Call Script for Funding for Prevention Resource Centers CDC-RFA-DP-24-004 Informational Webinar

Informational Webinar Call Script:
Informational Webinar for the next cycle of Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Research Centers (CDC-RFA-DP-24-004).Pre-application Informational Webinar: April 26, 2023, 1:00-2:30 PM Eastern Time.

NOFO RFA-DP-24-004 CORRECTION
During the April 26th PRC NOFO Informational Webinar CDC incorrectly stated that the evaluation plan is to be developed and submitted as part of the application.

CORRECTION
An evaluation plan is not required as part of the application. The application should include and describe an evaluation approach that engages the CAB in utilization-focused process and outcome evaluation planning and implementation throughout the five-year cycle. The evaluation approach does count towards the 25-page limit for the research strategy.

Jason Lang: Good morning and good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for joining us for the Health, Promotion and Disease Prevention Research Centers Notice of Funding Opportunity, pre-application informational webinar. A few housekeeping details before I turn it over to our Moderator this afternoon. We are recording this meeting. Attendees will be muted for the duration of the webinar this afternoon.

For technical assistance, please use the chat function. You may send your technical assistance question to the hosts and panelists only. We will have a. Q and A portion at the end of today’s presentation, and we will exclusively be using the Question and Answer box that you will find in your Zoom settings.

So, for questions about the NOFO, please type them into this Q&A box.

You will also be able to upvote others’ questions by clicking on the thumbs up item in the Q&A tab. So, if you have a question that is similar or the same to one that has already been asked by another attendee, please upvote that, and it will rise to the top of the queue for our panelists to address.

We do have automated captioning available through Zoom. You can use the more feature to click captioning to enable that.
We also have put into the chat box a live third-party captioning stream, which you can similarly access.

We have disabled the raise hand function for this afternoon’s webinar. Again, please type all your questions directly into the Q&A box. We would also like folks to remain anonymous when submitting questions, so please do not include your name and or institution when submitting a question. And finally, please do not submit any questions about a specific project proposal and whether it is responsive to the NOFO or not, we will not be able to answer any of those questions directly. So with that I’m going to turn it over to Jaya Raman, the Director of the Extramural Research Program Operations and Services Group to welcome us and get us started.

Jaya Raman: Thank you, Jason, and welcome everyone and thank you for your interest in this Notice of Funding opportunity for the Prevention Research Centers Program. In the interest of time, I’m quickly going to walk you through what this webinar will be covering. We will be going through each section of the funding opportunity itself. With each presenter talking to you about a specific section. First will be Brigette Ulin, who will be providing us an overview of the funding opportunity and what this opportunity is about, Brigette.

Brigette Ulin: Welcome. And again, thank you for joining us today and for your interest in this Notice of Funding Opportunity, which I’ll refer to as NOFO for short RFA DP 24 004 Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Research Centers. Today I’ll provide a high-level overview of sections, one and two from the funding opportunity announcement. My presentation highlights key information but does not cover everything so be sure to read through the entire NOFO for all application, instructions and requirements. Next slide.

Congress established the Prevention Research Centers Program in 1984 to undertake research and demonstration projects in health, promotion, disease, prevention, and to serve as demonstration sites for the use of new and innovative research to prevent chronic disease. CDC administers the Prevention Research Centers Program and provides leadership, technical assistance, and oversight of the PRC Network.

For over three decades PRCs have been at the forefront of engaging community members and partners in equitable and participatory prevention research, building understanding of health problems that center local knowledge and lived experiences. The resulting evidence base has allowed PRCs to design and effectively implement prevention research and sustain and scale up public health programs and interventions. PRC projects have impacted public health through efforts to improve improved public health practice, create healthy communities and eliminate health disparities. PRCs have worked with local communities to develop tests and evaluate solutions to public health problems, and the solutions developed by PRCs are intended to be applied widely, especially in populations affecting affected by health disparities. In addition to creating healthier communities. PRCs have also increased the skills and capacities of the public health workforce. Next slide.

This NOFO’s main purpose is to accelerate the translation dissemination and implementation of evidence-based public health interventions, that address chronic disease prevention and health promotion priorities, among communities to advance health equity. Public health practitioners need feasible evidence-based interventions that are ready to be put into practice with guidance and resources for effective implementation. Funded PRCs will use equitable and participatory evidence-based community-engaged approaches to fill critical gaps in chronic disease prevention and health promotion research, identify effective strategies to reduce or eliminate health disparities and health inequities, address translation gaps between research and public health practice through development of translation, products, and support for partners and community members to adopt and use translation products to implement EBIs in their communities and facilitate adoption and effective implementation of EBIs to contribute to widespread, sustained, and scaled up use of EBIs to improve health equity and population health. And lastly, contribute to the collective impact of the PRC Network in advancing health equity focused public health prevention, research, policy, and practice. Next slide.

