1. Health Careers Opportunity Program (HCOP) Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) Bureau of Health Workforce (BHW) Division of Health Careers and Financial Support (DHCFS) Health Careers Pipeline Branch HRSA-15-042 Pre-Review Conference Call June 01, 2015, 2:00 pm (EST) 1

2. I. Purpose of Grant II. Legislative Authority III. Summary of Funding IV. Eligibility of Applicants V. Legislative Objectives VI. Focus Areas of Funding Opportunity VII. Application Content VIII. Review Criteria IX.Questions and Answers Agenda 2

3. Purpose  Promote the recruitment of qualified individuals (students and adult/non-traditional students, including veterans) from economically and educationally disadvantaged backgrounds into health and allied health professions programs.  Improve retention and matriculation rates by implementing tailored enrichment programs designed to address the academic and social needs of disadvantaged trainees.  Provide opportunities for community-based health professions training, emphasizing experiences in underserved communities. 3

4. Legislative Authority Public Health Service Act, Title VII, Section 739 (42 U.S.C. 293c), as amended by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Section 5402, Public Law 111-148 4

5. Summary of Available FY 2015 Funding September 30, 2014 to September 29, 2017 Up to $650,000 one year budget period Approximately $11M to fund Up to 20 grantees Anticipated # of Awards Ceiling Award Amount Project Period September 30, 2014 to September 29, 2017 September 1, 2015 to August 31, 2018 5

6. Eligibility Eligible applicants include: Accredited schools of medicine, osteopathic medicine, public health, dentistry, veterinary medicine, optometry, pharmacy, allied health, chiropractic, podiatric medicine, public and non profit private schools that offer graduate programs in behavioral and mental health, programs for the training of physician assistants, and other public or private nonprofit health or educational entities, which includes community colleges, technical colleges, and tribal colleges. 6

7. Eligibility HCOP supports individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds who:  Meet the initial eligibility criteria as outlined in the definition for economically disadvantaged;  Are individuals considered educationally disadvantaged; and  Are individuals who express an interest in pursuing a health professions degree program 7

8. Legislative Objectives Applicants are – at a minimum –required to propose activities to meet legislative purposes 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 outlined below : 1.Recruitment 2.Facilitating Entry 3.Counseling, Mentoring and other Services 4.Preliminary Education and Health Research Training 5.Financial Aid Information Dissemination 6.Primary Care Exposure 7.Develop a More Competitive Applicant Pool 8.Stipends 8

9. Specific Focus Areas of FOA Must propose activities that address the academic and social support needs of one or more of the following disadvantaged target populations: Rising high school juniors/seniors Undergraduate freshman and/or sophomores enrolled in two year programs Undergraduate students in their 2 nd, 3 rd or 4 th year of undergraduate study (four year programs) Health Professions Degree Students Adult/non-traditional students – not enrolled in a formal academic program ** Institutions are encouraged to identify best practices in the recruitment, retention and training of veterans who are also disadvantaged students. 9

10. Application Narrative I.Project Abstract II.Project Narrative a. Purpose and Need b. Response to Program Purpose i. Work plan ii. Methodology/Approach iii. Resolution of Challenges III.Impact a. Evaluation and Technical Support Capacity b. Project Sustainability IV. Organizational Information V. Budget and Budget Justification VI. Attachments 1-9 10

11. The following items are required to complete the content of the application Attachment 1: Staffing Plan and Job Descriptions for Key Personnel Attachment 2: Biographical Sketches Attachment 3: Project Organization Chart Attachment 4: Maintenance of Effort Documentation Attachment 5: Request for Funding Preference Attachment 6: Letters of Agreement and/or Description(s) of Proposed/Existing Contracts for Comprehensive Approach Attachment 7: Letters of Support Attachment 8: Contracts/Sub-awards Attachment 9: Other 11 Attachments

12. Project Abstract  Project title at the top of the abstract;  Brief overview of the project as a whole;  Specific, measureable objectives that the project will accomplish;  Request for statutory funding preference, “Comprehensive Approach”, if applicable, and indicate in Attachment 5, how the requirement is met. 12

13. In order to receive a Funding Preference for the Comprehensive Approach, an applicant must: Request it; Clearly state how the criteria for the preference are met; Include documentation to substantiate eligibility (see page 19 of the FOA). 13 Attachment 5: Request for Funding Preference

14. HRSA-15-042 Application Review Criteria Criteria 1Purpose and Need (10 points) 2Response to Program Purpose (35 points) Work plan (15 points) Methodology (15 points) Resolution of Challenges (5 points) 3Impact (35 points) Evaluation and Technical Support Capacity (20 points) Project Sustainability (15 points) 4Organizational Information, Resources and Capabilities (10 points) 5Support Requested (10 points) 14

