Maternal Infant Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV)
Request for Proposals (RFP)
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
New Update July 13, 2016
Deadline Extended:

Because Quarterly Reports and Invoices for current grants are due this month, the MIECHV RFP
deadline has been extended from July 15, 2016 to Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 4:00 p.m.
Submit the entire application as one PDF document including the forms in the order listed on
Form B Grant Application Checklist Form by email to: [email protected]. Required
signatures for this application may be electronic or original.
Question: Is an electronic signature allowable on Form A?

Any required signatures for the application can be electronic or original. The application must be
submitted via email as a PDF.
Update July 13, 2016
Question: On page 9, of the Request for Proposal Materials, the purpose of funding states that the
funding is intended to “to implement an evidence-based home visiting model or to expand an existing
evidence based model”. Our agency is currently using MEICHV funds to support HFA work. Without
the existing grant, we would not be able to maintain that service entirely and expand further with
new grant money. Can you clarify that maintenance of our MIECHV funded HFA work falls into this
scope? I am interpreting implementation of an existing evidence-based HV model to be within the
parameters of this application. Is that correct?

Funds for this grant opportunity cannot be used to replace existing funds for evidence-based
home visiting programs. Awarded applicants are expected to sustain current funding levels for
existing evidence-based home visiting programs.
Question: On page 20 of the same materials, Section I on Work Plans states that “The work plan has
objectives that should not be changed”. Can you clarify if this is referring to the existing work plan
objectives listed on Form D (page 28 and 29). We have identified objectives other than those listed,
that might be a better fit for our program and want to be sure it is appropriate to replace some that
are in the template. In addition, can you clarify if the Work Plan should be submitted in landscape
format as Form D is laid out; or in portrait format like the example on page 49-51?

The work plan objectives on Form D cannot be changed; the dates on the work plan objectives
can be changed. Other objectives can be included in the narrative section of the application. The
work plan can be submitted either in landscape or portrait format.
Update July 7, 2016
Question: How should we reflect the first grant period due to still being in the current MIECHV grant
period? Should we list Jan 1, 2017-Sept 30, 2017 and only budget for 7 months as Jan and Feb are in
the current grant cycle or should we list March 1, 2017-Sept 30, 2017?

There are no specific restrictions in the RFP. However, as already indicated, this is a very
competitive grant. You will need to strongly justify why you would be pulling funds from both
grants. There could be costs such as training, hiring new staff or purchasing computers that
could be justified. But in general, if you are currently funded through February 28, 2017, large
expenditures in January and February under the new grant would be carefully scrutinized.
Question: How detailed we should get on the budget? For example, we have the Affiliation
fees for both models divided between MIECHV, TANF, and MCH. Can we just say the rest of
the fees will be paid through other grants or do we need to specify amount from each?

Each Budget Justification Form should provide the details of the applicant’s expenses and a brief
description of how the expenses support the proposed grant activity for that time period. The
full description of the purpose of each grant-funded position and other budgeted items should
appear in the Project Narrative. The MIECHV portion of the affiliation fee must be included in
the budget. It is acceptable to state the remainder of the fee will be paid through other grants
without identifying the amounts to be paid through the other grants.
Follow-up question: For trainings, should we list specific trainings, cost and how many we are
sending? I can do that for some easily enough like DANCE, CLC training and the Children’s
Mental Health conference but others would be harder. If we aren’t detailed enough, will
they ask for more or score us down?


Yes, applicants should list specific trainings, training costs, and how many staff will
attend. Estimating costs is acceptable. If an applicant is successful in obtaining a grant
award, budgets can be revised during the grant period.
This is a competitive grant application. Applications will be reviewed and scored
according to the Criteria for Scoring MIECHV Grant Applications (Appendix B). The entire
proposal will be considered during objective review. The review criteria in Appendix B
are used to review and rank applications.
Update June 30, 2016
Question: Are you going to fully fund the highest scoring applications and stop when the money runs
out or are you going to consider reducing some budgets in order to fund more?

Final funding recommendations will be based on the scores and comments from reviewers, past
performance of current funded MIECHV grantees and the high risk rankings identified in the
Minnesota needs assessment. When making awards, consideration will be given to distributing
funding throughout the state and/or regions and meeting the funding priorities identified in the
MIECHV legislation and MDH’s federal MIECHV application.
Question: What is MDH looking for in the Work Plan section-Quarterly Report?

