Q. The RFP states, “Please submit a detailed line-item budget for Years 1 and 2 in an Excel format. The budget should show how you would plan to spend grant funds to conduct the work plan you have proposed. Please refer to the SIF Evaluation Guidance (Appendix C) when preparing your budget. This attachment includes sample budget formats.” The RFP does not state that a budget narrative needs to be submitted, but the budget examples in the SIF Evaluation Guidance document do mention providing a budget narrative. My question is: Should we submit a budget narrative along with the detailed line-item budget for Years 1 and 2 in an Excel format?

A. As stated in the RFP, “although a budget is requested, it will not be scored. Budgets are subject to negotiation and change as the evaluator learns more about the scope of the project.” Thus, evaluators submitting a proposal in response to the RFP should, at minimum, provide a detailed line-item budget for Years 1 and 2 in an Excel format. A budget narrative is optional.

Q. Could data collection be different for minors than for non-minors?

A. Yes, given concerns for the protection of human subjects, modifications to data collection strategies for minors versus non-minors may be appropriate. Evaluators who feel such a strategy to be appropriate should explain the associated costs and benefits in their proposal, paying special attention to the effect such a strategy might have on the validity and reliability of evaluation findings.

Q. My question is: Who (if anyone) would be able to provide consent for minors to participate in the study and in any data collection? Based on the services they would be receiving, it does not seem like there would be a parent or guardian to provide consent. In some cases, IRB might consider waiving consent, but I wanted to check before considering seeking a waiver of consent.

A. It is difficult to answer this question with certainty in the absence of a more detailed evaluation plan, given that what processes around informed consent are most appropriate to ensure the protection of human subjects will depend to some degree on the planned evaluation activities. It may be possible for guardians or case workers, for example, to provide consent for minors; however, decisions in this area are dependent on the specific design of the approved evaluation plan. Note that, in terms of timelines, external evaluators are tasked with the development of a subgrantee evaluation plan in the second quarter of 2016. Evaluators should also note that the plan must be submitted to staff at the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) and approved by them before evaluation activities can begin.

Q. Question about the Community Readiness Questionnaire that potential collaboratives completed as part of the RFP process. In what format did they complete the survey? Was it paper and pencil or electronic? If paper and pencil, did they submit a separate document with their responses?

A. Potential grant subrecipients completed the Community Readiness Questionnaire by electronically providing narrative responses in a separate document.

Q. One more question about the RFP…in terms of outcomes, it states, “We anticipate that the shared measurements for the Connected Youth Initiative will relate to the following seven outcome areas: 1) personal and community engagement, 2) education, 3) employment, 4) daily living/housing and transportation,5) physical and mental health, 6) permanence, and 7) economic stability.” Are you able to tell what kind of data (if any) you are already collecting on these outcomes, and how and how often they are collected?

A. Data on these outcomes are collected using a survey questionnaire administered every 6 months. Nebraska Children and Families Foundation staff will be able to share the survey questionnaire and the results of the pre- and post-test surveys with the Connected Youth Initiative external evaluator.

Q. I have an addition questions about the RFP. On page 4, it states, “At present, evidence to support the effectiveness of the Connected Youth Initiative model is based on one group pre- and post-test data.” Is a report of those outcomes available on the website? I could not find it. If not, is it possible to get a copy of those results?

A. Although a report of outcomes is not publically available at this time, Nebraska Children and Families Foundation staff will be able to share the survey questionnaire and the results of the pre- and post-test surveys with the Connected Youth Initiative external evaluator.

Q. “Will you describe the differences in the purpose and the goals of the external evaluation in comparison to the local evaluation? Will the local evaluators play a role in the sites' external evaluation activities?”

A. The overarching goal of the external evaluation are described in section II of the external evaluator request for proposals. External evaluators will hold primary responsibility for the accomplishment of these goals. To the extent subrecipients work with local evaluators, the responsibility of these local evaluators is to ensure that subrecipients have the capacity to collect and manage what data is needed for the external evaluation. It is also the role of these local evaluators, if used, to help build subrecipients’ capacity in these areas, on an as needed basis.

