FAQs for Funding for Prevention Resource Centers CDC-RFA-DP-24-004

Question: Schools of Public health and/or school of medicine are eligible to apply. However, can the PRC be a non-profit that the school of medicine/public health can partner with?
Answer: The NOFO does not prevent collaborations, but the primary applicant must be one of the eligible institutions listed in Section III, 3.

Question: Are dental schools eligible to apply for this NOFO?
Answer: Eligibility is limited to:

1. Schools of Public Health (SPH) accredited by the Council on Education in Public Health (CEPH) or SPH in the process of obtaining CEPH accreditation.

Programs of Public Health are NOT eligible to apply for funding under this NOFO.

2. Schools of Medicine (or Osteopathy) accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) that offer an accredited preventive medicine residency (PMR) program or are in the process of obtaining ACGME accreditation for a PMR program.

Question: I saw in appendix 1 that there is an oral health related EBI so I thought dental schools will be eligible? By your answer I am assuming dental schools are not eligible? Am I correct?
Answer: That is correct. However, NOFO does not require or exclude any collaborations.

Question: Would a Preventive Medicine Residency program that is strongly affiliated with an accredited medical school be able to serve as lead applicant?
Answer: Eligibility is limited to:

1. Schools of Public Health (SPH) accredited by the Council on Education in Public Health (CEPH) or SPH in the process of obtaining CEPH accreditation.

Programs of Public Health are NOT eligible to apply for funding under this NOFO.

2. Schools of Medicine (or Osteopathy) accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) that offer an accredited preventive medicine residency (PMR) program or are in the process of obtaining ACGME accreditation for a PMR program.

Question: Can other health science accredited schools/institutions (non-medical/public health) apply for the NOFO?
Answer: Eligibility is limited to:

1. Schools of Public Health (SPH) accredited by the Council on Education in Public Health (CEPH) or SPH in the process of obtaining CEPH accreditation.

Programs of Public Health are NOT eligible to apply for funding under this NOFO.

2. Schools of Medicine (or Osteopathy) accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) that offer an accredited preventive medicine residency (PMR) program or are in the process of obtaining ACGME accreditation for a PMR program.

Question: We have pulled this notice into our S2S system and it is not a multi-component as expected. In that case we would have only one Research Strategy section to upload all 3 “core” sections. We wanted to confirm that is not submitted as a multi-core project?
Answer: 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.

Question: In the overall 5 year plan, it notes that data analysis is in year 4 and translation, dissemination, communication is in year 5. Are those strict cutoffs? Or are we allowed to include data analysis in year 5?
Answer: Applicants should report on milestones, including but not limited to the activities listed for the center, core research project, and PRC Network activities presented in Table 1. Implementation Timeline in the NOFO.

Question: It was mentioned during the presentation that the ICR agreement is a required attachment for new PRCs. Is this required for existing PRCs as well? If so, should the ICR agreement be uploaded under “Other Attachments” or “Appendix”?
Answer: Per the NOFO, under “3. Additional Review Considerations”, “Budget and Period of Support”, if an applicant is requesting indirect costs in the budget based on a federally negotiated rate, a copy of the indirect cost rate (ICR) agreement is required. Include a copy of the current negotiated federal indirect cost rate agreement or cost allocation plan approval letter. ICR agreements may be uploaded in either “Other Attachments” or the “Appendix” of your application.

Question: We usually upload our appendix as one combined PDF file with several documents included–how does the 10 separate PDFs limit factor in?
Answer: The maximum number of allowed PDFs is 10. The NOFO does not preclude combining appendices into one file.

Question: The answer on the number of pages allowed for the appendices contradicts the NOFO. Above the answer is that the Annual plan is not counted in 30 pages. In the NOFO it says it is for a max of 30 pages. Please clarify.
Answer: The annual action page is not included in the page limitation of the appendices (the annual action plan is limited to 20 pages; the appendices are limited to 30 pages.

Question: Page 44 of the NOFO notes that the application should include an Evaluation and Performance Measurement section. Where in the application should this section be located?
Answer: 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.

Question: Can you clarify if each component has its own 1-page specific aims page. Eg: 1 specific aims page for Center, 1 for research, and 1 for network? OR, is there 1, 1-page specific aims page that should contain the aims of all components?
Answer: The application may have only one specific aims page that covers all three components.

