• Text Resize A A A
  • Print Print
  • Share Share Share Share

FAQs for Current FOAs

FAQ for 2019 OAH TPP Tier 1 Program 

Updated: 4/9/2019

*FAQs will be updated weekly, as necessary.

General Questions
Evaluation Questions
Budget Questions

GENERAL QUESTIONS

  1. The funding announcement mentions that younger adolescents can be included but that ages 14-19 should have “special focus”. Can you give more specifics on what special focus means? Does that mean the majority of those served should be between ages 15-19?

    Answer:  The funding announcement notes that the target population should be youth between the ages of 10 and 19 and families and/or caregivers of youth ages 10-19.  The FOA states that while younger adolescents may be included in proposed projects, OAH expects that services will also focus on adolescents 15-19 years of age, recognizing the importance of reinforcing healthy decision-making through adolescence.
     
  2. Does the funding announcement require a letter of intent?

    Answer: No, the current funding announcement does not require a Letter of Intent.
     
  3. Is there a listing of programs that are proven effective through rigorous evaluation? 

    Answer: The FY19 TPP Tier 1 FOA does not require the use of an evidence-based program from any existing list.  Applicants are free to use any program that meets the definition of rigorous evidence as stated in the FOA. 
     
  4. Last year, I submitted an application under funding opportunity number: AH-TP1-18-001.  That application was approved but unfunded.  Can I modify that application to fit the current funding opportunity?

    Answer: Please note that Funding Opportunity Number AH-TP1-19-001 is different from Funding Opportunity Number AH-TP1-18-001.   You must submit an application to Funding Opportunity Number AH-TP1-19-001 if you wish to be considered.  Your application should adhere to the requirements noted in Funding Opportunity AH-TP1-19-001.
     
  5. During the technical assistance webinar, there was a discrepancy in describing the funding available. The presenter referred to $9 million yesterday, but the FOA indicates $15 million. Can you please advise on what the total amount available is, and what the ceiling will be for the most we can request for this FOA?

    Answer: The Funding Announcement notes an estimated availability of $15 million. The Federal funds request including indirect costs must not exceed the maximum indicated in Award Ceiling of $500,000 and must not be below the minimum indicated in Award Floor of $200,000.
     
  6. How does this opportunity relate to previous TPP funding opportunities?

    Answer:  The current Funding Opportunity Number AH-TP1-19-001 is different from previous FOAs. Your application should adhere to the requirements noted in Funding Opportunity AH-TP1-19-001. 
     
  7. Will special consideration be given to organizations that have previously received TPP funding?

    Answer:  No.  
     
  8. There appears to be an overlap between when funding from this opportunity would begin (07/01/2019 - 06/30/2021) and the last TPP opportunity would end (07/01/2015 - 06/30/2020). For an organization like ours who previously received TPP funding, how should we address this overlap, if at all, in our application?

    Answer:  Current OAH TPP grantees are eligible to apply under this new funding announcement. Funding Opportunity Number AH-TP1-19-001 is a separate funding opportunity and should be treated as such.  Applicants can note the differences between services and activities that will occur under the new award (if funded) and the services and activities that are currently supported through OAH funding in your application.
     
  9. On page 14 of the FOA, you reference that "Applicants should select a community(ies) and / or populations within the community that have rates of teenage pregnancy, behavioral risk factors, underlying teenage pregnancy, or other associated risk factors either at or above the national average." What year average would you like us to draw from? The most recently available year (2016), or a range of years? 

    Answer:  Applicants should use the most recent statistics available.
     
  10. Can you please confirm that the budget narrative will not count towards  the total page limit for the application?

    Answer:  The FOA notes on page 26 that the Project Narrative must not exceed 50 pages and the total application including narrative and appendices must not exceed 100 pages total. NOTE: The following items do not count toward the page limit: all required forms, including SF-424, SF-424A, SF424B, SF-LLL, Project Abstract Summary, and Budget Narrative (including budget tables). 
     
  11. Can applicants get copies of past reviewers’ rating sheets that determined "approved not funded" status?

    Answer:  OAH does not share application scores from the Objective Review Process with the general public or with applicants.  However, you may request a copy of your Compiled Reviewers Comments from the 2018 Object Review by submitting an email with your request to oah.gov@hhs.gov
     
  12. Can we submit the same proposal from FY18?

    Answer:  The current announcement is different from the 2018 announcement with different requirements and criteria.  You should carefully review the current announcement and base your application narrative and materials on the new announcement.
     
