keep that in mind as you select your target population. Also, it is perfectly acceptable to use proxy measures where you are an informant or too young to reliably produce the information that we need. We have asked you in the application to give us information about where a comparison or a randomly assigned Control Group population might come from. The reason for this is that the federal government is particularly interested in using experimental and quasi-experimental design for valuation in order to produce the kind of data that will standup to a rigorous analytical review in order to tell us what works and what doesn't work in the field. We have asked for information both about comparisons and Control Groups, because we are aware that in some sites where political and other kinds of contextual reasons, it will not be feasible to collect information from a group of children who are randomly assigned to a no treatment group. If you feel that your community falls in this category where a no treatment group is not an option for you, you will need to address that in the narrative explaining why it isn't and then providing information about where a reasonable Comparison Group might be drawn from and the FAQ and the program announcement have indicated some resources for you to read about the comparison and Control Group. Keep in mind that the local sites will have no responsibility for actually collecting data on kids who are in your comparison or your Control Group. All you need to do in this application stage is give us an idea of what populations are likely targets for comparison or control and then later as the national evaluation design and contractor is selected, they will come back and to meet with you to firm up plans in those regard. We have clarified the FAQ description of this process, it was posted today the new FAQ. We do not need a formal memorandum of understanding from a site which could provide a formal comparison or Control Group to you with the application that is not a requirement of the application. The basic minimum requirement is that you write some text describing for us, where the comparison or Control Groups might come from, which agencies might be useful recruiting the cases et cetera. If you were able to include some sort of letter of support or memoranda from an agency whom you are suggesting could help you -- help us recruit children for your comparison or control, the reviewers would probably look on that as extra evidence and the strategy that you are proposing in (Vilo) however, this is not mandatory, so it's an option if you are able to do it. No applicant would be disqualified from consideration because they had determined that a no treatment Control Group was not feasible in their community however, whether you are able to propose a no treatment strategy or a strong comparison strategy will be one of many criteria that the reviewers examine has a ranking their proposals. The National Evaluator has not been selected yet but will be selected through a competitive process. We anticipate during the winter 2004-2005. Sites will have access to data collected by their -- by the National Evaluator to the comparison Control Group in case that were useful to you. But, again I will reiterate that we are not encouraging sites to develop local evaluation plans. There are two primary reasons for this. The first is this is not a larger word, $210,000 does not provide you with sufficient funding to produce an adequate local evaluation and second it's very important that any local evaluation strategies not interfere or impede with the national evaluation in anyway. I am going to turn now to address some questions that were e-mailed to us on recollection and local and -- national evaluation and then we will open up the floor again for question. The first question deals with the length of time that children who received services will be followed. The children whom you treat will need to have those data selected at six months intervals for 24 months after they enter or after they complete your intervention. If your intervention is of significant duration, for instance, several months or a year, then it would be most sound to start planning to collect the six month follow-up date at the conclusion of the intervention. The data will be collected from children in the control and the Comparison Group at 12 months interval using the same instruments that you are using with your population, those data will be selected by the National Evaluator. We also got a question about institutional review board which are called IRB. There is information posted about IRB used in the FAQ. One of the indications to this agency that your proposed collaborative is in a ready staged undertake this kind of work. Is your ability to find and initiate the IRB process, so the guidance that we are able to give you about IRB is located in the FAQ. All right, we have a question about one sites are selected refunding, the National Evaluator will work with them to identify appropriate resources for comparison Control Group. So, you are going to break some initial suggestion in your application here, those suggestions will be part of like the criteria that the -- that reviewers review, after the National Evaluator is selected, the National Evaluator will come to your site and initiate a conversation with you to finalize plans about the comparison or Control Group. And, those are all the questions that were e-mailed to us on data collection and evaluation ahead of time. So Shaun, we can open the queue now for further questions.

Operator: Thank you. If you have a question at this time, please press the “1” key on your touch-tone telephone. Our first question is from Jane Sites.

Jane Sites: Hi Katherine.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: Hi Jane.

Jane Sites: Feel like I'm certainly get to know you well. You just confuse me. You said that if he had a longer intervention, it would be in our best interest to start the evaluations at the end of that. I was under the impression that we do the quarterly and the semi-annual from the beginning of enrolling a child or starting the intervention, not necessarily only at the end.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: Yes, you are right, Jane. Thank you for giving me the chance to clarify that.

Jane Sites: Okay.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: The data will be collected quarterly and twice a year as per the schedule and the RFP and the text of the RFP I will note not in the table in which there was an error which indicates that a lot of case variables are to be collected quarterly, but I will address that in a moment. So yes, you will begin collecting data from the time your children enter at six month intervals. However, for us to get good follow-up data to see if your intervention has made a difference, clearly we want to give you the benefit of having your children get all the way through the intervention --

Jane Sites: Right.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: -- before we start looking at follow-up data. So, you will collect for six months at intervals for 24 months until the intervention is concluded, if you are running a particularly long intervention.