The PRC project activities funded under this cooperative agreement are divided into three components: PRC Center, PRC Core Research Project, and PRC Network. Applicants are expected to address all three components in their application. Applicants should allocate thirty percent of the funding to support the PRC Center component activity. They should allocate sixty percent of funding to support the PRC Core Research Project component activities. Applicants should allocate ten percent of the funding to support the PRC Network component activities. These percentages should include direct and indirect costs. Refer to the NOFO implementation timeline on page 25 to 27 of the NOFO for the expectations for completion of all three of these component activities. During the next several slides, I’ll review the approach and expectations for each of these components separately. Next slide.

Funded PRCs will establish and maintain a multidisciplinary Prevention Research Center that conducts high quality, applied health promotion and disease prevention health research.

The PRC Center component activities should be aligned with the PRC Core Research topic.

And furthermore, the PRC Center’s Infrastructure’s main purpose should be to support the capacity necessary to complete the Core Research Project and the associated dissemination and translation activities. All center activities, including the Core Research Project, should focus on communities who are experiencing high levels of health disparities or health inequities. PRCs will also maintain one Community Advisory Board throughout the entire project period of the award that will be engaged in all components of this NOFO. Refer to the NOFO for more information about the requirements for the Community Advisory Board. Next.

Each PRC will conduct applied prevention and health promotion public health research including but not limited to the PRC Core Research Project. PRCs will engage the Community Advisory Board and other partners to inform all prevention research projects. PRCs will build capacity in the public health workforce to conduct prevention research and PRCs will communicate information about PRC activities to intended audiences.

The next several slides will cover the approach and expectations for the PRC Core Research Project.

This is a major activity for each PRC to complete one Core Research Project. The Core Research Project is focused on dissemination and implementation research, using evidence-based interventions. Definitions of dissemination and implementation research can be found on page 9 of the NOFO. D&I Core Research Projects should focus on EBIs that address chronic disease prevention and health promotion priority topics among populations experiencing high levels of health disparities and health inequities. This NOFO will not support etiological research or efficacy research. Next.

Each PRC is expected to complete one D&I PRC Core Research Project. PRCs should engage community members throughout the PRC Core Research Project. The PRC should develop and sustain partnerships with national, regional, state and or local organizations as appropriate to carry out the Core Research Project. At least one partnership with a State, local, tribal or Territorial Health Department is required for the Core Research Project. PRCs will disseminate the Core Research Project’s approaches, methods, tools, products, lessons learned, and findings to community public health practitioners and academic audiences. PRCs are expected to translate the Core Research Project to facilitate adoption and implementation of EBIs into public health practice.
In the next three slides I will review appendix one in more detail. Each PRC Is expected again to complete one D&I PRC Core Research Project from the list of chronic disease prevention priorities included in Appendix one that I will also show on the next slide. Applicants should refer to Appendix one to select one chronic disease prevention priority from the list of seventeen. They should also select at least one population of interest for the priority selected and select at least one implementation science gap for the priority selected. Applicants may select one evidence-based intervention from Appendix one or applicants may choose to provide evidence of effectiveness in their application, or an EBI that is proposed if it is not listed in Appendix one.

This slide again re-emphasizes that each PRC is expected to complete one D&I PRC Core Research Project from this list of seventeen chronic disease prevention priorities in Appendix One. This slide will–and I will walk you through this again one more time. It provides the first page of Appendix one to recap what I just covered. Applicants to select one chronic disease prevention priority list from the seventeen. Here you can see the first two in the Green Box. Next.

Applicants should then select at least one priority population of interest for the priority selected here. Those are highlighted in yellow. So, for the first priority, you can see there is only one priority population option, however, for the second there are four, and at least one of those four must be selected.

Applicants should then select at least one implementation science gap for the corresponding priorities, and those are highlighted in purple. And last, applicants may again select one evidence-based intervention from those in the Appendix here shown in the red boxes or they may choose to provide evidence of effectiveness in your application for an EBI that is not listed in Appendix one. Next.

The next few slides I’ll cover the approach and expectations for the PRC Network component PRCs will be expected to actively participate in the PRC Network and collaborate with other PRCs and CDC staff. The network of PRCs will implement a collective impact approach to leverage the expertise, partnerships, and leaderships of funded PRCs in the network. For the purposes of this NOFO, five conditions will contribute to achieving collective impact. The first is a strong network backbone support system for the PRC Network. This backbone will be made up of CDC PRC program staff and funded PRC representatives nominated from within the network. The backbone will support the remaining four conditions of collective impact which are a common agenda, a mutually reinforcing plan of action to bring the agenda to fruition, shared measurement of progress and continuous communication within the network. Next.

Expectations for the PRC Network component include participation in PRC Network activities, including but not limited to working groups, committees, meetings, and conferences to share information, resources and inform Network-wide decisions and collaboration with the PRCs in the network to advance the Core Research Projects and other PRC Prevention research projects as appropriate. Next.

