Strengthening Applications September 2012

BHPr Application Review Criteria Detailed instructions/information about specific funding priorities will always be found in Section V.1 of the FOA (Application Review Information – Review Criteria).  FOA addresses the criteria that HRSA will use to evaluate applications. This includes all the review criteria that evaluators will use to judge applications.  FOA specifies the relative percentages, weights, or other means used to distinguish among the criteria.

Criterion Need: Purpose, Need and Rationale Response: Workplan/Methodology Evaluative Measures Impact Resources/Capabilities Support Requested BHPr Application Review Criteria Criterion 1 Need: Purpose, Need and Rationale 2 Response: Workplan/Methodology 3 Evaluative Measures 4 Impact 5 Resources/Capabilities 6 Support Requested

Criterion Need: Purpose, Need and RationaleNeed: Purpose, Need and Rationale Response: Workplan/Methodology Evaluative Measures Impact Resources/Capabilities Support Requested BHPr Application Review Criteria Criterion 1 Need: Purpose, Need and Rationale 2 Response: Workplan/Methodology 3 Evaluative Measures 4 Impact 5 Resources/Capabilities 6 Support Requested

1) Need Definition: The extent to which the application demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the problem and associated contributing factors to the problem.

1) Need Higher scoring applications in this criterion: Supply sufficient or clear evidence of an available, eligible, and interested applicant pool; target population is clearly defined. Describe demographics or healthcare needs of the population to be served by program graduates. Specify how program graduates will meet primary, secondary, and tertiary health needs of target population. Address realistic barriers and proposed solutions to the project. Discuss how project will meet identified FOA needs. Provide relevant and current data to substantiate the need.

Criterion Need: Purpose, Need and Rationale Response: Workplan/MethodologyResponse: Workplan/Methodology Evaluative Measures Impact Resources/Capabilities Support Requested BHPr Application Review Criteria Criterion 1Need: Purpose, Need and Rationale 2 Response: Workplan/Methodology 3Evaluative Measures 4Impact 5Resources/Capabilities 6Support Requested

2) Response Definition: The extent to which the proposed project responds to the “Purpose” included in the program description. The strength of the proposed goals and objectives and their relationship to the identified need. The extent to which the activities (scientific or other) described in the application are capable of addressing the problem and attaining the project objectives.

2) Response Higher scoring applications in this criterion: Indicate that the goals, objective and workplan respond to the needs. Include SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Timely) Objectives and provide a baseline through which the objectives can be measured. Include a realistic timeline. Include workplan activities that match project objectives (and are explicit). Contain an adequately detailed workplan (clear, concise, comprehensive) to determine if activities reflect objectives. Measure proposed project goals and objectives against national guidelines or standards (Healthy People 2020).

2) Response (cont’d) Higher scoring applications in this criterion: Provide enough detail about program curriculum to support goals or project activities. Clearly demonstrate plan for minority, underserved or disadvantaged student recruitment or retention. Indicate that student enrollment and projected enrollment numbers are both realistic and sufficient. Include a realistic and attainable workplan -- how well does the plan respond to the identified needs?

2) Response (cont’d) Higher scoring applications in this criterion: Include objectives or sub-objectives which -- o Are clearly defined. o Are written as measurable outcomes, not as activities. o Include sub-objectives and outcome indicators which consistently match. o Include indicators that are consistent with regard to level of specificity, clarity and relevance. o Include measurable outcomes. Fully describe the curriculum and how it meets current guidelines. Identify potential barriers/challenges to program development and implementation and how these challenges will be addressed.

Criterion Need: Purpose, Need and Rationale Response: Workplan/Methodology Evaluative MeasuresEvaluative Measures Impact Resources/Capabilities Support Requested BHPr Application Review Criteria Criterion 1 Need: Purpose, Need and Rationale 2 Response: Workplan/Methodology 3 Evaluative Measures 4 Impact 5 Resources/Capabilities 6 Support Requested

3) Evaluative Measures Definition: The strength and effectiveness of the method proposed to monitor and evaluate the project results. Evidence that the evaluative measures will be able to assess: 1)to what extent the program objectives have been met, and 2)to what extent these can be attributed to the project.

3) Evaluative Measures Higher scoring applications in this criterion: Include a strong evaluation plan that demonstrates an organization’s ability to track processes and outcomes of project. Describe numerous methods with sufficient detail:  Adequate description of how data will be collected and assessment tools  Adequate description of metrics for data evaluation  Thorough description of how data will be evaluated and how this will progress toward outcome improvements. Describe how BHPr performance measures will be collected. Include proposed measures that consistently identify extent to which project objectives have been met.

3) Evaluative Measures (cont’d) Higher scoring applications in this criterion: Include an explanation of how program evaluation is incorporated into existing evaluation plan. Clearly identify evaluation measures or tie them to each objective. Include plan for continuous, quality improvement. Identify measures for formative and summative project evaluation or identify method to use assessment data for feedback and quality improvement. Include a clear evaluation plan and measurable goals. Include baseline numbers.

