CLOSED Questions and Answers for NOFO: CDC-RFA-DP-23-0001 State Public Health Approaches to Addressing Arthritis

Question: Are subrecipients supported by recipients funded under the cooperative agreement numbers CDC-RFA-DP21-2106 or CDC-RFA-DP18-1803 eligible to apply for Component A of CDC-RFA-DP-23-0001?

Answer: Yes, subrecipients supported by recipients funded under the cooperative agreement numbers CDC-RFA-DP21-2106 or CDC-RFA-DP18-1803 are eligible to apply, if they are responsive to and have the capacity to meet NOFO requirements.

 

Question: My organization is a national nonprofit that focuses on addressing the health needs of an underserved population. We have the capacity to implement this project in any state within that sub-population and in a U.S. territory. Do you have preferences for which states are proposed? Is this grant available in all U.S. territories? Would it be possible to either submit a multi-state proposal or to submit more than one proposal for different states?

Answer: This is an Open Competition funding opportunity. Therefore, a nonprofit organization, including a national nonprofit, is eligible to apply.  CDC has no preferences as to which states, U.S. territories, or entities representing these geographic areas apply. Further, applicants should be aware of the following criteria and factors that may affect funding decisions (from the NOFO, page 49 of 63):

“No more than one recipient will be funded per state. In order to address geographic diversity, applications may be funded out of rank order to avoid duplicity of working in the same geographic area and to ensure that program activities are available across different U.S. geographies (e.g., rural or urban areas).”

Additionally, applicants should understand the following NOFO requirements before responding to the NOFO:

1. This NOFO has two Components. Applicants may apply for either Component A or Component B, not both. Applicants must identify the Component they are applying for in the title of their application submission and in the Project Narrative.
2. The applicant is expected to have the capacity and propose plans to serve the entire state population in addition to selecting one or more underserved populations.
3. The applicant must have the ability to collect/report data representative the state’s/territory’s overall population for each of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) questions required as NOFO outcome measures.
4. For Component A: It is expected that the recipient will have enrolled a minimum of either 7,500 adults or 1% of the total number of adults with arthritis in the state with AAEBIs (as evidenced by enrollment and attendance of at least 1 class/session) by the end of the 5-year period of performance.
   For Component B: It is expected that the recipient will have enrolled a minimum of either 15,000 adults or 2% of the total number of adults with arthritis in the state with AAEBIs (as evidenced by enrollment and attendance of at least 1 class/session) by the end of the 5-year period of performance.

 

Question: Is there a limit on how many applications may be submitted from an institution for the CDC-RFA-DP-23-0001 notice of funding opportunity (NOFO)?

Answer: No, there is no limit on how many applications can be submitted by an institution. However, the following information should be considered when applying:

1. This NOFO has two Components. Applicants may apply for either Component A or Component B, not both. Applicants must identify the Component they are applying for in the title of their application submission and in the Project Narrative.
2. The applicant is expected to have the capacity and propose plans to serve the entire state population in addition to selecting one or more underserved populations.
3. The applicant must have the ability to collect/report data representative of the state’s/territory’s overall population for each of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) questions required as NOFO outcome measures.
4. For Component A: It is expected that the recipient will have enrolled a minimum of either 7,500 adults or 1% of the total number of adults with arthritis in the state with AAEBIs (as evidenced by enrollment and attendance of at least 1 class/session) by the end of the 5-year period of performance.
   
   For Component B: It is expected that the recipient will have enrolled a minimum of either 15,000 adults or 2% of the total number of adults with arthritis in the state with AAEBIs (as evidenced by enrollment and attendance of at least 1 class/session) by the end of the 5-year period of performance.
5. Applicants should be aware of the following criteria and factors that may affect funding decisions (from the NOFO, page 49 of 63):
   “No more than one recipient will be funded per state. In order to address geographic diversity, applications may be funded out of rank order to avoid duplicity of working in the same geographic area and to ensure that program activities are available across different U.S. geographies (e.g., rural or urban areas).”

 

Question: Pg. 58: Under “for International NOFOs” following the SF-424A in the list, “Funding Preference Deliverables” is listed as an attachment.  Can you please define/clarify?

Answer: The language on page 58 “Funding Preference Deliverables” refers to international NOFOs. This NOFO is for domestic assistance and only intended to fund organizations addressing U.S. states and territories.

 

Question: Award Funding: Pg. 52 refers to “recipients who want to apply for yearly continuation of funding”…Does this mean the Award is for the full 5 years, but the grantees must apply annually for continued funding in years 2-5?  Or is the Award amount decided each year?

Answer: The language on page 52 refers to reporting requirements to get funded through the five years of the grant cycle. The recipients who get awarded for year 1 of the grant, can expect to be funded for years 2-5 given all reporting and documentation requirements are met year to year. However, all funding is contingent upon availability.

 

Question: Is it a requirement to have in place an active arthritis program?

Answer: Pages 2 and 7. If applying for Component A, there is no requirement to have an active arthritis program.

 

Question: If we are a sub/partner is it necessary to have enrolled 5,000 within the last five years?

Answer: Page 29, section 2. The language in this section refers to organizational capacity and existing infrastructure needed to apply for Component B. Therefore, the organization applying for Component B should be able to demonstrate having enrolled at least 5,000 participants over a 5 year period through AAEBIs or other evidence based physical activity self-management intervention offerings to be considered for an award under this component.

Question: What is the total amount of funding available for the program?

Answer: Approximately $3,700,000 is available for annual funding, with between $200,000 to $550,000 awarded to each successful applicant annually. Total period of performance funding available to support the total number of awards associated with this NOFO is approximately $18,500,000.

 

Question: What is the length of the cooperative agreement?

Answer: The cooperative agreement’s period of performance (or length) is 5 years, from July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2028.

 

Question: How many grantees/recipients will be funded?

Answer: It is expected that an estimated 13 recipients will be funded for this NOFO: 6-10 for Component A and 5 to 7 for Component B.

 

Question: What is the average award?

Answer: The approximate average award is $300,000. The award ceiling is $550,000 and award floor is $200,000.

 

Question: How are funds recommended to be distributed among applicants?

Answer: CDC determines funding levels based on the objective review process, which involves the thorough and consistent examination of applications based on an unbiased evaluation of scientific or technical merit of the application. An objective review panel evaluates complete, eligible applications in accordance with the Criteria section of the NOFO. With that, CDC anticipates awarding 6-10 awards of $200-$300K under Component A and 5 to 7 awards of $375-$550K under Component B.

 

Question: Do I need to budget for a recipient conference/meeting in year one of the award?

Answer: Applicants should propose funding for staff to attend a 2-day recipient meeting in Atlanta, Georgia for up to three people. Meeting will be held Fall of 2023.

 

Question: On page 29 of 63 of the NOFO it states “At least 1.5 FTE annually should be dedicated to implementing the activities of this NOFO.”  Is the 1.5 FTE desirable rather than required because the sentence above says “should” rather than “shall” or “must” in the language?

Answer: NOFO strongly encourages at least 1.5 FTE to support the activities of this NOFO.

 

Question: On page 29 of 63 of the NOFO it states “At least 1.5 FTE annually should be dedicated to implementing the activities of this NOFO.”  Can the 1.5 FTE be achieved through a combination of staff from the applicant organization and staff from non-applicant partner organizations?

