Questions and Answers from the Informational Conference Calls for RFA CE12-001 Grant for Injury Control Research Centers Two informational conference calls for potential applicants for funding opportunity announcement (FOA) RFA CE12-001 Grant for Injury Control Research Centers were held on June 16, 2011 and July 7, 2011. This is a summary of questions and answers from those calls. Types/Focus of Centers and Research Projects 1) Question: The FOA specifies that one small research project must address a component of translation research and one small research project must address a component of policy research. These two small research projects must also address: 1) one of NCIPC s three research focus areas: child maltreatment, motor vehicle injuries, or falls prevention, 2) NCPIC s emerging focus areas: traumatic brain injury, unintentional drug overdoses and poisonings, or youth violence, or 3) they must address a high burden injury and/or violence prevention and control topic area. Some people have identified these as Tier 1, 2, and 3 topic areas. The following questions were asked concerning the topic areas: 1a) Can an application have both of those projects address a topic area from the same tier? Answer: Yes. 1b) Will the applicant receive favoritism or extra points if they address two or more of the tier areas? Answer: No. 1c) Will the applicant receive extra points for focusing on Tier 1? Answer: No. 1d) Will the applicant be penalized for choosing Tier 3, Other High Burden Injury and/or violence topic areas? Answer: No. However, if the applicant chooses Tier 3 topic areas, the burden of proof is going to be on the applicant to explain why that topic area is important, is high burden, and is of interest to CDC. For example, if an applicant decides to study dog bite injuries in the United States, a strong justification would have to be made regarding why this is a high burden injury area. 1
2) Question: How broad or narrow should the focus of the application be for both the center and the proposed research? Answer: The broadness (or narrowness) of the focus of the application for both the center and the proposed research is left up to the discretion of the applicant. In their application, applicants will have to explain their reasoning for choosing a particular focus. Centers are expected to provide leadership, be a resource to their community, and provide support to their local stakeholders and community partners. This will be difficult to do if the application is too focused. For example, if an applicant focuses all of their research and training outreach activities on traumatic brain injuries among high school athletes, the application will probably not fare as well in the peer review process than if the focus of the research and training outreach activities were a little broader. Also, if the applicant is too broad and tries to focus on all areas of injury and violence prevention, their application may be reviewed as being unfocused and may not fare well in peer review either. NCIPC s advice would be to clearly explain why the particular focus area was chosen and not to be something you are not. For example, if an applicant s expertise is in child maltreatment, they should not propose a research project that deals with motor vehicle injuries just to be perceived as being broader. 3) Question: Are exploratory research projects required? Answer: Exploratory research projects are required. NCIPC wants centers to conduct research using both small projects and exploratory projects. However, there is not a required number of exploratory projects over the five-year grant cycle. Exploratory projects have been moved out of the administrative core and placed in the research core. The specific exploratory projects do not have to be listed in the application. Instead, the applicant must explain the mechanism by which exploratory projects will be solicited and reviewed, how funding decisions will be made, and how projects will be monitored once underway. The information provided in the application concerning the exploratory research projects should address the process and not the individual projects themselves. 4) Question: Is it allowable for a center to engage in only injury prevention and control research or only violence prevention research? Some of the existing centers apparently do both. Answer: It is permissible to focus on one or the other. An applicant does not need to address both. Centers may only focus on unintentional injuries or only on violence prevention. NCIPC tried to include the wording injury and/or violence in the FOA in every place this was discussed. However, as noted earlier, one of the center s responsibilities is to be a resource to its community. Focusing all of the training, education, outreach, and resource activities on one narrow aspect of unintentional injuries or violence may not be 2
viewed favorably by the peer review committee. Again, it is up to the applicant to explain why they chose the focus they did. 5) Question: Should the outreach programs of the center be local, regional, or national in scope? Answer: Applicants can decide how broad or how narrow to make the center s outreach efforts. Outreach programs need to be broader than just the parent organization for the center (e.g., Georgia Tech), but they do not necessarily need to be national programs either. The scope of the effort will also depend on the focus of the outreach programs within the center. Some outreach programs may only focus on a particular city while others within the same center might focus on multiple states. Again, the applicant has to explain why they chose the scope and focus they did. Note: The term geographic region is used in several places in the FOA. In most cases, it is used as a generic term to describe a region defined by the applicant (e.g., northwest, southeast, great lakes, midwest, Ohio valley) and not one of the 10 DHHS regions. The exception to this is when the