The Quarterly Report section of the Work Plan is for reporting progress on each objective
quarterly. The quarterly reports are due each quarter. Applicants should leave this section blank
when submitting an application.
Update June 23, 2016
Question: Is each section to be started on its own page (A through J and excluding the Work Plan)? Or,
can it all run together.

It is not necessary to begin each section of the Project Narrative A through J on a separate page.
Sections A through J can be separated by headings, i.e., Application Information, Linkages and
Collaboration, etc.
Follow-up question: Should I be listing subcategories by numbers (i.e., A. 1. “Briefly summarize
applicant’s history...”)?

You should include all of the information requested in a narrative format rather than numbering
the responses.
Question: In section C of the RFP (Subcontracts), should we include our contract with the home
visiting model (i.e., Nurse Family Partnership)? Do we need to discuss our work with the county we
partner with?

Include only subcontracts that are necessary to carry out duties in the Contractual Services
section of the budget in your application. For example, you might subcontract for reflective
supervision services. Contracts with models such as Nurse Family Partnership should not be
included nor should partnership agreements between partnering counties.
Question: Can I get clarification on the page limits for the various sections of the MIECHV grant
proposal? The descriptions state that most sections should be two pages or fewer in length. There are
two exceptions: “C. Subcontracts” which states one page or fewer, and “A. Applicant Information:
which states two pages or few unless it is a joint application, in which case it should be two pages per
organization.

The page limits listed throughout the RFP are to offer guidance to applicants. Applicants should
use that guidance to write concisely in the application.
Question: On form A, at the bottom, where it asks for “Total Amount on Proposed Budget,” is that for
calendar year 2017 or for the entire grant period of January 1, 2017 through September 30, 2019?

Under “Total Amount on Proposed Budget” on Form A, you should provide the total proposed
budget amount for the entire grant from January 1, 2017 through September 30, 2019.
Update June 16, 2016
Question: Under “H.2 Implementation Plan, page 20, it says: “Evidence-based home visiting models
identify the importance of a home visitor implementing a model being at least .5 FTE in the model.
This supports the home visitor in implementing the model with fidelity and retaining families
contributing to the overall success of the program.” Does this mean that .5 FTE is a requirement for
staffing providing MIECHV home visiting?

As stated in the RFP, evidence-based home visiting models recommend the importance of a
home visitor being .5 FTE in a model. The RFP does not require a home visitor to be .5 FTE in a
model. Applicants will want to clearly discuss in their application rationale for deviating from the
recommendation if they choose to do so.
Question: In the project narrative section under A. Applicant information, it states, “if an applicant
submits a joint application, the limit is two pages per organization.” Does the 2 page per organization
refer only to that section or does it mean that if multiple counties are applying together, each can
have 2 pages for all of the other sections as well? For example, if 3 counties combine and apply
together, could they submit a total of 6 pages for each of the sections or just 2?

The page limit is to offer guidance to applicants. Applicants should use that guidance to write
concisely in the application. An applicant may choose to go over the page limit when the
applicant believes it is important to portray adequately the proposed activities they will
implement in their proposed program.
Question: On Form D, please confirm that reporting income is to be done when the quarterly reports
are submitted and that we do not need to provide an estimate for our proposal.

Yes, income from Medicaid and other health insurance should be reported quarterly.
Question: Are there a minimum number of activities that should be identified for each objective?

Yes, you should include at least one activity for each objective. You want to be sure to identify
all necessary steps to achieve each objective.
Question: Will MIECHV funds be available to support upgrades to local data systems (ex. PH Doc,
MAHF Database, etc.) that might be needed accommodate recent changes made by HRSA and its data
collection expectations?

Yes, MIECHV funds are available to pay for local data system changes needed to collect the new
performance measures.
Follow up question: If so, can multiple MAHF Partners applying for MIECHV funds request funding for
a portion of the upgrades as long as requests are not duplicative?

MDH plans to contract directly with the local data systems to pay for changes needed; therefore
grantees need not budget for these changes when applying to the RFP.
Question: Can you clarify the order that the forms in the response be submitted?

