 |
LEGEND:
|
 |
|
Link to a PDF document |
|
 |
|
Link to non-governmental site and does not
necessarily represent the views of the CDC |
|
|
| Adobe
Acrobat (TM) Reader needs to be installed on
your computer in order to read documents in PDF format.
Download the Reader.
|
LEGEND:
=
Link to a PDF document
=
Link to non-CDC Web site
|
|
|
Adobe
Acrobat (TM) Reader needs to be installed on
your computer in order to read documents in PDF format. Download the Reader..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quick Facts: Program Announcement 04064 - HIV
Prevention Projects for Community-Based
Organizations |
|
|
|
|
|
Program
Announcement 04064
- Consolidates six
previous cooperative agreements (99091, HIV Prevention Among Gay
Men of
Color; 99092, Community-Based HIV Prevention Projects for African
Americans;
99096, HIV Prevention Projects for African-American Faith-Based
Organizations; 00023,
HIV Prevention Projects for Community-Based
Organizations; 00100, Community-Based
Strategies to Increase HIV Testing
of Persons at High Risk in Communities of Color; and 01033,
Community
Coalition Development Projects for African-American Communities) into one
comprehensive program announcement
- Incorporates 2 of
CDC’s “Advancing HIV Prevention” strategies:
- Implementation of
new models for diagnosing HIV infections
outside medical settings
- Prevention of new
infections by working with persons diagnosed with
HIV and their partners
Application Process
- 6 communication
tools used to provide information and/or technical assistance to
applicants:
- blast fax to more
than 2,000 health departments and community-based
organizations CBOs
- national
satellite broadcast (simultaneously transmitted via Dish
Network,
Internet, and teleconference)
- web conferences
and postings
- pre-application
workshops
- interactive
informational DVDs
- toll-free
telephone help line
- 4 regional CBO
consultations held (Spring 2003) in Chicago, New York,
San Francisco, and
Miami
- 876 Letters of
Intent received and 572 applications
- 539 applicants met
eligibility requirements (15 were late and 18 were ineligible)
- Of 190 previously
funded CBOs: 165 applied, 73 received pre-decisional
site visits ( (PDSVs),
and 64 selected for funding; 47% of CBOs selected for
funding were
previously funded
- PA 04064 funding
decisions were based on a highly competitive national process
(See table
for step-by- step process description)
Awards
Made
- 174 PDSVs were made
- May 21, 2004:
Awards announced to the public
- 5-year project
period funded: July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2009
(budget periods are 12
months)
- $49 million awarded
(approximately):
- $30 million under
Category A (serving high-risk racial/ethnic minority communities)
- $19 million under
Category B (serving high-risk groups, regardless of race/ethnicity)
- $345,000, average
award per CBO
- 141 CBOs funded: 91
under Category A, organizations serving high-risk racial and ethnic
minority
communities; 50 under Category B, organizations serving high-risk
groups regardless of race/ethnicity
- 48 CBOs target
youth
- 54 CBOs target men
who have sex with men (MSM) primary
- 23 CBOs target
Injecting drug users (IDUs)
- 41 CBOs target
heterosexuals
- More than one risk
group targeted by most CBOs: 110 target MSM, 96 target IDUs, and 116
target
heterosexuals
Application Review Process
| Step 1 |
CDC
reviewed the applications to ensure that they met all eligibility
requirements, as outlined in the
program announcement. |
|
|
| Step 2 |
- The
applications were reviewed by Special Emphasis Panels (SEP).
- SEP members are external experts not affiliated with CDC. The
federal government employs this method of grant review because it
offers an independent, balanced and objective perspective in the
review of grant applications.
- The SEP is granted the authority to review and score each
application.
- A total of 156 external reviewers were recruited to serve on 60
review panels. Each panel was composed of a behavioral scientist, an
epidemiologist or evaluator, and a community member with HIV
prevention experience. All reviewers had at least three years of
relevant experience.
- Each application was reviewed by a primary and secondary reviewer
and the panel then discussed the review noting strengths and
weaknesses that were recorded for the summary statement.
- The applications were scored by the panel and applications were
rank ordered by CDC based on numeric scores from these panels.
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
Step 3 |
- Once CDC
completed the ranking, CDC systematically applied funding caps to
ensure that the number of grantees corresponded to regional AIDS
incidence, and to other funding preferences as stated in the program
announcement. Our intent was to ensure reasonable representation among
at-risk populations, risk behaviors, and race/ethnicity. For example,
the highest scoring organizations in the western region were included
for funding up to the point that the cap (15%) for the western region
was achieved.
- The rationale
for these adjustments is to ensure the best match between funding
decisions and HIV/AIDS epidemiology on a regional basis.
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
|
Step 4 |
- Site visits were performed by CDC staff to ensure that the
applicant has accuratelycharacterized its administrative and technical
ability to perform the proposed activities.
- This process resulted in a small number of organizations being
eliminated from
further consideration
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