15. This table provides a bridge between the narrative language and where each section falls within the review criteria. Narrative SectionReview Criteria Purpose and Need(1) Purpose and Need Response to Program Purpose: Work Plan (2a) Work Plan Response to Program Purpose: Methodology (2b) Methodology Response to Program Purpose: Resolution of Challenges (2c) Resolution of Challenges Impact: Evaluation and Technical Support Capacity (3a) Evaluation and Technical Support Capacity Impact: Project Sustainability (3b) Project Sustainability Organizational Information, Resources, and Capabilities (4) Organizational Information, Resources, and Capabilities Budget and Budget Justification(5) Support Requested Review Criteria per Narrative Section

16. 16 The quality of and extent to which the application demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the problem and associated contributing factors to the problem as evidenced by the following: 1.Support data (within 3 years) that include information on the academic performance and SES of the target populations in the geographic area of the proposed HCOP program 2.The targeted disciplines of the proposed HCOP project mirror the health professions workforce needs of the area 3.A description of three-year trends for total school enrollment and first-year enrollment of students from disadvantaged backgrounds in health or allied health programs by discipline 4.A description of barriers along the educational pipeline for students from disadvantaged backgrounds and/or adult learners and how the applicant intends to address these barriers Review Criterion 1: Purpose and Need (10 points

17. 17 Work Plan (15 points) The quality of and extent to which: a)The application is clear, comprehensive, and provides specific goals and objectives that are measureable, attainable and realistic; and the concrete steps that will be used to achieve those goals and objectives are outlined; and a)The proposed project responds to the “Purpose” included in the program description. The description includes a timeline and stakeholders and a description of the cultural, racial, linguistic and geographic diversity of the served community is included. Plausibility of the proposed logic model will be evaluated. Review Criterion 2: Response to Program Purpose (35 points)

18. 18 2.(a) Work Plan (15 points) - Continued The feasibility, quality of extent to which the application addresses: 1.The HCOP statutory purposes is effective, well-delineated and consistent with programmatic requirements; 2.Alignment of proposed objectives and activities with the statutory purposes; 3.Effective use of population data to improve educational outcomes of trainees from disadvantaged backgrounds. Review Criterion 2: Response to Program Purpose (35 points)

19. 19 2.(a) Work Plan (15 points) - Continued Review Criterion 2: Response to Program Purpose (35 points) 4.The projected number of HCOP participants for each education level; 5.The projected number of HCOP participants for each structured program activity; 6.The projected number of HCOP participants for each structured program category to receive stipends; and 7.Measureable objectives with specific outcomes for each budget period with quantitative and qualitative outcome data using actual numbers and percentages.

20. 2(b): Methodology/Approach (15 points) 20 The quality of and extent to which: The application responds to the program’s requirements and expectations and addresses the needs highlighted in the Purpose and Need section. Describes the tools, strategies and resources needed to achieve each objective. Information should include a timetable, responsible persons for implementation of the activities that will support the objectives. Activities are presented in a logical, sequential manner, clearly indicating when specific activities will take place. Review Criterion 2: Response to Program Purpose (Methodology)

21. 21 1.Participant selection criteria and process and the personnel involved in selecting HCOP participants. 2.Strategies for the recruitment of individuals from disadvantaged background interested in health or allied health careers. 3.Expanded opportunities for learning experiences in underserved communities. 4.Effective use of community-based partners, including linkages with institutions of higher learning, school districts, and other community-based entities. Review Criterion 2: Response to Program Purpose (Methodology) 2(b): Methodology/Approach (15 points) Continued

22. 2(c): Resolution of Challenges (5 points) 22 The extent to which the applicant demonstrates an understanding of potential challenges during the design and implementation of the project, and how the challenges will be resolved. 1.Reasonableness and comprehensiveness of the identified challenges, considering the scope of the project, identified partners, and anticipated outcomes; and 2.Feasibility of proposed solutions to identified challenges Review Criterion 2: Response to Program Purpose (Methodology)

23. 3(a): Evaluation and Technical Support Capacity (20 points) 23 The quality of and extent of the proposed plan to monitor and evaluate the project performance and results, including ability to assess the extent to which: 1) the project objectives have been met; and 2) how these measures can be attributed to the HCOP project. Specific criteria include: 1.Clear and logical methodology for monitoring progress for attainment of the program objectives and provide feedback for continuous programmatic improvement; 2.Description of data collection methodology and analysis including the skills and experiences of evaluation staff involved in the project; 3.Description of the applicant’s infrastructure for data collection; 4.The strength of plan for disseminating and implementing HCOP project outcomes and results includes timeliness. Review Criterion 3: Impact (35 points)