Answer: Yes, the 1.5 FTE requirement can be achieved through a combination of staff from the applicant organization and staff from non-applicant partner organization. It is strongly encouraged the Program Manager is representative of the applicant organization. The expectation for both Components is that applicants provide a Staffing Plan describing sufficient and appropriately experienced staff to provide comprehensive support, coordination and oversight of cooperative agreement activities.

 

Question: On page 29 of 63 of the NOFO it states “At least 1.5 FTE annually should be dedicated to implementing the activities of this NOFO.”  Can the 1.5 FTE include in-kind contributions of staff time not charged to the applicant’s proposed budget for NOFO application?

Answer: Yes, the 1.5 FTE requirement can include in-kind contributions of staff time not charged to the applicant’s proposed budget for NOFO. The expectation for both Components is that applicants provide a Staffing Plan describing sufficient and appropriately experienced staff to provide comprehensive support, coordination and oversight of cooperative agreement activities.

 

Question: Budget Narrative: is this presented based on the full 5 year Performance Period Budget, or broken down for each Budget Year?

Answer: The budget and budget narrative should be for year 1 of the project.

 

Question: Which attachments should be uploaded to the “Other Attachments” box within the SF-424, just below #15-Descriptive Title?

Answer: There are no attachments required to be added under the “Other Attachments” box on the SF-424.

 

Question: Is the indirect [cost] included in the total award or on top of the total?  For example for Component A which has a ceiling of $300K, would the indirect [costs] be included in that amount or added to it?

Answer: Page 41 Section 12: Budget Narrative. The indirect cost is included in the total award (Page 41 Section 12: Budget Narrative). The total award should not exceed the ceiling for a given Component. CDC will consider any application requesting an award higher than the award ceiling for either Component as non-responsive and it will receive no further review. The award ceiling for Component A is $300,000 and Component B is $550,000.  (Page 34)

 

Question: Can you help provide clarity to the following statement: Strongly encouraged to engage organizations to help support the cost of trainings/materials required to deliver AAEBIs on an ongoing basis, and limit project funds for AAEBI to supporting AAEBI start-up costs. What does limit really mean? What limits should be considered?

Answer: The funds associated with these awards are limited and sustainability is important. Although, providing seed grants for program startup costs is acceptable, awardees are discouraged from supporting routine costs that can quickly erode funds such as instructors’ salary or hourly wage for course delivery. These program offerings should be embedded into routine operations or the normal business of delivery organizations and thereby made sustainable using means or funding outside of the cooperative agreement.

 

Question: To budget in the correct fiscal year, when is the recipient meeting going to take place?

Answer: The grant year (GY) 1 Awardee Meeting will be held in October 2023 or later, but prior to the start of GY2.

Question: Is it allowable to include links to websites in the project narrative?

Answer:  Although the NOFO does not state applicants cannot include links in the project narrative, CDC does caution against it. It is possible the reviewer may print the application and will be unable to see the link in a hard copy. Instead CDC advises applicants to provide the website address in the project narrative.

 

Question: Is there a preferred template for the Resumes/CVs?

Answer: There is no preferred template for resumes or CVs.

 

Question: Regarding formatting requirements, is there a preferred font type (e.g., Times New Roman)? Also, can page numbers appear in the 1-inch margin?

Answer: No specific font type is required. Project Narrative should be single spaced, 12-point font, 1-inch margins, and number all pages. Page numbers can be in the margin. Other PDF files listed under “Other Information” do not have font, formatting, or page restrictions.

 

Question: Is there a preferred style for citations/references, and are footnotes allowable? If footnotes are not allowable, does the reference list count toward page limit?

Answer: There is no preferred style for citations/references but if you are using references, please use a consistent standard style throughout (e.g. AMA, APA, etc.). Footnotes may be used. The reference list will not count toward any page limit.

 

Question: Is there a page limit for the Budget Narrative document?

Answer: No

 

Question: I am having technical problems registering and inputting information into Grants.gov . Can you help?

Answer: For assistance with technical difficulties with the Grants.gov system, please contact:

GRANTS.GOV Applicant Support

1-800-518-4726; support@grants.gov

 

Question: Does the Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) CDC-RFA-DP-23-0001 include a document checklist that applicants can download or do applicants need to create their own?

Answer: The NOFO does not provide a document checklist that applicants can download, however, on pages 38-46 and 58 of 63 of the NOFO is a list of acceptable submission requirements applicants must upload as part of their application at www.grants.gov . For your convenience, below is a list of the submission requirements.

• Letter of Intent (page 38)
• Table of Contents for Entire Submission (page 38)
• Project Abstract (page 39)
• Project Narrative (pages 39-41)
• Work Plan (page 41)
• Budget Narrative (page 41)
• Data Management Plan (if required) (page 44)
• Other strongly encouraged attachments (page 58)
  • Resumes / CVs
  • Letters of Support
  • Organization Chart(s)
  • Non-profit organization IRS status forms, if applicable
  • Indirect Cost Rate, if applicable
  • Staffing Plan
  • Position Description, if applicable

 

Question: The staffing plan as an attachment seems to be a new component, how does the information in this attachment differ from the organizational capacity piece in the narrative? Will we receive full points from the “Organization Capacity to Implement the Approach” if the details are in the attached staffing plan? Or must the language from the staffing plan also be in the narrative?

Answer: The Staffing Plan does not differ from the Organizational Capacity of Recipients to Implement the Approach requirements, but is meant to include the information as described on page 27 (Component A) under number “3” and on page 29 (Component B) under number “3” as appropriate. The Staffing Plan is not a new component, but an attachment that should describe staff assigned to this grant and their role on this grant and any other information that may reflect the requirement on page 27 and page 29. The Project Narrative can include staffing information/staffing plan or have language that refers to the Staffing Plan attachment. Either way is appropriate and will be reviewed for scoring as described on pages 47-49 under the Applicant’s Organizational Capacity to Implement the Approach under the Phase II Review section.

 

Question: Does CDC have a staffing plan template?

Answer: No, CDC has not provided a Staffing Plan template.

 

Question: Component B, Approach, Strategy 1, Activity 1.c, page 13 says to describe how the applicant will identify and engage organizations to support dissemination of interventions and referrals. Do we need to repeat this in Component B, Organizational Capacity, 4), page 30?

Answer: Yes, you will need to repeat this information or refer the reader back to the information provided earlier under Strategy 1 Activity 1.c.

 

Question: Why are the letters of support to upload for Component B, Strategy 2, Activity 1, page 17 organizations named “Healthcare Organizations_Letters_of_Support” while on page 30 under 4) we are told to name these letters “AAEBI Partnerships_Letters _of_Support?” Aren’t these the same organizations?

Answer: Page 17 is referring to Strategy 2 (the work conducted with healthcare providers) while page 30 is referring to Strategy 1 (AAEBI supporting partners).  The letters will be uploaded using a title description based on the type of organization the letter is from (based on the strategy the organization is supporting). These may or may not be the same organizations depending on the proposed approach.

 

Question: Project Narrative – Work Plan.  Are we interpreting correctly that there are two sections to the work plan – a.) a Year 1 detailed summary and also b.) one overarching general summary encompassing the entire period of years 2-5 (high level summary – pg. 47)?  Or do we break down for each year?  Should we use the Template on pg. 31 to present the work plan or describe in text?