PRCs are required to report data and information to the CDC to support program monitoring and evaluation activities for accountability and program improvement. CDC’s program monitoring is focused on recipient inputs, activities, and outputs and CDC’s program evaluation is focused on understanding and demonstrating program processes and outcomes. Recipients will report data and information through collection systems shown on this slide for different monitoring and evaluation purposes. CDC will provide more information about monitoring and evaluation post award. Next.

On the next few slides, I’ll review which plans are required with the application and which will be developed in the first year of the award, and I will also summarize the page limitations for the different application sections.

Applicants should include an intended or draft evaluation plan that describes an evaluation approach that engages the Community Advisory Board in the process and outcome evaluation planning and implementation throughout the five-year award cycle. Refer to page twenty-five for more information about what should be included in your application.

Funded PRCs will revise and further develop their evaluation plans within the first year of funding and will provide staff updates on the development and implementation of the plan in each year of their award. Applicants should include an annual action plan that details the action plan for the center, Core Research Project, and Network component activities for the first twelve months of the award.

Annual action plans will be updated annually by PRCs that are funded.

Additional information regarding requirements for the annual action plan are included in Appendix two. The annual action plan is limited to twenty pages in your application. Next.

PRCs will develop additional plans within the first year of their award, including first the Dissemination and Translation plan. This plan will describe the process and steps needed to ensure effective and widespread distribution of Core Research Project findings and maximize the impact of the research finance. The second is the Center Communications Plan which will promote the center, including skills, knowledge, and expertise of the PRC, or products and outline engagement strategies for partners. CDC will provide guidance on both of these plans post award.

This table summarizes the different section of the application that are that are listed in the NOFO with the page limits. It also lists with which sections may be submitted in the appendix of your application.

Additional information and instructions for each of these sections can be found on the corresponding page numbers of the NOFO noted on the slide. The Research Plan includes the introduction, specific aims, data management plan, and the research strategy.
The total number of pages permitted for the research strategy is twenty-five. This includes up to ten pages for the PRC Center component, up to twelve pages for the PRC Core Research Project component, and up to three pages of the PRC Network component. The Appendix should be no more than a total of ten Pdf Files and thirty pages total. CDC Presenter: The Action Plan may be included in the Appendix, if desired, and it should be no more than twenty pages.

Lastly, I want to summarize the award information for this NOFO that can be found on pages twenty-eight, and twenty-nine. This NOFO invites applications from eligible institutions to participate and collaborate in a network of Health Promotion and Disease Prevention research Centers (the PRC Network). The estimated total funding, including direct and indirect costs for the five-year cooperative agreement is one hundred million dollars. CDC anticipates funding up to twenty awards under this NOFO, with each award funded up to one million dollars, including direct and indirect costs per year for each year of performance. The estimated total funding again, including direct and indirect costs for all the awards for the first twelve-month budget period that will happen between September 30th2024 through September 29th, 2029, is twenty million dollars. With that I will turn it over to Natalie Darling, who is going to review the eligibility information.

Natalie Darling: Good afternoon. So, eligibility information is in section three of the NOFO and part three, entitled Additional Information on Eligibility, which we sometimes refer to especially. In accordance with section 1706 of the Public Health Services Act, academic health centers are eligible to apply for funding under this NOFO, and I want to explain what academic health centers are based on that above statute. These are Schools and Public Health, accredited by the Council on Education in Public Health or Schools of Public Health in the process of obtaining CEPH accreditation. Programs of public health are not eligible to apply funding under the NOFO. The other eligible institutions are Schools of Medicine or Osteopathy, accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education that offer an accredited preventive medicine residency program or are in the process of obtaining ACGME accreditation for a PMR program. Those are the only two eligible types of institutions to apply. Next one.

So, the next section is responsiveness, which is part five of section three. Eligible eligibility. Responsiveness is essentially the minimum criteria that an active must provide to be considered for this NOFO and for their application to be entered into the review process, so an application will be considered responsive to the NOFO if it meets the following requirements: complies with those eligibility requirements stated in the previous slide, the specific Aims section of the Research Plan lists the PRC Core Research Project Chronic Disease priority Category, one of seventeen from Appendix one Section on Slide thirteen. The application does not include theological or efficacy research. The NOFO will not support any of that research, and the proposed budget does not exceed the ceiling amount of one million dollars, which includes direct and indirect costs for the first twelve-month budget period, incomplete applications or applications that do not meet the responsiveness. Criteria outlined in this slide will be considered non-responsive to this novo and will not enter into the peer Review process.

Applicants will be notified if their application is deemed non-responsive. I’ll turn it over to the next presenter.

Sharon Cassell: Hello! I’ll be reviewing the key areas of the NOFO throughout the application process. Beginning with section two, highlights the award information which highlights the ceiling and other key information regarding funding. And, as Natalie mentioned, applications would be deemed not responsive if the proposed budget is greater than the ceiling, so we encourage you to pay close attention to the ceiling in the NOFO.

