Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to navigation Skip directly to page options Skip directly to site content

Frequently Asked Questions

Updated: March 1, 2018

In looking it over it states we have to appropriate some funds to HHS chronic disease, etc. Is there a certain % you folks are expecting? It did not state how much or what %.

Priority 1 SEAs are expected to direct part of their award to the State Health Department to support staff positions and activities associated with the NOFO. It is at the discretion of the SEA to determine that amount. Priority 1 SEAs are also required to also submit a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the appropriate State Health Department with their application. Priority 1 SEAs are expected to direct part of their award to the State Health Department to support staff positions and activities associated with the NOFO. The MOA should clearly define the mutual goals, relationship, and responsibilities of the SEA and State Health Department. MOAs will be a criteria used in evaluating the application. Specific details of what should be included in the MOA can be found on page 14 of this NOFO.

Do you think the CDC would make any exceptions for public health agencies to apply for states in which there is not a positon within the Department of Education to apply for this grant?

Not at this time. Funding eligibility is limited to State Education Agencies (SEAs) since these agencies have the greatest likelihood of impacting schools and the youth they serve. SEAs are uniquely qualified with the specialized expertise to provide students with the knowledge and skills needed to affect positive changes in health behaviors as well as academic performance and to perform the activities under DP18-1801.

Why are there only up to 20 states being funded?

Due to the amount of funding available and level of expectations funding is limited to up to 20 states.

I have a question regarding Priority 2 (national professional development). I’m a little confused since that was what the Springboard training entailed as well as the Alliance’s TOT on wellness policies. Can you help me understand the difference of these?

Priority 2 recipient will plan, develop and deliver quality professional development and training to Priority 1 SEAs.  Awardees will be encouraged to collaborate with other partners deemed necessary to carry out professional development events, which could include DP16-1601 NGOs.  Priority 2 will also assess and identify key professional development and training needs of Priority 1 SEAs and develop professional development and trainings that support school health priorities using CDC’s professional development practices.

Will the $7 million dollars available annually be split evenly between the 19 recipients, or will it based on population?

Funding will be based upon availability of funds. $350,000 is the average award for Priority 1 recipients per budget period, with an award floor of $300,000 and an award ceiling of $400,000 per budget period.

The work plan template and logic model are wonderful. May we follow closely what is written in the template and logic model?

While the format is optional, we do encourage you to use the work plan template provided.  Applicants must prepare a work plan consistent with the CDC Project Description Work Plan section.  The work plan integrates and delineates more specifically how the recipient plans to carry out achieving the period of performance outcomes, strategies, evaluation and performance measurement.

The Priority 2 funding is separate from the Priority 1 funding completely, correct? It would require 2 separate applications and would be 2 separate awards (each within the $300K-$500K range)?

Applicants seeking funding for Priority 2 must also apply for Priority 1 funding. Priority 2 applicants must compete and successfully be awarded Priority 1 funding in order to also be awarded Priority 2 funding. If applying for more than one priority area, a separate project abstract, project narrative, work plan, and budget narrative must be submitted with the application forms.

I can't locate DP18-1801 on grants.gov?

CDC made an administrative oversight and the NOFO was deleted on grants.gov.   The CDC anticipates CDC-RFA-DP18-1801 will be re-published on grants.gov soon and you will receive an email notification when the NOFO is re-published.

Is there a specific level of school that the grant would cover, such as K-12 schools vs. an academic institution? We are on a college campus and were not sure if the grant would include academic institutions.

This Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) is limited to state governments, specifically, State Education Agencies (SEAs). Local Education Agencies (LEAs) and schools within the awarded SEAs will implement evidence-based school health policies, practices and programs that increase opportunities for healthy eating, physical activity and management of chronic health conditions during the school day as well as during out-of-school time. SEAs will be expected to implement the following strategies and activities using a comprehensive, statewide approach over the 5-year period of performance. While all strategies and activities are expected to be implemented statewide, each SEA will select between 5 and 10 LEAs with which to prioritize their work. SEAs should work with the majority of schools within these LEAs at the elementary, middle, and high school levels.

Is this the new school health funding that is currently with 1305 or will there be another NOFO for State Health Departments to provide proposals? Can you provide any information regarding this NOFO?

This Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) is the new school health funding announcement that will replace the current school health contribution in 1305 State Public Health Actions.  This NOFO is limited to State Education Agencies (SEAs). There will not be a separate school health NOFO for State Health Departments.  Please refer to https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/about/foa/healthystudents/index.htm for more information.

Will there be an informational call opportunity prior deadline for questions?

CDC will conduct an informational conference call for all interested applicants on December 11, 2017, 3:00PM -4:00PM Eastern Standard Time.  The call-in number is 1-866-730-1290 and the passcode is 42127644.  You may also email Melissa Fahrenbruch (eya6@cdc.gov) for any questions you have prior to (Dec. 11th.) We will continue to respond to questions and post on the website until the closing date of the announcement.

On page 20 of the information packet, it states that an SEA needs to have a 100% FTE for a coordinator/manager. Can this be split between two people? When writing the application for the 1801 grant, we would like to know if this is an acceptable proposition.

On page 33 of the RFA, Priority 1 applicants (SEA) are expected to budget for a 100% FTE Program Manager/Coordinator (in addition to directing part of their award to the State Health Department to support staff positions and activities associated with the NOFO).

I don’t see the full NOFO announcement on grants.gov - am I missing it? I see the synopsis.

Click on the package tab, then the preview/apply link and then either submit their email address at the bottom and hit submit (or click no and submit).  That should bring the announcement up.

 

We read that the eligible applicants are limited to State Education Agencies (SEAs) Are we correct in ascertaining that this means that state health departments are not eligible to apply for this FOA?

This Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) is the new school health funding announcement that will replace the current school health contribution in 1305 State Public Health Actions.  This NOFO is limited to State Education Agencies (SEAs). There will not be a separate school health NOFO for State Health Departments.  Please refer to https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/about/foa/healthystudents/index.htm for more information.

Is the new RFA that was released for the School Health replacing 1305? Or do you think there will be a school health grant released for health departments to apply for?

This Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) is the new school health funding announcement that will replace the current school health contribution in 1305 State Public Health Actions.  This NOFO is limited to State Education Agencies (SEAs). There will not be a separate school health NOFO for State Health Departments.  Please refer to https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/about/foa/healthystudents/index.htm for more information.

Regarding the RFA referenced below, I note that only state education agencies are eligible to apply. Is this THE school health RFA we 1305 recipients have been expecting, or will there likely be another related RFA for which state health departments may apply?

This Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) is the new school health funding announcement that will replace the current school health contribution in 1305 State Public Health Actions.  This NOFO is limited to State Education Agencies (SEAs). There will not be a separate school health NOFO for State Health Departments.  Please refer to https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/about/foa/healthystudents/index.htm for more information.

I just received this information on the new RFA for school health. Is this the same funding that we currently (June 2013-June 2018) have at Department of Health OR is this new funding?

This Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) is the new school health funding announcement that will replace the current school health contribution in 1305 State Public Health Actions.  This NOFO is limited to State Education Agencies (SEAs). There will not be a separate school health NOFO for State Health Departments.  Please refer to https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/about/foa/healthystudents/index.htm for more information.

I see that the lead specifically should be the State Education Agency whereas for 1305 the DOH can be the lead. Am I understanding this correctly or can DOH agencies apply as a state government lead? Is this the only school health cooperative agreement for the next five year cycle or can we expect another one for DOH agencies?

This Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) is the new school health funding announcement that will replace the current school health contribution in 1305 State Public Health Actions.  This NOFO is limited to State Education Agencies (SEAs). There will not be a separate school health NOFO for State Health Departments.  Please refer to https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/about/foa/healthystudents/index.htm for more information.

Is the plan to only make 19 awards for this Notice of Funding Opportunity?

Approximately 19 SEAs will be funded to implement Priority 1 and will be responsible for implementing three strategies:
Strategy 1. Infrastructure Development
Strategy 2. Professional Development and Training
Strategy 3. Technical Assistance

In addition, one SEA will be funded to implement Priority 2 which focuses on building the capacity of Priority 1 SEAs. The recipient will plan, develop and deliver quality professional development and training to Priority 1 SEAs. The Priority 2 SEA will be responsible for implementing one strategy:
Strategy 1: National Professional Development and Training
Applicants seeking funding for Priority 2 must also apply for Priority 1 funding.

When will Improving Student Health and Academic Achievement through Nutrition, Physical Activity and the Management of Chronic Conditions in Schools (CDC-RFA-DP18-1801) be due?

Applicants will be provided 60 days from re-posting.  Due date will be noted in the NOFO.

If states apply and are granted for both Priority 1 and Priority 2 will they be required to have a 1 FTE for each Priority? Our SEA is reluctant to apply if it means that we will be required to hire 2 FTE since Federal Funds are somewhat tenuous at the moment.

Yes, priority 1 and 2 applicants are expected to budget for a 100% FTE Program Manager/Coordinator for each priority area.

Is it possible for state departments of education to designate the state department of health as the bona fide agent for this grant?

The Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) does not reflect bona-fide agents as eligible.  CDPH may not apply on CDE’s behalf.

When the 1801 NOFO was released the first time, I submitted a letter of intent. Should I submit a new one or will the earlier submission suffice?

If you have already submitted an LOI, you do not need to submit a new one.

Is the current posted grant application identical to what was original posted and pulled in November or are there minor or major changes in what was posted in November?

There were minor modifications to the Notice of Funding Opportunity.

Are US Territories eligible to apply?

US Territories are not eligible to apply.

For the long term outcomes, is it allowable to use a state surveillance system currently in place to collect the exact same questions and wording instead of using the YRBS as the tool for long term outcomes?

If the state receives YRBS funding they are required to provide these data via YRBS. If the state does not receive YRBS funding, then yes a state surveillance system currently in place is acceptable.

For Priority 1, are the bulleted items listed under each activity required?

Yes, each bullet is expected to be implemented over the course of the 5-year period of performance.

Can you clarify the expectations for working with a professional evaluator? I guess what we are wondering is if the evaluation and the plans we develop will be at a higher level than what we have been doing for evaluation and performance measures for 1305. We have been doing that ourselves, so we considered keeping the 10% for evaluation in house.

It is encouraged, but not required you work with a professional evaluator. If an applicant has the capacity to carry out the evaluation performance measures and evaluation activities in house, they are allowed to use that mechanism.  The only requirement is to allocate 10% of their award to support evaluation activities.

Can you clarify any expectations for establishing a cadre of trainers? Is the expectation that this be a cadre of teachers/school level people or district level people? Or is it a cadre of state-level partners and stakeholders? Or is that up to the needs of our state? This item can impact the budget, so that is another reason we wanted to clearly understand the expectation.

The makeup of your cadre of trainers is at the discretion of the applicant.

For Priority 2 on page 13 of 58, I understand the bullets under the Strategy 1 Activity, in that we will have a consortium of leaders and then we would also provide two face to face PDs for Priority 1 states. The confusion comes on page 21 of 58 at the very top where it says that the person needs the “Ability to lead, in partnership with CDC, at least two national professional development consortium meetings each budget year of the 5-year period…” This means the Priority 1 states, correct? Or does this mean 2 face to face meetings with Priority 1 state teams AND 2 face to face meetings with the consortium of national and state stakeholders?

