MIECHV Program Reauthorization

Congress extended authorization for the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) Program in December 2022 (P.L.117-328). HRSA encourages MIECHV Program awardees to review this page to learn more about the reauthorization and how HRSA will implement changes to the Program. This page also includes answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs).

Jump to the following sections:

New MIECHV Program grant funding
Data collection
Reducing administrative burden
Virtual home visiting
Targeted, intensive home visiting services
FAQs

New MIECHV Program grant funding

Starting in fiscal year 2024 (FY24), HRSA will give eligible states and jurisdictions one MIECHV Program grant that includes base funds, matching funds (if applied for), and additional matching funds (starting in FY25, if available and applied for). All MIECHV Program requirements apply to each part of the award. To get a MIECHV Program grant, eligible awardees must meet the Maintenance of Effort requirement.

Maintenance of Effort (MOE)

To meet the MOE requirement, each awardee must obligate state general funds at an amount more than or equal to what they reported spending on evidence-based home visiting and home visiting initiatives in either FY19 or FY21, whichever is less. You can find the amounts for each state and jurisdiction in the notice published in the Federal Register on June 23, 2023. HRSA cannot award base or matching funds to awardees that do not meet the MOE requirement.

Base funds

Congress increased appropriations for the MIECHV Program to be distributed through base funds and matching funds. HRSA will distribute the funds in one MIECHV Program award according to the formulas outlined in statute.

HRSA calculates base funds according to each state or jurisdiction’s share of children under the age of 5. HRSA will use the most recent U.S. Census data available before FY23 to determine this share. The law requires that the MIECHV Program award for each state or territory include at least $1,000,000 in base funds.

Guardrails require HRSA to award each state or territory no less than 90% of their funding from FY21 and no more than 110% of their funding from FY21.

Matching funds

Matching funds will be available beginning in FY24, with increasing amounts through FY27. The federal government will contribute 75% of the funding and states and jurisdictions will contribute 25% in non-federal funds. This means that the federal government will contribute $3 for every $1 contributed in non-federal funds, up to certain limits determined by law. HRSA calculates the federal contribution based on each state or jurisdiction’s share of children under 5 whose families have incomes below the federal poverty level. HRSA will use the most recent U.S. Census data to determine this share. Each state or jurisdiction will be allocated a matching funds ceiling amount annually. MIECHV awardees have the flexibility to apply for matching funds of any amount up to the full allocation, commensurate with their available qualifying non-federal funds. For more information about state-specific ceiling amounts for state and federal matching funds from FY24 – FY27, please contact your HRSA Project Officer.

Definition of non-federal funds for matching funds

For the purposes of providing MIECHV Program matching funds under 42 U.S.C. 711(c)(4)(B), the amount of the grant payable to the eligible entity for the fiscal year will be increased up to certain specified “matching” amounts determined in reference to amounts of federal and non-federal funding outlined in this section.

Obligations of non-federal funding, for this purpose, are amounts committed by the eligible entity (generally a state or jurisdiction) but do not need to be obligated by the MIECHV recipient entity (generally a specific state/jurisdiction agency), to support home visiting services delivered in compliance with specified MIECHV requirements, reported to the Secretary, and not counted toward meeting the awardee’s MIECHV Program Maintenance of Effort requirement under 42 U.S.C. 711(f). The MIECHV requirements for which such funds are obligated must be related to improvements in outcomes for individual families and core components of the MIECHV Program.

These include all of the following:

  • Implementation of service models meeting HHS criteria for evidence of effectiveness (or up to 25% used for implementing and evaluating promising approaches)
  • Providing targeted, intensive home visiting services to eligible families
  • Prioritizing services to high-risk populations

Non-federal funds must be obligated by the eligible entity (generally a state or jurisdiction) but do not need to be obligated by the MIECHV recipient entity (generally a specific state/jurisdiction agency). Non-federal funds may consist of amounts made available by state appropriations or other state funding sources, local governments, and/or private entities (including funds made available by gifts, donations, or transfers). Non-federal obligated amounts may consist of cash and/or third-party in-kind contributions. The MIECHV recipient entity must report obligated amounts to the Secretary through HRSA in the form and frequency determined by the agency.

  • Non-federal funds for the purposes of matching must comply with 45 CFR Part 75 – Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for HHS Awards, including the following requirements:
    • Non-federal funds must be necessary and reasonable for the accomplishment of project or program objectives.
    • Non-federal funds used for matching cannot be included as contribution for any other federal award. Costs paid for using non-federal funds may not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements for any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period.
    • Funds paid by the federal government for another federal award cannot be applied as a source of non-federal matching funds unless federal statute specifically makes an allowance.
    • Matching funds must be verifiable from the non-federal entity’s records and must be adequately documented.