Jane Sites: Okay. That feeds into our more individual question in our area that we are looking at in our proposal. Basically, as we look at our project design, it would seem in our best interest, we have a large number of kids to get going and we do have a lengthy intervention. But, we are thinking that by July ‘07, that at that point that would allow then 24 months of an -- of the follow-up (indiscernible) prior or to be included within the total 48 months of this grantee. So, the question then becomes, when we suggest the Comparison Group, we are -- we are looking at the “N” or the number of the children we anticipate having completed that intervention by July ‘07 and then we would look for Comparison Group to match those. Are we wrong in that design or -- and the sub-issue is that, even though there will not remain 24 months, do we keep all these evaluation running on our intervention children all the way to the four years regardless of the fact that 24 months might not get there or that there wouldn't be possible 24 months for a Comparison Group. (Indiscernible) I am sorry.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: No, that's okay. Let me do my best to -- to respond to a very sophisticated question. The -- it is fine to use your -- your first 24 months service estimate to try to estimate how big a control or Comparison Group that's determining perhaps whom you would chose as the likely sources of that in your application, that's fine. If the National Evaluator fields that you need more children because either children are coming into your program faster or because we -- we need to expand the size of the comparison because by month 48, you have a huge treatment group. The National Evaluator will worry about that detail.

Jane Sites: Okay -- okay. Again the only -- second question that might be unique to us is that again reflecting Ohio and whatever Medicaid used for different evaluations or instruments that we have proposed to use frequently is frowned upon unless the doctor overwrites it that in fact you can -- only use that insurance or Medicaid moneys for (indiscernible) once a year. And is that going to -- with that kind of explanation I would hope that would be permissible other -- so in other words the semi-annual would reflect the one time a year instrument used on that particular child.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: So are you suggesting that your site would not be able to collect data every six months?

Jane Sites: We certainly would but some instruments would be a similar repeat because there would be no -- no legal allowance to use children's -- insurance or medical cards to repeat some instruments or some evaluation that we are proposing.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: I see. Of the -- of the tools that would be available to use at six month intervals do they address the variables that we need to collect?

Jane Sites: Almost 80 percent of them 90 percent -- I think -- probably a lot of folks are struggling with some of the PGSD and for younger kids there is only some new instruments just now being tested on those. We had some wonderful ideas but at this point they tend to require medical personnel with --.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: I see -- I see.

Jane Sites: Yeah.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: All right. I think if -- if I were in your shoes I would detail this pretty thoroughly in the narratives so the reviewers could follow the decisions that you are making about what instruments to apply when.

Jane Sites: Okay. Thank you.

Operator: Our next question is from Alison Ramsay.

Alison Ramsay: Hi. We are considering working with a very transient immigrant population and it's not going to be easy to follow them over a number of years to get data. So we are considering -- offering incentives so when they -- when they first come and we see that they could be eligible for the program to explain to them that it's a -- you know, that it is part of a big study and -- give them the option of joining in which case if they do they understand upfront that this data collection is part of it and then we will actually offer incentives for them to participate in the data collection even after they have left the program. And then if there are some of those people who -- who then say well, no I don't want to be in part of this program, can we then offer them incentives to be part of the Control Group because we have already seen that they -- they are a similar group and so -- continue to provide incentives if you gather the data on them -- for participating in data collection.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: That's a two part question.

Alison Ramsay: Uh-huh.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: The part about whether people who decline services are good comparisons to people who accept services --

Alison Ramsay: Uh-huh.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: -- is a methodological question that your community will have to work out.

Alison Ramsay: Okay.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: Make a decision about in your application. In terms of the fund, we anticipate that funds from the National Evaluator would be used to provide incentives to comparison and Control Groups if that design turned out to be necessary. So you need not budget for that in your application.

Alison Ramsay: Okay -- okay. Great. Thank you.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: You are welcome.

Operator: Our next question is from Leslie Aldrich.

Leslie Aldrich: Hi. Can you hear me?

Katherine Darke Schmitt: Yes.

Leslie Aldrich: Yes. Just a quick question. I don't know if you have all worked this out but do you when the National Evaluator like how and when data will be reported back to sites -- once they start their evaluation process?

Katherine Darke Schmitt: We have not worked through those kind of details. I -- I think what I would estimate would we would have some sort of annual report back to the sites where you would get your data back and I imagine it would be a presentation -- made to you at your cross site meetings or perhaps the simple transfer of a spreadsheet via e-mail or some combination of those two.

Leslie Aldrich: Okay. And can I ask another quick question?

Katherine Darke Schmitt: Of course.

Leslie Aldrich: Regarding -- you know, the comparison Control Group issue, what I am understanding then is we can make a couple of suggestions, it doesn't have to be just one.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: Oh no. It absolutely does not have to be one. Give it your best shot.

Leslie Aldrich: Okay. And there is -- you know, there is obviously some groups that would be better than others and we can state the rational for that.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: Absolutely.

Leslie Aldrich: Okay. All right that makes sense. I think that's it.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: Thank you.

Leslie Aldrich: Thank you.

Operator: Next question is from Dawn Suleri.

Dawn Suleri: I guess I have another question on the Comparison Control Groups. Do we need to propose -- for getting both a Comparison Group and a Control Group?

