Av​​​ailability of funds is contingent upon appropriations in the California State Budget. CDPH/CHVP reserves the right to modify​​​, reduce, or rescind any LHJ awards if there are eliminations or reductions by the California State Budget. 

Part II: Project Ca​​​​​​tegories and Requirements​

Submissions will be accepted for proposed projects in the categories of evidence-informed home visiting programs​​ and evidence-based home visiting models not currently administered by CDPH/CHVP. 

Category 1: Evidence-Informed​

​​Evidence-Informed Definition​​​

For this RSI, CDPH/CHVP will consider home visiting programs as evidence-informed if they are supported by evidence as defined by the Association of Maternal and Child Health Program’s (AMCHP) Innovation Hub definitions  . Applying AM​​CHP’s broad definition to this CHVP funding supports an inclusive approach for submissions to fill gaps and address local community needs.​

AMCHP defi​​nes evidence as,

“Anything​​ that demonstrates a given activity has an intended impact for a specific community or population. Recognizing that public health occurs in ‘real world’ settings, wha​​t we consider evidence should not be limited to that which comes from controlled scientific research; it should also include and uplift evidence that is defined by impacted communities and represents the values, needs, and preferences of those with lived experience.” (source: https://amchp.org/innovation-hub  .)

Any of AM​​CHP’​​s evidence categories can be used as a rationale for projects proposed in this RSI:

• Best Available Research Evidence: Information resulting from systematic and methodical ways of gathering data using various study methods and ongoing evaluations. It includes evidence from systematic reviews, experimental, quasi-experimental, and non-experimental study designs. For the purposes of CHVP funding, this also includes any previous pilot testing, formative evaluation, and process or outcome program evaluation.

• Professionals’ Experiential Evidence: Insights from professionals that are accumulated over time and is often referred to as intuitive or tacit knowledge.

• Individuals’​ Experiential Evidence: Also known as community-defined evidence (CDE) which is a “set of practices that communities have used and found to yield positive results as determined by community consensus over time and which may or may not have been measured empirically but have reached a level of acceptance by the community.” CDE emphasizes the inherent knowledge, experience, and expertise in communities defining what “works for them.”​ ​​​
  

Evidence-Inf​ormed Interventions​​​

This category is for implementing a program model that uses home visiting as a primary service delivery mechanism and is not on the HomVEE list but is supported by the AMCHP Innovation Hub’​s definition of evidence. There are two subcategories:

Home visiting mode​ls that are fully developed and ready for service provision, such as expanding services of a currently operating evidence-informed model.

Home visiting models that need to be revised or adapted before they are ready for service provision, such as translating or revamping a model or component for a specific culture or language. Awardees in this categor​y will allocate 6-12 months in the work plan for development/revision activities prior to mplementation.​ 

Awardees will be asked to follow all model-specified data reporting, including an implementation monitoring plan, if one is required by the model-developer. If there is a required monitoring plan, awardees will be asked to submit it to CDPH/CHVP within 60 days of Application Funding Agreement (AFA) approval. If the model does not have required monitoring plan, the awardee will be asked to develop a monitoring plan and submit it within six months of AFA approval. Awardees will be asked to report on implementation metrics identified in the plan as part of the annual Innovation 2.0 Status Report. Awardees will need to identify a model-approved data system. 

Implementing LHJs may participate in any ongoing evaluation that is conducted by the model developer or other associated administrative entity that has a coordinating role, if requested or required by the model developer/administrative entity. Activities to participate in an existing evaluation can be included for up to 20% of the budget. 

CHVP does not have any process or outcome evaluation requirements. However, the LHJ may lead an optional evaluation that can be included for up to 20% of the budget, if conducting an evaluation fits the goals of an LHJ’s proposed project and the LHJ has the capacity to do an evaluation. The reporting requirement for an evaluation will be a short narrative status update of the evaluation project in the program status report; there will not be a required separate evaluation report and separate evaluation guidance will not be provided by CDPH/CHVP. 

Implementing LHJs will be asked to use equity-centered approaches when developing or revising any aspects of the project and when conducting monitoring or quality improvement activities for the program. These appro​​aches are based around power sharing, and meaningfully involving program participants or intended participants (see Resources section below). 

Catego​ry 2: Ev​​idence-Based Home Visiting​​

Evidence-Based Home Visiting Definition​​​

CDPH/CHVP will consider submissions to implement a home visiting program model that is not currently implemented as part of CHVP, and is evidence-based, as defined and identified through the Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness Review (HomVEE). A list of designated models can be found here: (https://homvee.acf.hhs.gov/HRSA-Models-Eligible-MIECHV-Gr​​antees ). CDPH/CHVP currently administers the Nurse Family Partn​​​ership (NFP), Healthy Families America (HFA), and Parents as Teachers (PAT) program models. 

Evidence-Based Home Visiting Models​

Awardees will be asked to follow all model-specified data reporting, including an implementation monitoring plan, if one is required by the model-developer. If there is a required monitoring plan, awardees will be asked to submit it to CDPH/CHVP within 60 days of AFA approval. If the model does not have required monitoring plan, the awardee will be asked to develop a monitoring plan and submit it within six months of AFA approval. Awardees will be asked to report on implementation metrics identified in the plan as part of the annual Innovation 2.0 Status Report. Awardees will need to identify a model-approved data system.

