V.1. Criteria

Applicants are required to provide measures of effectiveness that will demonstrate the accomplishment of the various identified objectives of the cooperative agreement. Measures of effectiveness must relate to the performance goals stated in the “Purpose” section of this announcement. Measures must be objective and quantitative and must measure the intended outcome. The measures of effectiveness must be submitted with the application and will be an element of evaluation.

All applications are reviewed for eligibility according to the criteria listed in section III. “Eligibility Information.” Once deemed eligible, applications undergo a two-step evaluation process:

Step One: In the first step of the evaluation process, all eligible applications will be evaluated against the criteria listed in section IV. “Application and Submission Information.” Applications will be evaluated by an independent review panel assigned by the CDC. The panel will assign each application a score using scored evaluation criteria as specified in section V. “Application Review Information.” The score will be based on the applicant’s responses to the questions in section IV. “Application and Submission Information” starting with the project narrative.

An applicant must score at least 300 of the 500 possible points during the special emphasis panel review. To ensure that no application has an undue competitive advantage resulting from the selection of multiple categories and components, CDC has developed a mechanism that will appropriately adjust scores for each application. Each category for which funding is sought will be separately reviewed and scored, thus the requirement for submission of separate Program Plans and Program Monitoring and Evaluation Plans.

Applicants applying for funding under Categories A, C, D and E will be selected to receive a PDSV based on highest scores, geographic location and funding limitations. Applicants applying for funding under Category B will be selected to receive a PDSV based on highest scores, geographic location, funding limitations and priority populations to be targeted.

Step Two: During a PDSV, CDC staff will meet with key project staff including representatives of the board of directors, executive director, program manager, trainers, curriculum developers, TA specialists, evaluators, behavioral scientists, and consultants or contractors. The PDSV (1) facilitates a review of the application and discussion of proposed program plans, (2) further assesses an applicant's organizational and fiscal capacity to implement the proposed program, and (3) identifies unique programmatic conditions that may require training, TA or other resources. Applicants must score at least 180 points of the 300 possible points during the PDSV to be considered for an award.

Criteria for Step One: Special Emphasis Panel Review

Each application will be determined to be eligible according to criteria listed in section III. “Eligibility Information” and then, if eligible, it will be evaluated against a list of criteria including:

Organizational and Personnel Capacity (100 points)

1. The applicant provides an organizational chart that includes the proposed program. (6 points)
2. The applicant identifies, or articulates an appropriate strategy to recruit, key program management staff members who have substantive experience managing programs that provide capacity building services to HIV prevention organizations. (18 points)
3. The applicant identifies, or articulates an appropriate strategy to recruit, key program management staff members who have substantive experience managing programs that provide CBA to HIV prevention organizations that serve racial/ethnic minority populations. (12 points)
4. The applicant provides information that identifies or articulates an appropriate strategy to recruit key program management staff members who have substantive experience managing programs that provide CBA to HIV prevention organizations that serve individuals from high-risk categories. (12 points)
5. The applicant provides information that identifies staff roles that are consistent with the proposed program plan. (14 points)
6. The staffing plan is sufficient to accomplish the program goals and objectives as described. (20 points)
7. The applicant provides information that identifies adequate administrative management systems (e.g., appropriate fiscal, information technology, and human resource management systems). (18 points)

Program Experience (100 points)

1. The applicant demonstrates historical provision of culturally competent CBA in the proposed category to health departments, CBOs, CPGs, and/or any other community stakeholders serving high-risk and/or racial/ethnic minority populations. (24 points)
2. The applicant demonstrates experience providing HIV prevention training to a national audience (or regional audience, if applying for Category B). (24 points)
3. The applicant demonstrates experience providing technical assistance in the subject area of HIV prevention to a national audience (or regional audience, if applying for Category B). (24 points)
4. The applicant demonstrates experience working with health departments, CBOs, or other community stakeholders that serve individuals at high-risk for HIV infection. (For Category B, the applicant should demonstrate substantive experience using community mobilization models with individuals at high-risk for HIV infection) (14 points)
5. The applicant demonstrates experience working with health departments, CBOs, or community stakeholders that serve racial/ethnic minority populations. (14 points)

Category A Program Plan (200 points) – Organizational Infrastructure and Program Sustainability

