Brief: Early childhood and pediatric care

Prepared from Grant Precedent, 2026-10-23; data as of precedent 2026-10-21, measures 2026-10-22.

Measures funders require

What you can collect, and how

Tier 1 is collected today from your own records. Tier 2 needs one free instrument. Tier 3 needs a partner under a data agreement. A measure that matches no rule has no tier.

What grantees achieved

2 grantees of Maternal & Child Health – Maternal Depression (MOMS) reported 23 results against targets over 4 periods; the median result was 113% of target (middle half 105% to 117%), and 91% met or exceeded the target. Source: Children's Services Council of Broward County, annual performance reports, https://www.cscbroward.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/APR-FY-23-24-Book-002.pdf.

• Memorial Healthcare System (FY2022-23): Families who successfully completed program.; promised 75%, actual 79% (105% of target); unit: %. Source: https://www.cscbroward.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/APR-FY-22-23-Book71.pdf
• Healthy Mothers Healthy Babies Coalition of Broward County (HMHB) (FY2022-23): Infants and children that scored within range for developmental milestones.; promised 85%, actual 87% (102% of target); unit: %. Source: https://www.cscbroward.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/APR-FY-22-23-Book71.pdf

2 grantees of Early Childhood Consultation (ECC) reported 19 results against targets over 2 periods; the median result was 108% of target (middle half 103% to 110%), and 89% met or exceeded the target. Source: Juvenile Welfare Board of Pinellas County, program monitoring reports, https://www.jwbpinellas.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/VII-C-Program-and-Financial-Monitoring-Information.pdf.

• Directions for Living (DFL) (FY2020): Percent of children will not experience an out-of-home placement during services as measured by independent verification FSFN.; promised 90%, actual 98% (109% of target); unit: %. Source: https://www.jwbpinellas.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/VII-B-Program-and-Financial-Monitoring.pdf
• Directions for Living (FY2019): Percent of adults will score within average (5, 6, 7) to above average (8, 9, 10) ranges at post-test on Construct E: Oppressing Children's Power and Independence as measured by the AAPI-2.; promised 85%, actual 92% (108% of target); unit: %. Source: https://www.jwbpinellas.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/VII-D-Program-and-Financial-Monitoring-Information.pdf

2 grantees of Infant Family Center reported 14 results against targets over 2 periods; the median result was 108% of target (middle half 86% to 126%), and 64% met or exceeded the target. Source: Juvenile Welfare Board of Pinellas County, program monitoring reports, https://www.jwbpinellas.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/VII-C-Program-and-Financial-Monitoring-Information.pdf.

• University of South Florida Board of Trustees (FY2020): Percent of children who have completed the program will not experience an out-of- home placement for a period of twelve months following case closure as measured by independent verification FSFN.; promised 85%, actual 96% (113% of target); unit: %. Source: https://www.jwbpinellas.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/VII-C-Program-and-Financial-Monitoring-1.pdf
• The University of South Florida Board of Trustees (FY2024): Participants served (target vs actual); promised 250, actual 190 (76% of target); unit: count. Source: https://www.jwbpinellas.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/VII.D.-Program-and-Financial-Monitoring-Information.pdf

2 grantees of Early Childhood Court reported 8 results against targets over 5 periods; the median result was 133% of target (middle half 110% to 144%), and 100% met or exceeded the target. Source: Juvenile Welfare Board of Pinellas County, program monitoring reports, https://www.jwbpinellas.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/VII-C-Program-and-Financial-Monitoring-Information.pdf.

• Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida (FY2022): Participants served (target vs actual); promised 40, actual 42 (105% of target); unit: count. Source: https://www.jwbpinellas.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/VIII.B.-Program-and-Financial-Monitoring-Information.pdf
• Sixth Judicial Circuit Court (SJCC) (FY2020): Percent of all ECC cases will have no additional verified abuse reports for children after reunification for up to one year after program completion. Seay, K. D., & McRell, A. S. (2021). Child Welfare Services Response to COVID-19: Addressing Face-to-Face Contacts. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 1-13.; promised 70%, actual 100% (143% of target); unit: %. Source: https://www.jwbpinellas.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/VIII-D-Program-and-Financial-Monitoring.pdf

1 grantee of Maternal & Child Health - Healthy Families reported 7 results against targets over 1 period; the median result was 102% of target (middle half 98% to 109%), and 57% met or exceeded the target. Source: Children's Services Council of Broward County, annual performance reports, https://www.cscbroward.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/APR-FY-23-24-Book-002.pdf.

• Broward Healthy Start Coalition, Inc. (FY2024-25): Percentage of families completing the program with no findings of verified child maltreatment within 12 months; promised 95%, actual 97% (102% of target); unit: %. Source: https://www.cscbroward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/APR-Book-FY-24-25.pdf

1 grantee of Maternal & Child Health - Nurse Family Partnership Program reported 6 results against targets over 1 period; the median result was 110% of target (middle half 105% to 112%), and 100% met or exceeded the target. Source: Children's Services Council of Broward County, annual performance reports, https://www.cscbroward.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/APR-FY-23-24-Book-002.pdf.

