As many of you know, the EHS-CCP Round 2 FOA made an early appearance late last week. A full 7 days before it was forecasted to drop, the FOA went live on 6/23/16.
We’ve heard many people asking what the main differences are between the first round of Early Head Start – Child Care Partnership (EHS-CCP) grants and the recently announced second round. The good news is there are many similarities. We encourage you to read the entire Round 2 Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) for the complete detail of application requirements. The following are examples of the high-level differences between Round 1 and Round 2.
Regional Funding Allocation (and less funding!): In Round 2, you will see funding allocations based on ACF regions. In the appendix of the FOA there is a “Regional Allocations” section that specifies the funding allocation for each region. This is different than Round 1 when funding was allocated by state.
EHS-CC Partnership, Non-Partnership EHS Expansion, Combination: You may remember that in Round 2 proposals were prioritized if the applicant proposed a partnership model. In Round 2 there is not a priority for proposing a partnership model. As specified in the FOA:
HHS has a goal of ensuring that at least 40 percent of the funding available under this announcement is provided for EHS-CC Partnership applicants (alone or in combination with a Non-Partnership EHS Expansion) and at least 40 percent is provided to Non-Partnership EHS Expansion applicants (alone or in combination with an EHS-CC Partnership).
Instead, the FOA states that only high quality applications will be funded and the grants will be awarded based on how effectively the model design fits the needs of the community to be served (working and in training/school families).
Child Care Development Fund: The FOA includes expanded language about the Child Care Development Fund (CCDF). When describing Community Needs and Objectives, applicants must demonstrate knowledge of their state’s CCDF policy and describe how the EHS-CCP project will leverage and/or complement existing early learning resources (Section 1.6). The stronger emphasis on CCDF in the Round 2 FOA is perhaps an indicator of the need to build a comprehensive program that works within state systems. It also reflects the timing of the recent CCDBG reauthorization.
Bonus Points: Similar to Round 1, applicants that propose to provide services in high poverty zip codes and Promise Zones will receive bonus points. New in Round 2, applicants will also receive bonus points if they propose to provide services in rural areas. One big difference is that there are no priority points in Round 2. You’ll recall that in Round 1, applicants could get priority points for proposed a 100% partnership model. That is not the case in Round 2.
As you read through the FOA, we recommend you pay particular attention each item in the Approach section (pages 36-41). While much of the language looks similar to Round 1, there are some differences. Be sure to address each section and subsection fully to earn maximum points.
Also, don’t forget ACF is offering a webinar on Monday, June 27 for applicants to hear about the Round 1 opportunity (the webinar will be recorded and available on ECLKC). BUILD Initiative also announced they will be holding a webinar on Thursday, June 30 to discuss the roles states have played in EHS-CCP Round 1.
Thank you and good luck!
Foundations for Families offers EHS-CCP grantees targeted technical assistance and strength-based coaching of key start-up staff. We have helped multiple organizations design, plan for, and draft successful proposals for the first round of EHS-CCP and plan to offer the same expertise for any new opportunities. Please be in touch with Amy Augenblick, Executive Director, at 703-599-4329 or Augenblick@foundationsforfamilies.com to learn about how we can support you and your program.