Section three. The eligibility section. This section allows you to ensure that you are listed as an eligible institution to apply to this announcement. Section Four covers the application submission of information. Applications are due no later than June 23rd, it must be submitted by 11:59PM Eastern standard time. All applications must be validated successfully by Grants Gov. By 11:59PM. No exceptions. Section Five discusses the application review information, and this covers the scored review criteria information section. Tips for preparing a budget and budget justification. All budgets should include a budget narrative and justification for each cost. All the costs for each budget category should be linked to the objectives outlined in your project. They should also be grouped together and subtotal by each budget category. In the announcement you’ll see the hyperlink to access the document for preparing your budget. There. it will list all the information that I just discussed in reference to the budget details and justification by cost category. There are some specific documents that are required to accommodate your application. One being an indirect cost rate agreement, if such cost is identified in your budget, and the risk assessment form is also required. CDC is required to conduct risk assessments for all applicants to determine whether they pose a risk to the Federal applications and Federal awards. Next slide.

Once you submit your application, the AOR will receive three notification emails from grants.gov the first confirmation of receipt of your application that Grants.gov has received your application. The second is a validation status email which says that your application has passed the validation process and has been forwarded to the agency. If errors were determined, this is where you would receive your notification about those errors, and they should already address prior to resubmitting your application. In the event those errors are not addressed, and your application is not submitted by 11:59 PM, your application will not be received by CDC. And the final notification you receive is a successful download notification. And what this says is that your application has been successfully downloaded and has been transferred to CDC. At that time, you will receive a grant tracking number which will allow you to track your application throughout the application process. Next slide.

Finally, here I was some important reminders throughout the application process. Keep in mind that there is not a grace period, meaning that once the application due date has been reached and 11:59PM has passed. The system will not allow your application to transmit, so you must submit your application by 11:59PM on the application due date. It is critical, that you follow the instructions in the how to apply Application Guide to unless where instructed to do otherwise in this NOFO. But when there are program-specific instructions that will allow you to deviate from the Application Guide, you will see that listed in the announcement.

Multiple applications received from different divisions, facilities, centers, and schools of the same university or school will be returned with no further consideration by CDC. And these are applications within the same institution but different departments. Next slide. And now we’ll turn it over to Catherine.

Catherine Barrett: I’m going to talk about the application review information. The stages of the Scientific Merit Review process are one, the initial merit review by the special emphasis panel, which is primarily of non-federal scientists external to CDC with expertise in center relevant disciplines and proposed research areas. This panel will evaluate the scientific and technical merit of the applications. And two, the Secondary Review Committee proposed is composed of senior agency staff at CDC and they will assess for the alignment of the proposals with funding preferences and relevance of the proposed work. This process is modeled after the NIH peer review process and is guided by CDC peer review policy.

The initial scientific merit review is done by special emphasis panel numbers. recognize experts from a range of key disciplines in public health with particular emphasis on the scientific areas outlined in appendix one. The goals are to be fair, objective, and transparent. The sub members are tasked to 1) evaluate the scientific merit of each application against the intent and provision of the NOFO, 2) provide scientific and programmatic suggestions for the PIs, and 3) review of human subjects, protection, inclusions of minorities and budgets.

Once applications are deemed responsive as described previously, we assign at least three reviewers to each application. These reviewers will provide a detailed written critique of preliminary overall impact score as well as criterion scores for the five criteria shown here. Reviewers are asked to evaluate these five criteria, with specific focus on the consideration under each criterion defined in Section five of the NOFO. Reviewers also assign a score to each of these criteria and scoring is based on a nine-point system shown here, with one being exceptional and nine being poor.

The scientific merit review evaluation criteria follow the standard CDC and NIH peer review. And so, the five criteria are significance, innovation, investigators, approach, and environment as well as an overall impact are given scores. Human subjects and inclusion of women, minorities, and children also factor into the overall impact for budget and data sharing. Plans are evaluated and receive comments, but they are not impacting the score.

The three main components of the application are the PRC center component, the PRC Core Research Project component, and the PRC network component, and they will be assessed jointly within each review. Review criteria are combined across all three components. Reviewers will provide an overall impact score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood of the PRC to exert their sustained, powerful influence on the research fields involved in consideration of the following review: Criteria and additional review criteria outlined in the NOFO.

The example questions from the NOFO are: Does the PRC Center address a problem of great importance to applied public health prevention research, and public health practice that aligns with a chronic disease prevention priority topic listed in Appendix one, and does the evidence-based intervention identify for the PRC Core Research Project have the potential to be adopted and implemented more widely for populations experiencing high levels of all disparities, for health inequities and improve health outcome, as well as other questions detailed in Section Five?