The Priority 2 awardee would host up to two face to face professional development events for Priority 1 states annually and two meetings with the national professional development consortium, which could be in person or virtual.

Can we use 1305 funds to hire a grant writer?

No 1305 funds may be used for any part of the 1801 grant application process.

Would a state’s LEAs involved in the grant be required to complete the YRBS in its entirety to be eligible for the grant?

Yes.

Is this a reissue of the RFA from last year that was pulled late last year?

This is the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) that was posted in November.  There were minor modifications to the NOFO.

Is there a required format or template we must follow before we submit our LOI?

There is no required template or format for letters of intent (LOI).

Is there a specific budget template we are to use or can we use an Excel spreadsheet that we have prepared with all of the required categories?

There is not a specific budget template.  You may use excel.

Is there a page limit on the budget narrative?

There is not a page limit for the budget narrative.

Can you confirm where the MOA is to be included? As a separate attachment or within the Project Narrative? If it is a separate attachment – how is it labeled? Just “Memorandum of Agreement”?

The MOA may be an attachment and you can label “MemorandumofAgreement”.

The guidance states that the MOA must have counter-signatures? My fiscal officer is telling me that we cannot submit a signed MOA. I am working with her on this, and have shown her in the guidance where it states that this is not a contract. What do we do if fiscal doesn’t agree to this?

The MOA should include counter signatures for both parties by authorized representatives.  We define MOA (p.53) “Document that describes a bilateral or multilateral agreement between parties expressing a convergence of will between the parties, indicating an intended common line of action. It is often used in cases where the parties either do not imply a legal commitment or cannot create a legally enforceable agreement.”

I need help in understanding the Data Management Plan. Is the DMP only required when conducting any data collection activities outside of the CDC required YRBS and Profiles? If we don’t plan to conduct any surveys outside of the CDC required surveys do we just state so in the grant application and thus do not need to provide a DMP?

A Data Management Plan (DMP) is required for all data collection activities and data that will be produced using these NOFO funds, as detailed here:  https://www.cdc.gov/grants/additionalrequirements/ar-25.html. If the only data that are collected are funded via another cooperative agreement with CDC, a DMP would be required under that other cooperative agreement. If this is the case, the applicant should state this in their application. A DMP for each collection and/or generation of public health data funded by this award should include the following information: A description of the data to be collected or generated in the proposed project; Standards to be used for the collected or generated data; Mechanisms for or limitations to providing access to and sharing of the data (include a description of provisions for the protection of privacy, confidentiality, security, intellectual property, or other rights). This section should address access to identifiable and de-identified data (see below for additional information about access); Statement of the use of data standards that ensure all released data have appropriate documentation that describes the method of collection, what the data represent, and potential limitations for use; and Plans for archiving and long-term preservation of the data, or explaining why long-term preservation and access are not justified. This section should address archiving and preservation of identifiable and de-identified data.

See pg. 33 of the guidance – it states that one national standard that supports the intent of the RFP must be included in the budget narrative, and must indicate which standards are addressed. Does this apply to this grant?

Not applicable. This is in reference to seeking public health accreditation through the Public Health Accreditation Board.

There is some confusion in the RFA with the way the award amounts are listed. One interpretation is that $400,000 is available for each of the 5 years with a total award amount of $2 million per award. Or, more likely: $400,000 is the ceiling for the Priority 1 applicants.

Funding will be based upon availability of funds. $350,000 is the average award for Priority 1 recipients per budget period, with an award floor of $300,000 and an award ceiling of $400,000 per budget period.  For Priority 2, $450,000 is the average award with an award floor of $400,000 and an award ceiling of $500,000 per budget period.

On page 33 of the RFA -DP18-1801, Priority 1 applicants are expected to budget for a 100% FTE Program Manager/Coordinator. Should the salary and fringe benefits of the 100% FTE be budgeted entirely on the DP18-1801 budget, or can the salary/fringe of the 100% FTE be covered partially from another account (e.g., State funds) to free up funds for activity implementation?

The NOFO states that a 100% dedicated FTE is required to carry out the activities in the work plan.  Source of funding is not stipulated therefore in kind funding support is acceptable.

As a school district that is interested in this NOFO, should we be reaching out to our state agency to express interest in partnership?

You are welcome to reach out to your state education agency to express interest.

I would like to find out which US States are eligible for the funding, do you have a list you could provide?

All US states, including the District of Columbia are eligible to apply.

We are not using the YRBS and won't be able to report on that particular evaluation-are we ineligible to apply for this grant?

If the state receives YRBS funding they are required to provide these data via YRBS. If the state does not receive YRBS funding, then yes a state surveillance system currently in place is acceptable.

The template is in Calibri 10 in some places and Calibri 12 in other places and does not have one inch margins. The NOFO guidance states that we should use 12 point font, one inch margins and to number all pages. Do we use the template as is or do we modify it to meet the requirements?

You may modify the template so that it is all in Calibri 12 font.  No specific work plan format is required, as long as it is clear how the components in the work plan crosswalk to the strategies and activities, outcomes, and evaluation and performance measures presented in the logic model and the narrative sections of the NOFO.

Are we required to use the opening page of the work plan template as shown in the screenshot below or can we appropriate label the work plan in the header and footer of the document? Using this page will take up one whole page of the 15 page limit for the Project Narrative.

You may change the opening page of the work plan.  The work plan cover page does not count toward the 15 page limit.

Are the Year 1 Activity Descriptions for each of the three strategies as shown in the work plan template just examples of what could be written or is the work plan template to remain as is with the Year 1 Activity Descriptions that are provided?

The work plan template and the information within it are examples.  There is no specific work plan template required.  The work plan should describe activities to be accomplished in the first year and high level work for subsequent years.