Answer: Page 31, Section d: Applicants should provide a detailed work plan for the first year (not a summary) of the project and a high level work plan for the entire period of years 2-5 (not separate summaries for years 2, 3, 4, and 5).

The sample work plan format provided on page 31 can be used but is not required. If you don’t use the sample format provided, ensure you include all the items listed in the sample.

 

Question: Page Numbering:  Project Narrative instructions say to number each page of the Narrative (maximum 20 pages).  How does this fit with the Table of Contents numbering for the full submission?

Answer: Page 38, Section 8. The Table of Contents is not included in the project narrative page limit. The applicant must provide, as a separate attachment, the Table of Contents for the entire submission package. The Table of Contents file should be named “Table of Contents” and uploaded as a PDF file under “Other Attachment Forms”.

 

Question: “Report on Programmatic, Budgetary and Commitment Overlap” (pg. 38) Is this required for all applicants or just those where the applicant recognizes overlap in any of the categories?

Answer: The applicant is only required to report on programmatic, budgetary, or commitment overlap where the applicant recognizes overlap of any or all of these categories.

 

Question: Attachments – Upload Locations in grants.gov:  Which Documents should be uploaded to the “Mandatory Attachment” Page Box in grants.gov and which are uploaded to the “Optional Other Attachments” Page Box on the same page.

Answer: Page 58 Section H. Items to be attached in the Mandatory Attachments box are: Project Abstract, Project Narrative, Budget Narrative, Report on Programmatic, Budgetary and Commitment Overlap, Table of Contents for the Entire Submission. Items to be attached in the Optional Attachments box are: Letters of Support, Organizational Charts, Non-profit organization IRS status form, Indirect Cost Rate, Staffing Plan, and Position Description.

 

Question: Does the formatting for the workplan and any other tables included in the Project Narrative have to match the formatting of the narrative? i.e. Times new roman 12pt font, 1 inch margins or can the font be smaller and the margins more narrow?

Answer: Page 39 and 41. All tables, such as the Work Plan, that are a part of the Project Narrative (page 41) should follow the same formatting requirement as the Project Narrative. Single spaced, 12 point font, 1 inch margins.

 

Question: Does the Narrative need to be numbered 1-20 (or less if appropriate)?  If we are to number the Narrative pages 1-20, then when we create the Table of Contents, they will not match.

Answer: The Narrative does not need to be numbered 1-20, it just needs to be 20 pages or less.

 

Question: A CDC Risk Assessment Questionnaire is a required document as indicated on page 37, however, it does not seem to be listed as a required document on page 58 which states “Applicants may not attach documents other than those listed; if other documents are attached, applications will not be reviewed”. Can you please advise?

Answer: Applicant should upload the Risk Questionnaire document as instructed on page 37. It will not impact the review of your application.

 

Question: Is it allowable to include an acronym dictionary as an attachment to the application upload? The purpose would be to define acronyms included in the narrative.

Answer: Yes, applicant may provide an acronym dictionary and include it under the Table of Contents described on page 38 of 63.

 

Question: On page 29 it mentions at least 1.5 FTE annually should be dedicated to implementing the activities of the NOFO. May you clarify regarding this statement?

Answer: NOFO strongly encourages at least 1.5 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) hours (or 60 hours per week) to support the activities of this NOFO for Component B. The 1.5 FTE requirement can be achieved through a combination of staff from the applicant organization and staff from non-applicant partner organization. It is strongly encouraged the Program Manager is representative of the applicant organization. Program Manager must have experience with community-based programming at the local and state levels, state-wide collaboration efforts, dissemination of evidence-based programs, systems approaches to program delivery, and working with healthcare providers. Other staff/consultant support should have experience working with healthcare providers and/or clinical community linkages. Applicant must provide a letter of support from listed staff representing state health department programs or other state-wide programs as described on page 29 detailing their intentions and contribution to this NOFO. Applicants must name the file “Other Staff_Letter_of_Support” and upload it to www.grants.gov.

 

Question: The NOFO requires 5 letters of support, are MOAs required in addition to letters of support?

Answer: No, MOAs are not required in addition to letters of support.

 

Question: If a partner will be working on multiple activities or approaches (for example, strategy 1 activity 2 and activity 3), should we file two separate letters of support?

Answer: No you are not required to file two separate letters of support. Applicants may include details on all activities the partner will support in the one letter.

 

Question: Is it required to request a letter of Support from National organizations such as NACDD, OAAA, and AF?

Answer: Applicants are expected to supply Letters of Support from partners that commit to significantly supporting specific activities that can help applicant achieve NOFO requirements. Letters of Support should describe the scope and time frame of commitment and specific activities the partner will carry out. Pages 18-20 of the NOFO list organizations applicants should consider for potential collaborations. To successfully implement the strategies and activities proposed under this NOFO, applicants are expected to describe how they have or plan to collaborate with and/or leverage tools, resources and lessons learned resulting from organizations such as those listed on pages 18-20 and others, if applicable. Letters of Support may not be needed from the organizations listed on pages 18-20 if the organization’s commitment and specific activities are insignificant to helping the applicant carry out the requirements of the NOFO. It is up to the applicant to determine the level of support and whether it warrants a Letter of Support from the participating organization.

 

Question: Did I understand correctly that we have to use the workplan format in the NOFO?

Answer: No, the work plan on page 31 is a sample work plan template. If you choose to use a different format, you should at minimum include information covering the fields/categories provided in the work plan template on page 31.

 

Question: For component A, is it required to have a 1.0 FTE program manager, or can that FTE be divided between different roles?

Answer: The 1.0 Program manager role can be made up of time from multiple people however the level of responsibility for the position will not vary. The persons who fill the FTE program manager position would be expected to bear the responsibility and carry out the work of a 1.0FTE Program Manager and have commensurate experience to support this work.

 

Question: Is the Data Management Plan form required at time of application?

Answer: Yes, the Data Management Plan (DMP) does need to be provided at the time of application. CDC does recognize applicants may not be able to provide all the information on the form, but applicants should include a DMP that is as complete as possible.

 

Question: Is the Lobbying Activity Form required for organizations that do not conduct lobbying activities?

Answer: There is no lobbying activity form required. Recipients of federal funds are NOT

allowed to use federal funding for impermissible lobbying.

 

Question: Is there a specific definition for healthcare provider?

Answer: The best way to approach defining healthcare provider (HCP) for the purpose of this NOFO is to use the BRFSS definition in conjunction with the question on which the NOFO’s HCP-related outcomes are based. The BRFSS survey defines healthcare professional as a physician, nurse, nurse practitioner, physician’s assistant, social worker, or some other licensed professional. NOFO outcomes 2 and 3c are based on the following BRFSS question: Has a doctor or other health professional ever suggested physical activity or exercise to help your arthritis or joint symptoms?

 

Question: Can you elaborate on the requirement for 1.5 FTE dedicated to implementation of activities in component B? Can you give examples? Any administrative or evaluation support would not be included correct?