For streamlining, the National Center for chronic disease prevention and control extremal research Program Office anticipates receipt of numerous applications to be reviewed by appointment reviewers. All responsive applications will be reviewed, however, to facilitate the review process the intention for the review panel is to discuss the top application. Those applications deemed to have the highest scientific and technical merit will be discussed by the review panel and assigned an overall impact priority score. Applications with four preliminary scores might not be discussed. Not discussed applications will not receive a priority score, but will receive a summary statement with the critiques. Soon after the review we’ll provide you with the final priority score or final overall impact score for the applications that are discussed. This is calculated by averaging the scores of the entire panel and multiplying by ten.

Subsequently we prepare the summary statement that includes a summary of the discussion, application abstract, three or more critiques with criterion scores as well as the roster. The resume in summary of discussion section will summarize the discussion during the panel meeting which led to the final score that the application received and is best reflective of the score driving into consideration. The criterion scores and written critique included in the summary statement are submitted by reviewers before the review meeting, and it’s possible that they have not been updated by reviewers to reflect changes in their opinion as a result of the discussion. The summary statement also highlights any human subjects or inclusion criteria concerns, as well as any budget recommendations by the panel. And please note the resume in summary of discussion is only given to those applications that are discussed.

Approximately six weeks after the steps CDC conducts secondary review using a committee of CDC’s senior staff and experts outside of the sponsoring program. This committee examines scores and summary statements in light of the NOFO objectives, and whether applications are in alignment with CDC goals, priorities, and published funding preferences. Award decisions are also made on the availability of funds the relevance of the proposed work, program priorities, the distribution of projects, geographically and the mix of Core Research Project category types. Now, I will hand it back over to Sharon Cassell.

Sharon Cassell: Now we’ll discuss the award notification. Every applicant receives a summary statement. All applicants selected for funding will receive a formal notification in the form of a notice of award from the office of Grant services signed by the Grants management officer. These awards made under this NOFO are not authorized pre award costs, so any costs incurred prior to receiving your notice of award will be at the recipients own risk. So we encourage you not to do that.

The general terms and conditions for research awards can be found at this link which is available in the funding opportunity announcement. There you’ll find other resources in addition to post award processes, different regulations, pretty much any information you would need applicable to administering research awards.

Applications that are approved but not funded will remain on file for one year. So in the event that CDC should receive additional funds, they will have the opportunity to consider funding some of these applicants that were approved and not funded previously.
Now we’re discuss the reporting. There are several reporting requirements that are associated with these awards. The annual Federal Financial report which is known as the FFR is due annually no later than ninety days following the end of the budget period, and must be submitted in the payment management system. The annual performance reporting serves as the Research Performance Products Report. It serves as your annual performance report, and is due one hundred and twenty days prior to the end of the budget period or the date that’s identified in the Guidance district by the Grants management specialists. So, having said that, you will probably receive notifications from ERA Commons, because they send automatic notifications to recipients based on the anniversary date of the award. Uh, we ask that you disregard that notification and adhere to the date outlined in the RPPR Solicitation guidance distributed by the Grants management specialists. We don’t, have a way of turning off that auto notification so we’re asking you to disregard that.

Listed here are some regulations that to assist you throughout the application process and the award administration process which you’ll see the uniform administrative requirements, cost principles and honor requirements for an HHS awards, and the forty-five CFR part seventy five, you have the Grants policy statement, which, of course, lists policy requirements, and the grants policy statement hyperlink listed here as well. So all of these links are hyperlinks. Now I turn it over to Jaya.

Jaya Raman: Thank you. We also wanted to quickly direct you to the section on agency contacts. For all submission requirements as well as issues with ERA Commons we direct you to the grants.gov, and the ERA help desk is also the point of contact for any questions regarding the assist platform.

Regarding Q&A’s, as you’re posting them on the Q&A chat box here. We will try to get to as many questions as possible, and we will answer any questions that we do not get to today at a later time through our PRC website.

However, if you have any additional questions as noted in the NOFO they should be directed to the researchnofo@CDC.gov mailbox with the NOFO number in the subject line. The peer review contact, who should be contacted only after application submission, and will be your point of contact until the release of summary statements is Katie Barrett, and her email address is also available in the funding opportunity announcement. The Grants management contact, or as noted in the funding opportunity announcement is Sharron Cassel.

A website for the NOFO which is listed here. The NOFO gives you a link to the main PRC page, which you may follow the funding specific link to get information about the funding announcement where you will find both the link to ask questions which essentially directs you to an email. It pops up in an email to the research NOFO mailbox. In addition, we will use the site to post frequently ask questions, when we are ready to post them.

With that we are going to take a few moments of pause while we review the questions, and we will get to them in the sequence of how they have been upvoted.

The first question that has gotten a lot of upvotes is, how exactly is evidence-based defined? What are the specific criteria that an intervention must meet to be considered an EBI?

Appendix one gives a list of evidence-based interventions that an applicant may use in their studies. Any EBIs that are not listed there, should be clearly defined in the application, and the evidence base for the EBI should be detailed in the application. This will be evaluated during the peer review.