Part III: Reporting and Other Administrative Re​​​​quirements

Reporting Requirements​​​​​​​​​

Awardees will be required to complete annual status reports as directed by CDPH/CHVP. Reporting parameters will include a narrat​​ive of programmatic implementation, progress, and monitoring activities. Details will be provided to awardees. Required monitoring will include:

• Caseload report (form provided by CDPH/CHVP)

• Staffing report (form provided by CDPH/CHVP)

• Model developer-required monitoring report (if any) submitted within 60 days of AFA approval, or an LHJ-developed monitoring plan submitted within six months of AFA approval; and annual submission of implementation metrics identified in the plan

• Narrative status updates of key activities and evaluation results (if applicable) 

Subco​ntractor ​Monitoring​​

If the proposed project calls for activitie​​​s to be completed by subcontractors, recipients must monitor subcontractor performance for compliance with state requirements, programmatic expectations, and fiscal requirements. Rec​​​ipients must effectively manage subcontractors of state funding in an effort to guarantee success of the innovation project. Recipients will execute agreements with all subcontractors and must have a subcontractor monitoring plan in place. All agreements between subcontractors and LHJs shall be provided to CDPH/CHVP upon execution. 

Material D​​evelopment, Use, and Approva​​​l Process​​​

LHJs must adhere to CDPH/CHVP policies and procedures regarding material development and approval. CDPH/CHVP will retain copyright ownership for any and all original materials produced with CDPH/CHVP agreement funding, including, but not li​​mited to, brochures, additional model components, resource directories, protocols or guidelines, posters, or reports. 

Protection of Human​ Subjects​​​​​​

Any LHJ-led optional evaluation must comply with standards of an Institutional Review Board (IRB) for the protection of human subjects. The awardee is responsible for consulting with an IRB through the awardee’s home institution or another locally available IRB and securing any needed approvals or exemptions related to research and evaluation. As a final option, awardees may use the state’s Committee for the Protection of Human Subject (CPHS) if an IRB is not locally available, though review and approval may take approximately six months. Awardees shall comply with annual IRB reporting or renewal. Monitoring plans and development activities do not require IRB approval. Any LHJs participating in an existing evaluation will be su​​​​​bject to any IRB approvals secured by the lead entity, and do not need any additional IRB approval for the Innovation 2.0 funding. IRB approval should be sought after the RSI awards are made. 

Submission Pr​ocess​​

LHJs must complete the attached Innovation 2.0 Request for Supplemental Information Submission using the template provided to be considered for funds. CDPH/CHVP reserves the right to seek clarification on any aspect of the proposal in order to ​​​make funding decisions. Submissions have a six-page limit. LHJs are asked to submit a description of the project and need, basic information about monitoring and evaluation plans, and a budget. 

Technical Assistance​​​

CDPH/CHVP will host a v​​oluntary technical assistance webinar related to the RSI on October 13, 2023, at 1 pm. Questions will be accepted until 5:00 p.m. on October 20, 2023. Send your questions to CA-MCAH-HomeVisiting@cdph.ca.gov and write “CHVP Innovation RSI Question”​ in the subject line. Questions will be answered via CHVP Memo sent by e-mail no later than October 27, 2023. 

Key Da​tes​​

CDPH​​​​/CHVP reserves t​​​he ri​ght to adjust any date and/or time as necessary and will notify LHJs through an email to the Local MCAH Directors about any adjustments.

RSI Review Process​​​​​​​

Assessment of submissions will follow the phased process described in the Priorities for Funding Section. Review will be based o​​n the completeness of all required elements, along with the quality and appropriateness of the responses. Phase 2 submissions will be scored (out of 100 possible points) based on the degree to which the proposal complies with the RSI requirements and demonstrates that the project meets a specified need in a community that faces inequities in health and social outcomes.

CDPH/CHVP m​​ay deem a submission non-responsive if:

• It is materially incomplete or contains material defects, alternations, or irregularities of any kind;

• An LHJ or consortium supplies false, inaccurate, or misleading information; and/or

• CDPH/CHVP discovers, at any stage of the selection process or upon award, that the LHJ or consortium is unwilling or unable to comply with the contractual terms, conditions, and exhibits cited in the RSI or resulting agreement. 
  

Upon successful completion of the review process, CDPH/CHVP will distribute the Intent to Award results via email and post the Final ​​Award Announcement to the CDPH/CHVP webpage.

All materials submitted in response to this RSI will become the property of CDPH and, as such, are subject to the Public Recor​ds Act (PRA), Government Code, Section 6250 et seq. CDPH/CHVP will disregard any language purporting to render all or portions of any submission confidential.

Upon release of Public Notice of Intent to Award, all documents submitted in response to this RSI and all documents used in the selection process will be regarded as public records under the California PRA and subject to review by the public. Applicants’​ correspondence, selection working papers, or any other medium shall be held in the strictest confidence until the Award Notice is issued.

To obtain a copy of this document in an alternate format, please contact:​​​​​​​

California Department of Public Health
Maternal, Child and Adolescent Health Division
1615 Capitol Avenue, Suite 73.560
P.O. Box 997420, MS Code 8305
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 1 (916) 650-0300
CA-MCAH-HomeVisiting@cdph.ca.gov

Resou​rces​​​

Davies-Balch, S. Operational Guidance for Power-Sharing with Black Girls, Women, Birthing Persons, and Mothers. BLACK Wellness & Prosperity Center. 2021. https://www.blackwpc.org/operational-guidance-for-power-sharing-with-black-girls-women-birthing-persons-and-mothers ​

Why Am I Always Being Researched – A Guidebook for Community Organizations, Researchers, and Funders to Help Us Get From Insufficient Understanding to More Authentic Truth. Chicago Beyond Equity Series, Volume One. 2019. https://chicagobeyond.org/researchequity ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​