Tribal MIECHV Community Needs and Readiness Assessment and Implementation Plan Guidance Focus Groups

Status: Original and derived artifacts are available for this document.

Download: docx | pdf | html

Tribal Home Visiting CNRA/IP Focus Group Discussion Guide (75 minutes total)
OMB #: 0970-0531
Expiration Date: 9/30/2028
Overview and Welcome (8-10 minutes)
[Facilitator] Thank you for joining us today. The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) is continuing efforts to improve the Community Needs and Readiness Assessment (CNRA) and Implementation Plan (IP) Guidance for the Tribal MIECHV Program.
In 2024, ACF revised the CNRA and IP Guidance to reduce administrative burden, improve clarity, and streamline requirements. Today, we are gathering feedback on how those revisions are working in practice and where additional improvements may be needed.
Your feedback will help ACF:
    • Continue to reduce administrative burden 
    • Improve clarity and usability of guidance 
    • Strengthen alignment between CNRA and IP 
    • Ensure guidance supports meaningful, actionable program planning 
Today’s discussion will last approximately 75 minutes. Participation is voluntary. With your consent, we will audio record the session for note-taking purposes. Responses will be kept private and reported only in summary form.
Purpose of Discussion
The purpose of this discussion is to understand grant recipients’ experiences using the revised Community Needs and Readiness Assessment (CNRA) and Implementation Plan (IP) Guidance, including what is working well, what is challenging, and where improvements may be needed. 
This feedback will be used to inform refinements to the CNRA and Implementation Plan guidance and related technical assistance.
A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and no individual or entity is required to respond to, nor shall an individual or entity be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB # is 0970-0531 and the expiration date is 9/30/2028
Do you have any questions before we begin?
Facilitator Approach
This is a semi-structured, conversation-style discussion. The goal is to create a comfortable space where participants can share their experiences and perspectives in their own words.
Use the questions as a flexible guide rather than a script. It is not necessary to ask every question or probe. Instead, prioritize listening and follow the flow of the conversation.
Ask one question at a time and allow space for participants to reflect and respond. Use follow-up questions or probes to better understand participant experiences when needed.
Encourage participation from a range of participants and be mindful of giving space for multiple voices. If needed, invite others to share their perspectives (e.g., “I’d like to hear from others who haven’t had a chance to speak yet.”). Avoid going one-by-one around the group to preserve time.
Participants may also share responses in the chat to allow for broader participation.
Focus on learning from participants rather than validating or correcting responses. Avoid problem-solving or offering technical assistance during the discussion.
When participants address topics that appear later in the guide, acknowledge their responses and build on what they have already shared rather than asking them to repeat themselves.
General Follow-Up Prompts (use throughout as needed)
    • “Can you tell me more about that?” 
    • “What did that look like in practice?” 
    • “Can you give an example?” 
    • “What do you think contributed to that?” 
Introductions
Please briefly share:
    • Your role 
    • Your involvement in the CNRA and/or Implementation Plan process 
Section 1: CNRA FEEDBACK - Section-by-Section (20 minutes)
Intro framing
[Facilitator] Before we begin, we want to share a brief summary of feedback we’ve previously heard from grant recipients about their overall CNRA experience (from Section 5: Reflection on CNRA Process).
    • [Insert 2–3 synthesized findings] 
Do these reflect your experience? What would you add or change?
Instructions to facilitator
(Facilitator: Move section-by-section through the CNRA. Ask consistent core questions for each section. Prioritize depth over covering every probe.)
CNRA Plan (Appendix I) 
    • Did developing a CNRA plan help guide your CNRA work? 
    • Were expectations for the plan clear and appropriately detailed? 
    • What would improve this planning step?
    • Based on your experience, what would applicants need to provide a clear and realistic summary of how they would conduct the CNRA during the application process? 
CNRA Section 1: Organizational Capacity & Readiness
    • What, if anything, could be clarified in the instructions for this section?
    • How easy or difficult was it to assess your organization’s capacity? 
    • Did this section help your team prepare for program implementation? 
    • What changes would improve this section or make it more useful?
CNRA Section 2: Community Assets Assessment (CAA)
    • What, if anything, could be clarified about expectations for the community asset mapping process? 
    • How feasible was it to carry out the CAM process? 
    • Did this section help strengthen partnerships or understanding of community resources? 
    • What would make this section easier or more useful?
CNRA Section 3: Community Strengths & Opportunities Assessment (CSOA) 
    • How did your team approach collecting the required data (quantitative, qualitative, primary, secondary)? How did you decide which data indicators to include?
    • Were expectations about data collection clear? 
    • Did the level of flexibility feel helpful, or would more structure have been better (i.e., a template or more direction about which indicators were required)? 