I would assume we would just include the Activity Descriptions for what we think we can get done in the first year of the grant. (Hiring staff, building and training the cadre, orientation training for priority schools, building the coalition.)

The NOFO states a “detailed work plan for the first year of the project and high-level work for subsequent years.”

Earlier this week an update on grants.gov was posted about the instructions to NOFO 1801 were modified. Is it possible to direct us to what was modified as we were not able to identify any changes in the announcement?

There was no modification to the NOFO.  An old version of the NOFO was removed from grants.gov, which caused the alert.

It is allowed for states to use their own surveillance tools to collect the long term measures identified in 1801 (as previously answered in a question we submitted), however, is it a requirement that the administration and collection of these data points happen on the same cycle/schedule as the YRBS in odd numbered years? Ultimately, is their flexibility in when these pieces of data are collected throughout the 5 year grant cycle?

While it is ideal that the administration and collection of data for long term measures happen on the same cycle/schedule as the YRBS, we understand that this may not always be feasible. States not using YRBS will be expected to submit data as frequently as YRBS data are submitted during the funding period. The specific cycle/schedule for administration and collection should be proposed in the application.

Page 50 lists optional attachments and one that is listed is letters of support. So, does this mean we can also include LOS from other organizations/agencies, in addition to the LOS required from the priority LEAs?

Yes.

For the grants.gov submission, I downloaded all of the required documents. For the Project Abstract Summary, there is only one box to complete. So, do we include the abstract for both Priorities in the same box, or do you have to fill out a separate form for each priority?

Yes, include both Priorities in the same text box. You may attach a separate abstract as an attachment (page 49).  If applying for more than one priority area, a separate project abstract, project narrative, work plan, and budget narrative must be submitted with the application forms.

The margins and font size are specific for the narrative, but does the 12 point font and 1 inch margin also apply to the work plan? The sample on your website is a smaller font size, so we weren’t sure.

You may modify the template so that it is all in Calibri 12 font.  No specific work plan format is required, as long as it is clear how the components in the work plan crosswalk to the strategies and activities, outcomes, and evaluation and performance measures presented in the logic model and the narrative sections of the NOFO.

If the budget narrative includes contracts, does that amount need to be broken down into specifics since it is a contract?

Yes- Approval by CDC to utilize funds and initiate program activities through the services of a contractor requires the submission of the following information for each contract to CDC:

  1. Name of Contractor: Identify the name of the proposed contractor and indicate whether the contract is with an institution or organization.
  2. Method of Selection: State whether the contract is sole source or competitive bid. If an organization is the sole source for the contract, include an explanation as to why this institution is the only one able to perform contract services.
  3. Period of Performance: Specify the beginning and ending dates of the contract.
  4. Scope of Work: Describe the specific services/tasks to be performed by the contractor and relate them to the accomplishment of program objectives. Deliverables should be clearly defined.
  5. Method of Accountability: Describe how the progress and performance of the contactor will be monitored during and on close of the contract period. Identify who will be responsible for supervising the contract.
  6. Itemized Budget and Justification: Provide and itemized budget with appropriate justification. If applicable, include any indirect cost paid under the contract and the indirect cost rate used.

If the information described above is not known at the time the application is submitted, the information may be submitted later as a revision to the budget. Copies of the actual contracts should not be sent to CDC, unless specifically requested. In the body of the budget request, a summary should be provided of the proposed contacts and amounts for each.

For the baseline data points of the outcomes that is included on the last page of the work plan templates, is it allowable to put TBD since we may not have a baseline specific to that outcome?

Yes, for baseline data points it is appropriate to indicate TBD if data for specific outcomes are unknown.

Should the Table of Contents include page numbers? Meaning do the page numbers for each document (narrative, work plan, budget narrative) need to be continuous, or does each document start with page 1?

It is up to the discretion of the applicant.

I imagine for many states new positions can be challenging to get approved. We are starting the process now but likely will not know the answer for several weeks. May we apply for the grant saying as such? That we have started the approval process but are unsure of the outcome at this time?

The applicant can describe the process of how it will fill a full-time staff position(s) if those positions are not yet filled.

Can you confirm that we do not have to secure Letters of Support from agencies and organizations that support our work? I have had a couple of offers from our stakeholders to write a Letter of Support and they are questioning me when I tell them it is not a required document.

Letters of support are optional attachments.

I need the same confirmation on the Resumes/CV.

Resumes/CVs are optional attachments.

Is the CDC going to give us data for the 5-10 targeted LEAs?

The CDC’s School Health Profiles and the Youth Risk Behavior Survey are two of the primary data sources for outcomes under this cooperative agreement. Grantees who receive CDC funding to conduct School Health Profiles and the Youth Risk Behavior Survey will be expected to collect subsample data in their 5 – 10 targeted LEAs. After each cycle of data collection grantees will receive a report with data for their subsample of 5 – 10 LEAs.

If so, since we need to focus on 5-10 LEAs, will CDC give us the data just for the selected LEAs with YRBS data like they did for our current grant? If we select charter schools, would they be able to give us YRBS just for the charter schools?

Grantees that receive CDC funding to conduct the Youth Risk Behavior Survey will be expected to collect subsample data in their 5 – 10 targeted LEAs. After each cycle of data collection grantees will receive a single report with data for their entire subsample of 5 – 10 LEAs.  A separate report will not be prepared for charter schools.

Does the MOU with the health department have to include ONLY components for this grant? Or can it include other related components?

It can include other related components.

Priority 1: Page 8, NOFO: Intermediate Outcomes. Priority 1: Increased percentage of schools that provide case management for students with chronic health conditions. Which question on the School Health Profiles is this outcome aligned too?

This is going to be a new question, 38n, for Profiles 2018 (principal questionnaire).