1. The applicant’s proposed program plan sufficiently addresses the overall category-specific and component-specific purpose, objectives, and activities stated in the funding announcement. (45 points)
2. The applicant’s proposed program activities are SMART (i.e., specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time-phased). (23 points)
3. The applicant’s proposed plan is based on a feasible overall programmatic timeline. (28 points)
4. The proposed plan includes activities related to the development of intensive CBA services for CBOs with acute assistance needs. (33 points)
5. The proposed plan includes activities related to the development of organizational capacity of CBOs in the following areas: administrative, fiscal management, and human resources. (38 points)
6. The proposed plan includes activities related to the provision of CBA, including training and TA, to CBOs to strengthen their organizational infrastructure for serving high-risk and/or racial/ethnic minority populations. (33 points)

Category A Program Plan (200 points) – Evidence-Based Interventions and Public Health Strategies

1. The applicant’s proposed program plan sufficiently addresses the overall category-specific and component-specific purpose, objectives, and activities stated in the funding announcement (45 points)
2. The applicant’s proposed program activities are SMART (i.e., specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time-phased). (23 points)
3. The applicant’s proposed plan is based on a feasible overall programmatic timeline. (23 points)
4. The applicant proposes to provide CBA, including training and TA, which appropriately addresses the needs of organizations implementing evidence-based interventions and/or public health strategies for members of high-risk and/or racial/ethnic minority populations. (45 points)
5. The applicant proposes to provide CBA, including training and TA, which appropriately address the needs of organizations to adapt evidence-based interventions and/or public health strategies for members of high-risk and/or racial/ethnic minority populations. (32 points)
6. The applicant proposes to provide CBA, including training and TA, which appropriately addresses the monitoring and evaluation needs of organizations implementing evidence-based interventions and/or public health strategies for members of high-risk racial/ethnic minority populations. (32 points)

Category A Program Plan – Monitoring and Evaluation (200 points)

1. The applicant’s proposed program plan sufficiently addresses the overall category-specific and component-specific purpose, objectives, and activities stated in the funding announcement. (67 points)
2. The applicant’s proposed program activities are SMART (i.e., specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time-phased). (33 points)
3. The applicant’s proposed plan is based on a feasible overall programmatic timeline. (33 points)
4. The applicant describes how it plans to provide CBA, including training and TA, to CBOs on evaluation methodologies for program effectiveness. (67 points)

Category B Program Plan (200 points)

1. The applicant’s proposed program plan sufficiently addresses the overall category-specific and component-specific purpose, objectives, and activities, stated in the funding announcement. (31 points)
2. The applicant’s proposed program activities are SMART (i.e., specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time-phased). (16 points)
3. The applicant’s proposed plan is based on a feasible overall programmatic timeline (16 points)
4. The applicant provides an adequate description of how the model or strategy is appropriately designed to address the needs of the target population as it pertains to increased access to and utilization of HIV prevention interventions and strategies as well as services for other STDs, viral hepatitis, and TB. (31 points)
5. The applicant provides credible evidence — or rationale — that the proposed model or strategy will be successful. (19 points)
6. The applicant provides academic references or findings from practical applications as evidence for credible data on how the model or strategy is appropriate for organizations serving members of the proposed target high-risk and/or racial/ethnic minority population. (16 points)
7. The applicant describes appropriate and relevant outcomes that are consistent with the model for community mobilization chosen, and their proposed plan and activities. (19 points)
8. The proposed plan includes a description of relevant stakeholders, service providers, and other entities (i.e., target population, city, coalition, organizations). (21 points)
9. The proposed plan includes methods for the provision of CBA, including training and TA, on the adoption, adaptation, implementation, and evaluation of the proposed model or a home-grown model developed by community stakeholders. (31 points)

Category C Program Plan (200 points) – Organizational Infrastructure and Program Sustainability

1. The applicant’s proposed program plan sufficiently addresses the overall category-specific and component-specific purpose, objectives, and activities, stated in the funding announcement (50 points)
2. The applicant’s proposed program activities are SMART (i.e., specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time-phased). (25 points)
3. The applicant’s proposed plan is based on a feasible overall programmatic timeline. (25 points)
4. The applicant proposes a reasonable and sufficient strategy for development of the organizational infrastructure tools and protocols they will provide to health departments. (45 points)
5. The applicant proposes an appropriate and well conceived plan for the delivery of CBA, including training and TA activities, which will be provided to health departments on the topics of infrastructure and sustainability. (45 points)
6. The extent to which the applicant’s plan describes how it will emphasize access to and utilization of other prevention needs of the population, and increase access and utilization of need services for other STD, viral hepatitis and TB. (10 points)