• Broward Health (FY2024-25): Percentage of infants always placed to sleep on their backs, without bed sharing or soft bedding; promised 80%, actual 100% (125% of target); unit: %. Source: https://www.cscbroward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/APR-Book-FY-24-25.pdf

1 grantee of Maternal & Child Health - Maternal Depression (MOMS) reported 4 results against targets over 1 period; the median result was 118% of target (middle half 115% to 121%), and 100% met or exceeded the target. Source: Children's Services Council of Broward County, annual performance reports, https://www.cscbroward.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/APR-FY-23-24-Book-002.pdf.

• Memorial Healthcare System (FY2024-25): Percentage of mothers reporting fewer symptoms of depression and/or anxiety; promised 80%, actual 96% (120% of target); unit: %. Source: https://www.cscbroward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/APR-Book-FY-24-25.pdf

3 grantees of Early Childhood Consultation Services reported 3 results against targets over 3 periods; the median result was 54% of target (middle half 47% to 55%), and 0% met or exceeded the target. Source: Juvenile Welfare Board of Pinellas County, program monitoring reports, https://www.jwbpinellas.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/VII-C-Program-and-Financial-Monitoring-Information.pdf.

• Directions For Living (FY2025): Participants served (target vs actual); promised 210, actual 114 (54% of target); unit: count. Source: https://www.jwbpinellas.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/VII.B.-Program-and-Financial-Monitoring-Information-1.pdf
• Directions for Mental Health, Inc. d/b/a Directions for Living (FY2022): Participants served (target vs actual); promised 262, actual 147 (56% of target); unit: count. Source: https://www.jwbpinellas.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/VIII.B.-Program-and-Financial-Monitoring-Information.pdf
• Directions for Mental Health Inc., d/b/a Directions for Living (FY2024): Participants served (target vs actual); promised 210, actual 82 (39% of target); unit: count. Source: https://www.jwbpinellas.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/VII.D.-Program-and-Financial-Monitoring-Information.pdf

8 of 24 matched precedent programs shown, largest first.

Target-setting language with precedent

Each item comes from one funder, one program or one department; none is a government-wide rule.

Showing clauses from HHS, Education and USDA.

• CDC DP-23-0002 applicant FAQ (2023): Quote: “you may enter a '0' and then TBD for targets in the work plan” — https://archive.cdc.gov/www_cdc_gov/healthyschools/nofo/nofo.htm
• EDGAR, 34 CFR 75.110(c) (2024): Paraphrase: An applicant that lacks a baseline explains how and when it will establish one. — https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-08-29/html/2024-17239.htm
• USDA FAS Food for Progress FY2025, applicant Q&A, questions 72-73 (2025): Paraphrase: Yearly targets may be written as percentage-point change when the baseline value is not known. — https://apply07.grants.gov/grantsws/rest/opportunity/att/download/348844
• SAMHSA CMHS Infrastructure, Prevention and Promotion Overview Guide, v2.0, p. 9 (2022): Quote: “grantees can revise annual goals in consultation with their GPO during the first quarter of each fiscal year” — https://spars.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/2023-01/OE%20SPARS%20CMHS%20IPP%20Overview%20Guide.pdf
• Promise Neighborhoods guidance document, third edition (2025): Quote: “target setting will be an iterative process throughout implementation as more performance data is available” — https://promiseneighborhoods.ed.gov/pdf/Promise_Neighborhoods_Guidance_Document_508c.pdf
• HRSA-26-057 ECCS SEED applicant FAQs, p. 6 (2026): Paraphrase: Baseline estimates are confirmed or updated within six months of award. — https://files.simpler.grants.gov/opportunities/45e009d7-46ed-482f-8aa7-02812f207f71/attachments/54ad1b19-2651-43c7-8ade-76203c7770d7/HRSA-26-057_ECCS_SEED_Applicant_FAQs.pdf
• NIH PAR-25-383, Section VI (2025): Paraphrase: Future-year milestones may be renegotiated based on prior-year data. — https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-25-383.html
• Arizona Rural Health Transformation, approved program narrative, pp. 20-22 (2026): Paraphrase: A baseline assessment is done after award, and targets are set from it. — https://www.azahcccs.gov/AHCCCS/Downloads/Initiatives/RHTP/Arizona%27sApprovedProgramNarrative.pdf
• HRSA Health Center Program (H80) patient targets, Primary Health Care Digest (2022): Quote: “confirm or request adjustment to their patient target by the deadline in their email” — https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USHHSHRSA/bulletins/3120df3

What reviewers penalize

These ten weaknesses recur in 17 published reviewer critiques, mostly U.S. Department of Education and NIH. The count is the number of critiques that name it, not a rate, and a reviewer comment is a judgment.