Katherine Darke Schmitt: Yes.

Dawn Suleri: Or do -- or one of the other?

Katherine Darke Schmitt: You need to propose strategies for both unless your -- your collaborative falls in the category of -- sites for which, you know, from the outset, no treatment control is not a possibility in which case you just need to explain the rational for that upfront and then give us a -- a suggestion for a Comparison Group.

Dawn Suleri: Comparison and Control?

Katherine Darke Schmitt: No. Everyone in the best possible of all world would submit strategies for both Control and Comparison Group. If your community knows that you are not going to be able to institute a no treatment Control Group then you need to explain why and give us suggestions or how to institute a Comparison Group.

Dawn Suleri: Okay. Good -- got it. And the other thing -- going back to a previous question on the incentives, you said there were two parts to that question. I -- I got the second part about the National evaluators handling the incentives for Comparison Control Groups.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: Yeah.

Dawn Suleri: But I didn't understand -- what the first -- your first answer was --

Katherine Darke Schmitt: Well, it sounds --

Dawn Suleri: -- for the incentive?

Katherine Darke Schmitt: -- it sounded to me like that site was considering different ways to retain a population that could be in a Comparison or Control Group and they had considered that perhaps people who refused to take part in the data collection and of the treatment study might be appropriate for the Comparison or Control Group. So that was their question.

Dawn Suleri: Yeah. I mean we have a similar population so are there incentives -- for people to participate in the -- you know, not the direct service but the evaluation part?

Katherine Darke Schmitt: The National Evaluator will propose a design for following Comparison and Control Groups. Offering incentives is a fairly standard technique so it would not surprise me if the National Evaluation did include incentives for people who are followed as part of a no treatment control or a Comparison Group.

Dawn Suleri: What about incentives for people who are being treated but -- so that they can -- I mean you have got this -- period after --

Katherine Darke Schmitt: Right.

Dawn Suleri: -- they have been treated, do we handle that or is that the National Evaluator?

Katherine Darke Schmitt: That is the site's responsibility. It is certainly a reasonable strategy to offer people incentives so that they show up (indiscernible) follow-up data collection and if you do that that comes from your budget.

Dawn Suleri: Okay. Very good. Thank you.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: You are welcome.

Operator: Our next question comes from Richard Durity.

Richard Durity: Hi. I have a couple of questions and they may be very specific to our side but I still wanted to ask them. One of them is we were thinking about Control Groups not necessarily as a no treatment group but -- can we consider a Control Group of what we call the business as usual?

Katherine Darke Schmitt: Yes. Comparison Groups which include a standard treatment option are one reasonable strategy for this approach.

Richard Durity: Okay. The other question is the -- the intervention that we have in mind is something that will happen at the -- probably at the classroom level. So we were wondering if in just for the sampling purposes if it will be -- it would be okay to think about the (indiscernible) of an uneasiness may be the site or the classroom rather than the children?

Katherine Darke Schmitt: We need to have case level data from every child served as described in the program announcement.

Richard Durity: I -- I understand that but I'm thinking in terms of just randomly assigning children -- which will be very difficult if they are in a specific classroom.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: I see.

Richard Durity: All right, to think about the -- their unit of analysis for random assignment as a classroom or the site.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: I think that is a random -- I think that is a reasonable strategy for your site to consider.

Richard Durity: Thank you.

Operator: Our next question is from Ellen Marson.

Ellen Marson: Hi. On page 29, the Government Performance and Results Act is mentioned.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: Yes.

Ellen Marson: And it's just mentioned so is it something that will be -- will get -- receive more information about when if we are awarded the gran or do we have to talk about this?

Katherine Darke Schmitt: The Government Performance and Results Act is fortunately not something that the sites will need to worry about. OJJDP will take care of that for you be collecting these four bulleted performance measures that are listed.

Ellen Marson: Okay.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: You will submit that data to us and we will submit it with our report to the Government Performance and Results Act governing agency so you will have no responsibility past submitting your data to us.

Ellen Marson: Okay, great. Thanks.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: Shawn, how are we doing in the queue?

Operator: We have four questions.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: Okay. At this point we need to move on to the presentation by the National evaluators. At the conclusion of the presentations by the National evaluators we will open the floor up for questions again about both the reflection and the material that's discussed by the National Evaluator. You also always have the option of calling 202-307-1341, that voice mailbox is checked regularly by programmed staff and we will call you back with answers to your questions about program requirements be they related to the program announcement specifically or to the data collection requirement. So at this point -- Caliber Associates if you are ready, we are ready for you.