  13. Without the two programs cited in the FY18 Funding Announcement, what Evidence-Based Programs do applicants use? What tool can be used?

    Answer: The FY19 TPP Tier 1 FOA does not require the use of an evidence-based program from any existing list.  Applicants are free to use any program that meets the definition of rigorous evidence as stated in the FOA. 
     
  14. How many Phase II projects will be funded?

    Answer:  Phase II will be a separate funding opportunity in the future. Funding for Phase II projects will be based on the success of the Phase 1 project, the merit and feasibility of the Phase II proposal, and the availability of funds.  Based upon this, it is not known how many Phase II projects will be funded at this time. 
     
  15. If we will have partners that do not necessarily require an MOU, would we submit any documentation confirming their participation (since no letters of support are allowed)? 

    Answer: Applications should clearly demonstrate existence of the partnerships required to replicate the project with as many youth and families from the target population as possible with Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) or sub-awards. Upon award, funded recipients are expected to submit copies of all final agreements to OAH.
     
  16. Where do you add Human Subjects Protections information?

    Answer: This information should be included in your Appendices.
     
  17. Will you please clarify what is meant by "if you successfully submit multiple applications from the same PROJECT, we will only review the last application received by the deadline?"

    Answer: If an applicant submits more than one application with the same content (e.g., you submit your application and then make an update and submit the updated application at a later time), we will only review the last application received by the deadline.  If an individual organization submits more than 1 application for different projects (e.g., different content, different programs, different communities), all submitted applications will be reviewed if the project described is unique.
     
  18. On pg.57; Review of Risk Posed by Applicant, section (c) "...the extent to which any previously awarded amounts will be expended prior to future awards". Does this statement mean that current TPP funded agencies are not eligible to apply? 

    Answer: No. Current TPP funded agencies that meet the eligibility requirements of the FOA are eligible to apply.
     
  19. Where should applicants include the signed agreement for copyrighted materials? In the appendices? 

    Answer: Yes, the signed copyright agreement should be included I the appendices. 
     
  20. Can a Tier 2 funded OAH grantee's EBP, with their evaluation research still being conducted, be utilized for phase 1? OAH has already announced that this TPP is an EBP.

    Answer:  When selecting effective program(s) for replication under this FOA, applicants are free to use any program that meets the definition of rigorous evidence as stated in the FOA. 

    NEW GENERAL QUESTIONS ADDED ON 3/27/19
  21. Based on the open litigation, does OAH anticipate this negatively impacting funding awards or at the very least reduce the number of awards? If so, how many would be funded?

    Answer:  While OAH cannot comment on pending litigation, page 23 of the FOA, in the “Federal Award Information” section, provides information related to the funding and number of awards.  Specifically, this section indicates that OAH anticipates awarding 30 awards, in the range of $200,000 (award floor) to $500,000 (award ceiling) per budget period. The estimated amount of Federal funds available is $15 million. Page 5 of the FOA, in the “Executive Summary” section, also provides similar information about OAH’s anticipated number of awards and funding.

  22. I have a quick question regarding Funding Opportunity AH-TP1-19-001. On page 44, in reference to the curriculum vitae / resumes required for the appendices, there is no indication of whether or not we can supplement biosketches for these individuals. I was wondering if it is possible to provide biosketches instead of resumes /CVs, as biosketches provide a much more streamlined formatting and will more easily fit into the required page limit.

    Answer: The FOA states that curriculum vitae and/or resumes for the Project Director and other proposed key staff should be included with your application.

  23. In the FOA it states that applicants may single-space tables or use alternate fonts but they must ensure the tables are easy to read. Are we able to use smaller fonts in tables as long as they are easy to read?

    Answer: Applicants may use smaller fonts in tables as long as they are easily-readable.

  24. Can you define multiple settings?

    Answer: Multiple settings refers to where the program is implemented (e.g., in-school, alternative school, community college, juvenile detention, out-of-home settings for youth in foster care).  Applicants are expected to replicate effective programs with as many youth and families from the target population and in as many settings as possible to have the greatest impact on preventing teen pregnancy, reducing associated risk behaviors, and promoting healthy adolescent development.  