Q. The SIF evaluation guidance states, "Indirect and overhead costs should be included, either by providing separate lines for them, or by loading them onto direct costs." How does the 10% indirect rate apply if indirects are loaded onto the direct costs?

A: The 10% Indirect Cost Rate would not apply if indirect and overhead costs are provided on separate line items or by loading them onto direct costs.

Q. Just to clarify, the "external evaluator" may also serve as the "local evaluator" for each of the communities? May they be the same individual, company or firm?

A: The External Evaluator and the Local Evaluator(s) may not be the same individual, company or firm.

Q: I see the percentage of the total budget expected for evaluation, however, I am uncertain if the "total budget" includes the match. Should the evaluation be a percentage of $1, $2, or $3 million?

A. There will be 7-10 subgrantee collaboratives across the state. Each collaborative will receive a $100,000-$150,000 subgrant each year for two years (and possibly up to five years) from Nebraska Children to be matched dollar for dollar by the local collaborative. The maximum total award to all subgrantees is approximately $1 million per year. The external evaluation will be concerned with the work to be completed by the collaboratives utilizing approximately $2 million ($1 million per year) in Nebraska Children grants matched by $2 million ($1 million per year) by local funding. An external evaluation budget should be based on an appropriate percentage of that total based on the evaluator’s experience with previous evaluation projects.

Q: The RFP indicates that the two-year federal grant period will begin on September 1, 2015, and runs through August 31, 2017. However, the RFP states to submit a two-year work plan, with a February 22, 2016 start date (when subgrantees are announced) and concluding in August 2018. It also indicates that the timeline should not exceed the federal grant dates (September 1, 2014 –August 31, 2016). Based on our understanding of the program, should the contract and work plan timeframe cover the period of January 19, 2016 (when the evaluator is announced) through August 31, 2017 (when the grant period ends)?

A: The work plan should run from Jan 19, 2016 through Aug 31, 2017. Although evaluators should note that there is a possibility of the grant being extended beyond Aug 31, 2017.

Q. I see outcomes in three areas: youth, subgrantees, communities. I also see questions at three levels: outcome, process, and dissemination. Does it seem reasonable to divide the work between evaluators by these areas or levels?

A. External evaluators may divide work as they see appropriate; this includes, but is not limited to, dividing work among sub-groups of an external evaluation team according to the areas in which outcomes are envisioned and/or according to the levels at which outcomes are envisioned (e.g. youth, subgrantees, communities).

Q. What role(s) would NCFF data and research personnel play in the evaluation?

A. Following the Social Innovation Fund Evaluation Plan Guidance, it is important from the perspective of Nebraska Children and Families Foundation that the evaluator have enough independence to render an honest and unbiased opinion of the Connected Youth Initiative’s outcomes and impacts. However, it is also important that Nebraska Children and Families Foundation staff be able to provide the oversight needed to ensure that the evaluation meets expected standards. Broadly, Nebraska Children and Families Foundation’s data and research staff would act as the primary liaison with the external evaluator, and provide oversight of evaluation work, with final oversight being the responsibility of the Nebraska Children and Families Foundation’s Connected Youth Initiative project director.

Q. Outcome area #1: What is meant by “personal engagement”?

A. As defined in the Connected Youth Initiative subgrantee request for proposals, outcome area 1, “personal and community engagement,” is defined as “Youth have supportive relationships, are able to access services in the community to achieve their personal goals and have a voice and connection to their community.”

Q. What organizations do you expect to be involved?

A. Involved organizations will vary by subgrantee. Each subgrantee will develop a community collaborative of service providers, local stakeholders and local funders.

Q. Is the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services on board with this project? IT seems their support will be vital in order to obtain consent from youth in care.

A. Nebraska Children and Families Foundation has a long history of collaboration with DHHS.

Q. The subgrantee RFP says the evaluation will be quasi-experimental, with some youth being put on a waiting list due to capacity. It also says youth will be randomly assigned to tx or the waiting list. How will this be done?

A. At this stage, no final decisions have been made regarding evaluation design, to include decisions regarding the use of comparison groups and, if used, how they are constructed. Evaluators submitting a proposal are encouraged to include in their work plan how they—through a given evaluation methodology— will help increase the level of evidence for the Connected Youth Initiative to a moderate or strong levels of evidence. Definitions of levels of evidence are provided in the evaluator request for proposals and the Social Innovation Fund’s Evaluation Plan Guidance.