24. 3(a): Evaluation and Technical Support Capacity (20 points) continued 24 HRSA Required Performance and Progress Reporting The quality of and extent to which the applicant describes: 1.Capability to effectively track performance outcomes, including how the organization will collect and manage data for accurate and timely reporting of performance measures to HRSA on a semi-annual basis; 2.How individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds will be tracked from entry into the proposed HCOP program through the end of the project period; 3.How the system will track improvements in academic performance, such as on-time graduate rates, one-year retention rates, successful graduation with a high school diploma, two-year Associates Degree, four-year undergraduate degree or health professions degree. Review Criterion 3: Impact (35 points)

25. 3(a): Evaluation and Technical Support Capacity (20 points) continued 25 Review Criterion 3: Impact (35 points) Program Assessment and Improvements: The quality of and extent to which: 1.Continuous quality improvement of grant activities are described - including how and when feedback from evaluation findings will be incorporated in to the project’s continuous quality improvement plans; and 2.The proposed evaluation measures are able to assess that program objectives have been met and can be attributed to project activities.

26. 3(a): Evaluation and Technical Support Capacity (20 points) continued 26 Project Impact : The quality of and extent to which: 1.The evaluation plan clearly describes the inputs, key processes, variables to be measured and how all key evaluative measures will be reported; 2.The strength of the evaluation plan to be able to asses expected outputs and outcomes of the project over the three- year project period; 3.The dissemination plans for project results are described, and the extent to which project results may be national in scope, and the degree to which the project activities are replicable Review Criterion 3: Impact (35 points)

27. 3(b): Project Sustainability (15 points) 27 The extent to which the applicant describes a solid plan for project sustainability after the period of Federal funding ends. Identification of the likely challenges and description of how the challenges will be resolved, as evidenced by: 1.The extent to which the activities are replicable and sustainable; 2.How the program, or significant components of the program, will be maintained beyond Federal HCOP grant funding, and a proposed timetable for becoming self-sufficient; 3.A plan to improve dissemination of best practices related to effective recruitment, retention and graduation of populations form disadvantaged backgrounds; and 4.Resolutions to challenges to reach self-sufficiency. Review Criterion 3: Impact (35 points)

28. 28 The extent to which the application demonstrates capabilities of the organization, quality of health professions education, experience and training of project personnel, availability of facilities, and commitment to developing a culturally and linguistically competent health professions workforce as evidenced by:; 1.Demonstrated commitment to students from disadvantaged backgrounds and/or underserved communities; 2.Institutional resources and activities aimed at developing, training, and strengthening the academic performance and cultural competence of students from disadvantaged backgrounds throughout the educational pipeline, including health professions schools; Review Criterion 4: Organizational Information, Resources and Capabilities (10 points)

29. 29 (continued) 3.The qualifications of key personnel through training and/or experience to implement and carry out the proposed project and the percentage of time, including in-kind, dedicated to the project by the Project Director; 4.Support and commitment by collaborating partners: dated formal signed letters of agreement and letters of support indicating their willingness to performance in accordance with the plan presented in the application; and 5.Activities and outcomes, related to project objectives, being appropriate given the qualifications of the Project Director and the proposed level of staff, resources available, length of project period, adequacy of the facilities available and institutional eligibility Review Criterion 4: Organizational Information, Resources and Capabilities (10 points)

30. Review Criterion 5: Support Requested (10 points) 30 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: 1.Costs are reasonable given the scope of work; 2.Key personnel are well qualified and have adequate time devoted to the project to achieve project objectives; 3.Grant funds and resources will be effectively used to carry out the project as evidence by a reasonable proposed budget that reflects effective use of the funds requested and a detailed justification for each line item;

31. 31 (continued) 5.There is evidence of in-kind and other sources of support, proposed to carry out the project; 6.The applicant demonstrates the cost-effectiveness of the unit cost of all proposed training cost of activities; and 7.Trainee stipends are reasonable and supportive of the project objectives. Review Criterion 5: Support Requested (10 points)

32. Application Format/Process  65 page limit  Includes abstract, project and budget narratives, impact, organizational Information, biosketches and attachments.  Not counted in the page limit  Table of Contents  Standard Forms  Indirect Cost Rate Agreement, and  Proof of non-profit status, if applicable 32