Category C Program Plan (200 points) – Evidence-Based Interventions and Public Health Strategies

1. The applicant’s proposed program plan sufficiently addresses the overall category-specific and component-specific purpose, objectives, and activities, stated in the funding announcement. (40 points)
2. The applicant’s proposed program activities are SMART (i.e., specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time-phased). (20 points)
3. The applicant’s proposed plan is based on a feasible overall programmatic timeline. (20 points)
4. The applicant proposes a process for conducting a needs assessment or other survey to ascertain the areas in which health departments need capacity building assistance related to evidence-based interventions and public health strategies. (20 points)
5. The applicant proposes a well designed and reasonable process for marketing their CBA services focused on evidence-based intervention and public health strategies to health departments. (20 points)
6. The applicant proposes a training program to strengthen health department capacity to implement, fund, monitor, and train on various evidence-based interventions and public health strategies. (35 points)
7. The applicant proposes a plan for the delivery of technical assistance to strengthen the capacities of health departments to implement, monitor, fund, and report and train on evidence-based interventions and public health strategies. (35 points)
8. The extent to which the applicant plan describes how it will collaborate with other training entities to facilitate access to current and relevant training materials about other disease areas (TB, STD, Hepatitis). (10 points)

Category C Program Plan (200 points) – Community Planning

1. The applicant’s proposed program plan sufficiently addresses the overall category-specific and component-specific purpose, objectives, and activities, stated in the funding announcement. (40 points)
2. The applicant’s proposed program activities are SMART (i.e., specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time-phased). (20 points)
3. The applicant’s proposed plan is based on a feasible overall programmatic timeline. (20 points)
4. The applicant proposes a reasonable plan to deliver CBA services to strengthen the capacity of health departments and CPGs to utilize epidemiological and local data in the prioritization process. (40 points)
5. The applicant proposes a reasonable plan to deliver CBA services to strengthen the capacity of health departments and CPGs to meet needs and address concerns related to orientation, decision-making, and process management. (40 points) 6. The applicant proposes a reasonable plan to deliver CBA services to strengthen the capacity of health departments and CPGs to meet needs and address concerns related to parity, inclusion, and representation (PIR) of high-risk and/or racial/ethnic minority populations. (40 points)

Category C Program Plan (200 points) – Monitoring and Evaluation

1. The applicant’s proposed program plan sufficiently addresses the overall category-specific and component-specific purpose, objectives, and activities, stated in the funding announcement. (50 points)
2. The applicant’s proposed program activities are SMART (i.e., specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time-phased). (25 points)
3. The applicant’s proposed plan is based on a feasible overall programmatic timeline. (25 points)
4. The applicant describes how it plans to provide CBA to health departments on evaluation methodologies of evidence-based interventions and public health strategies. (50 points) 5. The applicant describes how it plans to provide CBA to health departments on evaluation methodologies of community planning processes. (50 points)

Category D Program Plan (200 points)

1. The applicant’s proposed program plan sufficiently addresses the overall category-specific and component-specific purpose, objectives, and activities stated in the funding announcement. (25 points)
2. The applicant’s proposed program activities are SMART (i.e., specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time-phased). (12 points)
3. The applicant’s proposed plan is based on a feasible overall programmatic timeline. (12 points)
4. The application plan includes strategies for ensuring quality training and curricula development specific to the diffusion of prioritized evidence-based interventions and public health strategies. (25 points)
5. The applicant proposes to provide CBA, including training and TA, to consumers (e.g., CBA providers) that support CDC’s efforts to diffuse evidence-based interventions and public health strategies for HIV prevention. (25 points)
6. The proposed plan includes activities for the development or expansion of a resource center for CBA providers. (18 points)
7. The proposed activities describe how the applicant will provide CBA services, to include: technical assistance, training, information transfer, technology transfer, follow-up, and mentoring for CBA providers. (25 points)
8. The proposed plan includes marketing, dissemination, and communication of coordination activities to CBA providers. (15 points)
9. The proposed plan includes activities to address the translation of materials into Spanish and/or adaptation for members of high-risk and/or racial/ ethnic minority populations. (18 points)
10. The applicant proposes to develop and implement plans for process monitoring and evaluation as well as quality assurance to ensure quality products and professional standards of performance. (25 points)