Priority 1: Page 30, NOFO: Please define “component.” Application states: Project Description that the components share with each other, which may include target population, inclusion, collaboration, etc.); and up to 4 additional pages per component for Project Narrative subsections that are specific to each component.

The component is N/A for this NOFO.

Priority 1: Page 7, Work plan template: What do you mean by “Current Year Target” and “Notes Field?”

Current year needs to reflect the specific year you are implementing strategies and activities for; for example, for a year 1 work plan, current year target should reflect the # or % you aim to accomplish at year end (i.e., your target). The “notes field” can be used to clarify any item within the work plan fields/information. For example, if you wanted to add the data source or data collection methodology, you could add that in the “notes field.”

Please provide guidance on the Clear Communication Index, on pg. 30 of the NOFO. Are we to use this guidance?

Federal plain language guidelines and the Clear Communication Index should be used to develop public communication materials developed under this NOFO. The application itself does not require these tools.

Does the 15-page limit include the evaluation and performance management plan?

Project Narrative- 15 page limit, includes work plan, evaluation and performance measurement plan.  As identified in the Evaluation and Performance Measurement section, applications must include a Data Management Plan as part of their evaluation and performance management plan. A separate project narrative should be developed for Priority 1 and Priority 2, if applying for both. If you are applying for Priority 1, that would be a 15 page limit.  If you are applying for Priority 2, that would be a separate 15 page limit.

Is the budget for Year 1 only?

Yes.

Can 1801 grant funds be used for promotion of our grant activities through social media and digital advertising?

Yes. Use of technology to increase the efficiency of communication, dissemination of information, and to support training, program implementation, and evaluation is one of the NOFO activities.

Could you confirm which document is to go into the Mandatory Attachment file on the grants.gov Workspace?

A project abstract is included on the mandatory documents list and must be submitted at www.grants.gov. A separate project abstract should be developed for Priority 1 and Priority 2, if applying for both. You should include the Project Abstract Summary for Priority 1 in the text box and upload the Project Abstract Summary for Priority 2 (if applying for Priority 2) as an optional attachment labeled appropriately. The Project Abstract, Project Narrative, and Budget Narrative are acceptable attachments.

According to what I have read in the guidance the mandatory attachments would be the MOA with the Dept. of Health and the LOS from the LEAs.

Priority 1 applicants are required to submit a MOA with their State Health Department. Priority 1 SEAs must submit Letters of Support (LOS) from each of the LEAs they plan to work with and can be attached as an optional attachment.

I am not seeing the ability to attach more than one document.

Please reach out to grants.gov for tech support.

Have you been able to confirm the page limit?

Project Narrative- 15 page limit, includes work plan, evaluation and performance measurement plan.  As identified in the Evaluation and Performance Measurement section, applications must include a Data Management Plan as part of their evaluation and performance management plan. A separate project narrative should be developed for Priority 1 and Priority 2, if applying for both. If you are applying for Priority 1, that would be a 15 page limit.  If you are applying for Priority 2, that would be a separate 15 page limit.

Do you prefer the LOS from the LEAs all be in one pdf document or is it best to keep the LOS in separate pdf documents?

One PDF document is preferred.

Would the CDC 1801 grant assist in paying to have a greenhouse/hydroponic system installed in a district or assist with staff to oversee such a system?

No.  Recipients may not use funds for construction.

If the greenhouse/hydroponic system is already up and running, could the grant assist by paying staff to monitor it during off hours and weekends?

The installation and management of a greenhouse/hydroponic system is not a strategy or activity identified in the NOFO.

Can funds from 1801 be used to over-sample the YRBS in order to administer the survey in our priority LEAs?

Yes, funds from 1801 can be used to over-sample YRBS.

Are there restrictions on what LEAs could use grant funds for?

Please see page 36 of the NOFO: #15 “Funding Restrictions”.

How do I know if my application was successfully submitted on grants.gov? (Thought we should add this to the FAQ, b/c for 1601 we had an NGO who thought they successfully submitted and did not get a receipt confirmation from grants.gov- ok to add?)

Upon successfully uploading and submitting your application to grants.gov, you will receive a receipt of what was successfully uploaded and submitted.  If you do not receive receipt, please contact grants.gov.

The guidance regarding the Data Management Plan states uses the terms "public health data." In reference to the 1801 grant what is included in the definition of public health data? Is that only YRBS or School Health Profiles? Would data on where professional development training takes place and the number of attendees be included "public health data"? Also what about survey data that measures the knowledge and skills obtained from participating in professional development? Please advise as to what is included in the definition of "public health data."

Yes, public health data refers to any data collected for the purposes of this cooperative agreement to meet performance measure and evaluation reporting, including surveillance data (e.g., YRBS and School Health Profiles), professional development training data, and survey data that measures knowledge and skills.

Looking at the Review and Selection Process, pages 38-40, I don’t see where the work plan is scored. Am I missing something?

The work plan is a part of the narrative which is scored and it is reflected throughout the approach, evaluation and performance measurement, and applicant’s organizational capacity to implement the approach.

On the conference call, it was mentioned that the logic model is not required, is this correct?

Correct, the logic model is not required.

Confusion on font for the work plan, is the requirement Calibri 12 or can we use font size 10, 9, 8, 7, 6? I do understand that we can modify the format.

While the NOFO states text should be 12 point font, 10 point font is acceptable.

For the Intermediate outcomes as indicated by the work plan, the NOFO states that these outcomes will be collected using existing surveillance systems. Current and 2018 School Health Profiles do not align exactly with the Intermediate Outcome measures. What data source, or question from Profiles do we use to get baseline data to answer this metric?