Criterion Need: Purpose, Need and Rationale Response: Workplan/Methodology Evaluative Measures ImpactImpact Resources/Capabilities Support Requested BHPr Application Review Criteria Criterion 1Need: Purpose, Need and Rationale 2Response: Workplan/Methodology 3Evaluative Measures 4Impact 5Resources/Capabilities 6Support Requested

4) Impact Definition: The feasibility and effectiveness of plans for dissemination of project results; and/or The extent to which project results may be national in scope; and/or The degree to which the project activities are replicable; and/or The sustainability of the program beyond the federal funding.

4) Impact Higher scoring applications in this criterion: Include thorough discussion of sustainability after Federal funding ceases.  Plan to address identified obstacle of insufficient state-level funding. Include plan for long-term post-training tracking of graduates. Include specific plan for dissemination of project activities or dissemination beyond university.

4) Impact (cont’d) Higher scoring applications in this criterion: Clearly describe impact of training program on collaborating sites and communities. Fully discuss project’s replicability or degree to which it can be replicable.  Include detail in methodology.  Include detail in activities. Discuss dissemination plan of program results.

Criterion Need: Purpose, Need and Rationale Response: Workplan/Methodology Evaluative Measures Impact Resources/CapabilitiesResources/Capabilities Support Requested BHPr Application Review Criteria Criterion 1 Need: Purpose, Need and Rationale 2 Response: Workplan/Methodology 3 Evaluative Measures 4 Impact 5Resources/Capabilities 6 Support Requested

5) Resources & Capabilities Definition: The extent to which project personnel are qualified by training and/or experience to implement and carry out the projects. The capabilities of the applicant organization, and quality and availability of facilities and personnel to fulfill the needs and requirements of the proposed project. For competing continuations, past performance will also be considered.

5) Resources & Capabilities Higher scoring applications in this criterion: Adequately describe the resources the organization brings to help achieve the goals  Local, regional and statewide-partnerships?  Organization’s ability to achieve established goals? Current or prior experiences? Ability to document established record of completing goals and objectives in previous, multi-year projects. Evidence adequate staffing, clear or sufficient faculty and staff responsibilities.  Able to demonstrate capacity to undertake project activities.

5) Resources & Capabilities (cont’d) Higher scoring applications in this criterion: Clearly describe personnel or faculty who are qualified by credentials and expertise to implement and sustain the project. Provide sufficient evidence that new linkages and partnerships have been confirmed. Include community letters of support or evidence of that support.

Criterion Need: Purpose, Need and Rationale Response: Workplan/Methodology Evaluative Measures Impact Resources/Capabilities Support RequestedSupport Requested BHPr Application Review Criteria Criterion 1Need: Purpose, Need and Rationale 2Response: Workplan/Methodology 3Evaluative Measures 4Impact 5Resources/Capabilities 6 Support Requested

6) Support Requested Definition: The reasonableness of the proposed budget for each year of the project period in relation to the objectives, the complexity of the research activities, and the anticipated results. The extent to which costs, as outlined in the budget and required resources sections, are reasonable given the scope of work. The extent to which key personnel have adequate time devoted to the project to achieve project objectives.

6) Support Requested Higher scoring applications in this criterion: Include an indirect cost rate that does not exceed HRSA’s allowable indirect costs as indicated in the FOA. Fully justify the conference travel budget. Show an understanding of types of allowable and restricted expenses (for example, housing, food, transportation, and stipends). Show a proper distribution of funds within the proposed budget:  Appropriate distribution; application demonstrates support for all aspects of project in order to meet successful outcomes.  Institution is able to demonstrate ability to leverage internal and external support with partners and collaborators.

6) Support Requested (cont’d) Highly scoring applications in this criterion: Show no discrepancies between narrative and budget, particularly in contractual services. Are consistent between budget justification and line-item budget. Include clear and adequate budget justification. Include the required statement indicating that Federal grant funds will not replace current sources of support for proposed grant activities (Maintenance of Effort). Adequately justify the need for consultant fees and travel items. Clearly define the roles and responsibilities of faculty to be hired.

Specific Program Criteria Additional specific program criteria, if any, are included in the program description and in the individual FOA material provided with the application kit.

How Can I Improve My Submission? So what else can I do to improve my application? Read each FOA carefully, and ensure you thoroughly address each and every requirement. Participate in all relevant scheduled Technical Assistance calls, and ask questions. Ask someone who wasn’t involved in preparing the application to read through the application and identify inconsistencies, missing information, and things that are confusing. Check and double-check prior to submission to ensure you have included all required attachments.

Questions Submit your application before the deadline so that in the event of a technical challenge with Grants.gov, you will have sufficient time to fix the error and submit the application. For program-specific questions, contact the project officer listed in Section VII. Contact Information of the FOA.