• Attrition or missing-data handling left unresolved (named in 7 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “the applicant did not address how missing data will be handled” U.S. Department of Education, Education Innovation and Research (EIR) Mid-Phase, WestEd, S411B220027, 2022, Technical Review Form, pp. 25, 29. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2022/12/S411B220027_WestEd_TRF.pdf#page=29
• Comparisons vulnerable to selection, contamination, baseline differences or incompatible data (named in 7 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “may require additional interpretation” National Institutes of Health, NIAID, K01 AI131895 (Rebeiro, Vanderbilt), applicant-authorized summary statement; a research application, pp. 5-6. https://beta.nih.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_media/2026-09/k01-rebeiro-summary-statement.pdf#page=6
• Feasibility assumptions or fallback arrangements unsupported (named in 6 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “no alternative analysis plan is provided” National Institutes of Health, NIDCD, R01 DC017174 (Heinemann and Cherney), applicant-authorized summary statement; a research application, pp. 3, 5-6. https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/2022-03/sanitized-heinemann-cherney-summary-statement-redacted.pdf#page=5
• Implementation fidelity, thresholds or mediators inadequately specified (named in 5 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “Mediators are not described.” U.S. Department of Education, EIR Early-Phase, Education Development Center, U411C190275, 2019, Technical Review Form, p. 4. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2019/11/U411C190275-Education-Development-Center-Inc.-TRF-Tier-2.pdf#page=4
• Measurement tools insufficiently identified, supported or protected against reporting bias (named in 4 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “no detail is provided” U.S. Department of Education, EIR Mid-Phase, Niswonger Foundation, U411B170038, 2017, Technical Review Form, pp. 4-5. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2016/12/U411B170038_TRF.pdf#page=4
• Targets or success criteria missing, inconsistent or disconnected from the project (named in 4 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “lacks a specific number” U.S. Department of Education, EIR Mid-Phase, ASSISTments Foundation, S411B220024, 2022, Technical Review Form, p. 14. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2022/12/S411B220024_ASSISTments-Foundation-Inc_TRF.pdf#page=14
• Analysis procedures insufficiently specified for the stated questions or model (named in 4 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “methods of data analysis are not adequately described” National Institutes of Health, NIAID, R01 AI098472 renewal (Gandhi, UCSF), applicant-authorized summary statement; a research application, pp. 4-5. https://beta.nih.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_media/2026-09/2-R01-AI098472-06_Ganhdi_Summary.pdf#page=4
• Data protection, management or cross-site coordination incomplete (named in 3 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “The data management plan stops midsentence on page 125” National Institutes of Health, NIDCD, R01 DC017683 (Gifford and Camarata, Vanderbilt), applicant-authorized summary statement; a research application, pp. 9-10. https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/sanitized-giffordcamarataapplicationsummary-dc017683-01a1.pdf#page=10
• Feedback collection lacks a specified route into program decisions (named in 2 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “The applicant does not discuss how often the team will review data or implement changes.” U.S. Department of Education, EIR Early-Phase, Orange County Superintendent of Schools, S411C200130, 2020, Technical Review Form, pp. 16, 19. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2020/12/S411C200130-Orange-County-Superintendent-of-Schools-TRF.pdf#page=19
• Evaluator independence insufficiently explained (named in 1 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “The level of independence is not made clear” U.S. Department of Education, EIR Early-Phase, Research Triangle Institute, S411C220065, 2022, Technical Review Form, pp. 24-25. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2022/12/S411C220065_Research-Triangle-Institute-_TRF.pdf#page=24

Protocol skeleton

Draft text, edit before use

Measures: Number of pediatric primary care staff trained statewide; Number of partner pediatric practices; Number of ECD experts placed in partner pediatric practices; Percentage of children (aged 5 and under) served in partner pediatric practices that received a timely well-child visit; Percentage of children (aged 9-30 months) served in partner pediatric practices that received a timely developmental screening using a validated parent-completed tool; Percentage of children (aged 5 and under) and their families served in partner pediatric practices comprehensively screened (e.g., caregiver depression, food assistance, housing, etc.); Percentage of children (aged 5 and under) and their families served in partner pediatric practices that received appropriate follow-up services; Percentage of children (aged 6 months-5 years) served in partner pediatric practices that meet flourishing criteria, as aligned with the National Survey of Children’s Health. Baseline: ____ months from award, using HRSA-26-104 NOFO, Performance measurement, evaluation, and continuous quality improvement. Targets: set from the observed baseline at month ____, or committed now as a change of ____ percentage points from baseline (see the USDA FAS precedent above).

Missing-data plan (how dropout and missing observations will be handled): ____

Comparison group or baseline (what you compare against and how the groups started): ____

Fallback if recruitment, data access or the first analysis falls short: ____

Fidelity threshold (what counts as full implementation, and how it is measured): ____

Instrument named, with its validity evidence and its rights (license) status: ____

Numeric target for each measure (a number, not a direction): ____

Analysis for each outcome (method, comparison, adjustment): ____

Data protection and data management (who holds identifiable data, where, for how long): ____

Feedback schedule (who reviews the data, how often, and what changes as a result): ____

Evaluator role and independence (who evaluates and how they are separate from delivery): ____

The text is copied or summarized from public documents. It is not legal advice.