term DHHS regions or HHS regions is used. Application Structure/Format 6) Question: What federal application form do we use? Answer: Applications will be submitted electronically using the SF424 (R&R) form. 7) Question: Do the suggestions in the FOA to follow the SF424 instructions relate only to the content of the small projects or to the entire application? Answer: They relate to the entire application. Applications for this FOA must be completed using the SF424 form. They need to follow the format of the SF424 including providing detailed budgets, budget justifications, and sections on Specific Aims, Research Strategy, Protection of Human Subjects, Inclusion of Women and Minorities, Inclusion of Children, Vertebrate Animals, Consortium/Contractual Arrangements, and Letters of Support. Note: this is not a comprehensive list of the elements needed for the application. The FOA provides further instructions in addition to those found in the SF424. This additional information needs to be included in the Research Strategy section of the application. 8) Question: The Research Strategy section of the application is limited to 100 pages. In addition, the FOA lists page limits for subsections to be included in the 3
Research Strategy section (e.g., description of the administrative core, description of the outreach core, description of the training and education core). Will the page limits for the subsections be enforced? Answer: Yes these limits will be enforced. For example, the subsection on Institutional Commitment to the ICRC is limited to three pages and the subsection on Past Performance and Accomplishments is limited to five pages. 9) Question: The outline in the FOA for the sections to be included for each of the small research projects does not exactly match the sections that are outlined in the SF424 form. Should applicants use the outline in the SF424 instructions? Answer: Yes, applicants should follow the SF424 format. The FOA has been amended to match the subheadings for the research plan section that are outlined in the SF424 form (significance, innovation, and approach). 10) Question: Are there page limits on the appendices? Answer: There are no page limits on the length of the each individual appendix, however, the total number of appendices is limited to 10. This ICRC FOA differs from those published in the past in that reviewers will not be required to read the appendices, so all important information should be included in the body of the application. The research plan proposal portion of the application is limited to 100 pages. Lists of publications, instruments, and so forth can be included in the appendices, but appendices cannot be used to circumvent the page limit of the application by referring to them for details of the project. 11) Question: Where do we put the letters of support? Answer: The letters of support should be placed in the grant application and not in an appendix. According to the SF424 instructions, the letters of support should be placed after the Bibliography and References Cited and the Consortium/Contractual Arrangement sections and before the section on Resource Sharing Plan(s) and the PHS 398 Checklist. You should not place the letters of support in the appendices. Reviewers will not be required to read the appendices, so this information should be included in the body of the application. 12) Question: Are applicants required to include the biosketches of the internal and external advisory board members in that category? Answer: No, biosketches do not need to be included for advisory board members. However, discussing the inclusion of a prominent person on the advisory board in the narrative of the application may be beneficial. 4
Budget Issues 13) Question: What indirect cost rate should we use for the application? Answer: The indirect cost rate for each application is the indirect cost rate for the parent institution that has been negotiated with the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). The only exception to this is the indirect cost rate for training activities that is capped at eight percent. The amended FOA states this on page 30, Indirect costs for activities related to the Training and Education Core will be reimbursed at 8% of total allowable direct cost exclusive of tuition and related fees and expenditures for equipment or at the actual indirect cost rates, whichever results in a lesser dollar amount. 14) Question: Does the indirect cost rate cap of eight percent for the Training and Education Core apply to faculty salaries? Answer: Yes, the indirect costs for faculty salaries for activities conducted under the training and education core can be capped at eight percent. However, the eight percent indirect cost rate only applies to the Training and Education Core. The indirect cost rate for all faculty salaries outside of this core will be the DHHSnegotiated indirect cost rate for parent institution. 15) Question: The duration of the small research projects is 2 to 3 years and the applicant may propose either three or four small research projects. The FOA states that small projects should be spread out over the 5 years of the grant. Is that a suggestion or a requirement? In other words, must there be a least one small research project in every year of the application? Answer: It is a suggestion, not a requirement that the small research projects be spread out over the entire 5 years of the grant, although that would be the expected course of action. If an applicant wants to start three small research projects in the first year of the grant and can work those into the budget, that is acceptable. However, this may be problematic considering other restrictions pertaining to how much of the budget can be devoted to core activities and how much can be devoted to research projects (see page eight of the amended FOA). Please note that small research projects cannot start in the fifth year of the grant. Also, a small project that is less than two years in duration is not permitted, and a budget each year of at least $150,000, no more than $200,000, is required for projects. Therefore, a research project that spans 1.5 years with a budget of $50,000 for each year is not permissible. This is a change from previous ICRC FOAs. 5