Matching funds reporting requirements

MIECHV performance reporting for X10 grants now comprises base and matching funds, meaning that both will be reported together. Base and matching funds will not be tracked separately for data reporting.

Awardees are required to submit:

  • A Quarterly Performance Report (Form 4 (PDF - 71 KB)) consolidated across X10 base and matching funds
  • An Annual Performance Report (APR) consolidated across X10 base and matching funds
  • A Final Report consolidated across X10 base and matching funds

Quarterly Report

There are no changes for X10 quarterly reporting. X10 Quarterly Performance Report will include data for both X10 base and matching funds.

Annual Performance Report

Awardees must provide demographic, service utilization, and select clinical indicators (Form 1 (PDF - 380 KB)) and performance indicator and systems outcome measure (Form 2 (PDF - 323 KB)) performance data for all participants served through X10 grants. These performance data for participants served using matching funds will be consolidated across X10 (base and matching funds) in corresponding fiscal years, and awardees will submit a single Annual Performance Report.

Final Report

Awardees must submit a final progress report, including a final evaluation report (if applicable), with program specific goals and progress on strategies; impact of the overall project; the degree to which the recipient achieved the mission, goal, and strategies outlined in the program; recipient objectives and accomplishments; barriers encountered; and response to summary questions regarding the recipient’s overall experiences over the entire project period. The report will be consolidated across X10 (base and matching funds) and awardees will submit a single Final Report for each grant project period. Awardees will be required to report on use of matching funds, including impact on service delivery and program capacity; detailed instructions will be available in the final Final Report guidance.

Fiscal Reporting

Awardees will need to provide a description of the non-federal funds they are proposing for the match in their funding application, to include: the amount of non-federal funds, the source of those funds, and an assurance that those funds will be obligated within the period of performance. The awardee must ensure that all non-federal funds they propose support home visiting programs that provide services based on evidence-based models or promising approaches; provide or support targeted, intensive home visiting designed to achieve improvements in outcomes for eligible families; and prioritize services to high-risk populations. Non-federal funds must also align with HRSA’s definition of non-federal funds.

Awardees will be required to report the non-federal funds in their annual SF-425 federal financial report (FFR) so that HRSA can track that the use of non-federal funds aligned with the awardees proposal and non-federal funds were commensurate with the awarded federal match. Awardees will need to develop reporting systems to track the obligation of non-federal funds used for the match to comply with FFR reporting requirements.

For detailed review, such as on future HRSA site visits, documentation requested from awardees for non-federal matching funds will be similar to previous requests for supporting documentation of non-federal funds used to meet maintenance of effort requirements. This may include applicable documents such as state budget appropriations, documentation showing amounts obligated, and agreements between the MIECHV award recipient and agency/ies expending non-federal funds.

Additional matching funds

Starting in FY25, awardees can apply for additional matching funds. These funds include any matching funds that HRSA did not distribute to awardees in the previous fiscal year, as well as any matching funds that were not used by awardees in prior fiscal years and were returned to HRSA. To apply for additional matching funds, awardees may submit a statement of interest in response to the MIECHV Program Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO). For more information, please contact your HRSA Project Officer.

HRSA will distribute additional matching funds using the same principles as matching funds. However, the federal share of additional matching funds will be based on the proportion of children under 5 under the poverty line in states that expressed interest in receiving those funds.

Data collection

Reauthorization of the MIECHV Program makes program and performance data more visible by requiring an annual report to Congress and the creation of a new web-based outcomes dashboard. For more information on MIECHV performance data, visit the MIECHV Data & Continuous Quality Improvement page.

Annual report to Congress

Each year, HRSA must share information with Congress about how awardees spend MIECHV grant funds. Most of the information included in the Report will be pulled from existing performance data and other reporting requirements.

Share of the funding expenditure by model

One of the requirements for the Report to Congress is the share of grants spent on each home visiting model. To meet this requirement, HRSA will require awardees to report the dollar amount of base and matching funding spent on each home visiting model in Final Reports, starting with the FY21 Final Report.

To determine the share of the expenditure for each model/promising approach, general guidelines include:

  • At awardee level, the share of funding expenditure should include service delivery costs and any other costs that are easily identifiable and allocable to a specific model, for example, model-specific fees, data systems, training, and curricula. Service delivery costs typically include labor, fringe, supplies, and travel associated with implementing a specific model. Costs not related to models, such as costs associated with overseeing the grant or supporting other recipient-level infrastructure should not be included. For awardees with service delivery contracts with local implementing agencies (LIAs), include the LIA contractual costs as described below:
    • If LIA implements a single model/promising approach, include the total contractual cost in the share for that model implementation.
    • If LIA implements more than one model/promising approach, allocate the direct or approximate share of cost to each model. (See 45 CFR 75.405 for additional information on allocation.)
  • If the share of the cost can be determined without undue effort or cost, the cost should be allocated based on the proportional benefit to each model/promising approach. If the share of a cost cannot be determined because of the interrelationship of the work involved, then the costs may be allocated on any reasonable documented basis.