perhaps separate, and what I mean by that is that many of the systems that will be involved in your initiative will have separate agendas and it is important to remember that -- particularly when you are looking at your collaborative and why people are at the table. The second issue around the -- your collaborative and also may be just even broader than your collaborative is getting everyone on the same page early on is really helpful. In particular if you need to do training among -- among service providers and collaborative representatives it's really important to -- to implement those things early on because we have found that they increase awareness of salient issues and also really increase commitment to the process. So again this may not be -- new information for you but it's certainly is important to think about as your planning and writing your gran. The next thing is really not underestimating the value of time, you really need to let this process unfold, there is actually may be something that seems obvious but what we have found is time and time again grantees are more optimistic not only as an as more (indiscernible) but then -- but that is -- but then is realistic about how long things will take. So it's really important to think through -- especially I think when you have a service delivery grantee and a lot of your success really depends on identification, refer -- assessment and referral of your target population, it's important to not underestimate the amount of time that you may need to actually both get an -- an intervention up and running but also get kids to it. And finally -- and I think this goes along with the importance of being realistic about time which I just spoke about, is you also should think about setting resources aside for the unexpected. As much as possible if you can draw from the experiences of your collaborative members to really try to anticipate -- things that you may not -- you may not expect to happen I think we have often come across situations with grantees where they -- if something happens and they don't have the resources set aside to manage it and so they are not only struggling to problem solve a difficult situation but also trying to find the resources -- trying to find where the resources are going to come from to -- fix it. And then finally it's just really important to stay focused in scope and I think that's really goes along with underestimating -- not underestimating the time and also setting resources aside for the unexpected. It's really important to manage -- and plan your initiative within the scope that is -- set out in the RFP. I think again -- just like when we are more optimistic about how much time we have we also can be really optimistic about how much we can do and it's really important to just keep focused in scope so that you are not proposing to do more than you possibly can. In addition, there is just several things to think about with respect to implementation. First, it's important to think about what barriers you expect to experience in identifying, assessing, referring and treating your intervention kids and families. You know, this is a -- especially the zero to six age group is -- you know, somewhat of an invisible population. They are difficult to find -- and they are difficult to assess and they are difficult to get in to treatment. So it's really important to -- sort of anticipate what barriers you might have. When we found the first phase of Safe Start is that there should be no assumptions that -- you know, if you just build the intervention they will come because that's actually not the case. You need to think about your community in relation to potential barriers around this issue. In addition, you also -- rural communities may experience barriers different from those experienced by urban communities. So if you are a rural community you want to think about it and if you are a urban community you want to think about it and if you have a -- rural population in an urban setting it's important to think about those populations differently from your urban dwellers because they will have different barriers to treatment. Second, -- another issue that -- that came up quite a bit was -- trying to anticipate challenges to finding qualified personnel to match program components for certain interventions. I think a lot -- many of the -- programs that were implemented -- many of the -- first phase Safe Start grantees sort of just assumed that qualified people were out there and they would come running to be hired and that actually was not the case. It actually -- in some situations it proved much more difficult. And if you don't have staff you can't implement your program. So -- often times that resulted in a delay in implementation. So, just anticipate how you will find -- if in fact you have to hire new staff where these staff will come from and -- and, you know, what you can expect in terms of how long that will take. And finally -- and this is a fairly big one, it is important to examine where are your strategies that is the interventions that you are implementing really fit within the context of each organization involved and how differing agendas or priorities or philosophies may effect implementation. You know, there is always that translation from plan -- from -- from sort of theory to practice and there is a lot of factors that -- facilitate that transition but understanding how this intervention fits for all their organizations involved will really help you to -- sort of expertise your implementation and be more successful with your approach. So that's all I have to offer today. Does anybody have anything to add, anybody from the National team? Okay.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: Thank you Susan.

Susan Chibnall: Thanks Katherine.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: I should insert here a piece that I had meant to do ahead of Susan's presentation. I'll just do it briefly before the Association of Study and Development of Community takes over and that is to remind all the call participants that these two representatives of the National Evaluation team are describing the ongoing National Evaluation of Safe Start phase one which as Bill Schechter mentioned as a very head of the call is significantly different from the program for which you are applying in some critical way. One is that the Safe Start phase one site had a planning year built into the gran structure before they began implementing and the Safe Start Promising Approaches sites do not have that planning year. You are expected to begin collecting outcome data on the children you serve within the first 12 months that you -- that you have had the award. Also a large focus of the Safe Start phase one program was on the systems change and collaboration building and that emphasis is absent from the Safe Start Promising Approaches Program. For the Safe Start Promising Approaches site, we are operating under the premise that you have already done the collaboration building that is necessary to go in and start delivering services right away. So I want to highlight those two significant differences. What the evaluation team has to say about what they have learnt from Safe Start phase one is certainly relevant to you as you think through these issues but I don't want anyone to be confused by any of these findings. Should mind they relate only to phase -- Safe Start phase one. And now Inga or David, if you are ready, please go ahead.