Question: Does the 30 page appendix limit, include the 20 page action plan?
Answer: The action plan is not included in the 30 page limit.

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

Question: We’ve reviewed here that the translation and dissemination plan is required after the first year of the award. However, the review criteria state: Does the applicant provide a PRC core research project dissemination and translation plan as outlined in the Research Plan section that includes:

• A description of how partners will support and participate in the PRC core research project translation activities?
• A description of implementation support including training and technical assistance to implement EBI(s) by translation partners?
• A description of proposed dissemination products and translation products and specific audiences and channels and strategies to reach them?

Answer: That is an error, and that should not be included in the review criteria so we will be amending the NOFO to correct that. 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.

Question: The NOFO requires a “Progress Report Publication List” but then qualifies it as this applying “for Continuation ONLY”. (p. 35) Since this application is a new application, do we need to submit the list or not?
Answer: DP-24-004 is a NEW “notice of funding opportunity type” and not a continuation. A progress report is not required.

Question: Can you clarify – should the evaluation plan be included in the research strategy? Does this mean it has to be included with the 25 page limit?
Answer: Per the NOFO, an evaluation plan will be developed within the first year of funding and CDC will provide an evaluation plan template post-award to awarded recipients. 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.

Question: If you are an incumbent PRC, do you provide a specific section on accomplishments, achievement of Specific Aims, etc., or doesn’t it matter?
Answer: This is a new application type.

Question: The NOFO states the Data Management Plan should be in the Resource Sharing plan section, but the NOFO also states that the instructions in the most recent version of Forms H should be used. Forms H requires that the Data Management Plan be submitted under Other Plans separately from the Resource Sharing Plan. Should the DMP be uploaded under Other Plans or should it be uploaded with the Resource Sharing Plan?
Answer: The NOFO DP-24-004 states that all instructions in the NOFO supersede SF424 guidance. In this specific case of the data management plan (DMP), CDC continues to require that the DMP be submitted as part of the Resource Sharing Plan.

Question: Does the action plan count as 1 of the 10 PDF appendix files? And is the action plan part of the 30 total pages of appendix? Or can the appendix be 50 pages (30 for other files and 20 more for action plan)?
Answer: The action plan counts for the 10 PDF limit, but not the 30 page limit. The NOFO is being amended to increase the appendix page limit to 50.

Question: Is the NIH’s new Data Management & Sharing Plan document required for this proposal?
Answer: 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.

Question: Will each Core require / allow a specific Aims page?
Answer: Only one Specific Aims page for the entire application.

Question: Is a Progress Report required for renewal applications? If yes, which Component of the Research Strategy should it be included?
Answer: DP-24-004 is a “NEW” funding opportunity. A progress report is not required as this is not a renewal.

Question: We usually upload our appendix as one combined PDF file with several documents included–how does the 10 separate PDFs limit factor in?
Answer: The NOFO does not specify how the appendices should be uploaded. Please refer to the updated page limits for the appendices in the NOFO. 10 is the upper limit on the number of PDFs the system will allow.

Question: Where should the risk assessment questionnaire be placed in application/uploaded in ASSIST?
Answer: This goes into the “other attachments” section of the application.

Question: Is a Progress Report Publication List required for renewal applications?
Answer: DP-24-004 is a NEW funding opportunity and not a renewal. A progress report is not required.

Question: Page 11 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 members be identified as a lead?
Answer: 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.

Question: Should the PRC Deputy Director be considered as key personnel and do they need to submit a biosketch?
Answer: 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.

Question: Follow-up question to the communication, evaluation, and dissemination leads: Can someone be both the communication and dissemination lead? Or do they need to be separate people?
Answer: 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.

Question: Should all named Senior/Key Persons other than the PD/PI be named as 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 Project PI.
Answer: It’s 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 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 the center must align with the Core Research Project.

Question: Are staff resumes/CVs funded by the PRC a requirement for the application submission?
Answer: All key personnel are required to have a biosketch.

Question: For the required Communication lead, is there an expectation if this position is expected to be filled by faculty, or can it be non-faculty staff?
Answer: The NOFO does not specify who may fill the role of Communications lead only the skills, roles, and responsibilities the lead must be able to perform.