Note that the total percentage expended will generally not add up to 100% of the award due to funding non-model expenditures associated with administration of the award and infrastructure activities.

Annual performance reporting

MIECHV Program awardees must report the number of virtual home visits conducted by each model in their Annual Performance Reports (APRs). This new requirement starts in FY24, and the data must be disaggregated by home visiting model.

Reducing administrative burden

Reauthorization of the MIECHV Program requires HRSA to reduce administrative burden for awardees by at least 15%. HRSA is implementing this requirement by eliminating duplicate reporting requirements and streamlining data collection and reporting processes. HRSA will report recommendations for reducing burden in the FY24 annual report to Congress.

Virtual home visiting

MIECHV statute defines virtual home visits as home visits conducted only through electronic information and telecommunications technologies. Under reauthorization of the MIECHV Program, virtual home visits are allowable; however, guardrails are established to ensure virtual home visits are only used in limited circumstances and do not replace in-person home visits. Reauthorization also requires each home visiting model to have equivalent training standards for virtual and in-person home visits. More information about how awardees must meet these requirements is included in the FY24 NOFO.

Targeted, intensive home visiting services

Federal law requires awardees to use MIECHV funds to provide or support targeted, intensive home visiting services. To meet this requirement, your home visiting services should target populations listed in your most recent statewide needs assessment update and the priority populations listed in the law. You must use evidence-based home visiting models approved by the Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness (HomVEE) review. The latest list of approved models is on the HomVEE website.

This requirement also applies to non-federal funds for matching funds. To qualify for federal matching funds, awardees must contribute non-federal funds that are used to provide or support targeted, intensive home visiting services.

FAQs

Jump to the following subsections:

Maintenance of Effort (MOE)
New MIECHV Program grant funding
Applying for matching funds
Non-federal contributions for matching funds
Spending matching funds
Additional matching funds
Data collection
Funding expenditure by model
Virtual home visiting
Targeted, intensive home visiting services

Maintenance of Effort (MOE)

What is the difference between non-federal funds for the Maintenance of Effort (MOE) requirement and non-federal funds for matching funds?

The non-federal funds the awardee contributes to receive matching funds must be above and beyond those counted toward meeting the MOE requirement. Awardees must meet the MOE requirement to be eligible for base or matching funds and they must also contribute additional non-federal funds to receive federal matching funds. Additionally, different types of funds may be counted to qualify for matching funds. For more information, see the definition of non-federal funds for matching grants.

What happens if the MOE requirement for a state or jurisdiction is $0?

If there is no qualifying non-federal spending from FY19 or FY21, then there is no non-federal spending requirement to meet the MOE. In this case, the first dollar of non-federal funds spent can be applied to the non-federal matching contribution.

Does an awardee's non-federal contribution for matching funds add to their MOE requirement for future years?

For the current authorization of the MIECHV Program from FY23 – FY27, the MOE requirement is the lesser of qualifying non-federal spending from FY19 or FY21. Non-federal spending from other years will not affect the MOE requirement.

New MIECHV Program grant funding

How will awardees apply for base and matching funds? What about additional matching funds?

Awardees can apply for a MIECHV Program grant that includes up to three funding sources: base funds, matching funds, and, starting in FY25, additional matching funds. Awardees can apply for any combination of these three funding components in response to the MIECHV Program NOFO or Non-Competing Continuation (NCC) Update. More information on applying for matching funds is included in the FY24 NOFO, and more information on applying for additional matching funds will be included in the FY25 NCC Update.

Will awardees receive two separate grants or one combined grant?

HRSA anticipates issuing MIECHV Program grants using one Notice of Award (NoA) that includes base funds, matching funds, and additional matching funds, if available and requested by the awardee.

What happens if a MIECHV Program awardee does not need matching funds?

Matching funds are optional. If an awardee does not need matching funds, the awardee does not need to apply for them.

Will HRSA recoup unspent MIECHV grant funds?

Yes, HRSA will recoup any unobligated base and matching funds. HRSA will distribute unobligated matching funds in the fiscal year after they are returned to HRSA.

What data does HRSA use to calculate the share of children younger than 5 and children younger than 5 in families with incomes below the poverty line?

Statute requires HRSA use the most recently available data. Specific data source references will be included in the FY24 MIECHV NOFO. However, examples of relevant data may include data from the U.S. Census Bureau based on 2021 American Community survey data showing the population of children younger than 5 in each state and jurisdiction and the population of children in poverty by sex and by age in each state and jurisdiction.

Applying for matching funds

Do states and territories have to apply for the full matching funds amount?