Inga James: Thanks Katherine. This is Inga James with the Association for the Study and Develop of Community. For phase one Safe Start we have provided technical assistance to the local evaluators and helping them -- them setup their evaluation plans as well as their data management and data collection plans so what I wanted to talk about today were some of the issues and concerns that the local sites ran into in collecting and managing their data -- and then some of the ways in which they resolve them. So it's kind of a -- it's more of a preventive discussion than anything. So first I wanted -- I divided my talk into three major categories. The first is -- tips on -- on developing internal data collection capacity -- then how to prepare for assessment data collection in management and then the last but certainly not least it sounds like -- developing comparison or Control Groups so some tips on where to -- look for those in your communities. In the first category -- developing your own internal capacity to collect data. Some of the things that the sites ran into when they were putting together their data collection and data management system that probably -- may have been a unexpected or unanticipated for them was that they -- they didn't -- they may have planned less well than they should have in integrating their systems with what they already had in place. So they -- so trying to develop an entirely new data collection or data management system will probably -- be much more than you wanted to take on, so using -- your existing systems is -- I think probably the best way to go at least the -- that what was found in phase one. And in fact some sites have even been able to merge their data systems with other providers in the community which with which they were closely -- and they all use the same type of data tracking system -- and therefore can pass information back and forth when necessary of course keeping in mind that there is an issue of confidentiality but I -- I am sure that you already have systems worked out for -- for transferring information from -- from organization to organization. Another tip is to use just to use Off the Shelf Software and not trying to do anything clever or sophisticated but just to use something necessarily common place that others would be able to -- understand and use as well. Another issue is that some of the sites ran into -- was that they had -- they had difficulty convincing or encouraging their families to sign consent to participate in the research and of -- their program. So they -- they had families that were willing to -- or interested in the intervention services but were not necessarily interested in being trapped and -- therefore would not sign consents for research. And some of the sites -- the sites tried to be very creative although it's a -- it's a very difficult task. One of the things that they did was they developed bilingual concept forms which is -- sort of commonsense but other sites have worked with other agencies maybe more grassroots agencies that actually -- have ways of -- working with these families and can act as kind of a -- a go-between and maybe be able to soften -- the language or the information a bit to help families understand kind of what -- what entailed in the research. The last -- item as far as internal capacity is concerned -- is a problem of making sure that the people that are actually working with the families are bought into the data management systems -- and that -- that takes a lot of selling and a training to do that but it's important to that line staff are -- are completely bought into it so that things don't go undone -- and we aren't stuck -- in the future having to go back in a re-cap and re-capture data. The -- one of the ways to do this is to -- help the line staff understand what the data can do for them as far as and they are working with families and some of the programmatic activities. As far as -- preparing for assessment data collection and management I think one of the first things that -- that needs to be done is to have some basic understanding or actually very clear understanding of the type assessment tools -- and instruments -- that work best with the population you are trying to serve -- have been validated and are going to give you the information that you want. Sites -- during the planning phase of phase one spend a lot of time researching assessment tools and ways to -- ways to best asses their children and their families not only for exposure to violence but the impact of that exposure and we provided the sites with -- a listing of measures and assessment tools that it can found on our website. I think that Bill mentioned it late earlier it's www.capacitybuilding.net and if you click on the measures link, it will take you to a document that has a fairly thorough rundown of the different measures that some of the sites have been using and what the literature talks about. So that might be a tool for you. A second concern in -- the assessment portion and -- and actually managing your data is that many of the sites -- in fact nearly all the sites in phase one contracted out certain portions of their services and they ran into situations of varying sophistication with data and data management. So it's important that all of your contractors and all of your points of service providers and all of your partner agencies have an understanding of what data collection requirements are for this contract and to that you have an understanding on the other hand of kind of what their capacities are so that -- that any of those issues can be ironed out in the beginning and you are not stuck spending the first six months trying to bring people up to speed with what needs to be done regarding data collection. One -- one way and I don't know if I am too late in the game to be mentioning this but I know several sites of phase one had a very extensive collaborative group who actually helped to put the RFP -- their proposal together for the initial RFP and so they were literally talking very seriously about these issues on a day to day basis with many different partner agencies. I guess the best way is to do the planning now so that, you know, kind of where the agency stands because if everybody is going to be -- have to responsible for contributing to the data set. The last thing as far as assessment and data management has to do with institutional review board that Katherine mentioned earlier and to perform any kind of -- or conduct any kind of study using children. The -- the sites will have to get their plan reviewed by and -- what's called an IRB which is basically a group of scientists that will review your plan to -- to make sure that there is no exploitation of children or families going on that all of -- kind of all the loops are closed that there is -- there is no harm being done and if there is harm being then the benefit outweighs the harm and there -- those are the several criteria -- and some sites -- none of our sites had any problems with this but one thing they did run into is that they were -- they were all approved through IRB's to submit aggregate data to the National Evaluation team. So they could send us how many children were served how many children exhibited post-traumatic stress disorder and -- and different symptoms but they couldn't send us necessarily individual data -- case level data. They needed to go back and get a second IRB approval for that and so that something to keep in mind upfront to be real explicit in the kind of the data you are going to have to share because it does make a difference to the board. Thirdly -- third grouping of points I wanted to make have to do is Comparison and Control Groups. The scientific standards for Comparison or Control Group -- for the numbers included in one of these groups is a minimum of 30 participants. It's not a requirement but that's a scientific standard. So if you are looking at community agencies to perhaps be able to provide you with Comparison Groups. It's probably in your best interest to look at groups that have -- that will be serving more than 30 children. And then -- and then -- and then when you start looking at nutrition rates and kids dropping out obviously more than 30 will be better. One idea to that you -- it sounds like some of you have already explored from the questions that were asked. One idea for recruiting Comparison Groups is to work with other agencies that may not be able to partake in your services that you will be offering but will have to be serving the same age of children who may have similar backgrounds or circumstances. For example, some sites worked would have (indiscernible) and we are able to access those children as comparison or to Control Group, others use the wait listed system, whereby the children's that could not get into services because there was not -- there were not enough services to go around were put into a Comparison Group. Other ideas are to look at other communities -- neighboring communities and maybe very similar and socioeconomic demographics or other neighborhood that you come from -- from an urban area. The last thing about comparison of Control Groups, and this was also brought up earlier -- I'm -- I'm very impressed by some of your questions because you seem to have thought deeply about some of these things but often times it's very difficult to retain participants in control or Comparison Groups because there is no incentive for them to do that. And even giving them a few bucks here in and there isn't enough because they just have so many other things going on in their line. But there are some ideas or suggestions that you can -- you can maybe think about and that -- one of them is that having a kind of contact information from the family that will be a member of the Control Group such as like too close to family members that don't live with the child. Having that contact information so, something would have happened nearly lost contact with the child, you could -- you would have at least two references to call. The other thing -- other idea that some -- some agencies use is to keep consistent contact with the Control Group even though you may not be providing them services so, send birthday cards -- send -- beginning of school, good luck announcements and things like that. And just -- just keeping yourselves kind of in there before of their mind, so that -- those are a -- a few ideas for retaining children over their life of the -- of the study. And that concludes my comments so I will turn it back over to Katherine.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: Inga, thank you so much.