The intermediate outcomes do align with Profiles. For Priority 1, the three performance measures are captured by questions on the 2018 School Health Profiles, Principal Questionnaire;·Percentage of schools that do not sell less healthy foods and beverages (soda pop or fruit drinks, sport drinks, baked goods, salty snacks, candy). (Q 30); Percentage of schools that have established, implemented and/or evaluated CSPAP. (A composite for this measure is currently being developed, but will include questions from the 2018 Profiles on the various components of a CSPAP.) ; Percentage of schools that provide case management for students with chronic health conditions. (Q38, N)

The last page of the work plan template includes tables for each of the Short-, Intermediate-, and Long-Term Outcomes with places for Baseline, Current Year Target, 5 Year Target, and Notes. Is the expectation that this will be included as part of the submitted work plan? Or is this something that can be developed once awarded?

Yes, it is expected that the baseline, current year target (which would be year 1) and 5 year target would be included. Use the “notes” section for any details you’d like to add.

Is it sufficient to state in the application that a DMP (including all required components) will be developed in the Comprehensive Evaluation and Performance Measurement Plan that is due within the first 6 months of the funding?

In the context of the Project Narrative 15 page limit, the DMP should include details about how performance measure data will be collected and analyzed, and how evaluation plan data will be collected and reported. A DMP for each collection and/or generation of public health data funded by this award should include the following information:

  • A description of the data to be collected or generated in the proposed project;
  • Standards to be used for the collected or generated data;
  • Mechanisms for or limitations to providing access to and sharing of the data (include a description of provisions for the protection of privacy, confidentiality, security, intellectual property, or other rights). This section should address access to identifiable and de-identified data;
  • Statement of the use of data standards that ensure all released data have appropriate documentation that describes the method of collection, what the data represent, and potential limitations for use;
  • Plans for archiving and long-term preservation of the data, or explaining why long-term preservation and access are not justified. This section should address archiving and preservation of identifiable and de-identified data.

With support from CDC, recipients will be able to elaborate on their initial applicant evaluation and performance measurement plan, which includes the DMP, 6 months into the award.

As we are trying to make decisions about which districts to reach-out to for the grant, we have been looking at districts' past data, commitment to wellness, and capacity. Many of our districts are very limited in their school nursing capacity. If one of the goals of this grant is to build the evidence-base, would it make sense to have districts in varying degrees of capacity? We have identified districts that have good engagement with many of the components of the WSCC model, but have extremely limited school nursing capacity. Would we be dinged if we chose to work with some of them?

While it is at the discretion of the applicant what LEAs to select, applicants should ensure that data, including burden data, are used to select LEAs and schools located in areas disproportionately affected by chronic diseases and the risk factors that cause them. Emphasis should be placed on child and adolescent populations that have a high prevalence of overweight or obesity, have limited access to healthy foods and beverages, do not obtain adequate physical activity, who lack access to care for consistent and appropriate management of chronic health conditions, and who lack access to quality, healthy out of school time programs. Applicants will address health disparities by working with LEAs and schools located in areas disproportionately impacted by chronic disease and the risk factors that cause them. Emphasis should be placed on areas with high rates of poverty, racial/ethnic minorities, and populations living in rural/urban areas.

How do we do references? We don’t see an attachment for references and if we do put it in as an attachment, is that acceptable? If we keep it as part of our document, does it count against the 15 pages? Or do we put them in as footnotes, or reference the source in the text?

References are not listed as an acceptable attachment and will be counted as part of the 15 page narrative allotment.

Should the budget narrative document include just year one or all five years of the project?

The budget narrative should be for year one.

We anticipate our year one budget will be less than our budget in subsequent project years due to increased staffing costs and implementation of grant activities as the project progresses. If funded, will we receive the same amount of funds in years 2-5 as we do in year one or will we be able to submit a yearly budget that captures the costs for each year?

We anticipate funding grantees in years 2-5 at a comparable level to year 1; however final awards are always dependent on availability of funds.

We are in need of clarification on the 100% FTE. Yes, 100% FTE should be quite clear, but in our situation I need to clarify. As on page 20 of the RFA it states that we must have a program director/coordinator capable of handling the requirements of the program (100% FTE). Does this mean, that person must abandon all other duties included in their job description to meet this requirement?

The 100% FTE (one individual) should serve as project director and be devoted to carrying out the activities of the cooperative agreement.

Do we need a letter of support, letter of commitment, or any other documentation from the professional evaluators to include with our grant application?

You may include a letter of support from your evaluator, but it is not required.

In looking over the budget section….It seems to use “budget” and “budget narrative” interchangeably. Are both of these terms referring the same excel document? Or is the “budget” referring to the Excel and there is a separate ‘budget narrative’?

The budget narrative includes your itemized budget. You may use any template you would like to itemize your budget.

Regarding activities around employee health, could funds support the improvement of employee wellness/health assessments (i.e. improvement in blood pressure measurement and control) or enhancing CPR training and the purchase of training materials for staff? We see the activity around supporting the use of the School Health Index but were unsure if funds could be used to support any outcomes/priorities that come from using the index in terms of improving health assessments or trainings.

Please see page 36 of the NOFO: #15 “Funding Restrictions”.

We are working under the direction of an interim superintendent and the department is going through personnel changes every day. We are required to route any MOU/MOA though the department prior to sending it to another state agency. With the personnel changes it takes over 3 weeks to route for signatures through our department and then another 2 weeks to get it routed through the Department of Public Health. All this being said, the MOU will not be completed by the grant submission deadline. Both departments are in agreement that should if we receive grant funding that a portion of the money will be shared with Public Health, in fact the amount has been agreed on in the wording of the MOU. Would it be possible to send an official letter stating that there is a MOU with the grant application until we finally get the document with all signatures?