We suggest the following order:
o Form A Grant Application Face Sheet
o Form B Grant Application Checklist
o Narrative
o Form C Home Visitor Staffing Plan
o
o
o
o
o
Form D MIECHV Work Plan
Form E Budget Justification, one for each time period
Form F Budget Summary, one for each time period
Form G Indirect Cost Questionnaire (if not applicable check box one and submit)
Attachments referenced in the narrative
Update June 14, 2016
Question: Will we be required to compile all data for data collection activities into one report and
submit or will we be able to submit each county’s data separately if we partner with Quin or another
county?

If awarded applicants consist of multiple counties or CHBs working together, they may choose to
either report their performance measurement separately, or together, as long as 1) the data is
reported in the format specified by MDH, and 2) the grantee ensures that all data is submitted
as required. The performance measurement data will include client, county, and zip code data,
allowing MDH to break out the data by county and zip code as needed for federal reporting.
Applicants should describe in their response to the RFP what their plans are for performance
measure data reporting, including whether one county or CHB will take responsibility for
reporting all data for the applicant, and whether reporting duties will be delegated or
subcontracted to another organization.
Question: Are we allowed to have other attachments, like an example of CQI project or data report,
copy of Zero to Three Home Visiting Community Planning Tool, or policy around data security and
privacy?

You are able to add attachments to the application to support your narrative or to clarify
information. You should reference any attachments in your narrative.
Question: May a county apply for funding to serve more than the 2015 average based on quarterly
data submitted to MDH if they have justification or not?

Applicants may apply for funding to serve more than the 2015 average caseload based on
quarterly data submitted to MDH. Applicants must provide rationale in the application for
requesting to serve more than the 2015 average caseload.
Question: Where in the application would you like the Narrative to be included?

It is suggested the applicant include the narrative after Forms A and B.
Question: How specific a description do you want related to our plan to fulfill the CQI participation
with MDH activities? Will it suffice to just identify that we will participate (with a team as described)?

Yes, it will suffice to state that the grantee will participate in MIECHV CQI activities, and will
identify members of a CQI team. We are in the process of revising our MIECHV CQI plan and
more information will be available soon on the specifics of MIECHV CQI activities, such as a
learning collaborative.
Question: What are you looking for related to enhancement/integration into the local early childhood
system? What should we include to describe this?

Each applicant should define and identify their local early childhood system and in their
application discuss how implementation of the proposed evidence-based home visiting model
will enhance or be integrated into that early childhood system. Applicants may want to include
information about coordination of early childhood services in the community, coordination of
intakes and referrals, etc.
Question: Is the work plan really limited to 2 pages or less and is Form D required?

The two page limit is to offer guidance to applicants. Applicants should use that guidance to
write concisely in the application. An applicant may choose to go over the page limit when the
applicant believes it is important to portray adequately the proposed activities they will
implement in their proposed program.
Question: It is my understanding that if a high risk community collaborates with a contiguous county
that is not identified in Appendix F that we could count the high risk families that they have served in
our target caseload. Is this correct?


Families served by other funding methods would not be counted and the nurse serving the
family would not be funded at the minimum .25 FTE with MIECHV funding. Supplanting
would also need to be considered.
The high risk determination was based on the entire population of the county. Families can only
be part of the target caseload if the home visitor is funded at least .25 FTE using MIECHV funds
and served by a MIECVH funded agency.
Question: Will we be able to gather the data via paper methods and enter electronically for
submission through the web based system? (FHVRES?)

MDH is working on developing a temporary data collection method for the new MIECHV
performance measures effective October 2016. This method will likely consist of a fillable PDF or
Java-based set of forms. More information will be available this summer as plans are finalized.
MDH will also provide training webinars on the new measures and forms.
Update June 2, 2016
Question: Being a city CHB that works across three city CHB’s in southern Hennepin County, we are
wondering how this will be considered in the formula for finding the most at risk populations. We
know that Richfield and the eastern part of Bloomington have our most at risk families. Will you just
count on our own data to represent this? I attached the Risk Factor Chart from 2011 we used for the
first MIECHV Formula grant. I see Bloomington, Edina, Richfield is not divided out there just like in the
current RFP’s Appendix F: High Risk Communities Identified in the Statewide Needs Assessment.