There are several people who have asked about hybrid designs, and one of the questions is are hybrid effectiveness, implementation designs acceptable? Are all three hybrid types, including type one focusing primarily on effectiveness while exploring implementation acceptable?

The NOFO does not specifically exclude hybrid effectiveness, implementation designs. With respect to the specific hybrid types, this is not specified in the funding opportunity announcement, and will be evaluated during peer review.

The next question is, the RFA says: The Core Research Project must address one of the implementation questions raised in appendix one for each priority area. For some priority areas that list is an extensive list of relevant questions, for others like social connectedness, there’s no specific science questions rather general statements about the implementation and dissemination.

How should applicants approach this if focusing on a priority area like social connections? Is it sufficient to identify implementation science gaps and questions from the literature? I’ll direct that question to Brigette.

Brigette Ulin: You may include information from the literature as long as it aligns with one of the implementation science gaps. If you want to get more specific, you’re welcome to do that. Just pull information from the literature as the NOFO states, and you can review the peer review criteria as well to look at what the peer reviewers will be evaluating regarding that item.

Jaya Raman: Next question, on page eleven of the NOFO states that applicants must include a lead communication staff member, lead, dissemination and translation staff member and lead evaluation staff member. Is it required that each lead be a staff member, or can a faculty member be identified as a lead?

Jason Lang: Faculty can serve as leads in the dissemination, translation, and communication roles and responsibilities. But they must be able to devote adequate time to execute the roles and responsibilities for those positions, and not conflict with other job responsibilities.

Jaya Raman: The next question, page forty-four of the NOFO notes of the application should include an evaluation and performance measurement section. Where in the application, should this section be located?

The evaluation and performance management section is part of the research plan, and may be included in the appendix. It will count towards the page limit and the number of PDF files for the evidence.

Do we submit a one-year budget only, or do we submit a detailed budget for all five years?

Sharon Cassell: Yes, you would submit a budget for all five years.

Should you receive an award under this announcement, you would be required to submit a budget with your continuation application each year, but for this new NOFO you would submit a five-year budget.

Jaya Raman: We are an existing PRC submitting an application. Are we required to submit a progress report publication list with the application? The NOFO states that this is a new application though we would be a renewal.

This is a new NOFO which does not accept renewals, so you will be submitting your application as a new application, and will not be including a progress report, or list of publications with your application. Again, to emphasize these will be submitted as new applications, and not as renewals.

Does the Core Research Project itself need to be centered in the community where the potential PRC is located, or can it be statewide or even national?

Brigette Ulin: The NOFO does not specifically restrict where the population of focus is located beyond what is stated in appendix one. However, the NOFO requires that PRCs engage community members throughout the PRC Project, and it is a community participatory requirement. Refer to page thirteen specifically around that requirement.

Jaya Raman: For budgeting of salaries, does CDC use a salary cap like the NIH salary cap?

Sharon Cassell: Yes, we use the same salary cap as NIH, and the salary cap has increased since last year. The salary cap has increased for this year. It’s $212,100 for FY23.

Jaya Raman: Should the PRC Deputy Director be considered key personnel? And do they need to submit a bio sketch?

Yes, they will need to submit a bio sketch, and I’ll also direct you to the ERA submission requirements where any key personnel do need to have an ERA Commons ID.

Brigette Ulin: We reviewed here that the translation and dissemination plan is required after the first year of award, however, the review criteria states as the applicant provide PRC Core Research Project, dissemination, and translation plan as outlined in the research plan that includes the following: A description of how the partners will support the PRC Core Research Project translation, activities, Description of implementation support, including training and technical assistance and description of the dissemination products.

That is an error, and that should not be included in the review criteria so we will be amending the NOFO to correct that.
Brigette Ulin: However, if you look back at the section around a Core Research Project, applicants are encouraged to describe how they will translate and disseminate the findings. However, the full complete plan is not required with the application, and it will be developed in the first year. So, we appreciate that question, and we’ll be amending the NOFO, and we’ll post that amendment to correct that for the review criteria.

Jaya Raman: The NOFO states that the data management plan should be in the resource sharing plan, but the NOFO also states that the instructions in the most recent version of forms H should be used. Forms H that requires the data management plan to be submitted on the plans separately for the resource sharing plan. Should the DMP be located under other plans, or should it be under the resource sharing plans?

The NOFO does state that all instructions in the NOFO itself supersede SF424 guidance. And in this specific case of the data management plan, CDC does continue to require that the DMP be submitted as part of the resource sharing plan. In addition, the notice that NIH issued, with respect to the inclusion of the data management plan as part of forms edge. Specifically, it excludes seriously from the notice, and we do continue to require it to be in the resource sharing plan.

Brigette Ulin: What kind of cost do you see allowable under the 10% PRC network component, such as travel to PRC’s portion on investigators time dedicated to the network, collaboration, et cetera?

