OVC FY 17 Vision 21: Linking Systems of Care for Children and Youth State Demonstration Project | OVC 2017 11964

FAQs: OVC FY 17 Vision 21: Linking Systems of Care for Children and Youth State Demonstration Project

What is the OVC FY 17 Vision 21: Linking Systems of Care for Children and Youth State Demonstration Project?

It was a discretionary funding opportunity from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime (OVC). The project was designed to address persistent child and youth victimization by improving how state systems and community partners work together, rather than operating separately.

What problem was this grant opportunity trying to solve?

The solicitation emphasized that many public systems and community partners interact with children and youth who have experienced harm, but those systems often operate in silos. This can lead to victimization being missed, needs going unaddressed, services being duplicated or disconnected, and families having to navigate a confusing patchwork of agencies instead of receiving a coordinated response.

What does "linking systems of care" mean in this opportunity?

In the context described, it means intentionally connecting the full range of relevant systems and professionals so that when a child or youth comes into contact with any participating system, there is a consistent expectation that victimization will be identified through assessment and that the child and family will be connected to comprehensive, coordinated services.

What types of improvements or changes was the project meant to create?

The opportunity focused on building a more unified, victim-centered approach by creating shared processes for screening and assessment, strengthening cross-agency communication, and establishing a clearer pathway to services that address safety, physical and behavioral health needs, trauma impacts, and longer-term stability for the child and family.

Was the project focused only on one agency or one service system?

No. The description stresses that many systems interact with victimized children and youth and that the purpose of the project was to bring together the full range of relevant systems and professionals at the state level to reduce siloed responses and improve coordination.

What does "state-level demonstration site" mean here?

It refers to competitively selected state-level sites that would serve as demonstrations of how to intentionally link systems of care and implement a coordinated, victim-centered approach across participating systems.

What is meant by a "victim-centered" approach in this program description?

Based on the information provided, it means organizing systems and services around identifying victimization and connecting children, youth, and families to coordinated supports that address safety, health, trauma impacts, and longer-term stability, rather than leaving families to navigate disconnected agencies.

How were screening and assessment expected to fit into the model?

The opportunity emphasized shared processes for screening and assessment so there would be a consistent expectation across participating systems that victimization is identified when a child or youth touches any of those systems.

What did the grant say about coordination and communication between agencies?

It highlighted the need for stronger cross-agency communication and a more coordinated service pathway, aiming to reduce duplication, disconnects in service delivery, and missed victimization.

What kinds of needs were participating sites expected to address for children and families?

The description specifically referenced needs related to safety, physical and behavioral health, trauma impacts, and longer-term stability for the child and family.

Was sustainability a requirement or a goal?

Sustainability was a major goal. OVC made clear the project was not intended to be a short-term coordination effort that ends when funding ends. Funded sites were expected to establish practices and policies that institutionalize the coordinated approach over time.

What are examples of sustainability mechanisms mentioned in the opportunity description?

Examples listed include formalized interagency agreements, standard operating procedures for referral and information sharing, joint training or shared protocols, and other structural changes designed to keep collaboration functioning beyond the award period.

How was the project structured over time?

The project was structured in two phases: Phase 1 was a 15-month planning period, and Phase 2 was a 5-year implementation period.

What was the purpose of Phase 1 (the 15-month planning period)?

Phase 1 focused on building the partnership, aligning roles, developing the coordinated model, and preparing for rollout.

What was the purpose of Phase 2 (the 5-year implementation period)?

Phase 2 was intended to put the coordinated approach into operation, refine it based on experience, and embed it into routine practice across participating systems.

What type of award was this (grant vs. cooperative agreement)?

The opportunity was offered as a cooperative agreement, which generally indicates OVC anticipated substantial involvement beyond a standard grant relationship, such as ongoing collaboration, guidance, and joint problem-solving.

How many awards did OVC expect to make under this opportunity?

OVC expected to make two awards.

What was the maximum funding amount per award?

The award ceiling was $500,000.

Was this a discretionary or formula funding opportunity?

It was described as a discretionary funding opportunity.

What is the Funding Opportunity Number (FON) for this solicitation?

The solicitation was posted under Funding Opportunity Number OVC 2017 11964.

What CFDA number was associated with this opportunity?

The CFDA number listed was 16.582.

What activity areas did this opportunity fall under?

The opportunity was tied to activity areas connected to income security and social services, as well as law, justice, and legal services, reflecting the cross-system nature of the work described.

When was the opportunity created, and when did it close?

The opportunity was created on March 23, 2017. It originally closed on May 11, 2017.

Who was eligible to apply?

Eligibility was listed broadly as "Others," with additional clarification expected to be provided in the solicitation's eligibility section.

Does the provided information specify exactly which entities qualify under "Others"?

No. The information provided notes that eligibility was broadly listed as "Others" and that additional clarification would be in the solicitation's eligibility section, but those details are not included here.

Did this opportunity focus on preventing duplicated or disconnected services?

Yes. The solicitation description explicitly raised concerns that services can be duplicated or disconnected when systems operate in silos, and the project aimed to improve coordination so families receive a clearer, more comprehensive service pathway.

Was the intent to create a consistent response no matter where a child or youth enters the system?

Yes. The description emphasized that when a child or youth touches any participating system, there should be a consistent expectation of identifying victimization through assessment and connecting the child and family to coordinated services.