As part of an identified high risk county for purposes of this grant application, you will need to
clearly identify the high risk community that will be served through the program. You should
include rationale for proposing that high risk community and the feasibility to serve the
community.
Question: We currently have the agreement to host up to three GGK trainings each year, which we are
doing this year. Should we leave this out and expect a separate contract agreement to occur for that
should MDH want to utilize the Bloomington site in the future?

You should not include information about hosting GGK trainings in the application.
Question: How did you determine that you would give out 12 grants with the 5.5 million that is
available?

We did multiple calculations and scenarios to estimate the number of grants we anticipate
awarding. We currently have 19 CHBs serving 25 counties. We did multiple iterations of how
much we had for the 19 CHBs and how much money we have for the new grant. If all applicants
submit for lower amounts, more than 12 grants can be awarded; if applicants submit for larger
amounts, fewer than 12 grants can be awarded. It is highly unlikely that there will be sufficient
funds for 19 or more grants. The intent was to provide an idea to potential applicants of how
many grants could be funded.
Question: Is there more funding this year or less?


For the current MIECHV grantees, this information was covered in the phone calls in February
and on the PDF sheet that was sent out. There is less funding than what we were previously
awarded. Current funding is approximately $10 million per year; new funding totals 8.6 million
for two years, or $4.3 million per year.
We have not received federal fiscal year 2017 funds which we anticipate will be around 8
million. So, Minnesota MIECHV formula grant funding should stabilize at 8 million, funded from
two pots of money. Until the funds are released, the only funds we can actually allocate total 8.6
million. This is how HRSA told MDH to submit our budget; spreading 8.6 million out over a two
year period.
Question: Our expenses exceed our current local funding. Where can we indicate this in our
application?

There is no place to include this information in the budget; you can include it when discussing
capacity of the agency to bill for home visiting services under A. Applicant Information.
Question: Under our current MDH grant, we were funded with a certain amount per family. It looks
like under the new grant, we would determine the number of families and whatever costs we would
have. Is this correct?

Yes, that is correct.
Question: For the new grant, year one begins January 1, 2017, but our current MIECHV 2 expansion
grant goes through February 28, 2017. Should our budget begin March 1, 2017 because we already
have funding that will take us to February 28th?

There are no specific restrictions in the RFP. However, as already indicated, this is a very
competitive grant. You will need to strongly justify why you would be pulling funds from both
grants. There could be costs such as training, hiring new staff or purchasing computers that
could be justified. But in general, if you are currently funded through February 28, 2017, large
expenditures in January and February under the new grant would be carefully scrutinized.
Question: It looks to me like the counties with no existing grant have a different criteria for their
average target population.



HRSA has strict criteria for how we calculate the percentage of the target caseload being served.
It is based on the number of families served at a point in time, at the end of each calendar
quarter. This is how MDH will calculate your caseload numbers for reporting to HRSA whether
you are a current or new grantee.
Over the last year, we have achieved less than 85% of our target caseload. We have been closer
to 74-80% and this has been due to some grantees achieving significantly more than their target
numbers, while others have been well below their target numbers. We do not want to put
Minnesota at risk of losing MIECHV funds, or being placed on a performance improvement plan
which is very time intensive, includes much more scrutiny from HRSA, and would impact
awarded applicants under this RFP.
The intent of the 2015 average caseload data in the RFP is to provide guidance to assist
applicants with choosing a target number that can be achieved and sustained. If you do not
agree with the guidance, you can provide a rationale for why you choose the target number
included on your application.
Question: For the past 2 years, the NFP National Service Office (NSO) has been submitting our data to
the state. If we are going to continue to use that system to report to the state for our NFP program, do
we need to show we have a contract with NFP?

If your organization will be relying on NFP or another entity to report your data to the state, you
must describe in the application how you will ensure that performance measure data will be
reported to the state as will be required in the grant agreement. You may want to include
documentation of a subcontract with the reporting entity, or a letter or memorandum of
understanding with the reporting entity.
Question: What is the current arrangement between MDH and the NFP NSO regarding data files from
the NFP-ETO system?