Answer: NOFO strongly encourages at least 1.5 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) hours (or 60 hours per week) to support the activities of this NOFO for Component B. The 1.5 FTE requirement can be achieved through a combination of staff from the applicant organization and staff from non-applicant partner organizations. It is strongly encouraged that the Program Manager is representative of the applicant organization. The Program Manager must have experience with community-based programming at the local and state levels, state-wide collaboration efforts, dissemination of evidence-based programs, systems approach to program delivery, and working with healthcare providers. Other staff/consultants should have experience working with healthcare providers and/or clinical community linkages or experience relevant to the award activities to which their time will be devoted. Applicants must provide a letter of support from partner organizations describing the level, type and duration of involvement or commitment to the NOFO activities, including staffing commitments if relevant. Refer to  page 29 and 30 for more information on LOS for staffing and partners detailing their intentions and contribution to this NOFO. Applicants must name the file “Other Staff_Letter_of_Support” and upload it to www.grants.gov

 

Question: Would MOAs replace LOS for specific partners? Is there a preference for MOAs?

Answer: Yes, that is fine. Applicant would title and upload them in the LOS section as the NOFO instructions state.

 

Question: In COMP A, P. 27 states “Applicant must describe appropriate staff and state health department program or other state-level organization engagement to support award activities. At least 1.0 FTE annually should be dedicated to implementing the activities of this NOFO.”  This does not state that a Program manager needs to be 1.0 simply staffing to work on the activities of this NOFO. Does that mean one could have 0.5 FTE Program Manager and 0.5 FTE Health Analyst to fulfil a 1.0 Staffing requirement?

 

Question: The NOFO mentioned “cost sharing” positions with other programs so it doesn’t need to be 1.0 FTE in one person?

Answer: Correct, but applicant will need to make sure that there is 1.0 FTE (Comp A) and 1.5 FTE (Comp B) with dedicated attention to this NOFO and fulfilling the position requirements.

 

Question: Is there a page limit for the project narrative?

Answer: Yes, the limit is 20 pages

 

Question: If a work plan is created in excel, is it allowable to insert this as a table into the narrative? When this is done, all columns are formatted to fit onto the page in landscape. This will shrink the columns, rows, and font of the text to fit into the Word document in order to display all columns and rows.

Answer: All tables, such as the Work Plan, that are a part of the Project Narrative (page 41) should follow the same formatting requirement as the Project Narrative (page 39): Single spaced, 12 point font, 1 inch margins.

 

Question: On page 18, separate headings of 1. Collaborations and on page 20 -2. Target Populations/Health Disparities are listed.  Are these sections meant to be supportive guidance for the applicant or do these particular headings need to be addressed in the Project Narrative separately and labeled as such? It seems this is repetitive within the strategies/activities and has already been included, unless you want additional focus on these areas.

Answer: The Project Narrative must follow the instructions provided starting on page 39. Information about collaborations and target populations/health disparities is to be included under the Approach section of the Project Narrative (pages 39-40), specifically under b. Approach, iii. Strategies and Activities, 1. Collaborations and 2. Target Populations and Health Disparities. Instructions are provided under 1. Collaborations and 2. Target Populations and Health Disparities on how to complete these sub-sections. It is possible some information may repeat under iii. Strategies and Activities.

 

Question: Is the Data Management Plan template considered as part of the Project Narrative or as an attachment?

Answer: The Data Management Plan does not count against the 20 page limit of the Project Narrative and should be attached as a separate attachment. Title document as “Data_Management_Plan”.

 

Question: Are both the Applicant Evaluation and Performance Measurement Plan and Data Management Plan counted towards the total page limit?

Answer: As indicated on page 39, the Project Narrative is to include the Applicant Evaluation and Performance Measurement Plan and count against the 20 page limit. The Data Management Plan does not count against the 20 page limit.

 

Question: Is it acceptable to do landscape rather than portrait on the evaluation and workplans in the narrative as long as we use the 12 pt and 1 inch margins?

Answer: Yes, landscape view is acceptable for the evaluation and work plan under the Project Narrative section.

 

Question: Can the evaluation and work plan be combined on the same page?

Answer: NOFO pages 26 and 31 detail the requirements for the evaluation and performance measurement plan and work plan. The information should be presented in a manner that is responsive to the requirements listed for both plans. It is up to the applicant to determine whether it is possible to present all the information required by combining the evaluation and work plan on the same page(s).

 

Question: Is there a required minimum or maximum total number of letters of support?

Answer: There is no requirement on the number of letters of support.

 

Question: For the Letters of Support, would you like each type of Letter to be uploaded into separate files (AAEBI Partnerships, Healthcare Organizations, Disproportionately Affected Pop, BRFSS and Other Staff) or can they be uploaded under one document with headings identifying the type of letter of support they are?  We have a few organizations who’s letters fall under multiple categories, how should this be delineated in the file attachments?

Answer: Applicant may opt to submit Letters of Support separately or combine into one document, however, applicant should clearly indicate which topic(s) each Letter of Support is addressing.  Headings can be used to identify the topic(s) addressed if the applicant opts to combine them into one document.

 

Question: In reading the Arthritis NOFO and also the FAQ’s, I just want to make sure that I understand about page limits.
A. For the Project Narrative, both the Workplan and the Eval and Performance Measurement Plan ARE included in the 20 page limit, correct? So 20 pages needs to include the following:

– Background
– Approach (Purpose, Outcomes, Strategies & Activities, Collaborations, Target Pops & Health Disparities)
– Workplan
– Applicant Evaluation and Performance Measurement Plan
– Organizational Capacity of Applicants to Implement the Approach

1. But separate documents, not included in page limits, are:
   – Table of Contents
   – Data Management Plan
   – Staffing Plan
   – Budget
   – Org chart
   – Letters
   – Resumes/CV’s
   – Position Descriptions

Answer: The Project Narrative page limit is 20 pages. The Project Narrative does include the Evaluation and Performance Measurement Plan and Work Plan.

The Project Narrative must include and address all the following headings (including subheadings): Background, Approach, Applicant Evaluation and Performance Measurement Plan, Organizational Capacity of Applicants to Implement the Approach, and Work Plan (Page 39).

Other items to be submitted by applicant, but not part of the Project Narrative or subject to its 20-page limit are:

Project Abstract, Table of Contents for the entire submission, Budget Narrative, Resumes/CVs, Letters of Support, Organizational Charts, Non-profit organizational IRS status forms (if applicable), Indirect Cost Rate (if applicable), Staffing Plan, Position Descriptions, Data Management Plan, CDC Risk Assessment Questionnaire (pages 37 and 58).

 

Question: If a single letter of support falls under multiple categories for example both AAEBI Partnerships_Letters_of_Support & Disproportionately Affected Pop_Letter_of_Support should the letter be uploaded twice with both names or one time with a single combined name like AAEBI Partnerships and Disproportionately Affected Pop_Letters_of_Support?

Answer: Applicant may opt to submit Letters of Support separately or combine into one document, however, applicant should clearly indicate which topic(s) each Letter of Support is addressing.  Headings can be used to identify the topic(s) addressed if the applicant opts to combine them into one document.

 

Question: Can a reference sheet/document be submitted as an attachment referring to references from the narrative?

Answer: Yes, reference information can be submitted with the application. Title section “References” and include it in the Table of Contents document, it should not be attached as a separate document.

 

Question: Is a Logic Model required with submission?

Answer: No, a logic model is not required for submission.