No. States and jurisdictions may choose not to apply for matching funds if they wish. Each state or jurisdiction will be allocated a matching funds ceiling amount, determined annually by the matching funds formula. You may apply for matching funds up to that amount based on your available qualifying non-federal funds.

Will HRSA provide awardees with matching fund ceiling amounts?

HRSA releases matching fund ceiling amounts for each state and jurisdiction around the time the annual NOFO or NCC Update is released. This is similar to the timing and process used to share ceiling amounts for base funds. If you have questions about your specific circumstances, please contact your HRSA Project Officer.

I want to apply for less than the full matching award ceiling amount. How do I calculate the amount of federal matching funds that I can apply for?

If awardees apply for less than the full matching funds ceiling amount, the federal contribution for matching funds will be three times more than the non-federal contribution. For example, if an eligible entity contributes $200,000 in qualifying non-federal funds, they may apply for $600,000 in federal matching funds.

How will sequestration impact matching funds award amounts?

Sequestration will reduce the total amount of money available for matching funds in the years it applies. For example, Congress appropriated $50,000,000 for matching funds in FY24. After accounting for 13% set aside for reservations and mandatory sequestration, which is a 5.7% reduction, the total amount of money available for matching funds in FY24 is about $40,000,000.

Can awardees opt in at any time for matching funds?

Awardees may apply for matching funds through their annual funding application, submitted in response to the NOFO or NCC Update. Not applying for matching funds in one fiscal year does not prevent an awardee from applying for matching funds in a later fiscal year.

Are federal matching funds subject to the same requirements as base funds?

Yes, federal matching funds are subject to all of the same statutory and programmatic requirements for the MIECHV Program as your base funds. Non-federal funds for matching must meet certain requirements., but not all of the requirements that apply to base and federal matching funds. See question: Which statutory requirements apply to matching non-federal funds?

What does the “eligible entity” mean in reference to non-federal funds for matching?

According to the MIECHV statute, “eligible entities” are all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa. Non-profit organizations may also be considered eligible entities, so long as they received FY23 MIECHV Program – Base Grant Award funding or if the state or jurisdiction does not apply or is not approved to receive award funding for the FY24 MIECHV Program: Base and Matching Grant Awards NOFO. The specific agency of the state that receives MIECHV funds (known as the MIECHV recipient agency) is a subset of the broader eligible entity. Therefore, when identifying non-federal matching funds, awardees can consider any qualifying non-federal funds obligated by the state generally, not just those obligated by the MIECHV recipient agency.

Non-federal contributions for matching funds

How much in non-federal funds will awardees have to contribute to receive the estimated federal match?

Each state or jurisdiction will be allocated a matching funds ceiling amount, determined annually by the matching funds formula. You may apply for matching funds up to that amount based on your available qualifying non-federal funds. Recipients that apply for matching funds but contribute less than required to meet the minimum matching allocation in non-federal funds will see further adjustments to their matching funds award to reflect their reduced contribution.

Awardees can apply for federal matching funds of any amount up to the full matching fund ceiling amount of $725,893 in FY24, as long as they can demonstrate that they meet the requirements outlined in the NOFO with respect to obligations of non-federal and federal funds. See the matching funds section for more information.

Do the non-federal funds have to cover the same two-year period as the NOFO? Can anticipated one-year funds from a non-federal source be considered?

Non-federal funds have to be obligated in the same two-year period of performance as the MIECHV award. However, they do not have to cover the entire period of performance.

Will HRSA issue guidance that identifies what funding sources from the state can be used as a match?

Non-federal funds for MIECHV Program matching funds can come from state appropriations or other state funding sources, local governments, and private entities, including gifts, donations, transfers, and third-party in-kind contributions. For more information, please see the definition of non-federal funds for matching funds. If you have questions about your specific circumstances, please contact your HRSA Project Officer.

Does non-federal, non-state funding, such as investments by localities and philanthropy, “count” towards meeting the state match?

Non-federal funds from localities, philanthropy, and other sources can be used for the non-federal contribution for matching funds, as long as they meet certain statutory requirements and are coordinated with the MIECHV recipient entity.

Can non-federal matching funds come from sources other than the MIECHV lead agency?

Non-federal funds can come from another state agency, local governments, or private organizations, as long as they meet the criteria for non-federal funds.

Can awardees use in-kind contributions from non-federal sources for the state match?

Yes, in-kind contributions can be used to meet the non-federal matching funds requirement. This includes in-kind contributions from state-level entities, local governments, and other local private agencies, such as non-profit and philanthropic organizations. Contact your HRSA Grants Management Specialist or Project Officer to discuss any specific limitations that may apply.

How does a state demonstrate their ability to receive MIECHV matching funds? What if another state agency funds the evidence-based home visiting?