MDH has a professional and technical services contract with the NFP NSO in order for MDH to
have access to NFP’s proprietary resources, training, and ongoing technical assistance and
consultation. Previously, MDH paid the NSO for monthly data files from the NFP-ETO system; as
of June 2016 MDH is no longer paying the NSO to obtain data on behalf of grantees. Ultimately,
it is the responsibility of the MIECHV grantee to ensure that performance measure data is
reported to MDH.
Because MDH expects that some NFP programs will want the NSO to send data to MDH on their
behalf as has been done previously, MDH is continuing to discuss with the NSO what steps need
to be taken to ensure that data sent to MDH by the NSO is in compliance with all relevant
federal and state laws concerning data privacy, including M.S. 145A.17, Subd. 3(e) concerning
written informed consent by family home visiting clients. The NSO stopped providing data files
from the NFP-ETO system to MDH in January of 2016 because it was found that these data files
were not being filtered to remove data for clients who had not given written informed consent
to share their data with MDH. MDH cannot receive data from the NFP-ETO system until an
arrangement is in place that ensures compliance with federal and state data privacy laws.
Question: If we have a social service agency doing intensive model specific home visiting, that agency
may involve a public health nurse before and after delivery to look at health of the mother during
pregnancy and or shortly after delivery. Is this supplemental and not duplicative services?

Yes, it is supplemental, not duplicative. You want to avoid a family receiving federally funded
home visiting services that are similar. It certainly makes sense to provide families with
complementary and not duplicative services.
Question: Should current grantees assume that the current level of detailed descriptions in our work
plans is adequate?

It probably varies from county to county so we cannot give a yes or no answer to this question.
Keep in mind that this is a highly competitive grant. You want to be sure that you are very clear
about the activities you will implement to reach the goals and objectives for the new grant. It is
important that the application reviewers have a clear understanding of your program.
Question: On page 19, it states there should be 0.5 FTE in the program model, and on the staffing
worksheet it says 0.25. Which is correct?

These are two different things. The evidence-based models recommend that each staff person
be working at least 0.5 FTE in the model to maintain fidelity. The 0.25 FTE refers to the minimum
amount that a home visitor’s personnel costs (salary and fringe) must be paid for by MIECHV in
order for that home visitor’s families served to be counted toward the target caseload. For
example, an HFA model home visitor could be funded 0.25 FTE with TANF dollars and 0.25 FTE
with MIECHV dollars to meet the 0.5 model FTE requirement, as well as the 0.25 FTE. But, you
cannot meet the 0.5 FTE model requirement with two different home visitors at 0.25 FTE each.
Question: Can you define what you mean by supplanting?

For purposes of this application, a local or Tribal government could not reduce state, local or
Tribal government funds currently being used for a long-term evidence-based home visiting
model. MIECHV funds could only be used to supplement (add to) current state, local, or Tribal
government funds directed toward implementation of a long-term evidence-based home
visiting model.
Question: Who can be served with MIECHV funding?

Under the MIECHV authorized legislation, an eligible family is, (a) a woman who is pregnant and
the father of the child if the father is available; or, (b) a parent or primary caregiver of a child,
including grandparents or other relatives of the child, or foster parents, who are serving as the
child’s primary caregiver/s from birth to kindergarten entry, including a noncustodial parent
who has an ongoing relationship with and, at times provides, physical care for the child.
Question: If a county is not on the “high risk communities” list, we must partner with a county that is
on that list, correct?

Yes, but partner counties must be contiguous.
Question: How firm are you going to be on the definition of contiguous if there are processes going on
that may change that?

Contiguous relates to geography and means sharing a common border or touching. Counties
within Community Health Boards that consolidate or break apart can still be contiguous.
Question: If we join another county that is not high risk will we be penalized for that?

No.
Question: Can you please remind me how you came up with the risk list and in what year the
assessment was done?



The list of high risk communities came from the MIECHV needs assessment completed in 2010
using statewide, county-level data for several maternal and child health indicators, as required
by HRSA. The current MIECHV needs assessment is approved by HRSA and has been used for the
last 5 years.
We have not revised the needs assessment since 2010 for a number of reasons. We did not have
the staff capacity to repeat the needs assessment for the most recent MIECHV formula grant
application, and HRSA did not require it at this time. Also, had we repeated the needs
assessment at this point, counties that have been awarded MIECHV funds and had been
successful at impacting their maternal and child health indicators could have seen their risk
factors go down, which would change their ranking.
HRSA has indicated that they may require another needs assessment in the future; while we
don’t anticipate this for fiscal 2017 dollars it may be required for fiscal 2018 dollars. When we
do a new needs assessment, we will ask communities to provide input into the process and the
data sets used.
Question: For current MIECHV grantees for whom the current MIECHV grant will expire, but who use a
long term model that is not finished in time, can we count the families as clients in the new grant?

