Project Narrative. (Unless specified in the "H. Other Information" section, maximum of 20 pages, single spaced, 12 point font, 1-inch margins, number all pages. This includes the work plan. Content beyond the specified page number will not be reviewed.) Applicants must submit a Project Narrative with the application forms. Applicants must name this file “Project Narrative” and upload it at xxx.xxxxxx.xxx. The Project Narrative must include all of the following headings (including subheadings): Background, Approach, Applicant Evaluation and Performance Measurement Plan, Organizational Capacity of Applicants to Implement the Approach, and Work Plan. The Project Narrative must be succinct, self-explanatory, and in the order outlined in this section. It must address outcomes and activities to be conducted over the entire period of performance as identified in the CDC Project Description section. Applicants should use the federal plain language guidelines and Clear Communication Index to respond to this Notice of Funding Opportunity. Note that recipients should also use these tools when creating public communication materials supported by this NOFO. Failure to follow the guidance and format may negatively impact scoring of the application.
Project Narrative. Apply electronically through xxxxxx.xxx. Questions are to be directed to Xxxxx Xxxxxx: xxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx Content and Form of Application:
Project Narrative. Each page must be numbered and have one-inch margins. The text of the project narrative must be single spaced and typed in a standard typeface (e.g., Times New Roman, Arial, Courier) with no smaller than 12-point font. The project narrative must not exceed 6 pages. This page limitation applies to the project narrative only.
Project Narrative. In writing the report keep in mind the goals of your project which can be realized through the development and implementation of statewide strategic and business plans. Please include - Summary of project activities - Key accomplishments to date - How inclusive is your effort? What have you done to bring new stakeholder groups or organizations into statewide coordination? - Explain how statewide coordination has (or will) change as a result of this project. - What practices or activities led to success? What practices or activities have not? Next Steps - Describe the next steps in your project - How will this project continue into the future and remain viable? - Where do you need assistance? - What type of assistance do you need? Attachments - As required - Completed materials - Completed strategic and/or business plans Provide Feedback on the Cooperative Agreements Program - What are the CAP Program strengths and weaknesses? - Where did this cooperative agreement “make a difference” to your state? - Was the assistance you received sufficient or effective? - What would you recommend that the FGDC do differently? - Are there factors that are missing or additional needs that should be considered? - Are there program management concerns that need to be addressed, such as the time frame? - If you were to do this again, what would you do differently? NSDI Cooperative Agreements Program
Project Narrative. A. Demonstration of Past Progress in Exchange Planning Core Areas Background Research: Washington State currently has rich information on state-wide coverage and individual demographics. Federal exchange planning grants funds were needed to develop a Market Impact Analysis report on three key issues that could alter the structure of Washington State’s health insurance markets: merging the individual and small group risk pools, redefining the small group market as 1-100 employees, or selecting the Federal Basic Health program. Additionally, the Office of Financial Management that conducts the Washington State Population Survey analyzed the 2010 survey by populations likely to go into the exchange and Medicaid to identify their insurance status, health status, and income levels. They are using that information for further analysis of other data sources.
Project Narrative. The scope of work as originally planned was ….… The following changes were made to the scope of work…… The following amendments with dates and reason for amendment were made for this project…. The following is a brief description of the expenditures on this project …. The following explains the differences between originally planned costs and actual costs. .
Project Narrative. This section provides a comprehensive framework and description of all aspects of the proposed project. It should be succinct, self-explanatory and well organized so that reviewers can understand the proposed project. Successful applications will contain the information below. Please use the following section headers for the narrative:
Project Narrative. This section provides a comprehensive framework and description of all aspects of the proposed project. It should be succinct, self-explanatory and well organized so that reviewers can easily understand the proposed project. Use the following section headers for the Narrative: INTRODUCTION AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT-- Corresponds to Section V’s Review Criterion #1 (Needs Assessment) This section should briefly describe the purpose of the proposed project and clearly demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of why rural stakeholders and decision makers need access to rural focused, health services research. You should provide a brief overview of how your proposed project aligns with the purpose of this cooperative agreement, which is to disseminate and market FORHP funded rural health services research to diverse audiences, such as decision makers and rural stakeholders at national, state, and community levels, with the goal of informing and raising awareness of key policy issues important to rural communities. You should also describe the unique dynamics affecting rural populations compared to urban populations from a health care service, payment and provider point of view, and why rural residents are considered an underserved population. You should demonstrate an understanding of the relevance of this cooperative agreement to the mission of the RHRC program and the goals of FORHP. RESPONSE -- Corresponds to Section V’s Review Criterion #2 (Response) This section should propose the work plan that will be used to meet the program needs and expectations/requirements in this funding opportunity announcement. The work plan should cover the first year of funding in detail but less detail may be used for years two through four. You should demonstrate an understanding of the need to use a variety of strategies, media and tools to increase awareness of RHRC publications. At minimum this section should discuss: • Developing, maintaining and updating a Rural Health Research website which will serve as an electronic portal and “one stop shop” for new and archived publications and research efforts funded by FORHP1; • Functionality of the existing or proposed Rural Health Research website, including search capabilities by (at minimum) keyword, topic, researcher, date of funding, and RHRC; • Receiving feedback from customers including the RHRCs and external users of the website; • Developing, maintaining, updating and expanding an automated electronic mailing list (lis...
Project Narrative. Describe the relevance of this research to public health in, at most, three sentences.
Project Narrative. The Project Narrative must demonstrate the applicant’s capability to plan and implement the proposed project in accordance with the provisions of this RFA. It must provide a comprehensive framework and description of all aspects of the proposed project. It must be succinct, self-explanatory, and well organized so that reviewers can understand the proposed project. Instructions for the content of the Project Narrative are provided below. All projects must meet the requirements of 20 C.F.R. Part 431, Protection of Human Subjects. The applicant is responsible for funding and securing Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval for the proposed project. IRB approval must be secured before any implementation of the intervention begins. Applicants are discouraged from submitting information considered proprietary unless it is deemed essential for proper evaluation of the application. See Section