 

Question: Based on the NOFO, is a letter of support from the NACDD required for the application? Or will we have points deducted if one is not submitted? I reached out requesting a letter but was told by NACDD they are not allowed to provide one on behalf of applicants.

Answer: No, a letter of support (LOI) is not required from the NACDD and will not result in any potential point deduction. However, it is expected that recipient will, during the 5-year period of performance, collaborate with the CDC Project Officers and NACDD (funded under CDC-RFA-DP21-2106 Component 1 and 2) to help further define activities for this strategy, including (but not limited to) identifying and disseminating existing awareness-raising tools and resources, and obtaining technical assistance related to provider physical activity counseling strategies.

 

Question:  Given the number of pages allowed for the project narrative and the inclusion of the work plan in that limit, we are trying to determine how detailed we should be with activities. We typically create work plans that identify a fairly large number of specific actions that we will take to meet an objective including the steps we’ll take within each activity which takes many pages based on the template provided. So, we are trying to determine how detailed we should be. Do you have any additional guidance on this?

Answer: Activities should have sufficient detail that clearly demonstrates applicant’s intention for how applicant intends to address the NOFO requirements and achieve the required outcomes and reach targets. Applicant should not repeat the content provided in the NOFO under each activity, but instead describe their specific efforts that will address the requirement of the NOFO activity under each strategy.

 

Question: Also, with a number of collaborators and space as an issue, should we describe collaborations in the organizational capacity section (as indicated on pg 27 – 3&4). Or, should we describe collaborations (as indicated on pg 40) under Approach>Strategies & Activities>Collaborations? 

Answer: Applicants may address collaborations in either section, but need not be duplicative. Applicants may indicate where the collaboration information relevant to a section may be found, instead of repeating information, if the relevant information is addressed elsewhere in the application. This may help with remaining within the page limits. Regardless, applicants must address the organizational capacity requirements as described in the CDC Project Description (pages 18-21).

 

Question: In regards to Report on Programmatic, Budgetary, and Commitment Overlap – is there a specific format in which this document needs to be and does it get loaded into the “Mandatory Other Attachment” slot?

Answer: There is no template for the Report on Programmatic, Budgetary, and Commitment Overlap. Applicants can submit a written statement of whether this application will result in programmatic, budgetary, or commitment overlap with another application or award (e.g., grant, cooperative agreement, or contract) submitted to another funding source in the same fiscal year. Applicants can submit this as part of their application, even if they do not have duplication of effort. The document should be labeled: “Report on Programmatic, Budgetary, and Commitment Overlap” and may be uploaded in Grants.gov under “Other Attachment Forms”. Below is further information to guide preparation of the written statement.

Programmatic overlap occurs when (1) substantially the same project is proposed in more than one application or is submitted to two or more funding sources for review and funding consideration or (2) a specific objective and the project design for accomplishing the objective are the same or closely related in two or more applications or awards, regardless of the funding source. Budgetary overlap occurs when duplicate or equivalent budgetary items (e.g., equipment, salaries) are requested in an application but already are provided by another source. Commitment overlap occurs when an individual’s time commitment exceeds 100 percent, whether or not salary support is requested in the application. Overlap, whether programmatic, budgetary, or commitment of an individual’s effort greater than 100 percent, is not permitted. Any overlap will be resolved by the CDC with the applicant and the principle director/principle investigator prior to award.

 

Question: The NOFO says that we need a letter for BFRSS support – there are specific points for that. Our department of health partner would only provide one letter of support and included language for their full support and collaboration of the BFRSS Coordinator into one letter. Can we upload the same letter in both categories (partner support and BFRSS Support) as it contains the required information in the letter for ‘partner’ and BFRSS?

Answer: Yes, you can upload the same letter in both categories.

 

Question: Can we include a list of acronyms in the table of contents or if appropriate attach as a separate document?

Answer: Yes, applicant can include a list of acronyms in the Table of Contents, but do not attach as a separate document.

 

Question: Last week the “X” State BRFSS Program received an inquiry from an external organization about providing a letter of support for their CDC-RFA-23-0001 application.  “X” was one of the three states the organization was planning to address in its application.

The “X State” Department of Health, receives funding from CDC for BRFSS and Arthritis and is planning to apply for funding under CDC-RFA-DP-23-0001.  The “X State” Department of Health includes the CDC Arthritis Module in our “X State” BRFSS and makes data from the BRFSS available for use like external organizations.  Would stating this in a letter to the external organization meet the requirement of providing an applicant a letter of support?  We do not want to prevent an applicant from applying for funding, but also do not want to overstate a level of support and intent to collaborate.

Answer: The “X State” Department of Health is not restricted to how it opts to respond in a Letter of Support regarding BRFSS support to an external organization. The state health department should clearly state at what level it is going to support the request of the external organization.

 

Question: In the details of the grant package it refers to Component A and Component B.  We are not finding this referenced on any of the forms.  Will it suffice to add “Component A” In the Headers and Title of our submission narratives?

Answer: Yes, add which component you are applying for in the headers and title of the submission.

 

Question: The FAQs clearly state that we should submit our budget narrative for year one only.  Should we then only enter 1/5 of our ask ($300,000.00) or the total amount over the five years ($1,500,000.00) in line 1e of form (SF-424A)?  Should we then list the details in section B line 6, a through k that would total the $300,000 for year one and match the budget narrative?

Answer: The entire SF-424a form and budget narrative should reflect only the amount requested for year 1.

Question: Can more than one recipient be funded in one state?

Answer: (page 49 of 63) No more than one recipient will be funded per state. To address geographic diversity, applications may be funded out of rank order to avoid duplicity of working in the same geographic area and to ensure that program activities are available across different U.S. geographies (e.g., rural or urban areas).

 

Question: Can an applicant apply for both Components?

Answer: Applicants may apply for either Component A or Component B, not both. Applicants must identify the Component they are applying for in the title of their application submission and in the Project Narrative. If not clearly identified, the application will be considered non-responsive and will not be entered into the review process.

 

Question: Is there enough funding to award at the ceiling amount of the projected number of awards?  And/or that the average Component A and B award is now expected to be $300,000?

Answer: The average funding for category A and category B will differ. Category A funding is expected to be lower than category B. CDC does not have enough funding currently to fund at the ceiling amounts for this NOFO.

Question: Are there specific CDC-funded arthritis projects that overlap with this new funding that we should be aware of?

Answer: Yes, this NOFO builds upon 3 CDC funded programs addressing arthritis (page 5):

• CDC-RFA-DP18-1803 State Public Health Approaches to Addressing Arthritis (ending),
• CDC-RFA-DP21-2106 Advancing Arthritis Public Health Priorities through National Organizations (continuing), and
• CDC-RFA-OT18-1802 Strengthening Public Health Systems and Services through National Partnerships to Improve and Protect the Nation’s Health (ending).

As indicated on page 8 and pages 18-20 under Collaborations, applicants are expected to describe how they have or plan to collaborate with and/or leverage tools, resources and lessons learned resulting from some CDC-funded programs and organizations, including the national partners funded under CDC-RFA-DP21-2106- Arthritis Foundation, National Association of Chronic Disease Directors, National Recreation and Park Association, Osteoarthritis Action Alliance, and Y-USA among others. Applicants are encouraged to provide Letters of Support from these organizations if appropriate for the applicants proposed approach, name the letters of support document as “AAEBI Partnerships_Letters_of_Support” and upload it to www.grants.gov. Letters of Support should describe scope and time frame of commitment and specific activities the partner will carry out during the period of performance in support of cooperative agreement activities.