Those are adequate costs. There could be other collaborative costs where PRCs want to work together on certain things that require a fee, such as a publication or other things. So, they’re anything that requires collaboration, many of those might be determined post award. But the majority of those examples is correct. Investigators time travel to other PRCs or other collaborative costs that may come up.

There’s several questions about the implementation science gaps that are included in Appendix one regarding the options for each priority category. Some of those have additional questions underneath them, and others do not. Are the questions meant to provide examples? Are they meant to be followed closely?

And then there’s an example provided for one of the questions around Nine B. Is it helpful to focus on bipartisan infrastructure law grant programs specifically, or can that be more generally focused on recommendations for policy?

This is a situation where the evidence that we have varies across these different gaps, particularly for different priorities.

The NOFO really encourages folks to follow what is in appendix one and select at least one of those implementation science gaps. If applicants choose to go to the literature to flush that out more, or identify additional questions that would be allowed. The NOFO doesn’t exclude that from happening. It just says that you must show alignment with one of these gaps. So, whether you choose to follow them exactly, or in your application, show how they align. That will be determined by the peer review. But we do have a difference of evidence available in all of these areas. And so that’s why there is differences listed in the appendix.

Hopefully that answers your question, and as long as you show alignment, that’s what the peer review will be looking for, and I would encourage all applicants to go and review the peer review or in section five, the application review information, because that’s what the peer reviewers will be looking for around your implementation science gaps that you list in your application.
Jaya Raman: Some of the EBIs are linked to overviews of EBIs, Community Guide for built environment, for example. Within this it is somewhat vague of both large types of interventions as evidence based. Can we assume that anything within that category, for example, built environment, is considered evidence-based for this call? Or do we need to describe the evidence and its merit?

Jaya Raman: While the NOFO does say that EBIs listed in that column do not require evidence-based to be described in that area of the application. We do encourage you to look at the review criteria and think about the peer review process as you write your application.

Brigette Ulin: How should we allocate the administrative team, including the PD PI, Deputy Director, Core Research Project PI, different lead communication staff, et cetera, in the budget? Should their time be allocated under the thirty percent center funding, sixty percent core funding, or ten percent network funding?

They should be allocated in every section that they’re working in. If one particular staff member’s working in all three, then they should allocate the percentage of their budget for their time in all three, accordingly. So, I think the question is, should they be in one? They should only be in one if that staff person is only working in one. But if the center deputy works across all three, then they should be included in all three and for any other category as appropriate

Jaya Raman: A follow-up question to the communication evaluation and dissemination leads. Can someone be both the communication and dissemination lead, or they do the or do they need to be separate?

Jason Lang: The NOFO does not specify that those two roles need to be filled by separate individuals. However, they do require different skills, and they have different roles and responsibilities. So if an applicant can find someone to fill multiple roles, it’s not prohibited.

Jaya Raman: Is the new NIH data management and sharing plan document required for this proposal? CDC has had a policy of requiring a data management plan for several years now. The data management Plan example links are provided in the funding opportunity announcement. We do not use the NIH data management and sharing plan form for this purpose. As notified in the NOFO the DMP should be included as part of the resource sharing plan and follow the format recommended by CDC.

Brigette Ulin: Not all of the EBIs listed in Appendix one actually refer to interventions. Some are a list of resources for the only interventions with effective research evidence to be the focus. The NOFO does require that applicants list the evidence, effectiveness for EBI’s proposed, and those resources list to many of those, so that would be a correct interpretation that interventions with effective research evidence should be the focus.

Jaya Raman: The budget percentages should include both direct and indirect costs. Does that mean that it is required, expected to have the institution to return all the indirect cost to the center, and that we should budget as if those are direct costs?

Sharon, this is a reference to the total budget, where we indicate that the budget proposed should indicate that the budget ceiling includes direct and indirect costs.

Sharon Cassell: All of the budget should include a budget and budget narrative. All of the costs should be grouped together in subtotal by each cost category. All the all the unobligated funds that are available at close out, which is at the end of the project period the five-year project period. Those funds are returned to Treasury through the close-up process by CDC.

Angie Willard: I don’t think that’s the question.

I can assist with the question if you need me to.

Jaya Raman: So, Angie, if you can ask the question.

Angie Willard: The question is around how direct and indirect costs should be divided in the application. And if I understand the question correctly, the subcomponents, the areas that are there. There’s a main core, and then there’s the subs, and the subs have indirect costs as well.

And so the question is, should it be included as part of the, the core indirect, or it should be separate? Keep it separate, because the way the forms are set up, it already calculates it, and if you move it around it’ll mess up the calculation.

Jaya Raman: Angie? I’m trying to retrace the question for you. The question, I believe, is, we asked them to include direct and indirect costs in their budget, and as a total budget ceiling. The question that was being asked is, is their institution expected to return the indirect cost to the center.

Uh, I can ask uh the person who asks the question, can you please reword your question in the Q&A so we can get clarity on the question.