    • Did this section help you understand community needs in a meaningful way? 
    • What changes would improve this section or make it more useful?
CNRA Section 4: Prioritization for Program Design
    • How helpful was this section in narrowing down priorities? 
    • Did it support decision-making about program design? 
    • What was challenging about this step, or the guidance itself?
    • What changes would improve this section or make it more useful?
CNRA Section 5: Reflection on CNRA Process
    • Was this section helpful in reflecting on your CNRA process and identifying lessons learned?
    • Would you recommend keeping, revising, or removing this section? Why?
Cross-Cutting CNRA Question
    • Thinking about the CNRA guidance overall, how clear and usable did it feel? 
    • Were there parts where the guidance itself (not the process) could be improved?
    • What, if anything, could be changed or strengthened to make the CNRA more useful for model selection and program design decisions?
Section 2: IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (IP) FEEDBACK (20 Minutes)
IP Section 1: Program Design
    • What, if anything, could be clarified in the guidance for developing the program design section?
    • How well did the guidance support using CNRA findings to inform this section?
    • What was most challenging about completing this section?
IP Section 2: Program Blueprint
    • What, if anything, could be clarified in the guidance for planning required components such as staffing, partnerships, and recruitment? 
    • What made this section manageable or difficult to complete?
    • What required the most effort?
IP Section 3: Data Collection, Management, and Reporting (HIGH BURDEN)
    • What, if anything, could be clarified in the guidance for planning data collection, management, and reporting?
    • What aspects of this section were most time-consuming or difficult?
    • What could be simplified?
    • What aspects of this section were difficult to answer at the IP stage, and would be better answered later, such as after model training or additional implementation planning?
    • Looking back, what do you wish you had planned for earlier to support data collection, management, and reporting?
IP Section 4: Data Use, Quality Assurance, and CQI
    • What, if anything, could be clarified in the guidance for planning data use, quality assurance, and CQI?
    • How well did this section support realistic planning for using data to improve your program?
    • What would improve this section?
Model Selection & Support
    • After selecting your model, what information was most helpful for making informed and timely model implementation choices?
    •  What information, if any, was missing or difficult to obtain when you needed it? 
    • What could ACF, model developers, or TA providers do to improve coordination and help grant recipients get the information they need at the right time?
Cross-Cutting IP Question
    • What, if anything, could be changed or strengthened to make the IP more useful for explaining how your program will be designed and implemented and how data will be collected and used?
SECTION 3: PROCESS & SUPPORTS (10-12 Minutes)
[Facilitator] Now we’d like to focus not on the guidance content itself, but on your experience with the process, supports, and submission of the CNRA/IP.
Submission Process
    • What, if anything, could be clarified about the process for submitting CNRA/IP sections?
    • Were there any submission expectations, timelines, or formatting requirements that were unclear or confusing?
Feedback & Revision Process
    • Was the feedback you received clear and actionable? 
    • Were timelines for revisions reasonable?
Version Control
    • How manageable was tracking revisions and versions? 
    • What challenges did you experience?
Technical Assistance (TA) & FPO Support
    • What TA support, or resources were most helpful as you completed the CNRA/IP process?
    • Were there any toolkits, templates, examples, or other resources that were especially useful?
    • What additional resources, tools, or supports would have helped you complete the process?
Evaluator Role
    • How was your evaluator involved in the process? 
    • What role should evaluators play?
Capacity & Feasibility
    • In what ways did team capacity affect completion of the CNRA? What roles (e.g., evaluator, program staff) were most important?
    • Were the timelines and due dates feasible?
SECTION 4: BURDEN REDUCTION AND STREAMLINING (8-10 minutes)
[Facilitator] We’ll now focus specifically on reducing burden.
Questions:
    1. Where do you see the biggest opportunities to reduce burden? 
    2. What could be simplified or removed? 
Optional Probes:
    • “What was high effort but low value?” 
    • “If you could remove one requirement, what would it be?”
Section 5: Final Reflections (3-5 minutes)
(Facilitator: Invite a few responses rather than all participants.)
Questions
    1. What is one change that would most improve the CNRA/IP process? 
    2. Any final thoughts? 
Closing
[Facilitator] Thank you for your time and thoughtful input. Your feedback will directly inform improvements to the CNRA and Implementation Plan Guidance.

PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT OF 1995 (Public Law 104-13) STATEMENT OF PUBLIC BURDEN: The purpose of this information collection is to…. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1.25 hours per respondent, including the time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and reviewing the collection of information. This is a voluntary collection of information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB # is 0970-0531 and the expiration date is 9/30/2028. If you have any comments on this collection of information, please contact [email protected].