Inga James: Sure.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: Shawn and participants, we are now going to open for questions again. Questions for the present -- the presenters about the lessons learned in Safe Start phase one, two other questions about the Data Collection or National Evaluation Schemes for Safe Start Promising Approaches then there are last priority which will be to address any other general program questions which have come up.

Operator: Thank you. If you a question at this time, please press the “1” key. Our first question is from Karen Dayarmond.

Karen Dayarmond: This is just a clarification again on the Comparison and Control. Earlier, you talked about just being able to describe how we may find the Control Group and now just kind of set to main contact with that Control Group, a little confused when we start this, do we have these groups right after that?

Katherine Darke Schmitt: Depending on how quickly the National evaluators selected in upfronting perhaps yes in an ideal world. It is not impossible if there would be a slight lag between when the National Evaluator comes in to start collecting data from a controller Comparison Group.

Karen Dayarmond: Okay.

Operator: Our next question is from Carol Horwitz.

Carol Horwitz: Yes thank you. Is there a special program that you want the data delivered in a special -- you know, excel, excess. Well, how do you want your data delivered?

Katherine Darke Schmitt: We can handle Microsoft Word, Microsoft and the (indiscernible), we could also take SPSS.

Carol Horwitz: Thank you.

Operator: Our -- our next question comes from Stacey Tadgerson.

Stacey Tadgerson: Good afternoon. Actually my -- my questions were answered. Thank you.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: Thank you.

Operator: Our next question comes from Victoria Newcombe.

Victoria Newcombe: Hi. Yeah, this is about the Comparison Group, I am still little confused. If we simply have to identify who the National evaluators we deal with, but then you mentioned that we need to come up strategies for both groups.

Inga James: Katherine, can I jump in on that for a second?

Katherine Darke Schmitt: Yes Inga, go ahead.

Inga James: One of the reasons I included this in this discussion today is because, you know, your communities better than the National Evaluator well, and therefore, you wonder -- you should know what kind of strategies could be best and so perhaps outlining those in your proposal would be -- well they would certainly be helpful to the National Evaluator and they -- and they maybe helpful to the reviewers as well, because it is the concern in any study and so there will have to be plans for dealing with it.

Victoria Newcombe: Okay, so strategies as to retaining or recruiting --

Inga James: Yeah -- yeah.

Victoria Newcombe: Is that what your getting us?

Inga James: Right -- retaining not necessarily recruiting but retaining.

Victoria Newcombe: Retaining. Okay, so that's simply that would be the scope of a strategy of identify and then how would they would be dealt with in the most effective way.

Inga James: Right.

Victoria Newcombe: Okay, great. Thank you.

Inga James: Uh-huh.

Operator: Our next question comes from Richard Durity.

Richard Durity: Yes. One question I had related to preparing for resources for the unexpected. It's more of a pragmatic question about the budget and how to budget for that. I -- I'm trying to imagine what that line item would look like on a budget.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: Your rainy day line item.

Richard Durity: Can you sort of guidance around that?

Katherine Darke Schmitt: Yes. The point Caliber Associates has made was very well taken. And I think it is particularly to advice you to be realistic as you build your budget. Do not -- do not allow your program plans to overtake the -- the amount of money that is actually available because if you are budgeted to (indiscernible) you will not be able to accomplish where you have promised your OJJDP that you will. So, there is no specific rainy day line item. But we urge you to be sensible and perhaps conservative in formulating your budget estimate. Bill, do you want to comment on this?