Angie Willard: Yeah, I’m not sure I understand what that means. They’re talking about paying back the institution of direct costs. I’m not sure I understand, and I’m sorry I didn’t understand the question.

Brigette Ulin: If we didn’t answer that question today, I would encourage you to send an email to the NOFO email box, and we can get a better answer. Sometimes there’s differences with different institutions but most of those kind of questions are so specific, it will be up to you to reach out to your institution to determine if that’s a requirement or not.

Angie Willard: That’s a good point. That’s exactly right, but I do want to clarify that the ceiling does cover both. So there are some NIH programs I believe that it just covers the direct cost, and the indirect cost is not part of that ceiling. In our case both the indirect and the direct are under that ceiling. No matter how you calculate it.

Brigette Ulin: Is it allowable to put travel to PRC network meetings or other collaborative activities on the center or core budget rather than the network budget.

You actually could look at travel wherever it’s appropriate. One example is if there’s an annual meeting you may be pulling from all three given you might have staff in different sections coming to that meeting. So really it’s allowable to put travel in any section that you think would be warranted as you as you work those budgets in in the whole travel category so yes, you could pull it in different sections as appropriate

Does the PRC need a community partner established at the time of application or will they have time to develop their relationship within the first year? If you read through the application carefully, there are some requirements around the Core Research Project and the center that require a community engagement, and they are required in the application. Not all community partners will be established, but there will be some that will be required, including certain letters of support that are required in the application. You may not have all your community partners established, but there is some requirements in the application. You read through those sections more carefully.

Are we limited to one target population for the Core Research Project, for example, Hispanic, Black? If you look at Appendix one, there are requirements for at least one intended population for each Core Research Project. Those are not always identified by the populations experiencing the health disparities by race or ethnicity. It’s really up to the applicant to determine. But the only thing that’s required is at least one intended population in the Appendix. If you choose to target more than one that’s acceptable.

Should all named senior key persons other than the PD/PI, be named as the Co-PI in the application? Or is it more appropriate to select “other” and define their specific role based on the Admin team defined in the NOFO? For example, Other- Deputy Director, Other- Core Research PI? It’s really up to the applicant to determine who would be a Co-PI, or who would not.

However, all key staff are not Co-PIs, unless you determine you want them to be CO-PIs. So, the deputy director is typically a different role. However, there may be a particular PRC that chooses to have the deputy director as the Co-PI so that is allowed. But it’s really up to the applicant to determine who they want as Co-PI. Co-PIs are defined in the NOFO as well, and it is allowable to have a PI of the Core Research Project that is different from the PI of the overall center. However, keep in mind that, as I stated earlier, the center must align with the Core Research Project.

Jaya Raman: We have pulled this notice into our S2S system, and it is not a multi-component as expected. In that case we will have only one resource strategy section to all three “core” sections. We wanted to confirm that that it is not to be submitted as a multi-component project. That is correct. This is not an S2S multi-component application. This will be one single application, with the twenty-five page research strategy divided into those three sections within those twenty five page limit, [inaudible]

Brigette Ulin: Is it appropriate for the PRC activities to broader in terms of prevention, topics, chronic disease, prevention population-focused public and minorities. While the Core Research Project is more focused on one health issue from appendix one?

Yes, the PRC Center activities may be broader, however, they should be focused on chronic disease, prevention categories, and they must align with the Core Research Project. And, as I stated, earlier and in NOFO, the main infrastructure of the PRC Center is to support the successful completion of the Core Research Project. So, keep that in mind as you come up with your activities for the PRC Center.

Jaya Raman: Where should the risk assessment question and be placed in the application/uploaded in ASSIST? This goes into the other attachment section other information section of the application

Brigette Ulin: This is the final question that we’ll take today, and then, of course, we’ll be answering additional questions via email.

If a population is not listed in a particular category of appendix, one can another population not listed, be the focus, nevertheless.

No, you must choose an intended population from the list on Appendix one. You have to pick at least one. You may not choose another population that is not listed in that appendix other than anything in addition to that one. So, before I mentioned, you just have to have at least one from appendix one. If you have that one, then you can choose other ones.

Jaya Raman: There are several questions on eligibility. We want to emphasize the slide that was presented on who was eligible schools of public health and schools of medicine with a preventative medicine residency. The NOFO does not restrict or prohibit any collaborations. However, the primary applicant should be either an accredited School of Public Health or The School of Medicine, with the preventative Medicine Residency. With provisions for ah schools that are seeking that credential.

With that we will like close out this Webinar. Thank you for your participation and your interest in this notice of funding opportunity. We look forward to receiving your applications. If you have any additional questions. Please direct them to the question and answers email so that they can be addressed. We will be answering the questions that were posted anonymously through a link posted onto the PRC website.

Brigette Ulin: I want to remind folks that we will be posting all answers to all of these questions on the website so if you miss them, or you want to go back and look at them. Within a week or two all the questions with the answers will be posted on the website.