Q. Will/could some subgrantees have significantly different programming than others?

A. Each Subgrantees will develop its own programming with guidance from Nebraska Children around the following Core Components of a Connected Youth Initiative:
1. A cross–sector collaborative utilizing the Collective Impact functions and conditions
2. Minimum number of youth to be served - The CYI model in communities should provide high touch and low touch interventions to a minimum of 200 young people per grantee. High touch participation is defined as an individual who participates in one or more CYI services, including case management or supports (youth leadership) for duration of at least 3 months, and is available and participates in the evaluation process and should encompass at least 20% of the total youth served. Low touch supports include one-time supports needed for young people on any of the CYI components including referrals via the central navigation, need based funds and other one-time support and services
3. Project management for cross collaborative management, reports, grant contracts, financial reports, communication, grants management, data use and collection, accounting, resource coordination and development, capacity building, and coordinating training and education
4. Opportunities for youth leadership and advocacy through youth empowering processes
5. Central Navigation to support youth in accessing resources
6. Individual Development Accounts (IDA’s) to support youth in achieving economic stability
7. An array of basic needs services and supports including: health, mental health, housing and transportation resources, assistance in obtaining personal records (birth certificates), parenting resources, nutrition and healthy lifestyles, which are provided by multiple community partners working in unison for youth
8. Educational supports for GED’s, high school diploma’s, enrollment and completion of post-secondary education, trade schools and specific career skill development
9. Employment supports to include the development or maintenance of work readiness skills, resume development, youth friendly employers
10. Financial stability through financial education, credit recovery, renter training
11. Permanence which is achieved through family finding, positive relationships with adult mentors and successful relationships
12. Evaluation

Q. How do you envision the 3rd party evaluator and subgrantees collaborating on evaluation?

A. Nebraska Children sees the third party evaluator playing a direct role in working with subgrantees and collaborating on evaluation.

Q. What role would the 3rd party evaluator play in increasing the capacity for subgrantees’ to participate in evaluation?

A. The terms of the federal grant specify that the subgrantees’ capacity for evaluation and for increasing their level of evidence should be built over the course of the grant. In the work plan section of their proposal, external evaluators should describe their plan to work with subgrantees in evaluation and ensure they are ready to track and collect required data. Evaluators should also specify in their work plan how they will increase the level of evidence used by the subgrantees.

Q. What is the scope of the expected budget? Might it be 10, 20, 30% of the whole project budget? Could you say how much the anticipated award amounts will be/ what an appropriate budget range would be? I did not see that addressed in the RFP. Do you have an estimate for the expected cost, or level of effort, of the evaluation?

A. There will be 7-10 subgrantee collaboratives across the state. Each collaborative will receive a $100,000-$150,000 subgrant each year for two years from Nebraska Children to be matched dollar for dollar by the local collaborative. The maximum total award to all subgrantees is approximately $1 million per year. The external evaluation will be concerned with the work to be completed by the collaboratives utilizing approximately $2 million ($1 million per year) in Nebraska Children grants matched by $2 million ($1 million per year) by local funding. An external evaluation budget should be based on an appropriate percentage of that total based on the evaluator’s experience with previous evaluation projects.

Q. Our overhead rates, which are audited and approved by our federal clients, exceeds the 10 percent limit mentioned in the RFP. Would it be acceptable to submit a budget using a unit cost approach that folds all our overhead costs into our hourly labor rate?

Given that this is/will be federally funded and that a contract is envisioned and also that you note the selected contractor must abide by all requirements for federal contractor is there any reason we would not be able to use our federally approved indirect costs as stated in our Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA) as approved by our cognizant federal agency? This would be in keeping with the requirements of a federal contractor as required by OMB.

A. There are no Federal Regulations associated with this Initiative that requires the use of the 10% limit mentioned in the RFP or prohibits an external evaluator from using a negotiated indirect cost rate. You may use a negotiated indirect cost rate but the overall project cost, including the indirect costs, will necessarily be one of the factors we use to evaluate proposals.