    NEW GENERAL QUESTIONS ADDED ON 4/9/19

  25. Are Tier 1, Phase I applicants required to include Human Subjects Protection information in their application?

    Answer: Federal regulations (45 CFR Part 46) require that applications and proposals involving human subjects must be evaluated with reference to the risks to the subjects, the adequacy of protection against these risks, the potential benefits of the research to the subjects and others, and the importance of the knowledge gained or to be gained. If research involving human subjects is anticipated, you must meet the requirements of the HHS regulations to protect human subjects from research risks as specified in 45 CFR part 46. You may find it online at http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html.  Applicants that plan to engage in research involving human subjects are encouraged to provide information regarding participation in research in their recruitment efforts and provide a link to www.hhs.gov/about-research-participation.

  26. Regarding CVs/Resumes for Key Personnel: We have an agreement with the academic institution which will conduct the evaluation for our program, however, the name of the Lead Evaluator position has not yet been determined. Will we still be responsive to the requirements of the FOA if a CV/Resume is not included for the Lead Evaluator?

    Answer: Applicants that have not yet identified Key Personnel may include job or position descriptions for positions that will need to be filled if funds are awarded.

  27. Is there a specific way for the selected EBP models to meet the rigorous evaluation requirements?

    Answer:  The FOA notes that rigorous evaluation is the strict application of the scientific method in order to apply rigorous and objective design, methods, analysis, and reporting of results, through Randomized Controlled Trial, Quasi-Experimental Design (including propensity score analysis), or other rigorous alternative. Similar language is found in NIH publications, such as at this site: https://grants.nih.gov/policy/reproducibility/index.htm.  Scientifically valid evidence must be based on objective scientific principles, and must demonstrate at least one relevant statistically significant positive outcome, and no statistically significant negative outcomes, from a study (or studies) that meets the definition of rigorous evaluation and which provides a strong or reasonable degree of confidence that the outcome found was caused by the program studied.

  28. There are two programs that I would like to implement, however I am unsure how to verify whether each program meets the necessary requirements.

    AnswerPrograms eligible for replication by the applicant under this FOA are those that have been proven effective through rigorous evaluation to reduce teenage pregnancy, behavioral risk factors underlying teenage pregnancy, or associated risks.  

    When selecting effective program(s) for replication under this FOA, the following criteria must be met:  the program has been proven effective through rigorous evaluation to reduce teenage pregnancy, behavioral risk factors underlying teenage pregnancy, or associated risks (specifically sexual activity or other sexual risk behaviors); the research demonstrates a statistically significant positive behavioral impact; there is peer reviewed research presented in either published or grey literature; the research must be conducted by an independent evaluator who is neither part of the publishing team, nor an author of the curriculum chosen; and the research report must be no older than ten years.

  29. If we are a large population with multiple demographics, can we choose more than one curriculum?

    Answer: Yes. The FOA notes that applicants should replicate one or more effective programs in a community(ies) and/or among populations identified by current federal statistical reports as being most vulnerable to teen pregnancy, STDs, multiple partners, and other risks associated with sexual activity.

  30. Can we purchase furniture such as couches to promote an inviting environment for the program?

    Answer: The purchasing of furniture may be considered an allowable purchase, but the purpose for usage must be reviewed for approval.  The applicant should provide detailed itemized information for the planned usage of the furniture item. The proposed cost must be reasonable and used to support the project.

  31. Should we cite sources in the project narrative and include references in the appendix section for the Phase I Tier 1 grant proposal?

    Answer: If citing sources in the project narrative, please include references in the appendix section.

EVALUATION QUESTIONS

Answer: Per the FOA, the applicant must demonstrate that the program has been proven effective by at least one study that meets the definition of rigorous evaluation (pp. 8-10), that the rigorous evaluation evidence supporting the program demonstrated at least one statistically significant positive behavioral impact, no statistically significant negative outcomes, is available in the published or grey literature, was conducted by an independent evaluator, and is no older than ten years. 

  1. We are considering using a model that has been the subject of a randomized control study. However, this study will not be published before grant submission. Can we still use this curriculum if we have the unpublished abstract to reference?