Category E Program Plan (200 points)

1. The applicant’s proposed program plan sufficiently addresses the overall category-specific and component-specific purpose, objectives, and activities stated in the funding announcement. (28 points)
2. The applicant’s proposed program activities are SMART (i.e., specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time-phased). (14 points)
3. The applicant’s proposed plan is based on a feasible overall programmatic timeline. (14 points)
4. The application plan includes activities related to the support and coordination of CBA services that are part of CDC’s efforts to promote sharing and access to relevant HIV prevention information and resources to CBA consumers. (28 points)
5. The proposed plan includes activities for the development of cost-effective CBA services and identifies recipients of these CBA services. (20 points)
6. The applicant describes appropriate and relevant outcomes and activities that are consistent with the plan for providing CBA services to CBA consumers. (20 points)
7. The proposed plan includes marketing, dissemination, and communication with identified entities (i.e., NPIN, HPLS Steering Committee) to promote activities aimed at CBA consumers. (24 points)
8. The applicant proposes to develop and implement plans for process monitoring and evaluation as well as quality assurance to ensure quality products, which meet professional standards of published materials. (24 points)
9. The applicant appropriately addresses the cost-matching requirement for program income that may result from “registration fees” under a limited number of CDC fiscally supported conferences (e.g., HIV Prevention Leadership Summit and United States Conference on AIDS). (28 points)

Program Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (100 points)

1. An evaluation plan is included that describes assessment measures and benchmarks for data collection, analysis and management, including confidentiality and security. (24 points)
2. The proposed evaluation plan includes the required annual targets and 4.5-year performance measures. (12 points)
3. The annual targets and 4.5-year performance measures are achievable. (12 points) 4. The data collection strategy described in the evaluation plan includes strategies for obtaining monitoring and evaluation data. (12 points) 5. The evaluation plan describes quality assurance processes and methods for evaluation. (16 points) 6. The evaluation plan describes the applicant intent or experience in using monitoring and evaluation data for program improvement. (12 points) 7. A logic model is included with a sequence of steps leading to program outputs, short, and long-term outcomes. (12 points)

Budget (SF 424A), Staffing Breakdown, and Justification (Reviewed but not scored.)

1. Is a detailed budget by all cost categories for all proposed activities for the first 6-month budget period provided? (0 points)
2. Is justification provided for all operating expenses in relation to planned activities and stated objectives? (0 points)

Criteria for Step Two: Pre-Decisional Site Visit (PDSV)

PDSVs are worth 300 points. The following areas will be evaluated during the site visit:

1. Review of the application and discussion of proposed program plans (150 points);
2. Assessment of the applicant’s organizational capacity to implement the proposed program (100 points); and
3. Assessment of fiscal and organizational infrastructure (50 points).

In conjunction with a PDSV, CDC’s Procurement and Grants Office (PGO) will conduct a Recipient Capability Assessment (RCA) to evaluate the organization’s ability to manage CDC funds. PGO staff will conduct this assessment.

V.2. Review and Selection Process

Applications will be reviewed for completeness by CDC’s PGO staff, and for responsiveness jointly by DHAP, NCHHSTP, and PGO. Incomplete applications and applications that are non-responsive to the eligibility criteria will not advance through the review process. Applicants will be notified the application did not meet submission requirements.

A special emphasis panel will evaluate complete and responsive applications according to the criteria listed in the V.1. “Criteria” section above. The special emphasis panel review process will follow the policy requirements as stated in HHS’s Awarding Agency Grants Administration Manual (AAGAM) at, under “Part 2: Pre-Award, Grant Application Reviews”, and clicking on Chapter 2.04.104C.

Final funding determinations will be based on application scores from the special emphasis panel review, PDSV, and consideration for CDC’s funding preferences.

Funding Preferences:

1. The balance of funded applicants serving organizations targeting vulnerable and underserved high-risk and/or racial/ethnic minority populations based on the burden of infection in each population as measured by HIV and AIDS reporting. These populations include, but are not limited to, those listed in section I.2. “Background.”
2. The geographic balance of funded applicants based on the burden of infection within jurisdictions, as measured by HIV and AIDS reporting.

CDC will provide justification for any decision to fund outside of ranked order of scores.

V.3. Anticipated Announcement Award Date

Anticipated award date is September 30, 2009.