The MOA is required to be submitted as described below. There is also the list of items that should be included in the MOA, of which “counter-signatures for both parties by authorized representatives” is included. The MOA is addressed in the Phase II review criteria under Approach as “The extent to which the applicant submitted a MOA with the appropriate State Health Department outlining collaborative activities and data sharing”. Based on this language, applicants will need to submit a MOA as a required document and address the items that should be included as best as they are able. Priority 1 SEAs are expected to direct part of their award to the State Health Department to support staff positions and activities associated with the NOFO. Priority 1 applicants are required to submit a MOA with their State Health Department outlining collaborative activities and data sharing expectations. The MOA must be detailed, specific, binding, and outline who, what, where and when. The MOA should include:

  • Names of agencies entering the agreement.
  • An effective date range that spans the length of the proposed project.
  • Commitment of the State Health Department to work with the SEA and other collaborative partners to address program requirements and implement project activities, delineating specific roles in achieving the goals of the NOFO.
  • Commitment to work collaboratively to: (1) Assess the needs and existing capacity to achieve goals; (2) Select and implement activities described in the NOFO; (3) Share relevant surveillance data and other risk factor data; (4) Monitor implementation progress; (5) Participate in meetings and conference calls with SEA and CDC as appropriate.
  • Commitment of the SEA to work with the State Health Department to address project requirements, including the designation of point(s) of contact.
  • While this is not a contract, the budget and justification should be outlined along with deliverables/services to be provided.
  • Counter-signatures for both parties by authorized representatives.

We have had a very strong partnership with the Department of Public Health for 11 years, partner with them on many projects, and have current projects going on now with plans for future endeavors. I met with the Health Department representatives several weeks ago to word our MOU. We have every bullet covered in the MOU requirements. The problem is that because of our routing process between the two agencies is that the MOU will not have the required signatures by the due date. All this being said based on your email that without the MOU completely signed that we will be able to apply for the grant, correct?

Yes, if you apply, please submit the required MOA completed to the extent that you are able.

We were unable to attend the conference call on January 25th. Is this recorded so we could view it?

A recording of the DP18-1801 Informational Call for School Health NOFO can be accessed through the following phone numbers:
Toll Free Phone Number: (866) 401-3136
Replay Toll Phone Number: +1 (203) 280-0413

We also had a few additional questions pertaining to the grant and was hoping to set up a phone call this week to get some clarification.

Due to the competitive nature of this NOFO, we are unable to provide individual assistance to interested applicants. Please refer to the FAQs posted at https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/about/foa/healthystudents/faq.htm. If you are unable to find answers to your questions, please email Melissa Fahrenbruch.

On the web page it states several times that the work plan is included in the 15 page narrative as well as on page 30 of the NOFO. On the conference call I thought it was stated that the work plan was not a part of the Project Narrative.

To clarify, the Project Narrative has a 15 page limit and includes the work plan, evaluation and performance measurement plan.

Are there any examples of prior grant applications submitted that I may view as a reference?

Due to the competitive nature of the NOFO and grant application propriety, we are unable to provide any examples to be used as a reference.

Does the CDC already have a data collection system to collect all data or are you planning to build that out internally?

The primary data sources for the intermediate and long-term performance measures for CDC-RFA-DP18-1801 will be CDC’s existing surveillance systems, specifically School Health Profiles and the Youth Risk Behavior Survey.

If the narrative includes embedded tables of data, may that data be in a legible font smaller than 12 pt? Also, while Calibri has been prepopulated in the Work Plan, is there a required font for the project narrative?

The Project Narrative text font size should be 12 point, however there is no font size requirement specified in the NOFO for embedded tables. In addition, there is no specific font style, e.g., Calibri, Times New Roman, requirement.

Are we allowed you use 1801 funds to supply LEAs/schools with mini-grants to help improve their school nutrition environment, etc.?

Subawards to subrecipients to support the planning, implementation, and evaluation of the strategies and activities within the NOFO are allowable. The primary recipient of the award (SEA) is accountable for the performance of the project, program, or activity and the appropriate expenditure of funds under the award by all parties.

How many national professional development events should we budget for if we are applying for Priority 2?

Applicants applying for Priority 2 should budget for two national professional development events.

Our state department of education does not have the physical space, infrastructure, and other resources at this time to add a 1.0 FTE to our headcount. Is it permissible to give just the funds for the 1.0 FTE to the state health department if they have someone who can handle the coordination in collaboration with an existing, part time FTE at the SEA?

This NOFO is limited to State Education Agencies (SEAs) Sufficient staffing levels within the SEA that have the necessary skills and competence to ensure project success. This includes a program coordinator/manager (100% FTE) within the SEA with the skills, experience and authority to carry out the activities identified in the work plan. The program coordinator/manager should have the ability to manage programs and resources ensuring the administrative, financial, and staff support necessary to sustain activities, distribute funding to subcontractors/grantees in a timely manner, and hire or contract with skilled personnel.

Another question, if the above one is no, Why is it not possible to have two half time positons to oversee this project? We find that a program person and a budget/fiscal person is the best combination?

The 100% FTE (one individual) should serve as project director and be devoted to carrying out the activities of the cooperative agreement. It is also a part of the Review and Selection process under the “Applicant’s Organizational Capacity to Implement the Approach” – The extent to which the applicant describes their staffing levels within the SEA and their skills and competence to ensure project success. This includes having a program coordinator/manager (100% FTE) within the SEA with the skills, experience and authority to carry out the activities identified in the work plan.

In addition to the Tier 1 performance measures, does CDC expect the applicants to identify any other performance measures and associated baselines (as part of the proposal and/or as part of the detailed Performance Measurement plan due within the first six months of the award or both) that could be collected locally and reported annually?

The performance measures listed in the NOFO are the only required performance measures for this cooperative agreement. No additional performance measures and associated baselines are required.

