Surveillance, intervention, and referral to services activities for infants with microcephaly or other adverse outcomes linked with the Zika virus | Apply Online

FAQs: CDC Cooperative Agreement CDC-RFA-DD16-1605 (FY 2016)

What is CDC-RFA-DD16-1605?

CDC-RFA-DD16-1605 was a CDC cooperative agreement funding opportunity in FY 2016 intended to help state governments quickly strengthen their capacity to identify and respond to serious birth outcomes potentially associated with Zika virus infection during pregnancy.

What is the main goal of this funding opportunity?

The main goal was to build or enhance rapid, population-based surveillance systems to identify microcephaly and other adverse birth outcomes (especially central nervous system, or CNS, defects) in a timely way so states could understand the situation as it unfolded and respond accordingly.

Is this opportunity meant to support research?

No. The work was explicitly framed as a public health action effort rather than research. Activities were positioned as surveillance and program implementation for immediate public health response, using data to support monitoring, prevention efforts, and intervention planning rather than hypothesis-driven research studies.

Who was eligible to apply?

Eligibility was limited to state governments, reflecting the role of state health departments in conducting population-based surveillance and coordinating services within their jurisdictions.

What is the award mechanism for this opportunity?

The mechanism was a cooperative agreement, which typically indicates substantial CDC involvement in areas such as technical assistance, data standards, coordination of pooled projects, and alignment with national response needs.

What types of birth outcomes were emphasized?

The opportunity focused on microcephaly and other adverse outcomes, with particular emphasis on central nervous system (CNS) defects and select major birth defects that might be linked to maternal Zika exposure.

What does "rapid, population-based surveillance" mean in this context?

It refers to surveillance designed to find and verify cases quickly across the whole population in the jurisdiction (not just in a single clinic or hospital), supporting real-time situational awareness and timely communication to clinicians, policymakers, and the public.

What is "active case-finding," and why was it required?

Active case-finding means states were expected to actively seek out and verify cases rather than relying only on passive reporting. This was required to improve completeness and timeliness, enabling health departments to understand the scope of impact as events unfolded.

What data sources were states expected to use for active case-finding?

The announcement described systematic review of multiple data sources such as hospital records, specialty clinic records, neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) logs, birth defects registries, and other clinical or administrative sources.

What was the purpose of improving completeness and timeliness of case ascertainment?

The purpose was to support rapid identification of select major birth defects potentially linked to maternal Zika exposure, strengthen real-time situational awareness, and enable reliable communication and decision-making during a public health threat.

Did the opportunity involve sharing data with CDC?

Yes. A key emphasis was participation in centralized, pooled clinical and surveillance data projects coordinated by CDC, reflecting the need to harmonize data across jurisdictions during a multi-state public health threat.

Why was participation in pooled, centralized projects important?

By contributing standardized data, awardees could support national aggregation, compare trends, refine case definitions, and better characterize the spectrum of outcomes potentially related to Zika. This also helped states interpret local patterns in the context of regional or national findings.

How was the surveillance data expected to be used by states?

States were expected to use the information for real-time situational awareness and to communicate reliable information to clinicians, policymakers, and the public.

Was the program only about counting cases?

No. The announcement explicitly tied data collection to intervention and referral. Surveillance was meant to trigger pathways to care, reduce delays in diagnosis and treatment, and help families navigate complex medical and developmental needs.

What service connections were states expected to support for identified infants and families?

States were expected to ensure infants identified through surveillance and their families were connected to appropriate services, which could include early intervention programs, developmental assessments, specialty medical care, care coordination, and family support resources.

Did the opportunity include follow-up beyond the newborn period?

Yes. Another major component was assessing health and developmental outcomes over time, reflecting expectations that affected children might require ongoing monitoring and support.

What longer-term outcomes were anticipated for tracking?

The announcement anticipated the need to monitor for developmental delays, neurologic complications, sensory impairments, feeding difficulties, and other sequelae over time.

How does this opportunity align with CDC organizational goals?

The opportunity aligned with the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities (NCBDDD) performance goal to enhance birth defects surveillance, research, and prevention, while keeping funded activities explicitly non-research in nature.

When was this opportunity posted, and what was the application deadline?

The posted and creation dates were May 23, 2016, and the application closing date was June 24, 2016.

How many awards were anticipated?

The anticipated scale included up to 50 awards, supporting broad national participation during the height of Zika-related public health concern.

What was the maximum (ceiling) award amount?

The award ceiling was $360,000.

What kind of role did CDC likely play under this cooperative agreement?

Because it was a cooperative agreement, CDC involvement typically includes support such as technical assistance, establishing or promoting data standards, coordinating pooled projects, and ensuring alignment with national response needs.

What public health problem was this opportunity responding to?

It was designed to address serious birth outcomes potentially associated with Zika virus infection during pregnancy, with a focus on rapidly understanding and responding to impacts on infants and families.