    Answer:  The FOA notes that when selecting effective program(s) for replication under this FOA, the following criteria must be met:  the program has been proven effective through rigorous evaluation to reduce teenage pregnancy, behavioral risk factors underlying teenage pregnancy, or associated risks (specifically sexual activity or other sexual risk behaviors); there is research that demonstrated a statistically significant positive behavioral impact; there is Peer reviewed research that may be present in either published or grey literature;  the Research must be conducted by an independent evaluator who is neither part of the publishing team, nor an author of the curriculum chosen; and, the Research report must be no older than ten years.
     
  2. To be clear, is no outcome evaluation required during Phase 1? 

    Answer: By the end of Phase 1, recipients are expected to have developed a plan for conducting a rigorous outcome evaluation. Recipients are expected to demonstrate the feasibility of their outcome evaluation plan and their readiness to begin conducting the outcome evaluation by the end of Phase 1 funding.
     
  3. Can you please explain more about the Common Set of Performance Measures?

    Answer: All recipients are expected to collect a common set of performance measures to assess project implementation and outcomes and use measures for learning.  Recipients will be expected to collect data to monitor ongoing implementation, and to use the data to make continuous quality improvements to the project to ensure that high-quality programming and high-levels of participant engagement are maintained.  Recipients must collect all performance measures and report to OAH on a semi-annual basis.  Performance measures will be provided by OAH upon OMB approval. Final performance measures will be provided within six months of funding. 
     
  4. Are we required to use an experimental or quasi experimental design in Phase 1?

    Answer: No.  During Phase 1, recipients are required to conduct process and implementation evaluation to establish project merit and demonstrate the feasibility of implementation.  By the end of Phase 1, recipients are expected to develop a plan for conducting a rigorous outcome evaluation. Recipients are expected to demonstrate the feasibility of their outcome evaluation plan and their readiness to begin conducting the outcome evaluation by the end of Phase 1 funding.

    NEW EVALUATION QUESTION ADDED ON 3/27/19
     
  5. As it relates to the rigorous evaluation and subsequent study for a chosen curriculum, what happens if a study had one negative outcome but another study on the same curriculum did not have any negative outcomes? Can we still use the program?

    Answer: Per the FOA, the applicant must demonstrate that the program has been proven effective by at least one study that meets the definition of rigorous evaluation (pp. 8-10), that the rigorous evaluation evidence supporting the program demonstrated at least one statistically significant positive behavioral impact, no statistically significant negative outcomes, is available in the published or grey literature, was conducted by an independent evaluator, and is no older than ten years. 

BUDGET QUESTIONS

  1. I am writing to request clarification regarding a budget line item for our new TPP (Tier 1) - Phase 1 proposal. In the previous TPP FOA (2018), 30% of funds could be allocated for monitoring and evaluation. Will this allocation stay the same?

    Answer: Your current application submission under the new FY19 - TPP (Tier 1) - Phase 1 proposal, must be based on the FY-19 FOA requirements only. When preparing the FY-19 Tier 1 application, please do not compare the FY19 proposal with the previous FY-18 FOA requirements. There are no funding restrictions included in the FY-19 Tier 1 FOA for monitoring and evaluation.
     
  2. In the FOA regarding the budget, it indicates that the budget narrative should “discuss the necessity and reasonableness”.  Do we have to show reasonableness for all costs or is reasonableness for higher priced items, computers, equipment, capital costs, etc.? Can you provide an example? To what extent to we have to show necessity for costs in the budget narrative?  How should be indicate the necessity of items requested in the budget?  Can you provide an example?

    Answer: Your budget narrative should discuss the necessity, reasonableness and allocation, for all cost included with the submitted budget and not just for higher priced items. On page 34 of the FOA, it mentions, “The budget narrative should describe the “necessity, reasonableness” and allocation of the proposed cost. While preparing the budget narrative portion of your application for submission, please continue to review the budget narrative guidance of the FOA pages 33 through 42. To further assist, please review the guidance provided on page 35 of the FOA under Object Class Description and Required Justification. When completing each cost category of the budget narrative such as Personnel, Fringe, Supplies, Equipment … etc., follow the descriptions under each category for assistance with writing the needed justification to support the each cost.

Content created by Office of Adolescent Health
Content last reviewed on May 8, 2018