Yes, we want you to provide continuous services to families served by the previous MIECHV
grants.
Question: On Appendix B - Criteria for Scoring, Evaluation and Data Collection: Can you give an
example what might be an appropriate example of data analysis?

Section F asks applicants to describe their experience ensuring the quality of data collection, and
with data management and analysis. You may provide examples of reports or data analysis that
demonstrate your capacity in these areas, to support the description of your organization’s
experience collecting and using program data. For example, you could provide a report using
your program’s data for a CQI project.
Question: Please define “local early childhood system.”

It varies from community to community. An early childhood system in your community could
include early head start, early childhood screening and other early childhood programs that
serve the same aged group and with whom you meet on a regular basis and/or to whom you
make or receive referrals. You should provide your community’s definition of an early childhood
system and describe how you collaborate.
Question: Is there a review form with points to be used by reviewers?

The questions reviewers will consider are included in the RFP to provide guidance. The points
are not included.
Question: What are the requirements for infant mental health consultants?

There is not a set number of hours. Need varies among grantees. The consultant needs to be
available for clients and staff. Typically, infant mental health consultants are hired from the
outside and are not in-house.
Updated May 27, 2016
Question: I am concerned that MDH is choosing to utilize MIECHV data from FHVRES (a flawed data
collection system) versus the more accurate data that is being reported on the MIECHV Work Plan
Quarterly Reports.



FHVRES is currently the designated reporting tool for MIECHV reporting and captures the
detailed information that is required for the quarterly and yearly reports submitted to HRSA.
The MIECHV Work Plan Quarterly Reports are collected as part of our grants management
duties for MDH and HRSA. MDH FHV staff review the quarterly reports for additional
information that may help explain variances in numbers and target enrollments, but these
reports are not intended as a substitute for the more detailed quantitative data collection and
reporting that is required for MIECHV HRSA reports. HRSA required that MDH create a data
collection and reporting system for the quantitative information reported quarterly and
annually.
HRSA has increased its quarterly reporting requirements. Manual tabulation of 19 grantees and
25 counties is not a feasible method for MDH to meet these more extensive reporting
requirements.
We agree that FHVRES is not the most user friendly system and its reporting capabilities are
limited. MDH is currently looking into ways to improve utility of reports for grantees. In the
meantime, our evaluation team continues to work with grantees to assure that their data has
uploaded accurately into the FHBRES system.
Question: We received this data Monday, May 2, 2016 with no indication that it also was being used
in the RFP to establish current MIECHV agency case load limits. The RFP came out 5/5-giving agencies
no time to review and respond to MDH related to any inaccuracies or concerns.


MDH agrees that sharing data back with grantees in a useful and timely manner is a core
function where we will continue to implement improvements.
Meeting target enrollment data requires two key parts: serving families and ability to accurately
report data. These are both crucial components that grantees should have the capacity to
address and problem solve around at any point in their contract with MDH.


HRSA typically allows MDH a few days to 2 weeks to respond to their requests for clarification.
The current MIECHV RFP has a timeframe of 10 weeks. We felt this was adequate time for
grantees to have discussions with MDH staff over target enrollment numbers and to complete
their FP application.
We recognized that grantees may disagree with MDH’s numbers, methods, etc., and/or may feel
that circumstances in their agency have changed/improved that would increase their ability to
serve a higher target number. We also acknowledge that MDH will never know all of the
nuances for each applicant and that a true partnership allows for fair sharing of information
from both parties. With that in mind, MDH was very intentional in providing a space for
applicants to share their knowledge, to disagree with MDH and to provide rational for their
chosen target. Please see page 19, Section G. Model Selection and Target Caseload, #7 and #8.
Question: Why does the new MIECHV RFP focus on target enrollment and set limits for current
grantees based on past performance?





