Enhancing HIV Prevention Communication and Mobilization Efforts through Strategic Partnerships | Apply Online

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What was CDC RFA PS15-1505?

Enhancing HIV Prevention Communication and Mobilization Efforts through Strategic Partnerships (CDC RFA PS15-1505) was a CDC cooperative agreement funding opportunity intended to strengthen HIV prevention by partnering with large, national organizations that could influence and reach communities at highest risk for HIV through trusted, existing communication channels.

What was the main goal of this funding opportunity?

The goal was to amplify HIV prevention communication and mobilization by working through strategic, nontraditional national partners whose primary mission is not HIV education, but who have credibility and influence with priority populations and can integrate prevention messages into places where people already engage (for example, through established networks, platforms, and member communications).

Which CDC program was involved?

The opportunity was associated with CDC's Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention (DHAP), which aimed to increase prevention impact by collaborating with influential national partners.

What type of grant mechanism was used?

This was a discretionary cooperative agreement. That means recipients were expected to work in active partnership with CDC, with substantial CDC involvement in planning, coordination, and implementation, rather than operating fully independently.

What populations were specifically named as priorities in the announcement?

The targeted populations named were African American/Black communities, Hispanics/Latino communities, gay and bisexual men and other men who have sex with men (MSM), and transgender populations.

What funding category and CFDA number applied to this opportunity?

The activity fell under the health funding category and was tied to CFDA 93.118 (Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome/AIDS activities).

How many awards were anticipated, and what was the total estimated funding?

The announcement anticipated approximately 15 awards, with an estimated total funding amount of $11.5 million.

What was the expected size of individual awards?

Individual award amounts were expected to range from $100,000 (floor) to $150,000 (ceiling).

Was cost sharing or matching required?

No. The announcement specified there was no cost sharing or matching requirement.

Who was eligible to apply?

Eligibility was intentionally narrow and focused on national organizations with substantial reach and influence. Applicants had to be national organizations with demonstrated reach in at least 15 states spanning more than five U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) specified regions, and they had to have credibility and influence within one or more priority communities.

Why did CDC require the applicant's primary focus to be something other than HIV prevention and education?

A defining eligibility feature was that an organization's primary focus had to be something other than HIV prevention and education. This reflected CDC's intent to engage nontraditional partners outside the typical HIV public health sphere who could extend prevention messaging through broader community, cultural, professional, advocacy, or service ecosystems.

What kinds of organizations were listed as eligible applicant types?

Eligible applicant categories included for-profit organizations other than small businesses, nonprofit organizations with 501(c)(3) status (excluding institutions of higher education), and nonprofit organizations without 501(c)(3) status (also excluding institutions of higher education), provided they met the national reach and other criteria.

Were small businesses eligible under the for-profit category?

The eligible applicant categories included "for-profit organizations other than small businesses," indicating that small businesses were not included in the listed for-profit eligibility category.

Were institutions of higher education eligible to apply?

The eligibility categories described nonprofit organizations with and without 501(c)(3) status while explicitly excluding institutions of higher education, indicating that institutions of higher education were excluded from those nonprofit categories.

What geographic reach did applicants need to demonstrate?

Applicants had to show national reach in at least 15 states, and those states needed to span more than five HHS-specified regions.

What did CDC mean by "credibility and influence" in priority communities?

Based on the announcement summary, CDC emphasized historical credibility and influence within one or more priority communities and the ability to influence a national dialogue, meaning the organization needed an established, trusted presence and persuasive ability at a national scale within the named populations.

What communication capabilities were applicants expected to have?

Applicants were expected to provide evidence that they could use and leverage multiple existing communication platforms (such as media channels, digital platforms, membership communications, or other established dissemination routes) to extend the reach of HIV prevention messaging.

What did "mobilization" refer to in this opportunity?

In the context provided, mobilization referred to using existing organizational structures, partnerships, and resources to extend the reach of prevention messaging and encourage broader engagement through trusted networks.

When was the opportunity posted, and what were the deadlines?

The opportunity was posted on January 22, 2015. The original and final application deadline was March 23, 2015.

What time were applications due on the deadline date?

Applications had to be submitted electronically by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.

Was this an ongoing program or a time-limited funding round?

It was a time-limited funding round. The opportunity was archived on April 22, 2015, reflecting that it was not an open, ongoing program.

How could applicants or stakeholders get help or request the full announcement?

CDC provided a point of contact through its National Partnerships team at NPT@CDC.gov, along with reference to grants policy support.

What was the core strategy behind using "nontraditional partners"?

The core strategy was to increase prevention impact by working through organizations whose primary mission is not HIV education but who already have trusted voices, established networks, and existing channels that can reach high-priority populations at scale.

What made this opportunity different from simply funding HIV-focused organizations?

Based on the provided description, the defining difference was the intentional focus on large national organizations outside the traditional HIV public health sphere, combined with a cooperative agreement structure requiring active collaboration with CDC.