 

Question: Is the CDC arthritis program currently working with healthcare providers to increase awareness, knowledge, and skills in promoting physical activity as an effective, drug-free way to relieve arthritis pain, improve function, and limit arthritis progression among US adults with arthritis?

Answer: In September 2021, CDC funded the National Association of Chronic Disease Directors (NACDD) under the CDC-RFA-DP21-2106 cooperative agreement to develop and implement an evidence-informed arthritis model of care around physical activity screening, counseling, and referral for patients with arthritis under Component 2 of the cooperative agreement. The development of the care model will be guided by the landscape assessment conducted in year one and a national panel of experts in year two. There was a webinar in September 2022 that showcased the NACDD project as well as the Osteoarthritis Action Alliance OA Care Tools for providers.  Further, 13 states funded under CDC-RFA-DP18-1803 State Public Health Approaches to Addressing Arthritis have been conducting activities to increase provider counseling among adults with arthritis about physical activity as a way to help manage arthritis.

 

Question: Can applicants take advantage of the current efforts of state programs and national partners to improve quality of life of adults with arthritis?

Answer: Yes, as indicated on pages 18-20 under Collaborations, applicants are expected to describe how they have or plan to collaborate with and/or leverage tools, resources and lessons learned resulting from CDC-funded programs and CDC-funded organizations to enhance their proposed approach and to build off existing efforts to implement arthritis public health efforts.

 

Question: Where can you find more information about the CDC-RFA-DP21-2106 Component 2 efforts?

Answer: To learn more about CDC-RFA-DP21-2106 Component 2 efforts access the archived NOFO on www.grants.gov and visit the national partner page of the CDC arthritis website.

 

Question: Can applicants build upon the arthritis appropriate evidence-based interventions (AAEBIs) continuing education course, Lifestyle Management Programs for Arthritis: Test Your Knowledge on Evidence-Based Interventions (https://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/983780), developed through a collaboration between National Association of Chronic Disease Directors and Medscape Education?

Answer: The NOFO does not reference or have any specific requirements for the Lifestyle Management Programs for Arthritis: Test Your Knowledge on Evidence-Based Interventions (https://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/983780) course, however, an applicant may opt to build upon this continuing education course as they would like to.  CEs and other tools do not replace and cannot be used in lieu of the NOFO AAEBI dissemination, delivery and reach requirements.

 

Question: Can applicants promote the existing Lifestyle Management Programs for Arthritis: Test Your Knowledge on Evidence-Based Interventions continuing education course to state healthcare providers?

Answer: The NOFO does not reference or have any specific requirements for the Lifestyle Management Programs for Arthritis: Test Your Knowledge on Evidence-Based Interventions (https://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/983780) course, however, an applicant may opt to promote this continuing education course to healthcare providers if desired.

 

Question: Under Component 2, Strategy 1, Activity 2 it states: Establish and implement at least FOUR or more approaches to sustain access to and delivery of selected AAEBIs from the following: 1) program locator 2) program portal 3) reimbursement or financing 4) combining local parks, trail and greenspace infrastructure  5) incorporation of arthritis strategies into local or state health department or other public or private state-level organization’s strategic plans, 6) engagement of state agency or other large employer (e.g. employers with more than 500 employees in the state) worksite wellness programs 7) embedding AAEBIs into large or multi-site community organization operations to sustain AAEBI availability beyond the cooperative agreement funding period. Can you provide clarification about what success for #7 might look like?  What kind of organization should we be thinking of when it says “large or multi-site community organization”?

Answer: For approach #7, engage local, state and/or local affiliates of national organizations that have the capacity and willingness to embed AAEBIs into routine operations to maintain sustainability of the intervention(s). Choose organizations likely to serve constituents with arthritis, have multiple delivery sites, support program delivery as part of their daily operations, and view delivery of an AAEBI as a way to help the organization meet its mission. Examples are employers, healthcare systems, faith-based organizations, area agencies on aging and senior centers, multi-site or chain fitness facilities or organizations, emergency medical services, cooperative extension universities, state and local park and recreation facilities, public libraries, etc.

Success for approach #7 for example may look as follows: Fitness Chain “X”, through its 10 sites in Georgia, offers Enhance®Fitness or Tai Ji Quan: Moving for Better Balance to its members. Initial costs of training the trainer or master trainer and other program costs may be supported by recipient, but eventually the Fitness Chain “X” takes on this responsibility. Costs of the program are absorbed by organization’s membership fees and other revenue streams. Another example may involve a local park and recreation facility offering one or more AAEBIs, where the initial training of trainers and other program costs may be supported by the recipient, but eventually the local park and recreation center(s) absorbs the costs through its own revenues and program participation fees.

 

Question: Approach 4 for Activity 1.2 (page 9) asks the applicant to describe how they will implement parks, trails, and greenway infrastructure interventions combined with one or more interventions that support or promote physical activity. It goes on to mention that collaboration with CDC-funded programs (i.e., SPAN) can help leverage resources to successfully implement an AAEBI in combination with local parks, trails, and greenway infrastructure interventions. For this approach, are applicants required to specifically work with parks (state or local)? Or is this partnership more broad?

Answer: Applicants are required to establish and implement at least THREE approaches for Component A and FOUR approaches for Component B of seven approaches to sustain access to and delivery of selected AAEBIs. If an applicant chooses approach 4, while not a specific requirement to work with parks, in order to demonstrate implementation of the approach, CDC suggests applicants refer to The Community Guide recommendation on how parks, trails, and greenway infrastructure interventions combined with one or more interventions that support or promote physical activity can increase physical activity. Collaboration with CDC funded programs such as the next iterations of the State Physical Activity and Nutrition Program and High Obesity Program can help leverage resources to successfully implement an AAEBI in combination with local parks, trails and/or greenway infrastructure interventions.

 

Question: Can CDC provide examples of ways other states have collaborated with the BOLD/Dementia grant?

Answer: The Program is not aware of ways other states have collaborated with the BOLD/Dementia projects and by way of this NOFO are encouraging collaboration across this and other CDC cooperative agreement programs.

 

Question: In strategy 2, how does CDC define a health care provider? For example, would a physical therapist, public health nurse, CHW, etc. count as a health care provider?

Answer: The BRFSS survey defines healthcare professional as a physician, nurse, nurse practitioner, physician’s assistant, social worker, or some other licensed professional.

 

Question: Can work for approach 7 in strategy 2 support work for activity 2 approach 6, activity 1, activity 3, or strategy 2? For example, if embedding AAEBIs into a health care system, can this same health care system be engaged for strategy 2 work?

Answer: Yes, applicants may propose complimentary approaches and activities and common partners/systems to meet NOFO requirements (e.g. work with the same partners and/or systems across multiple activities); but should ensure they clearly describe how each NOFO activity and/or requirement for a given Component will be addressed and/or met.