HRSA continues to focus increased attention on states meeting a minimum of 85% of their
maximum services capacity. States that do not meet the minimum can be put on a performance
improvement plan and/or have funding withheld/de-obligated.
Over the past year, MN has achieved 74-80% of our target enrollment numbers placing us at
increased risk to be placed on a performance improvement plan.
With the redesign of MIECHV funding in 2016, HRSA has clearly stated that performance and
ability to serve targeted client numbers will continue to have a significant impact on the amount
of funding states receive.
Given all of this, MDH felt it prudent to reflect this increased focus on meeting the 85% target
enrollment numbers in our MIEDCHV RFP. By setting limits, MDH is forcing applicants to
purposefully document rationale for any request beyond the average target enrollment that was
reported to MDH in 2015. MDH strongly believes that a crucial part of our responsibility is to
protect funding resources and to create scenarios that place our state in the best possible
position to meet federal funding performance expectations.
Finally, with the significant changes in HRSA’s funding of MIECHV, our state is faced with the
sober reality of a significant decrease in MEICHV funding from approximately $9.5 million/year
to $4.3 million/year. We need all future grantees to write the best application possible that
provides sufficient resources for them to meet both service and reporting requirements.
Updated May 26, 2016
Question: What are the trainings that will be required for awarded applicants?



Applicants would be required to participate in any trainings required by the model developer of
the evidence-based home visiting model(s) chosen by the applicant.
Applicants will be required to participate in one annual conference/community of practice for
grantees.
Applicants will want to consider including travel and expenses for attendance at trainings that
would enhance practice but are not required by the model and other activities such as
communities of practice or meetings specifically related to the model.
Question: What are the reporting requirements?


Awarded applicants will be required to submit quarterly reports outlining achievement of
activities identified in the work plan, CQI activities, challenges to implementing the work plan
and plans to address those.
Awarded applicants will also be required to collect demographic and performance measure data
on families participating in MIECHV, and enter or upload the data into Minnesota’s Family Home
Visiting Reporting and Evaluation System (FHVRES) or other data collection system designated
by MDH. Beginning October 1, 2016, MIECHV sites will need to begin collecting data for the new
MIECHV performance measures, which can be found on HRSA’s website: Fiscal Year 2017
Performance Measures
(http://www.mchb.hrsa.gov/programs/homevisiting/ta/resources/index.html). MDH is currently
planning how to operationalize the collection of the new performance measure data, with input
from a work group including LPH and data system representatives. Additional details will be
available during the summer of 2016.
Updated May 24, 2016
Question: A snapshot in time does not accurately reflect the agency caseload for a quarter. For
example, agencies could potentially have a client that was enrolled the first week of a quarter, seen
weekly, moved out of county the last week of the quarter and closed therefore that family would
never be counted. Using FHVRES “snapshot” in time impacts agencies percent of target which in the
end impacts the entire states percent of target.


Counting active clients as of the end of each quarter is consistent with how HRSA wants MDH to
report on this (based on the new Form 4); HRSA provides the following definition in the FOA and
it is consistent with Form 4 which is now required from states on a quarterly basis: Maximum
service capacity - The maximum service capacity (associated with the caseload of family slots) is
the highest number of households that could potentially be enrolled at the end of the quarterly
reporting period if the program were operating with a full complement of hired and trained
home visitors.
MDH believes that the important number for reflecting a site’s target caseload is their average
enrollment over time, not the cumulative number of clients ever enrolled. We tried to reflect
each site’s experience more completely by averaging four time points during the year, to
account for fluctuation in enrollment over time. We could potentially take more time points and
average them, but it is unlikely that the average would be significantly different if we took the
number at the end of each month instead of each quarter. Also, no matter which time points we
arbitrarily pick, there will always be some short-term clients that slip in-between those time
points.
For further reference the following HRSA definitions and guidance may be helpful: Caseload of
family slots - The caseload of family slots (associated with the maximum service capacity) is the
highest number of families (or households) that could potentially be enrolled at any given time if
the program were operating with a full complement of hired and trained home visitors. Family
slots are those enrollment slots served by a trained home visitor implementing services with
fidelity to the model for whom at least 25% of his/her personnel costs (salary/wages including
benefits) are paid for with MIECHV funding. All members of one family or household represent a
single caseload slot. The count of slots should be distinguished from the cumulative number of
enrolled families during the grant period. It is known that the caseload of family slots may vary
by federal fiscal year pending variation in available funding in each fiscal year. [State] Applicants
should remember that inability to meet proposed caseloads may result in de-obligated funds,
which may impact future funding.