Question: Are hybrid effectiveness designs acceptable? Is effectiveness research without implementation and translation components allowed?
Answer: Hybrid designs are acceptable. Effectiveness research without implementation and translation components are not allowed.

Question: In the past, PRCs have been asked to define/focus in one community (city/area). Is it acceptable to have more than one community for this cycle?
Answer: Applicants should focus on designing research proposals that will achieve the objectives of the NOFO including implementation, translation, and dissemination of the PRC core research project component activities. This may be accomplished in one or more communities of focus.

Question: Is there anything you can share as to why 17 topics were identified in Attachment 1 for the Core Research Project? Will there be an attempt to fund each of the 17?
Answer: Availability of funding and relevance of the proposed project to program priorities as well as ensuring that Core Research Projects address a variety of chronic disease prevention priority categories listed in Appendix 1 and there is equitable geographic distribution of PRCs across the United States all affect selection and funding.

Question: Can the EBI’s be different than the ones listed in the NOFO, research evidence can be provided that make the case for effectiveness?
Answer: Appendix 1 gives a list of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) 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 should be described in the application, and this will be evaluated in peer review.

Question: If we are supposed to use EBIs, why would a project use a hybrid design that also established effectiveness?
Answer: It is up to the applicant if they wish to use a hybrid design.

Question: The RFA says the core research project must address one of the implementation questions raised in Appendix 1 for each priority area. For some priority areas there is an extensive list of relevant questions (e.g., item 12 on Arthritis contains 19 very well defined implementation science issues that could be addressed). Other items have very few specific implementation question. For example, items 13, social connectedness, contain no specific implementation science questions; rather it only contains very general statements about implementation and dissemination, and no real questions. How should applicant’s approach this if focusing on a priority like #13? Is it sufficient to identify implementation science gaps and question from the literature.
Answer: Yes, 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.

Question: Is the NOFO asking for strict implementation project proposals, or are effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs acceptable? If hybrid designs are acceptable, are all 3 types acceptable? Are Type 1 hybrid designs – focusing primarily on the effectiveness of an outcome while exploring the “implementability” of the intervention — discouraged/considered non-responsive? Are Type 2 and Type 3 more in line with PRC Program expectations?
Answer: The NOFO does not preclude hybrid designs and does not prioritize one type over another. It is up to the applicant if they wish to use a hybrid design. Project proposal designs will be evaluated during the review.

Question: 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 in focus?
Answer: 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.

Question: Some of the EBIs are linked to overviews of EBIs (community guide for built environment for example). Within this it is somewhat vague, or group large types of interventions as evidence based. Can we assume that anything within that category (e.g. built environment) is considered evidence based for this call? or do we need to describe the evidence in the narrative.
Answer: 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.

Question: In the appendix, the column listing Implementation Science Gaps provides one or more options for each CRP Category. Those options have additional questions underneath them. Are the questions meant to provide examples or are they meant to be followed closely? For instance, for 9B is it helpful to focus on Bipartisan Infrastructure Law grant programs specifically or can the focus be more generally on recommendations for policy?
Answer: 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.

Question: Can EBIs be combined so there is more than a single intervention?
Answer: At least 1 EBI should be included, more than 1 EBI would be up to the applicant.

Question: Not all of the EBIs listed in the Appendix 1 actually refer to interventions. Some are lists of resources. Are only interventions with effectiveness research evidence to be the focus?
Answer: 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.

Question: How restricted are we with the EBIs? Can we combine more than one EBI?
Answer: Yes. You can combine EBIs.

Question: Is the Core Research Project determine 60% of the review criteria score, or just 60% of the budget?
Answer: The 60% was just referring to being 60% of the budget.

Question: Are we limited to one target population for the core research project? e.g., Hispanic, Black.
Answer: 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 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.

Question: If a population is not listed in a particular category of Appendix 1, can another population not listed be the focus nevertheless?
Answer: You have to pick as least one population listed, but you can choose an additional one not listed.

Question: How exactly is “evidence based” defined? What are the specific criteria that an intervention must meet to be considered an EBI?
Answer: All evidence-based strategies and interventions included in Appendix 1 are appropriate and recommended. The intervention/strategy must have been determined to be effective (e.g., The Community Guide conducts systematic reviews on interventions/strategies to determine the effectiveness). The intervention/strategy must also be clearly designed to allow others to implement/replicate it. Etiological research is not allowed.