Under the MIECHV statute, eligible entities funded by the MIECHV Program (“state entities”) may demonstrate their eligibility to receive MIECHV matching funds in addition to MIECHV base grant funds, in part, by demonstrating the amount of non-federal dollars that they have obligated for home visiting programs within their state. For purposes of receiving matching funds, the total amount obligated by an eligible entity from non-Federal funds is the total of the amounts that are (1) obligated by the eligible entity from non-federal sources, (2) reported to MCHB, and (3) not counted toward meeting maintenance of effort requirements, for services delivered in compliance with the MIECHV statute. Further, the delivery of evidence-based home visiting services within the state using non-Federal funds must be implemented to achieve improvements in certain outcomes for individual families and using service delivery models that include certain core components.

To demonstrate eligibility to receive matching grant funds, the state entity may identify the amount of non-Federal funds they will obligate during the FY 2024 period of performance. For this purpose, the proposed obligation may include non-Federal funds expended by any state agency that carries out evidence-based home visiting activities, as well as funding recipients of any state agency that provide such services on behalf of the state. In the case of a services provided by a non-state agency funding recipient, the obligation may be demonstrated by an agreement between the state agency and the funding recipient for this purpose. The state’s obligation or commitment of non-Federal funds (including funding from a non-governmental entity) must comply with their state’s applicable laws and policies, and funds must be adequately documented and verifiable from the entity’s records.

What documentation does a MIECHV funding recipient need to provide to count funds invested by a philanthropic or charitable entity in evidence-based home visiting services delivered within the state by a local entity or agency?

Where consistent with state law and policy, eligible entities may demonstrate the obligation or commitment of non-federal funds by the state pursuant to an agreement to this effect with the funder or funding agency obligating non-federal funds. The agreement should be documented in writing, such as a memorandum of understanding (MOU) or other binding or official agreement, that reflects both parties’ expectations and requirements, including financial and performance reporting requirements. As required by statute, commitments must support home visiting programs that provide services based on evidence-based models or promising approaches; provide targeted, intensive home visiting designed to achieve improvements in outcomes for eligible families; and prioritize services to high-risk populations.

What does it mean for non-federal funds to be obligated for services in compliance with certain MIECHV statutory requirements and related to core components of the MIECHV Program?

To qualify as non-federal funds for MIECHV matching grants, non-federal funds must be committed for services that improve outcomes for families and adhere to core components of the MIECHV Program. These services must address all of the following:

  • Meet HHS criteria for evidence of effectiveness (or up to 25% may be used for promising approaches that do not yet meet HHS criteria but are being rigorously evaluated)
  • Provide or support targeted, intensive home visiting services
  • Prioritize serving high-risk populations.

Note: A home visiting service delivery model that qualifies as a promising approach is defined in statute: “the model conforms to a promising and new approach to achieving the benchmark areas specified in paragraph (1)(A) and the participant outcomes described in paragraph (2)(B), has been developed or identified by a national organization or institution of higher education, and will be evaluated through well-designed and rigorous process.” (42 U.S.C. 711(d)(3)(A)(i)(II))

Which statutory requirements apply to matching non-federal funds?

By law, obligations of non-federal funds must support home visiting services that comply with certain MIECHV requirements. Awardees must obligate non-federal funds for services that improve outcomes for individual families and adhere to core components of the MIECHV Program, including all of the following:

  • Implementing service models that meet HHS criteria for evidence of effectiveness (or up to 25% used for implementing and evaluating promising approaches)
  • Providing targeted, intensive home visiting services to eligible families
  • Prioritizing services to high-risk populations

Can non-federal funds (for example, state or local funds) used for universal intake and referral services be counted as non-federal matching funds?

Yes. Non-federal funding for the match is intended to support the growth of targeted, intensive home visiting programs. Non-federal funding may be used for services that support targeted, intensive home visiting programs, such as intake and referral services, under certain circumstances.

Non-federal funds used for matching must be obligated by the eligible entity to deliver services in compliance with subsections 511(d)(2) and 511(d)(3) of the Social Security Act, which, in part, requires that such funds be used to “provide or support targeted, intensive home visiting services.” (See 42 U.S.C. 711(c)(4)(B)(i)(II).) In accordance with statute, non-federal funding for the match must be used to provide or support targeted, intensive home visiting programs which use models that meet the MIECHV evidence standards; align with federal MIECHV requirements for program design, quality, and service delivery; align with the improvements in individual outcomes described in the MIECHV statute; and target MIECHV priority populations. To meet these criteria, universal intake and referral services must demonstrate active and successful referral relationships to targeted, intensive home visiting programs.

Spending matching funds

Will MIECHV Program awardees have the same period to spend matching funds as for base funds?

Yes, there is a two-year period to spend all MIECHV Program grant funds, which includes base funds, matching funds, and additional matching funds (when applicable).