 

Question: Regarding Activity 2 in Component A, this section states that the grantee must establish and implement three or more of the listed approaches. Approaches 1 and 2 mention a program locator/program portal.  Our state already has a program locator/program portal, but not all of the proposed AAEBIs are currently on the site. Would adding AAEBIs to the existing program locator/program portal and using the platform for enrollment, referrals, and attendance for these programs meet the requirements for approaches 1 and 2?

Answer: Page 8 and 9 – Yes, you can build upon an existing system.

 

Question: Need clarification re: the 5,000 and 15,000 enrollment for Component B as follows:

Under  Applicant’s Organizational Capacity to Implement the Approach for COMPONENT B Pages 29,48, states: Describes having enrolled at least 5,000 participants over a 5-year period through AAEBIs and other evidence based physical activity and self-management intervention offerings. However, the grant information call stated enroll at least 15,000 over a 5-year period and this is listed PAGES 12, 24,47.  ONLY  PAGE 7 INDICATES ENROLLMENT AND ATTENDANCE OF AT LEAST 1 CLASS/SESSION. Please confirm which is the correct statement and requirement for B.

Answer: Pages 29 and 48 are referring to the applicants past experience. To qualify for Component B funding the applicant must be able to describe their past experience in enrolling at least 5,000 participants in an AAEBI over a five year period.

Page 12, 24, 47 and the information shared on the grant information call all refer to expectations of the applicant applying for Component B for the new DP23-0001 NOFO and its five year period. The applicant needs to describe how they will enroll a minimum of either 15,000 enrollees or 2% of the total number of adults with arthritis in the state.

Page 7 is referring to Component A requirements. The applicant needs to describe how they will have enrolled a minimum of either 7,500 adults or 1% of the total number of adults with arthritis in the state with AAEBIs (as evidenced by enrollment and attendance of at least 1 class/session) by the end of the 5-year period of performance.  The “at least 1 class/session” language refers to how to count a person as enrolled in an AAEBI to meet that 7,5000 total of adults enrolled. The participant must have signed up and attended at least one class or session.

Page 12 includes the following, parallel requirement for Component B: “It is expected that the recipient will have enrolled a minimum of either 15,000 adults or 2% of the total number of adults with arthritis in the state with AAEBIs (as evidenced by enrollment and attendance of at least 1 class/session) by the end of the 5-year period of performance.”

 

Question: Regarding Component B, Strategy 1, Activity 4, award recipients are required to work with the state health dept BRFSS coordinator to fund and/or collect appropriate BRFSS Arthritis data, and report BRFSS outcome and performance measures every odd year. If our state already collects data on BRFSS Arthritis module questions in odd years, is there any expectation beyond continuing to collect data on the specified questions in odd years (like funding a module for even years)?

Answer: Yes. Applicants are encouraged to budget for a one question BRFSS arthritis module in 2024. The CDC Arthritis Program is exploring an optional Arthritis module in even years beginning with 2024 so that 2024 can serve as the baseline for Outcome Measures 2 and 3c which are required of all recipients.

 

Question: Is it correct that we cannot use the Arthritis Grant funds to actually conduct the AAEBI Workshops?

Answer: The funds associated with these awards are limited and sustainability is important. Although, supporting AAEBI startup costs is acceptable, awardees are discouraged from supporting routine course delivery costs. CDC strongly encourages engaging organizations to help support the cost of trainings and materials required to disseminate and deliver AAEBIs on an ongoing basis to facilitate commitment and program sustainability. Supporting training to train workshop instructors/presenters/facilitators and start-up costs to establish statewide capacity and infrastructure to sustainably disseminate AAEBIs, maintain AAEBI availability, and implement strategies to sustain access to and delivery of selected AAEBIs are acceptable.

 

Question: Is it correct that we CAN use grant funds to train additional workshop presenters/facilitators (for in-person and virtual classes), expanding the AAEBI workforce to accommodate the increased number of participants enrolled through the grant targets?

Answer: Yes. Recipients are allowed to use grant funds to train workshop instructors/presenters/facilitators, since these are considered start-up costs. However, recipients must identify sustainable strategies to support the dissemination of AAEBIs, maintenance of AAEBI availability, and implementation of strategies to sustain access to and delivery of selected AAEBIs. CDC strongly encourages engaging organizations to help support the cost of trainings and materials required to disseminate and deliver AAEBIs on an ongoing basis to facilitate commitment and program sustainability.

 

Question:  Is the required Atlanta meeting every year or just once during the five years?

Answer: A recipient meeting will be held in Atlanta in fall of 2023. We will not hold a meeting annually, however, one or two more meetings will be held during the 5-year performance period.

 

Question: Is it preferred that adults with lower income be defined by income level or poverty level? And is there a specific income level standard we should follow?

Answer: The CDC Arthritis Program does not have a preference or threshold for defining low-income adults with arthritis. Applicants are encouraged to use available state and other data to identify gaps and disparities and make decisions on which subpopulations of adults with arthritis their efforts should focus.

 

Question: For Component A, Strategy 1, can the 2 AAEBIs be under the same category such as physical activity or are applicants required to select 1 AAEBI under the recognized physical activity program list and 1 AAEBI under the recognized self-management education program list?

Answer: Yes, both AAEBIs can be from the same category.

 

Question: How do we count reach numbers, can it be people in programs funded by the recipient and numbers from partners that hosted the programs?

Answer: Reach numbers can include both people in programs funded by the recipient and numbers from partners that hosted the program. When including reach numbers, applicants should indicate their role and level of involvement and support in program dissemination and delivery. Look at the review criteria at the end of the NOFO for more information about what to emphasize.

 

Question: Is enrollment defined as registering for a class, or attending at least 1 time?

Answer: Enrollment is defined as both registering for a class and attending at least one time. We are not looking at completer information.

 

Question: Can you speak to “It is expected that the recipient will have enrolled a minimum of either 7,500 adults or 1% of the total number of adults with arthritis in the state with AAEBIs” is it anticipated that the catchment area be an entire state and does the # reached include exposures as well as enrollment?

Answer: Yes, the catchment area for each award is the state, meaning that for every award, the awardee is expected to meet or exceed the reach minimums within the state for which they have received the award. Reach may extend beyond this minimum requirement. The number reached is based on program enrollment and attendance of one or more classes.

 

Question: On Comp A strategy 1 Activity 1 – when you go to the OAAA site, there are two tables. One has physical activity programs, and one has self-management programs. Can the applicant select any two of those AAEBIs?

Answer: Yes, you can select any two.

 

Question: Do providers need a diagnosis code?

Answer:  Yes, most likely. However, that may vary and will depend on the approach proposed by an applicant.

 

Question: In Component B, Strategy 2, Activity 2, can you further define what would qualify as an “electronic system”? Does this need to be embedded in electronic health record systems?

Answer: Under Component B, Strategy 2, Activity 2, “electronic system(s)” refers to any electronic processes that will serve to help facilitate and sustain healthcare provider physical activity assessment and counseling for arthritis and referral pathway(s) for AAEBIs and other relevant care. It can include the use of any electronic systems or tools, such as emails, phones, organization patient communication tools/portals, electronic health record systems, and/or other electronically available tools.

 

Question: Several of our proposed AAAEBI programs involve a Handbook for participants.  That cost is in addition to the workshop cost that is covered through our sustainability funding sources, which allows individuals to participate in workshops at no cost to them.  In the handbook cost has at times been born by the participants who wish to take them home, which can affect equitable access.