How can we report on performance measures annually since several of them will be collected through YRBS and School Health Profiles that are not conducted annually? For instance we are currently conducting the 2018 School Health Profiles in Oklahoma. It will be conducted in 2020 next time and the data will not be available until 2021 (3rd year of 1801).

Performance measure data and evaluation results are required to be reported annually. CDC’s surveillance data are available biennially and will be reported as they are available. For years where new surveillance data are not available, the previous year’s data will be reported, if available.

Could you please elaborate on this statement? Does that mean CDC will be able to provide surveillance data on those 5-10 LEAs that are expected to be selected by the Priority 1 SEAs? What would that surveillance data entail; school level (like School Health Profiles) or student level (like YRBS) or both? And how frequently it will be reported; annually or biennially (like state level YRBS and School Health Profiles)?

Surveillance data collection of School Health Profiles and the Youth Risk Behavior Survey is supported by the CDC’s Division of Adolescent and School Health (CDC-RFA-PS18-1807). 1801 grantees are encouraged to apply for this funding to support surveillance data collection. 1801 grantees that are also funded to collect data via School Health Profiles and the Youth Risk Behavior Survey will be able to collect subsample data in their targeted 5 – 10 LEAs. This will result in the availability of statewide and subsample surveillance data. School Health Profiles and the Youth Risk Behavior Surveys are conducted biennially (Profiles in even-numbered years and YRBS in odd-numbered years).

If applying for priority 2, are we responsible for covering the travel cost of the other 19 states attendees to the national trainings?

Yes. You will be responsible for delivering up to two, in person, professional development and training events annually that bring together state teams which include covering Priority 1 travel costs.

I know that the work plan can have a 10pt font. If an evaluation plan or other table is inserted is a 10 pt font allowable there as well?

Yes, you may use 10pt. font for the evaluation plan.

Is it required to provide the name of the Program Evaluator in the grant application? Or can we put TBD?

You may list your program evaluator as TBD.

Are sub recipient (LEA) agreements included in the budget under Other or Contracts?

If it is an official contract, it should be listed under contracts.

I am seeking clarification about the 15-page project narrative limit. I see in the FAQs that this includes the work plan, evaluation, and performance measurement plan. If our state chooses to use the work plan template, does this cover the strategies and activities section, collaboration section, and target populations and disparities section, or do these all need to be described separately from the work plan? Also, from reading through the FAQs it appears that we should modify the work plan to include the 1” margins, but that we can use either 10 or 12 Calibri font.

The work plan integrates and delineates more specifically how the recipient plans to carry out achieving the period of performance outcomes, strategies and activities, evaluation and performance measurement. The project narrative includes the project description that the components share with each other, which may include target population, inclusion, collaboration, etc. You may use either 10 or 12 point font for the work plan.

Does it state how many from each priority 1 states will attend the priority 2 professional developments? Asking this question to work on the budget for priority 2.

For budgetary purposes, the applicant should estimate 19 states, 3 people per state for Priority 1.

Does CDC want 1801 grantees to exclusively focus on these questions or they are just some sample questions to give an idea around different evaluation questions possibilities? Also, are the evaluation questions going to focus on assessing state wide impact of 1801 strategies or the selected 5-10 LEAs or both? Essentially, I mean to ask if CDC expects us to have state level questions as well as selected LEA level questions.

The evaluation questions presented in the NOFO are the questions CDC intends to answer by the conclusion of the cooperative using performance measure and evaluation data. While these topics may likely be of interest to grantees, grantees are not expected to focus on these specific evaluation questions. Instead grantees are encouraged to identify evaluation questions that address their needs to better understand their implementation activities and help them assess their progress and impact. Evaluation questions should reflect work at both the state (statewide) and local level (targeted 5 – 10 LEAs).

We are trying to submit the 1801 grant and we are wondering how to prepare the document for Duplication of Efforts. It says in the NOFO on page 28 and 29 the applicant must upload the report in Grants.gov under Other Attached Forms. We don’t know how to do this report, is there a template? On page 50, the Report on Programmatic, Budgetary and Commitment Overlap is one of the required attachments. We understand what it means. We need some guidance on how to do the form?

There is not a standard template. You may report this in whatever form you choose.

Our state has a large public school system that will be one of our 5 LEAs. How will be able to manage this project in a majority of the schools in the district? There are more than 300.

This is at your discretion. While activities are expected to be implemented statewide, each SEA will select between 5 and 10 Local Education Agencies (LEAs) with which to prioritize their work. SEAs should work with the majority of schools within these LEAs at the elementary, middle, and high school levels.

If a school system has its own SHI type of assessment tool, is use of the SHI instead required?

The CDC School Health Index tool is the preferred tool, however, it is not required.

I contacted CDC Office of Grant Services and they provided me with an example of a budget narrative. The example included a category for consultants, which is how I prepared my budget. However, the category consultants isn’t listed on the Grants.gov Budget information page that we are required to complete. Do I move the consulting costs to a different category on grants.gov? If so, do I also need to revise the budget narrative?

Consultant Costs is interchangeable with “contracts”. If contracts is a category, you may put your consultant costs there. If not, you may use the “other” category.

Is Calibri font acceptable? If not, please state the required font.

Yes, you may use Calibri font.

Is it allowable to have an appendix with acronyms? Given the limited pages we would like to use acronyms for state and national partners without spelling them out within the Project Narrative, e.g. ASHA verses American School Health Association. We would also include acronyms we use throughout the document even though we spell them out the first time.

Yes, you may have an appendix with acronyms. This is acceptable, as long as it is clear in the narrative.

I read the definitions for “grant” and “cooperative agreement” in the glossary; I understand they are not the same thing, however, when used in the application are they considered interchangeable terms?

Yes, the terms grant and cooperative agreement can be used interchangeably in the application.

 Top of Page
TOP