If MDH accounted for every client ever served in calculating the average caseload over time, we
would need to adjust/weight for length of enrollment, which is a more complex calculation –
and for the sake of transparency, we would prefer to use a simpler calculation method that is
easier to explain to grantees, HRSA, etc. And again, it is unlikely that number would be much
different than that calculated by the method we chose.
Updated: May 23, 2016
Question: We plan on submitting an application for the current MIECHV RFP. We are part of a group
of counties that are contiguous. At least one of the counties is on the eligible list of counties in the
RFP. Could we choose a non-eligible high risk county to be the fiscal agent for the application?

Yes, you could choose a non-eligible agency to be the fiscal host for the grant. The CHB that is
the applicant agency submitting the application must have a county that is an eligible high risk
county in the RFP as part of the applicant CHB.
Question: On page 13, it indicates that the caseload for 2 FTE in HFA would be 48 families. Is this an
error? HFA recommends between 12-15/caseload so I’m thinking just as it is with NFP, it should have
been four FTE?

HFA Best Practice Standard 8 states: “8.1A The site’s policy and procedures regarding
established caseload size is no more than fifteen (15) families, at the most intensive service level
(offered weekly visits) per full time home visitor. 8.1B-The site’s policy regarding maximum
caseload size is no more than twenty-five (25) at any combination of service levels per full-time
home visitor and a maximum case weight of 30 points.” Applicants should assess their program
needs/requirement based on the HFA Best Practice Standards. It is anticipated that established
sites would have a combination of service levels allowing for a higher caseload where as new
implementing sites may have an intensive service level requirement a smaller caseload at the
time of initial implementation with that caseload increasing as the program becomes
established.
Follow-up Question: But if we are talking about new families, wouldn’t we be looking at caseload size
of no more than 15 at the most intensive level of services?

Yes, at the highest level of service per HFA guidelines, the caseload would be no larger than 15.
New implementing sites may find that for the first six months of new home visitor
implementation, cases are at a more intensive level of services. As the home visitor continues to
see families, different levels of intensity will likely increase the caseload capacity of the home
visitor. Applicants should consider this increasing capacity when determining the proposed
target caseload over the grant period. It is not anticipated that over the grant period all cases
would be at the highest level of intensity.
Updated: May 11, 2016
Question: We are a current MIECHV grantee and believe the Average Target Caseload reported for our
county in Appendix E of the RFP is incorrect. How can we correct this?

MDH Response: On May 2nd, all MIECHV grantees received an e-mail report regarding the
enrollment data that MDH received for each county in 2015. The county averages for
Appendix E were pulled from those reports. If you believe your county numbers are in error
you should send an e-mail to [email protected] and work with the FHV
evaluation staff to determine where the inaccuracies in the numbers are occurring.
o If the error for the Average Target Caseload is on the part of MDH, we will issue a
new target enrollment for your county.
o If the error for the Average Target Caseload is on the part of the grantee, but you
believe that you have a means to resolve the error going forward, please refer to
page 19, Section G. Model Selection and Target Caseload, #7 for how to address
this in your application. Applicants should include information about changes the
applicant is making to their data collection and reporting submitted to MDH to
assure accurate data reporting.
Question: We are a current MIECHV grantee and believe the Average Target Caseload reported for our
county in Appendix E of the RFP is not representative of the target caseload that we will be able to
achieve and maintain at 85% or higher going forward.

Please refer to page 19, Section G. Model Selection and Target Caseload, #7 and #8 for how
to address this in your application. Applicants must indicate the rationale for submitting a
target caseload in their application that is greater than their 2015 average.
Question: Is there a specific amount that we should ask for per family?

It is up to each applicant to determine the amount of funding needed to support the
activities proposed in the application. The costs should be reasonable and assure that the
proposed activities will be achieved with fidelity to the model.
Created by the Minnesota Department of Health | Community & Family Health Division | Maternal &
Child Health Section | Family Home Visiting Unit (http://www.health.state.mn.us/fhv)
P.O. Box 64882, St. Paul, MN 55164, [email protected] Phone: 651-201-4090, Fax: 651-201-3590