Bill Schechter: No, I think that's -- excuse me -- really good advice. The -- the promise of services provided needs to be related to the amount of resources better available.

Richard Durity: Okay, thank you. And one other question. Do you want to ask the question about who is (indiscernible) today? So with regard to the Control Group there has been some -- we are somewhat confused about who is responsible for collecting the data, for the Control Group. We understood from the -- from the frequently asked questions that it would be the National Evaluator that's responsible -- and that would also be responsible for retention in the -- in the research. Can you -- can you confirm whether that's the case or not?

Katherine Darke Schmitt: That is the case.

Richard Durity: Okay. Thank you.

Male Speaker: One more question.

Richard Durity: One more question.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: Okay.

Richard Durity: So, you were talking about the (indiscernible) that we need to provide some case data. Can you tell me more about what kind of identifiers are needed --

Katherine Darke Schmitt: Variable --.

Richard Durity: -- got it with the IRB, so we can approve -- get approval from the IRB.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: You will see the list of variables that we need for each child served at the back of the program announcement in that big matrix.

Richard Durity: Okay.

David Chavis: Katherine this is David Chavis. I -- I wanted to clarify a point --

Katherine Darke Schmitt: Go ahead.

David Chavis: -- and I wanted also to understand also but that -- in the Control Group again, that the assessment data at the -- at the intervals required at the -- required by the program announcement are the responsibility and other data required in the program announcement of the responsibility of the grantee and that any additional data collection required by the National Evaluation beyond that is a responsibility of the National Evaluation. Now which will be data collected by the local side on the Control Group.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: No, there is no --.

David Chavis: Not Control Group I am sorry, yeah -- I am not (indiscernible) on that.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: So, local site has only responsibility for collecting data on the treatment children and family. The National Evaluator has all responsibilities for collecting data from Personal Control Group.

David Chavis: Thank you. Okay.

Operator: Our next question comes from Linda Martin.

Linda Martin: I had a question -- is -- I know it will vary some program but what kind of numbers are you expecting a program to deliver services to?

Katherine Darke Schmitt: Okay, we have addressed this question once in the phone call. It's also addressed in the FAQ or reiterate the response which is there is no minimum floor that the reviewers were looking -- will be looking at. The reviewer will look at the budget at the scope, duration and intensity of services that you intend to provide and the population base that you serve and they will make sure that what the budget you have laid out and the services and population you -- you intent to serve -- look like an efficient and effective way to spend money. We know that we will get applications from some rural areas or perhaps from some tribal agencies which serve very small populations. We will also receive applications from urban centers who are treating 100's of kids a day in the ED and -- and this program can accommodate all of those kinds of sites, and you just need to create a budget and a strategy that will satisfy the reviewers that you understand what your population needs and that you can deliver services effectively to them.

Linda Martin: Okay, thank you.

Operator: Our next question from Eivina Montanez.

Eivina Montanez: Thank you. I just would like to confirm, in case about it both identified on page 15. It is described that they need to be submitted -- submit annually while appendix one on page 58, says that those such things is variables, they need to be submitted quarterly.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: Thank you -- thank you for giving me the opportunity to -- and to illustrate our typing mistake one more time. We have made a mistake in the appendix A table. You will see that the first four are variables which are listed in selected quarterly -- those are our performance measures for GPRA.

Eivina Montanez: Uh-huh.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: They are quarterly variable. Starting with the grow five which reads types of violence witness.

Eivina Montanez: Uh-huh.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: Everything beyond there is selected twice a year. That is a mistake in the table. You will not be panelized for preparing your application in the one way or the other.

Eivina Montanez: Okay, thank you for my --.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: No problem.

Eivina Montanez: Bye-bye.

Operator: Our next question comes from Mary Brown.

Mary Brown: Hi. Yet another question about the Comparison and Control Group. Someone earlier asked if -- if it would be expectable to create a model where families who refuse service, might be put into that Control Group. And could you elaborate on your answer little bit more, I mean -- you know, if that would be -- acceptable that would seem one of the only option, I'm assuming.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: Well, we will all see the transcript in 48 hours. So I hope I can recap what I said. Since we all know exactly what I said in a few short hours. But I hope I said with that the site should consider the methodological implication of considering families who refuse services. As adequate comparison to families who do not, that's what I said.

Mary Brown: Okay. All right thanks. Katherine Darke Schmitt: Sure.

Operator: Our next question comes from Norma Vielma.

Norma Vielma: Our question is -- I am a prosecutor and one of our co-appliance is from the legal aid services to attorneys and basically we wanted see the focus of the priority for this grantee is mainly on mental health and therapy services or we can also implement or tell the advocate in court to be doing screaming, assessment, referrals for victims of domestic violence that we actually have protective orders or divorces for in the prosecution of sexual (indiscernible) in domestic violence.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: Bill Schechter.

Bill Schechter: Yes, I think that's well within the preview of the program announcement. The mental help emphasis you referred to comes from the fact that there are lot of the -- of the evidence based technique have -- been oriented towards mental health services and the researches shown has -- has concentrated on the developmental impacts of children's exposure to violence. But there are a number of Approaches that are acceptable in fact strategies are listed in the program announcement that would include the one you -- you suggest.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: Thank you.