16) Question: The FOA states that the center director is required to dedicate at least 35 percent effort to this project, but there are situations when that may not be the most beneficial to the center. If an applicant can demonstrate sufficient commitment and give a rationale for why it is not advantageous for the center director to provide a 35 percent commitment, is that okay? Answer: No, 35 percent effort per budget year is the required time commitment for the center director. 17) Question: Is it permissible for co-directors to share the 35 percent time commitment? Answer: No, it is not permissible for co-directors to share the 35 percent time commitment. This FOA allows for co-principal investigators, but not for co-center directors. One person must be designated as the center director for this grant. The center director s name appears on the face page of the applications as the Program Director/Principal Investigator. The center director must devote no less than 35 percent effort solely to this grant for each budget year. The 35 percent commitment for the center director does not have to be used solely for the administrative core; it can be spread out over the various cores and the small research projects. 18) Question: Can the center director be a principal investigator on one of the small research projects? Answer: Yes the center director can be a principal investigator (or coinvestigator) on one or more of the small research projects. Part of the 35 percent time commitment that the director needs to devote to this grant can be as a principal investigator (or co-investigator) on one of the small research projects. 19) Question: Should a separate budget be prepared for each of the core components? Answer: Yes, applicants should prepare an overall budget, and budgets for each of the cores. An individual budget should also be prepared for each small research project. Make sure that the correct core or small research project is identified on each budget page. Number of Centers to be Funded/Ability to Compete with Currently Funded Centers 20) Question: How many centers are currently funded and will existing centers be competing this time? Answer: Eleven centers are currently funded. Centers are funded for five years. The 11 centers are on two different funding cycles. Funding for seven of the 11 6
funded centers will end July 31, 2012. Those seven centers will be eligible to compete under this FOA. 21) Question: How many centers are going to be funded under this FOA? Answer: NCIPC plans to fund up to seven centers for this FOA. However, the FY 2012 federal budget remains unclear. Ultimately, the number of centers that will be funded depends on this budget. As stated in the FOA, Awards issued under this FOA are contingent on the availability of funds and submission of a sufficient number of meritorious applications. 22) Question: Will any of the seven funding slots be reserved for new centers? Answer: No, slots will be reserved specifically for new centers. For this FOA, NCIPC intends to fund up to seven centers. No quota will be set with respect to how many of the centers to be funded will be existing or new centers. The peer review will be a fair and open competition. Neither new nor existing centers will be given preferential treatment during peer review. 23) Question: If new applicants will be competing against centers that have been funded by CDC in the past, is it even worth applying if you are a new center? Answer: Yes, it is worth applying. While it is true that new applicants will be competing against existing centers, all applicants will be judged on the quality of their application. The peer review will be a fair and open competition. Existing centers will not be given preferential treatment during peer review just because they have been funded in the past. For example, if they receive a priority score of 35, it will not be reduced to a 30 simply because they are an existing center. New centers should not be discouraged from applying. Part of the quality of an application is the track record of the key personnel and the institution. Can they do what they claim they are going to do? Do they have the resources in place and the expertise to conduct the proposed research and to be a center? A new applicant may be at a slight disadvantage competing against those centers, but they can be competitive by writing a good application and assembling a good team. 24) Question: How often is CDC planning to release another FOA similar to this one? And will there be an FOA published in a year where new applicants would not be competing with existing centers coming up for renewal? Answer: As noted, there are currently 11 centers on two different five-year funding cycles. Funding for seven centers ends on July 31, 2012 and funding for four centers ends on July 31, 2014. NCIPC remains committed to the ICRC program. Future funding announcements are anticipated to be open competitions. 7
General Issues 25) Question: Will NCIPC accept recommendations for reviewers? Answer: NCIPC will accept recommendations for reviewers. However, just because a reviewer is recommended does not mean they will be selected for the peer review panel. For example, the individual may not be available on the days of the review, may have a conflict of interest, may not be qualified, or may not be interested in being an NCIPC reviewer. Suggested reviewers may be submitted to Paul Smutz at 770-488-4850 or wsmutz@cdc.gov. 26) Question: What about additional questions after the call is over? Answer: Potential applicants are encouraged to call or email Paul Smutz (770-488-4850 or wsmutz@cdc.gov) with any additional questions. 8