What services can matching funds be used for?

The federal contribution to matching funds may be used to support any services within the scope of the MIECHV award.

What happens if a MIECHV Program awardee does not obligate the non-federal match as planned?

Awardees that do not obligate their non-federal match as planned must make sure that their federal match is in line with actual obligations. If an awardee obligates less than the non-federal funds they produced to qualify for the match as planned, they must return excess federal funds distributed as match funds that were not ultimately obligated.

Additional matching funds

When will states be able to apply for leftover matching dollars that other states did not use?

Starting in FY25, HRSA will distribute additional matching funds to awardees who express interest, if funds are available.

What happens if an awardee decides later that they want to be considered for additional matching funds?

If an awardee does not express interest in receiving additional matching funds, the awardee will not be eligible to apply for additional matching funds for the relevant fiscal year, even if they become available. For example, awardees who did not respond to the request for information by September 6, 2023, will not be eligible for additional matching funds in FY25. Not expressing interest now does not mean an awardee cannot apply for matching funds or additional matching funds in future fiscal years.

Data collection

What data will awardees need to submit for HRSA to populate the new dashboard?

Data for the new outcomes dashboard will come from existing performance measures, like Forms 1, 2, and 4. Reporting requirements for these forms are not changing at this time to accommodate data needed for the dashboard. HRSA will work with awardees and other partners to decide which data to show on the dashboard.

Will awardees be required to submit separate annual performance reports (Forms 1 and 2) for MIECHV participants supported through matching funds?

No, data across all active grants (X10 base and matching funds) must be consolidated into one Annual Performance Report submission, due in October of each year. Families served using matching funds must be included in your Annual Performance Report (Forms 1 and 2). Annual performance reporting for matching funds should be consolidated with annual performance reporting for MIECHV formula awards (base funds) for the corresponding fiscal year.

What performance data will be required for non-federal funds used for the match?

HRSA will not require any performance data for families served through non-federal funds (for matching funds). The only reporting requirement on non-federal funds will be included in the number of participants and household served using non-MIECHV funds in Table 3 of Form 1 (PDF - 380 KB) (Unduplicated Count of Participants and Households Served by State Home Visiting Programs (non-MIECHV)). Awardees can provide any additional context on non-MIECHV funds in the comments section in Table 3 of Form 1.

For the quarterly performance reports (Form 4), will awardees be required to account for and submit information about MIECHV participants and staff supported through base and matching funds?

If awardees use matching funds to support service delivery, they will be required to report information about MIECHV participants and staff supported with both matching and base funds combined on the X10 Quarterly Performance Report.

Will awardees be required to submit separate Final Reports for base and matching funds?

No, awardees will submit one Final Report for the grant project period for all activities across both base and matching funds.

For Maximum Service Capacity (Table 1, Column D) on Form 4, should the maximum service capacity reflect the maximum number of households that could potentially be enrolled for the X10 grant?

Yes, on Form 4 (PDF - 71 KB), the maximum service capacity should reflect the 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 for the X10 grant inclusive of base and matching funds.

For awardees using the home visitor personnel cost method, how should households be reported for cases where home visitors are supported through both base and matching funds?

Under the home visitor personnel cost method, families are designated as MIECHV families at enrollment based on the designation of the home visitor they are assigned. Under this methodology, recipients designate all families as MIECHV families that are served by home visitors for whom at least 25% of their personnel cost (salary/wages including benefits) are paid for with MIECHV funding. “MIECHV funding” includes both base and matching funds, meaning all families for a home visitor for whom at least 25% of their FTE is MIECHV funding, regardless of whether that is base funds, matching funds, or a combination of both, would qualify as a MIECHV family.

How does a household status change if the funding source changes from base to matching funds for reporting purposes?

A household is considered as a “MIECHV household” (a family served during the reporting period by a trained home visitor implementing services with fidelity to the model and that is identified as a MIECHV household at enrollment) regardless of whether the funding source is from base or matching funds. A household supported through non-federal funds (for matching funds) is considered as a non-MIECHV household. Please refer to Appendix A of the Form 1 Toolkit (PDF - 669 KB) or Appendix D of the Form 2 Toolkit (PDF - 1 MB) for additional guidance around household status changes.

Funding expenditure by model

Why are awardees required to report funding expenditures by model?

The reauthorization of the MIECHV Program requires an annual Report to Congress that must include “a description of each service delivery model funded under this section by the eligible entities in each State, and the share (if any) of the grants expended on each model” (42 U.S.C. 711(j)(6)).

What is the deadline for reporting the funding expenditures by model?

This information must be included in your annual Final Report. Guidance is available in the Final Report instructions released each fall.

Should funding expenditures by model be reported based on what was spent or what was budgeted?

Reporting should reflect actual amounts spent, and not the budgeted amounts.