Is the cost of Participant Handbooks an acceptable budget item if considered as start-up money for the project? This is our interpretation based on your response to a previous question. But we are not sure.

We would like to purchase some handbooks and have them on hand so that we can: a.) bring folks into the workshops quickly to meet our participation targets and b.) ensure that the handbooks are available equitably, to encourage full participation of families with limited financial resources.

The handbooks would also serve as an ongoing resource for participants, to refer to as reinforcement of the principles they have learned in the workshops, and share with their family members and caregivers, which contributes to program sustainability into the future. Or we could use them in a lending library situation.

Answer: The cost of Participant Handbooks is not traditionally considered a start-up item and it is generally discouraged to use cooperative agreement funds to purchase participant books since funds could quickly be exhausted. However, there are exceptions to this rule and purchase of books to establish a lending library to increase access more equitably, for example, is considered sustainable, a start-up cost, and an acceptable budget item. Other exceptions can be requested as need arises and approved or denied on a case-by-case basis in conjunction with the project officer upon award.

Question:  Would it strengthen an application to have an external evaluator? Is one or the other (internal vs external evaluation team) preferred or viewed as stronger? A third option is to use an internal evaluation team but with external consultants to ensure robust evaluation.

Answer: Applicants should consider the parameters of their proposed project, including the budget and minimum requirements for this NOFO, when deciding how to conduct their program evaluation. Relevant review criteria are listed under Phase II review in the NOFO.

 

Question: Is there a difference between OM2 and OM3c?

Answer: OM2 (HCP PA Counseling) pertains to the state-wide prevalence, whereas OM3c pertains to the prevalence of HCP PA Counseling in the specific underserved/disproportionately affected population(s) the applicant selects to focus on in reducing disparities in arthritis management and outcomes.

 

Question: The recipient will fund the BRFSS Arthritis module.  What would be the first year of the module, 2025?

Answer: Answer – Applicants are encouraged to budget for a 1-question BRFSS arthritis module in 2024. The CDC Arthritis Program is exploring an optional Arthritis module in even years beginning with 2024 so that 2024 can serve as the baseline for outcomes 2 and 3c which are required of all recipients. Data for outcomes 1, 3a and 3b is expected to be available for all states for 2023. However, CDC does recognize and expect that baseline data for outcomes 3d, e and f, which will vary across states depending on the awardees’ selection for this category of outcomes, may not be available for most states until 2025.

 

Question: In the informational call it was mentioned that CDC was considering adding an even year optional arthritis module to BRFSS. Is this something we should put in our year one budget, or will this not go into place until 2026?

Answer: For year one budget, applicants are encouraged to fund a 1-question BRFSS arthritis module in 2024. The CDC Arthritis Program is exploring an optional Arthritis module in even years beginning with 2024 so that 2024 can serve as the baseline for outcomes 2 and 3c which are required of all recipients. Data for outcomes 1, 3a and 3b will be available for all states for 2023. However, CDC does recognize and expect that baseline data for outcomes 3d, e and f, which will vary across states depending on the awardees’ selection for this category of outcomes, may not be available for most states until 2025.

 

Question: The RFA indicates that the Arthritis Module will be used in conjunction with Core Physical Activity Module questions to determine if walking is one of the main exercises (evaluation 3b). However, the Physical Activity module is only included in the BRFSS Core in a rotation of every 4 years. It is currently on the 2023 survey and will not be on the survey again until 2027. Given the timeframe of the RFA, if the Arthritis module is included in 2024, 2025, and 2027, only the 2027 year will include both the Arthritis and Physical Activity Modules. Is this acceptable to meet evaluation 3b?

Answer: Because questions included in the BRFSS may change from year to year for a variety of reasons, if DP-23-0001 performance measure(s) are removed from the survey during the project period, the CDC Arthritis Program may either remove the requirement for data collection for that performance measure(s) that year or, in rare cases, require awardees to include the dropped performance measures and ask them as state-added questions or via the Arthritis Module

 

Question: Will evaluation measure 3b be derived from the Physical Activity BRFSS Module questions “What type of physical activity or exercise did you spend the most time doing during the past month?”? OR, will measure 3b also use the Physical Activity Questions determining how often and for how long the walking was done to determine if it was enough walking, such as a minimum of 150 minutes per week as recommended by the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans and used routinely for the Physical Activity Module?

Answer: Only “What type of physical activity or exercise did you spend the most time doing during the past month?” BRFSS question is being used for 3b, though applicants may opt to collect and report other measures in addition to it.

 

Question: If the Physical Activity Module is not included in the Core BRFSS, specifically for years 2024 and 2025, will awardees be required to include the dropped performance measures and ask them as state-added questions or via the Arthritis Module?

Answer: No, awardees will not be required to add questions from the BRFSS Physical Activity Module as either state-added questions or via the Arthritis Module in years the module is not part of the core BRFSS.

Question: When is the informational call for this Notice of Funding Opportunity?

Answer: A 60-minute informational call will be held on 1/24/2023 from 1:00 pm to 2:00 pm US Eastern Standard Time.

Join ZoomGov Meeting:

https://cdc.zoomgov.com/j/1603165329?pwd=MlRsS0tydXAxK0RyS1hFMUVxazFhdz09

The informational call script can be found here. [PDF – 225 KB]

 

Question: Do I just join the call January 24th?

Answer: Yes, anyone interested in hearing information about the NOFO may join the call on January 24^th. Registration is not required.

 

Question: Is there an opportunity to listen to a recording of the Informational Conference Call?

Answer: No, the informational conference call was not recorded and is only available via a script at Info-Call-Script-DP23.0001.pdf (cdc.gov).

Question: What change occurred in the second modification of CDC-RFA-DP-23-0001 on Jan 10, 2023 01:24:26 PM EST?

Answer: A correction was made to a hyperlink provided for the Compass Portal on pages 9 and 14. The new hyperlink is: Compass Home – Compass (compasshp.org). Additionally, modification 1 made on Dec 16, 2022 06:47:03 AM EST had dead links for all the hyperlinks provided in the NOFO. Modification 2 updated the links to make them live.

Question: When is the Letter of Intent due?

Answer: The Letter of Intent (LOI) suggested due date is by midnight EST on January 31^st, 2023.

The purpose of a LOI is to allow CDC program staff to estimate the number of and plan for the review of submitted applications. A LOI is strongly encouraged from prospective applicants.

LOI must be sent via email to:

Margaret Kaniewski

Email address: CDC-RFA-DP-23-0001@cdc.gov

In the email, write in the subject line: Letter of Intent. In the body of the email, provide which Component you are applying for (Component A or Component B), the name of the organization applying, and contact information.

 

Question: What do you need in the letter by Jan 31?

Answer: The letter of intent should include the following items (per NOFO Page 38, Section 7):

1. Which component you are applying for (i.e. Competent A or Competent B),
2. The name of the organization applying,
3. Contact information for the person(s) serving as the main point of contact for the application.

 

Question: Where do we send the Letter of Intent?  Is it sent by email?

Answer: The letter of intent should be addressed to Margaret Kaniewski and sent to the following email address: CDC-RFA-DP-23-0001@cdc.gov (per NOFO Page 38, Section 7).