Question: Do we submit a one year budget only, or do we budget submit a detailed budget for all 5 years?
Answer: 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.

Question: For budgeting of salaries, does CDC use a salary cap (like the NIH cap, etc.)?
Answer: Yes, salary caps apply. We use the same salary cap as NIH, and the salary cap has increased since last year. It’s $212,100 for FY23.

Question: How should we allocate the “Administrative Team” (PD/PI, Deputy Director, CRP PI, lead communication staff, lead dissemination and translation staff, lead evaluation staff) in the budget? Should their time be budgeted under the 30% Center funding, 60% Core funding, or 10% Network funding?
Answer: 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.

Question: What kind of costs do you see as allowable under the 10% PRC Network Component….travel to other PRCs, portion on investigators time dedicated to Network Collaboration, etc.?
Answer: 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 to travel to other PRCs or other collaborative costs that may come up.

Question: Is it allowable put travel to PRC Network meetings or other collaborative activities on the center or core budget, rather than the network budget?
Answer: You 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 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

Question: Are there three separate budgets for the 3 sections?
Answer: There will be one budget for each project year.

Question: When you say those budget percentages should include both direct and indirect costs, does that mean it is required/expected to have the institution return all indirect costs to the center and that we should budget as if those are direct costs? I haven’t heard that exact language used before.
Answer: All budgets should include a budget narrative. Costs should be grouped and sub-totaled by budget category for each budget narrative. At the end of the 5-Year project period, all unobligated funds must be returned to treasury through the closeout process by CDC. Applicants should keep all subaward/sub-contractual costs (direct and indirect) combined under the Contractual category.

Question: For those required partners, does the CDC require that we submit MOUs in documenting those partnerships, or are LOSs sufficient?
Answer: A letter of support (LOS), MOU or MOA can be submitted for CAB members. An MOU/MOA is required for the public health partner. Applicants must submit an MOU/MOA/LOS from at least one partner for translation activities that has capacity to address drivers of health disparities. Include MOU, MOA, or LOS from partner organizations that describe their commitment and planned involvement in research activities which may include involvement in the design and conduct of the study, implementation and dissemination activities, translation activities, and long-term sustainability of the intervention. Signed MOU, MOA, or LOS should be included under the Letters of Support section of the research plan and will not count towards the page limit of the application.

Question: Is it appropriate for the PRC activities to be broader – in terms of prevention topics (chronic disease prevention) and population focus (low income minorities) while the CRP may be more focused on one health issue (from the Appendix 1 table and (priority population: Hispanic))?
Answer: Yes, the PRC Center activities may be broader although they should be focused on the chronic disease prevention categories and must align with the Core Research Project. As stated in the NOFO, the main infrastructure and purpose of the PRC Center is to support the successful completion of the core research project, so while there may be different populations or topics of focus between the Center and Core Research Project components they should be aligned and mutually reinforcing.

Question: Are applicants encouraged to propose to develop new partnerships in addition to leveraging existing ones?
Answer: The NOFO does not disallow new partnerships.

Question: Do the PRCs need a community partner established by time of application or will they have time to develop the relationship within the first year?
Answer: 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 are some requirements in the application.

Question: Any word about future SIPs?
Answer: The 2024 SIPS NOFO is anticipated to be published on www.grants.gov in December 2023.

Question: Is there a recorded version of the meeting that can be reviewed later?
Answer: Slides, transcript, and a log of the Q&A will be available after the call on https://www.cdc.gov/prc/funding/PRC-NOFO-RFA-DP-24-004.htm. Please check the site regularly.

Question: The Appendix 1 in the NOFO is cut off and we are not able to view all the information. Can this be reloaded?
Answer: The 3 appendices are uploaded as separate attachments on www.grants.gov. In addition, the revised NOFO was uploaded on April 14, 2023 and the appendices were removed due to a formatting issue.

Question: Is the Special Emphasis Panel composed of public health experts external to CDC, academics, state and local officials, etc.?
Answer: The SEP is composed primarily of non-federal academic scientists, external to CDC, as described here https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-42/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-52h.