How frequently will awardees have to report these funding expenditures?

Awardees must report funding expenditures by model on an annual basis and submit the information in their Final Reports.

Is there a reporting template that awardees can use to track and report the costs?

Yes, HRSA has developed an optional report template which will be included as an attachment when you receive your Final Report instructions via EHBs.

What are some examples of model costs?

Model costs should include costs spent on each evidence-based home visiting model or promising approach implemented by your program. Some examples of model costs include:

  • Model fees
  • Model training costs
  • Model conferences
  • Service delivery costs, including LIA contractual costs
  • Model tool or curricula costs
  • Model data systems

Should awardees include American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act funding in the report?

Do not include ARP funding in the report. Awardees only need to report the dollar amount of base and matching funds spent on each model implemented.

What are examples of labor costs that must be reported?

Report labor costs if they are easy to identify and associated with implementing a specific model. Examples of labor costs include, but are not limited to, home visitors, supervisors, and other staff paid in full or in part using MIECHV funding.

Include labor costs if you can allocate those costs to implementing or overseeing a specific model. Do not include labor costs for grant administration or required grant oversight, such as subrecipient monitoring.

Do affiliation and conference fees count towards the total share of the expenditure for each model? How should those be reported?

Count only costs that are easy to identify and allocate to a specific model, such as model-specific fees, training, and curricula. Do not include costs that are not related to a specific model, such as those for overseeing the grant or supporting the infrastructure. For example:

  • Do include:
    • Model accreditation or membership fees
    • Model training costs
    • Model conferences
  • Do not include:
    • Non-model-specific membership fees
    • Non-model-specific home visiting conferences

What is included in the costs associated with delivering a home visiting model?

Service delivery costs typically include labor, fringe benefits, supplies, travel, and overhead associated with implementing a specific model. If you have contracts with LIAs to deliver services, include the contractual costs. Also include any other costs that are easy to identify and allocate to a specific model, such as model-specific fees, data systems, training, and curricula.

How do awardees break down awardee-level costs?

Each awardee should assess if costs are primarily used to implement a specific model. Examples of awardee-level costs that should be categorized as model-specific costs include:

  • Service delivery costs, including contracted services and LIA contracts
  • Model costs associated with certification, tools, curricula, and model-specific trainings
  • Any other costs that are easy to identify and allocated to a specific model

Awardees should not include the following awardee-level costs:

  • Administrative costs
  • Other recipient-level infrastructure costs that are not used for a specific model

Should awardees include awardee-level administrative costs?

The MIECHV Program defines administrative costs as the costs of administering a MIECHV award. These costs are not specific to any one model, so you do not need to include them in your calculation of model costs unless they can be clearly identified and allocated to a specific model.

Administrative costs can include, but are not limited to:

  • Reporting costs (MCHB Administrative Forms in HRSA’s EHBs, Home Visiting Information System, Federal Financial Report, and other reports required by HRSA as a condition of the award)
  • Project-specific accounting and financial management
  • Payment Management System drawdowns and quarterly reporting
  • Time spent working with the HRSA Grants Management Specialist and HRSA Project Officer
  • Programmatic or fiscal monitoring of subrecipients or local implementation agencies
  • Complying with FFATA subrecipient reporting requirements
  • Supporting HRSA site visits
  • The portion of regional or national meetings dealing with MIECHV grants administration
  • Audit expenses
  • Supporting HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) or Government Accountability Office (GAO) audits

Should awardees include other awardee-level infrastructure costs?

The MIECHV Program defines recipient-level infrastructure costs as the costs that are necessary to enable the awardee to deliver MIECHV services, but not the costs of delivering services themselves. These activities are generally not specific to any one model, so you do not need to include them in the calculation of model costs unless they can be clearly identified and allocated to a specific model, such as model affiliation and accreditation fees.

In addition to MIECHV administrative costs, other awardee recipient-level infrastructure costs may include awardee-level personnel, contracts, supplies, travel, equipment, rental, printing, and other costs to support the following (excluding costs related to state evaluation):

  • Professional development and training for awardee-level staff
  • Model affiliation and accreditation fees
  • Continuous quality improvement (CQI) and quality assurance activities, including development of CQI and related plans
  • Technical assistance provided by the recipient to the LIAs
  • Information technology, including data systems
  • Coordination with comprehensive statewide early childhood systems
  • Indirect costs (also known as “facilities and administrative costs”)

Should awardees include costs for a promising approach evaluation?

If you implement a promising approach and are using MIECHV funds to evaluate the model, the evaluation costs should be included and reported as costs specific to that model.

For awardees participating in coordinated state evaluation (CSE), should awardees include evaluation costs?