Operator: Our next question comes from Ellen Marson.

Ellen Marson: On page 17 it mentioned -- you know, it talks about using appendix A for the data source and collection frequencies. So, I -- I guess I am confused because when you got a F1-FA, it says that it's a sample chart. So, are we supposed to use the column data -- element column is supposed to remain the same and then we just changed the source measure according to our project?

Katherine Darke Schmitt: You could do that.

Ellen Marson: Okay. So it is just still a sample.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: Just a sample.

Ellen Marson: Okay.

Inga James: Katherine.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: Yes.

Inga James: I would -- this is Inga.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: Hi Inga.

Inga James: Hi. I wanted to just throw something in here that I was reminded of -- by David that --

Bill Schechter: Uh-huh.

Inga James: -- if something else that came up with sites that -- that the grantees are -- potential grantees may want to keep in mind and that is that because -- because we are dealing with a -- a very young population as well as families that have a lot of things going on in their life, we found that some of the extensive assessment tools were too much of a burden on families and on the point of service providers and that they ended up -- many of them ended up being cut or truncated or alternative methods were selected because it was just too much to expect the family to be able to set through some of the extensive assessment procedures. So, I just wanted people to be (indiscernible) to think about that as they are developing their assessment plan.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: Thank you, Inga.

Inga James: Yeah.

Operator: Our final question is from Karen Broussard.

Karen Broussard: Hi again, thanks. Somebody earlier was asking again in reference to the Control and Comparison Groups. Could they -- could a group be used that was sort of business as usual. So and in our case there is a group that we have been running for a number of years. We have been collecting our data on doing evaluation on it. And if -- if I was to think of that as our control or -- or Comparison Group, really I guess would be better thought of -- thought of as. I used to - what -- and am understanding now that because if we, at the local sites would only be responsible for collecting service data but the National evaluators would then become responsible for collecting the data from -- what would be become my Comparison Group which is the same group I have been running for many years, except that we would be -- we would be running the group slightly differently to a slightly different population. Does that makes sense?

Katherine Darke Schmitt: Yeah. But I didn't hear your question in there other -- other than -- is the -- is the National Evaluator responsible for collecting data in Comparison Group -- yes.

Karen Broussard: Okay.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: The National Evaluator be grateful for any assistance you could give them. There are two in accessing the population because you happened to be involved in the agency to serve them, yes.

Karen Broussard: Uh-huh. Okay, and any of the Local Evaluation that we have -- had been doing in the past, we could continue to do and for funding on our own separately?

Katherine Darke Schmitt: You may -- I will just reiterate that any scheduled evaluation activities such as interviews and families or observations of children that you have planned must be scheduled in contention with the National Evaluator and if there is ever any instance where we know that they are going to overlap --

Karen Broussard: That's true.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: -- then the total evaluator activities trumps yours.

Karen Broussard: Got it. Okay -- okay, thank you.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: Sure.

Operator: I am showing no further question.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: Excellent. All right, well let me wrap-up the call by advising that you do not wait for this September 10 -- 10th closing date to submit your application. If you have not worked with our electronic grantee management system before, you may find that being unfamiliar with the system, makes your -- your application processes a little slower than perhaps you were anticipating. There are always at the most critical moment, technological glitches and there are no exceptions to the September 10, 8 pm deadline, East Coast time. So I suggest do not wait until September 9th to build your application. Also remind you to that deadline for registering to submit application is September 8th. If you have not registered by (COB) September 8th, or I guess -- actually midnight September 8th, you will not be able to build an application. We do have one last conference call coming up. It happens on September 7th. You are welcome to participate in that call. And that would be helpful to you. We will have the transcript of this call posted probably within the next three business days. A recording of this call in it's entirety will be available to you or anyone to listen to. Starting as soon as we are finished with the call and you can find the number at which to dial and listen to the call again by looking at the website where the FAQ and the program announcement are posted. Bill Schechter, is there anything further that we need to tell the participants?

Bill Schechter: No, only to remind everyone that if you haven't all ready figured this out, that this is a very research oriented program announcement. So the emphasis is not only on providing services using Promising Approaches to children exposed to violence but the evaluating the effectiveness and what works in, which circumstances and why?. So the -- there are twin goals for this program announcement.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: And as Bill says, this twin goals are going to be served by the two components. The sites one side we will be running their interventions and measuring outcome data for the kids they treat and on the other side the National Evaluator coming into to do that very important piece that Bill named, about collecting data -- on outcome so that we have some sense of what work. Any further questions come up for you and of course of preparing your application, the voice mailbox on which you can leave questions is 202-307-1341, program staff retrieve those messages and we can call you back and answer your questions specifically about the technical requirements of the program announcement. We are not permitted to give you advise about the design or construction of your ideas or your application. Shaw is the question queue still clear?

Operator: Yes, it is.

Katherine Darke Schmitt: Then at this point thank you everyone, this concludes the call.

Bill Schechter: Thank you.

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

AMBER Alert | 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