If you are participating in CSE, generally, the evaluation will not be specific to a particular model and should be considered as part of awardee-level infrastructure cost and not included as model-specific cost. If you have specific questions regarding your evaluation project, reach out to your HRSA Project Officer.

If an awardee has an LIA that implements multiple models, how should the awardee report model expenditures for each model?

Allocate the cost to each model based on how much it benefits each model or promising approach. (See 45 CFR 75.405 for additional information on allocation.) If you cannot determine the share of a cost because the work is interrelated (for example, shared costs like general office supplies), then you may allocate the costs based on any reasonable and documented basis. If you have questions specific to your program, reach out to your Project Officer.

What do you mean by “reasonable and documented basis”?

For this reporting requirement, “reasonable” is typically meant to describe making a decision that another prudent person, in similar circumstances, would find appropriate. Then, how the cost was allocated and the reasonable rationale for why a cost was allocated in such a way should be documented and saved as supporting information in your internal records. It does not need to be submitted to HRSA as part of the FY21 Final Report.

See 45 CFR 75.405, Allocable Costs section of the Cost Principles subpart for more information.

How should awardees report costs if they do not have any LIAs?

If you do not have any LIAs, report service delivery costs and any other costs that are easy to identify and allocate to a specific model. If you have questions specific to your program, reach out to your Project Officer.

Will the reported model expenditure be shared with the models?

The model expenditure information is being collected to meet the requirement for the annual Report to Congress. Awardee-specific model expenditure information will not be shared directly with models. National data may be made public through the Report.

Virtual home visiting

What data on virtual home visits are MIECHV Program awardees required to submit to HRSA?

HRSA requires awardees to collect data on virtual home visits. This includes the number of virtual home visits conducted each year, broken down by home visiting model. HRSA collects this data as part of the Annual Performance Report (APR). Awardees report these data on Form 1 (PDF - 380 KB), Table 15. Please submit data for all home visits conducted during the reporting period, regardless of how long a family was enrolled.

How many in-person home visits are required for each family in a given year?

Awardees must ensure that each client family receives at least one in-person home visit within each 12-month period that they are enrolled. HRSA also requires that your program conduct at least 60% of home visits in person, as demonstrated by FY25 performance data. HRSA anticipates that this threshold will increase in the next few years.

How should awardees track data on the annual in-person visit requirement for families?

Statute requires that each client family receives at least one in-person home visit within each 12-month period that they are enrolled. Most families will receive more than one in-person visit each year. To meet this requirement, awardees may wish to track the first in-person visit each family receives during a given 12-month enrollment period. This visit will count toward the aggregate number of in-person visits that awardees report to HRSA on Form 1 (PDF - 380 KB) for the related Annual Performance Reporting period. Awardees are not required to report family-level in-person visit data to HRSA.

What circumstances justify the use of virtual home visits?

The law requires MIECHV awardees to describe how they will decide when to use virtual home visits. Awardees should consider client consent, preference, location, fidelity to the model, and safety. Awardees should clearly explain their process in their application.

Does statute define a specific method of delivery for virtual home visits?

The MIECHV statute defines a virtual home visit as a visit conducted only using electronic information and telecommunications technologies.

Targeted, intensive home visiting services

Can awardees using MIECHV funds to implement universal intake and referral programs like Family Connects?

Your award must be used to provide or support targeted, intensive home visiting services, as required by statute. Home visiting models that provide universal services (or offer only a limited number of visits) do not qualify as targeted and intensive. If LIAs are using a universal model for family outreach and referral, they must do so using funds not allocated to service delivery. Additionally, the awardee must establish processes to ensure families are referred to targeted and intensive home visiting models. Note that universal models used for family outreach and referral do not qualify for use as service delivery expenditures. For a complete definition and examples of service delivery expenditures, see Appendix B of the FY24 NOFO.

Can non-federal funds (for example, state or local funds) used for universal intake and referral services be counted as non-federal matching funds?

Yes. Non-federal funding for the match is intended to support the growth of targeted, intensive home visiting programs. Non-federal funding may be used for services that support targeted, intensive home visiting programs, such as intake and referral services, under certain circumstances.

Non-federal funds used for matching must be obligated by the eligible entity to deliver services in compliance with subsections 511(d)(2) and 511(d)(3) of the Social Security Act, which, in part, requires that such funds be used to “provide or support targeted, intensive home visiting services.” (See 42 U.S.C. 711(c)(4)(B)(i)(II).) In accordance with statute, non-federal funding for the match must be used to provide or support targeted, intensive home visiting programs which use models that meet the MIECHV evidence standards; align with federal MIECHV requirements for program design, quality, and service delivery; align with the improvements in individual outcomes described in the MIECHV statute; and target MIECHV priority populations. To meet these criteria, universal intake and referral services must demonstrate active and successful referral relationships to targeted, intensive home visiting programs.

Date Last Reviewed: