text:
Part I Overview Information
United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
Issuing Organization
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (NCIPC/CDC) at http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/
Participating Organizations
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) at http://www.cdc.gov/
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC/CDC) at http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/
Title: Identifying Neighborhood Level Protective and Promotive Factors for Youth Violence (U01).
The policies, guidelines, terms, and conditions of the HHS Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) stated in this announcement might differ from those used by the HHS National Institutes of Health (NIH). If written guidance for completing this application is not available on the CDC website, then CDC will direct applicants elsewhere for that information.
Authority: This program is authorized under Section 301 of the Public Health Service Act Service Act [42 U.S.C., Section 241a].
Announcement Type: New Type 1
Instructions for Submission of Electronic Research Applications:
Announcement (FOA) for Federal assistance must be submitted electronically through Grants.gov (http://www.grants.gov) using the SF424 Research and Related (R&R) forms and the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
If you do not have access to the Internet, or if you have difficulty accessing the forms online, you may contact the CDC Procurement and Grants Office Technical Information Management Section (PGOTIMS) staff. For this, or further assistance, contact PGO TIMS: Telephone (770) 488-2700, Email: firstname.lastname@example.com.
NOTICE: Applications submitted in response to this Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) for Federal assistance must be submitted electronically through Grants.gov (http://www.grants.gov) using the SF424 Research and Related (R&R) forms and the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
This FOA must be read in conjunction with the application package instructions included with this announcement on Grants.gov/Apply for Grants (hereafter referred to as, Grants.gov/Apply.)
A registration process is necessary before submission, and applicants are strongly encouraged to start the process at least four weeks prior to the grant submission date. See Section IV.
Two steps are required for on time submission:
1) The application must be successfully received by Grants.gov no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on the application submission receipt date (see "Key Dates" below.)
2) Applicants must complete a verification step in the Electronic Research Administration (eRA Commons) within two business days of notification. Note: Since email can be unreliable, it is the responsibility of the applicant to periodically check on their application status in the eRA Commons.
Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) Number: RFA-CE-09-008
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number(s): 93.136, Injury Prevention and Control Research and State and Community Based Programs
Key Dates
Application Submission Receipt
Date(s): February 19, 2009
Review Date(s):
April - May, 2009
Council Review Date(s):
May - June, 2009
Earliest Anticipated Start Date(s): September, 2009
Additional Information to Be Available Date: Technical assistance will be available for potential applicants during one conference call. The call for eligible applicants will be held on January 8, 2009 from 1:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. (Eastern Time). The conference can be accessed by calling: 888-458-5154, stating the leader name: Matthew Breiding, and entering the passcode: 2172983. Questions and answers will be posted on www.grants.gov within 7 days after the call.
Expiration Date: 1 day after application submission receipt date
Due Date for E.O. 12372
Executive Order 12372 does not apply to this program
Additional Overview Content
Funding Opportunity Announcement Glossary: FOA Glossary Terminology
Table of Contents
Part I Overview Information
Part II Full Text of
Section I. Funding Opportunity
1. Research Objectives
Section II. Award Information
1. Mechanism(s) of Support
2. Funds Available
Section III. Eligibility
1. Eligible Applicants
A. Eligible
2. Cost Sharing or Matching
3. Other - Special
Eligibility Criteria
Section IV. Application and
Submission Information
1. Request Application
2. Content and Form of
Application Submission
3. Submission Dates and
A. Receipt and Review
and Anticipated Start Dates
1. Letter of Intent
B. Submitting an
Application to CDC
C. Application
4. Intergovernmental Review
5. Funding Restrictions
6. Other Submission
Section V. Application Review
1. Criteria
2. Review and Selection
A. Additional Review
B. Additional Review
C. Sharing Research
D. Sharing Research
3. Anticipated Announcement
and Award Dates
Section VI. Award
Administration Information
1. Award Notices
2. Administrative and
National Policy Requirements
A. Cooperative Agreement
1. Recipient Rights and Responsibilities
2. CDC Responsibilities
3. Collaborative
3. Reporting
Section VII. Agency Contact(s)
1. Scientific/Research Contact(s)
2. Peer Review Contact(s)
3. Financial/ Grants
Management Contact(s)
4. General Questions
Section VIII. Other Information
- Required Federal Citations
Section I. Funding Opportunity Description
1. Research Objectives
The National Center for Injury Prevention and Control of CDC within HHS is committed to achieving the health promotion and disease prevention objectives of "Healthy People 2010" and to measuring program performance as stipulated by the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). This RFA addresses "Healthy People 2010" priority area(s) of injury and violence prevention and is in alignment with NCIPC performance goal(s) to conduct a targeted program of research to reduce injury-related death and disability. For more information, see www.healthypeople.gov.
This funding opportunity announcement solicits applications to conduct research to: develop and test novel measures of neighborhood boundaries, develop and test innovative measures of neighborhood level protective and promotive factors, and to test the extent to which these factors are associated with youth risk for violence perpetration and victimization. The results will inform violence prevention initiatives designed to strengthen these factors within communities to achieve broad reductions in youth violence.
Research consistently finds that understanding the community context is critical for youth violence prevention activities. However, our knowledge base does not offer consistent conceptualization or measurement of the outer level of the social ecology, creating difficulty in assessing neighborhood level effects. Resolving the complex challenges of measuring neighborhood dynamics is important for how neighborhoods influence violence and the specific mechanisms through with these effects occur.
Although youth violence often occurs within neighborhoods, research has offered inconsistent and imprecise measurement of neighborhood contexts and dynamics. There is a need to move beyond geographic boundaries when understanding neighborhood effects; the term "neighborhood" as defined by administrative standards does not often reflect the perceptions of residents. Moreover, neighborhood constructs, such as social cohesion and collective efficacy, are most often measured with static assessment tools at a single time point, failing to capture the dynamic nature of neighborhoods and how effects on youth violence vary over time. Innovative and expanded measurements of neighborhoods, such as observational data to assess neighborhood change, multi-method assessments of neighborhood resources, and measuring the influence of surrounding neighborhoods, can offer a better assessment of how neighborhoods can contribute to reductions in youth violence. More precise, comprehensive, and increasingly rigorous methodologies can more reliably capture neighborhood level influences and their protective or promotive effects in the context of a multilevel approach.
Protective factors are aspects of the individual or the environment that buffer or moderate the effect of risk (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2001). Relatively little attention has been given to the empirical identification of protective factors that may exist in communities. Much of the evidence on the effects of protective factors at the neighborhood level is anecdotal in nature or based on subjective assessments of positive neighborhood / environmental features. Moreover, there is conceptual confusion regarding the neighborhood and environmental features that function as protective versus promotive factors – conditions associated with direct decreases in the probability of violence.
Research Objectives:
The goal of this FOA is to support investigator-initiated research that will: (1) develop and pilot test innovative measures of neighborhood level protective and promotive factors, (2) develop and test novel measures of neighborhood boundaries, and (3) empirically test the extent to which these factors are associated with youth risk for violence perpetration and victimization. This research will identify the community level constructs, attributes, and processes that exert promotive and protective effects. These research needs must be addressed to improve the explanation, prediction, and prevention of youth violence. This can be achieved by supporting research that adopts a comprehensive multilevel approach to investigating potential protective and promotive factors. It is critical that such research focus specifically on understanding the impact of protective and promotive factors on the risk of perpetration and victimization of youth violence. To be considered responsive to this FOA the applicant must address all research objectives.
Scientific Standards:
Research funded under this announcement is expected to adhere to high scientific standards, and to incorporate the following elements:
Section VIII, Other Information - Required Federal Citations,
for policies related to this announcement.
Section II. Award Information
1. Mechanism(s) of Support
This funding opportunity will use the U01 code.
2. Funds Available
The NCIPC intends to commit approximately $700,000 dollars (including direct and indirect costs) in FY2009 to fund two applications. The average award amount will be $350,000 (including direct and indirect costs) for the first 12-month budget period.. An applicant may request a project period of up to three years. An applicant may request up to $350,000 maximum ceiling award amount for the first 12-month budget period. The approximate total project period funded amount is $1,050,000 per award (including direct and indirect costs). The anticipated start date for new awards is September, 2009.
All estimated funding amounts are subject to availability of funds.
Guidance for completing a detailed justified budget can be found on the CDC Website, at the following address: http://www.cdc.gov/od/pgo/funding/budgetguide.htm.
If an applicant requests a funding amount greater than the ceiling of the award range, HHS/CDC will consider the application non-responsive, and it will not enter into the review process. HHS/CDC will notify the applicant that the application did not meet the submission requirements.
Although the financial plans of the CIO(s) provide support for this program, awards pursuant to this funding opportunity are contingent upon the availability of funds and the receipt of a sufficient number of meritorious applications.
Section III. Eligibility Information
You may submit an application if your organization has any of the following characteristics:
A Bona Fide Agent is an agency/organization identified by the state as eligible to submit an application
under the state eligibility in lieu of a state application. If you are applying as a bona fide agent of a state or local government, you must provide a letter from the state or local government as documentation of your status. Attach this documentation behind the first page of your application form or for electronic applications, use a .pdf file and attach as "Other Documents" and label as appropriate.
2. Cost Sharing or Matching
Cost sharing, matching, or cost participation is not
To be considered responsive to this announcement, the principal investigator (on behalf of the applicant institution) must adhere to the following:
An applicant institution can submit more than one application in response to this FOA, but may not submit more than one application with the same principal investigator.
If your application is incomplete or non-responsive to the special requirements listed in this section, it will not be entered into the review process.
Section IV. Application and Submission Information
To download a SF424 (R&R) Application Package and SF424 (R&R) Application Instructions for completing the SF424 (R&R) forms for this FOA, link to Grants.gov/Apply and follow the directions provided on that Web site.
A one-time registration is required for institutions/organizations at the following:
· Grants.gov Get Registered, http://www.grants.gov/applicants/get_registered.jsp
· eRA Commons Prepare to Apply, http://era.nih.gov/ElectronicReceipt/preparing.htm
IMPORTANT: both the applicant organization, as well as the PD/PI must register in eRA Commons for an application to be accepted electronically. The Credentials Log-In, referenced in Section IV. 2. Content and Form of Application Submission, is obtained through Step #3 in the required actions below.
PD/PIs should work with their institutions/organizations to make sure they are registered in the eRA Commons.
The following three steps are required before an applicant institution/organization can submit an electronic application, as follows:
1) Organizational/Institutional Registration in Grants.gov Get Registered, http://www.grants.gov/applicants/get_registered.jsp
· Your organization will need to obtain a Data Universal Number System (DUNS) number and register with the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) as part of the Grants.gov registration process.
· If your organization does not have a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) or Employer Identification Number (EIN), allow for extra time. A valid TIN or EIN is necessary for CCR registration.
· The CCR also validates the EIN against Internal Revenue Service records, a step that will take an additional one to two business days.
· If Foreign Institutions are listed in Section III.1.A. Eligible Institutions include the following bullet: Applicants outside the US are required to include a NATO Commercial and Government Entity (NCAGE) number on their CCR registration. See section IV.2. Content and Form of Application Submission, for instructions.
questions regarding Grants.gov registration to:
Grants.gov Customer Support
Contact Center Phone: 800-518-4726
Business Hours: M-F 7:00 a.m. - 9:00 p.m. Eastern Time
2) Organizational/Institutional Registration in the eRA Commons Prepare to Apply, http://era.nih.gov/ElectronicReceipt/preparing.htm
· To find out if an organization is already eRA Commons-registered, see the "List of Grantee Organizations Registered in eRA Commons."
questions regarding the eRA Commons registration to:
eRA Commons Help Desk
Phone: 301-402-7469 or 866-504-9552 (Toll Free)
Business hours M-F 7:00 a.m. – 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time
3) Project Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI) Registration in the eRA Commons: Refer to the NIH eRA Commons System (COM) Users Guide.
Note that if a PD/PI is also an HHS peer-reviewer with an Individual DUNS and CCR registration, that particular DUNS number and CCR registration are for the individual reviewer only. These are different than any DUNS number and CCR registration used by an applicant organization. Individual DUNS and CCR registration should be used only for the purposes of personal reimbursement and should not be used on any grant applications submitted to the Federal Government.
Several of the steps of the registration process could take four weeks or more. Therefore, applicants should immediately check with their business official to determine whether their organization/institution is already registered in both Grants.gov and the eRA Commons. The HHS/CDC strongly encourages applicants to use the Grants.gov electronic applications process and have organizations and PD/PIs complete all necessary registrations.
1. Request Application
Applicants must download the
SF424 (R&R) application forms and SF424 (R&R) Application
Guide for this FOA through
Note: Only the forms package directly attached to a specific FOA can be used. You will not be able to use any other SF424 (R&R) forms (e.g., sample forms, forms from another FOA) although some of the "Attachment" files may be useable for more than one FOA.
If you do not have access to the Internet, or if you have difficulty accessing the forms online, you may contact the CDC Procurement and Grants Office Technical Information Management Section (PGOTIMS) staff. For this, or further assistance, contact PGO TIMS: Telephone (770) 488-2700, Email: email@example.com.
HHS/CDC Telecommunications for the hearing impaired: TTY 770-488-2783.
Prepare all applications using the SF424 (R&R) application forms and in accordance with the
SF424 (R&R) Application Guide (MS Word or PDF).The SF424 (R&R) Application Guide is critical to submitting a complete and accurate application to HHS/CDC. There are fields within the SF424 (R&R) application components that, although not marked as mandatory, are required by HHS/CDC (e.g., the "Credential" log-in field of the "Research & Related Senior/Key Person Profile" component must contain the PD/PI assigned eRA Commons User ID). Agency-specific instructions for such fields are clearly identified in the Application Guide. For additional information, see "Tips and Tools for Navigating Electronic Submission" on the front page of "Electronic Submission of Grant Applications."
In addition to the instructions provided in the SF424 (R&R) for writing the Project Summary/Abstract, structure the Project Summary/Abstract using the following components: (1) statement of the problem, (2) purpose of the proposed research, (3) methods, including study population, data sources and any statistical analyses to be performed, and (4) implications for prevention. The abstract should not exceed 1 page.
The Project Summary/Abstract should:
· State the hypotheses
· Describe the objectives and specific aims
· State the importance of the research and how it is innovative
· Outline the methods that will be used to accomplish the goals
Use language that is simple and easy to understand for a broad audience.
You must include a research plan with your application. Your research plan should address activities to be conducted over the entire project period.
The SF424 (R&R) application is comprised of data arranged in separate components. Some components are required, others are optional. The forms package associated with this FOA in Grants.gov/APPLY will include all applicable components, mandatory and optional. A completed application in response to this FOA will include the following components
Required Components:
SF424 (R&R) (Cover component)
SF424 form page 2 Project
Research & Related
Project/Performance Site Locations
Research & Related Other
Project Information
Research & Related Senior/Key
Research & Related Budget
PHS398 Cover Page Supplement
PHS398 Research Plan
PHS398 Checklist
3. Submission Dates and Times
See Section IV.3.A for details
Submission, Review and Anticipated Start
Letter of Intent Receipt Date:
December 17, 2008
Application Submission Receipt Date(s): February 19, 2009
Peer Review Date: April - May, 2009
Council Review Date: May -
June, 2009
Earliest Anticipated Start
September, 2009
Prospective applicants are asked to submit a letter of intent that includes the following information:
· Descriptive title of proposed research.
· Name, address, and telephone number of the Principal Investigator.
· Names of other key personnel.
· Participating institutions.
· Number and title of this funding opportunity
Although a letter of intent is not required
, is not binding, and does not enter into the review of a subsequent application, the information that it contains allows CDC Program staff to estimate the potential review workload and plan the review.
The letter of intent is to be sent by the date listed in Section IV.3.A
The letter of intent should be sent by mail, fax or email to:
NCIPC Extramural Resources Team
CDC, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control
Address for Express Mail or Delivery Service:
Chamblee Building 106
4770 Buford Highway, NE
Atlanta, GA 30341-3717
Address for U.S. Postal Service Mail:
4770 Buford Hwy. NE, Mailstop F-63
Atlanta, GA 30341
Telephone: (770) 488-4037
3.B. Submitting an Application to CDC
If the instructions in this announcement differ in any way from the SF424 R&R instructions, follow the instructions in this announcement.
To submit an application in response to this FOA, applicants should access this FOA via http://www.grants.gov/Apply and follow steps 1-4. If submittal of the application is done electronically through Grants.gov (http://www.grants.gov), the application will be electronically time/date stamped by Grants.gov. The applicants' Authorized Organization Representative (AOR) will receive an e-mail notice of receipt from eRA Commons and Grants.gov when HHS/CDC receives the application.
This announcement is the definitive guide on Letter Of Intent (LOI) and application content, submission address, and deadline. It supersedes information provided in the application instructions. If your application does not meet the deadline described in Section IV.3.A, it will not be eligible for review, and HHS/CDC will discard it. You will receive notification that you did not meet the submission requirements.
If you still have a question,
contact the PGO-TIMS staff at: 770-488-2700. Before
calling, please wait two to three days after the submission
deadline. This will allow time for HHS/CDC to process and
log submissions.
Technical Information Management Section – CDC-RFA-CE09-008
CDC, Procurements and Grants Office
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
2920 Brandywine Road
Atlanta, GA 30341
Phone: 770-488-2700 EST
Application Processing
HHS/CDC must receive
applications on or before 5:00 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
on the application submission date(s) described above (Section
IV.3.A.). If HHS/CDC receives an application after that
submission date and time, the application may be delayed in
the review process or not reviewed.
Once an application package has been successfully submitted through Grants.gov, any errors have been addressed, and the assembled application has been created in the eRA Commons, the PD/PI and the Authorized Organization Representative/Signing Official (AOR/SO) have two business days to view the application image.
· If everything is acceptable, no further action is necessary. The application will automatically move forward for processing by the CDC, PGO, Technical Information Management Section, after two business days.
· Prior to the submission deadline, the AOR/SO can "Reject" the assembled application and submit a changed/corrected application within the two day viewing window. This option should be used if the AOR/SO determines that warnings should be addressed. Reminder: warnings do not stop further application processing. If an application submission results in warnings (but no errors) it will automatically move forward after two business days if no action is taken. Please remember that some warnings may not be applicable or may need to be addressed after application submission.
· If the two day window falls after the submission deadline, the AOR/SO will have the option to "Reject" the application if, due to an eRA Commons or Grants.gov system issue, the application does not correctly reflect the submitted application package (e.g., some part of the application was lost or didn't transfer correctly during the submission process). The AOR/SO should first contact the eRA Commons Helpdesk to confirm the system error, document the issue, and determine the best course of action. HHS/CDC will not penalize the applicant for an eRA Commons or Grants.gov system issue.
· If the AOR/SO chooses to "Reject" the image after the submission deadline for a reason other than an eRA Commons or Grants.gov system failure, a changed/corrected application still can be submitted but it will be subject to the CDC late policy guidelines and may not be accepted. The reason for this delay should be explained in the cover letter attachment and must refer only to Commons errors and/or technical errors.
· Both the AOR/SO and PD/PI will receive e-mail notifications when the application is rejected or the application automatically moves forward in the process after two days.
Upon receipt, applications will be evaluated for completeness and responsiveness by NCIPC and HHS/CDC Procurement and Grants Office (PGO). HHS/CDC will not review incomplete and non-responsive applications.
There will be an acknowledgement of receipt of applications from Grants.gov and the eRA Commons.
4. Intergovernmental Review
Executive Order 12372 does not apply to this program.
Additional guidance can be found at HHS Grants Policy Statement.
5. Funding Restrictions
Restrictions, which applicants must take into account while writing their budgets, are as follows:
6. Other Submission
Awardees, upon acceptance of Notice of Award (NoA), must agree to the "Cooperative Agreement Terms and Conditions of Award" in Section VI. "Award Administration Information."
Travel costs for one reverse site visit, for up to two people, to HHS/CDC in Atlanta on an annual basis should be included.
If you are requesting indirect costs in your budget, you must include a copy of your indirect cost rate agreement. If your indirect cost rate is a provisional rate, the agreement should be less than 12 months of age. If submitting electronically, use a PDF version of the agreement, attach it in Grants.gov under "Other Attachments", and title it appropriately.
Applicants' research plan(s) should address activities they will conduct over the entire project period.
The HHS/CDC requires the PD/PI to fill in his/her eRA Commons User ID in the "PROFILE – Project Director/Principal Investigator" section, "Credential" log-in field of the "Research & Related Senior/Key Person Profile" component. The applicant organization must include its DUNS number in its Organizational Profile in the eRA Commons. This DUNS number must match the DUNS number provided at CCR registration with Grants.gov. For additional information, see Registration FAQs – Important Tips – Electronic Submission of Grant Applications.
Research Plan Component Sections
While each section of the Research Plan component needs to be uploaded separately as a .pdf attachment, applicants are encouraged to construct the Research Plan component as a single document, separating sections into distinct .pdf attachments just before uploading the files. This approach will enable applicants to better monitor formatting requirements such as page limits. All attachments must be provided to HHS/CDC in .pdf format, filenames must be included with no spaces or special characters, and a .pdf extension must be used. Do not include any information in a header or footer of the attachments. A header will be system-generated that references the PD/PI. Page numbers for the footer will be system-generated in the complete application, with all pages sequentially numbered; therefore, do not number the pages of your attachments. Your research plan must not exceed 25 pages. If your research plan exceeds the page limitation, your application may be considered unresponsive and ineligible for review.
The following materials may be included in the Appendix:
Up to 5 publications, manuscripts (accepted for publication), abstracts, patents, or other printed materials directly relevant to the proposed project. Do not include manuscripts submitted for publication. Applicants should refer to instruction guides and specific Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOAs) to determine the appropriate limit on the number of publications that may be submitted for a particular program. Note that not all grant activity codes allow the inclusion of publications.
Please note the following restriction on appendix attachments: The Research Plan Appendix attachments are limited to 10 attachments. Appendices are uploaded as attachments in the PHS 398 Research Plan form, in field #18, within the electronic application package. An applicant will receive an error message if the number of appendix attachments exceeds 10, which will result in an unsuccessful submission of the application. You may include more than one publication, or other allowable appendix material, within one attachment; however, do not let your attachments exceed 10.
Do not use the Appendix to circumvent the page limitations of the Research Plan component. An application that does not observe the relevant policies and procedures may not be considered in the review process. Applicants are reminded to review specific FOAs for any additional program-specific guidance on Appendix material and other application requirements. Awardees must agree to Section VI.2.A., "Cooperative Agreement"
Plan for Sharing Research Data
Note: HHS/CDC normally requires a plan for sharing research data. However, only proposals submitted to NCIPC for individual research projects of $500,000 or more in total (direct and indirect) costs per year require the applicant to include a data-sharing plan. Because the ceiling for this FOA is below $500,000, a data sharing plan is not required and the HHS/CDC steps outlined in this section do not apply.
The precise content of the data-sharing plan will vary, depending on the data being collected and how the investigator is planning to share the data. Applicants should describe briefly the expected schedule for data sharing, the format of the final dataset, the documentation to be provided, whether or not any analytic tools also will be provided, whether or not a data-sharing agreement will be required and, if so, a brief description of such an agreement (including the criteria for deciding who can receive the data and whether or not the awardee will place any conditions on their use), and the mode of data sharing (e.g., under their own auspices by mailing a disk or posting data on their institutional or personal website, through a data archive or enclave). References to data sharing may also be appropriate in other sections of the application.
Sharing Research Resources
Not applicable
Section V. Application Review Information
1. Criteria
Only the review criteria
described below will be considered in the review process.
· Scientific merit of the proposed project as determined by peer review
· Availability of funds
· Relevance of program priorities and the priorities of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
· Applications that do not address the objectives listed in Part II, Section 1 Research Objectives, will not be funded even if they rank higher than other applications that address the required objectives.
2. Review and Selection Process
Applications that are complete
and responsive to the RFA will be evaluated for scientific
and technical merit by an appropriate peer review group
convened by NCIPC in accordance with the review criteria
stated below.
As part of the initial merit
review, all applications will:
The goals of HHS/CDC-supported research are to advance the understanding of health promotion and the prevention of disease, injury, and disability, and enhance preparedness. In the written comments, evaluate the application to judge the likelihood the proposed research will have a substantial impact on the pursuit of these goals. Each of these criteria will be addressed by the reviewers and considered in assigning the overall score, weighting them as appropriate for each application.
Note that an application does
not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely
to have major scientific impact and thus deserve a high
priority score. For example, an investigator may propose to
carry out important work that by its nature is not
innovative but is essential to move a field forward.
Does this study address an important problem? If the
applicant achieves the aims of the application, how will it
advance scientific knowledge or clinical practice? What will
be the effect of these studies on the concepts, methods,
technologies, treatments, or preventative interventions that
drive this field?
Is the theoretical and empirical support for the proposed
hypotheses clear and sufficient?
Are the conceptual or clinical framework, design, methods,
and analyses adequately developed, well integrated, well
reasoned, and appropriate to the aims of the project? Does
the applicant acknowledge potential problem areas and
consider alternative tactics?
Does the applicant address the research objectives as stated
in Section I? Are the neighborhood level protective and
promotive factors clearly specified and measured
appropriately? Are the plans for developing measures of
neighborhood structural and social dynamics innovative and
appropriate? Are the analytic plans clear, consistent with
the research questions, and appropriate for the study design
and data available? Does the study have adequate statistical
power to empirically test the extent to which neighborhood
level protective and promotive factors are associated with
youth risk for violence perpetration and victimization?
Is the project original and innovative? For example: Does
the project challenge existing paradigms or clinical
practice; address an innovative hypothesis or critical
barrier to progress in the field? Does the project develop
or employ novel concepts, approaches, methodologies, tools,
or technologies for this area?
Are the investigators appropriately trained and well suited
to carry out this work? Is the work proposed appropriate to
the experience level of the principal investigator and other
researchers? Does the investigative team bring complementary
and integrated expertise to the project (if applicable)?
Does the scientific environment in which the work will be
done contribute to the probability of success? Do the
proposed studies benefit from unique features of the
scientific environment, or subject populations, or employ
useful collaborative arrangements? Is there evidence of
institutional support?
collaborations are being proposed, are the partners and
their skills and expertise well described? Is there an
appropriate degree of commitment and cooperation of other
interested parties as evidenced by letters detailing the
nature and extent of the involvement?
Additional Review Criteria
In addition to the above
criteria, the following items will continue to be considered
in the determination of scientific merit and the priority
Application Review
Protection of Human Subjects from Research Risk: When human subjects are involved, HHS/CDC will assess the available protections from research risk that relate to their participation in the proposed research [see the Research Plan, Section 2, item 8 on Human Subjects in the SF424 (R&R)] located at, http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm. Additional HHS/CDC Requirements under AR-1 Human Subjects Requirements are available on the Internet at the following address: http://www.cdc.gov/od/pgo/funding/ARs.htm.
Inclusion of Women and Minorities in Research:
Does the application adequately address the HHS/CDC Policy requirements regarding the inclusion of women, ethnic, and racial groups in the proposed research? This includes: (1) The proposed plan for the inclusion of both sexes and racial and ethnic minority populations for appropriate representation; (2) The proposed justification when representation is limited or absent; (3) A statement as to whether the design of the study is adequate to measure differences when warranted; and (4) A statement as to whether the plans for recruitment and outreach for study participants include the process of establishing partnerships with community(ies) and recognition of mutual benefits (see Section 2, item 9 Inclusion or Women and Minorities of the Research Plan component of the SF424 (R&R).
Inclusion of children as participants in research involving human subjects:
Does the application adequately address the HHS/CDC Policy requirements regarding the inclusion of children (i.e., individuals under the age of 21) in the proposed research? This includes: (1) The proposed plan to include child populations for appropriate representation; (2) The proposed justification when representation is limited or absent (see Section 2, item 10, Inclusion of Children of the Research Plan component of the SF424 (R&R).
Additional Review Considerations
Budget and Period of Support:
The reasonableness of the proposed budget and the
appropriateness of the requested period of support in
relation to the proposed research may be assessed by the
reviewers. Is the number of person months listed for the
effort of the PD/PI appropriate for the work proposed? Is
each budget category realistic and justified in terms of the
aims and methods? The evaluation of the budget should not
affect the priority score.
2.C. Sharing Research Data
Not applicable. Only proposals submitted to NCIPC for individual research projects of $500,000 or more in total (direct and indirect) costs per year require the applicant to include a data-sharing plan. Because the ceiling for this FOA is below $500,000, a data sharing plan is not required.
Grantees will be notified in September, 2009 by HHS/CDC's
Procurement and Grants Office (PGO) if their applications
were selected for funding.
Section VI. Award Administration Information
1. Award Notices
After the peer review of the
application is completed, the applicant organization will
receive a written critique called a "Summary Statement."
The applicant organization and the PD/PI will be able to
access the Summary Statement via the eRA Commons.
HHS/CDC will contact t
A formal notification in the form of a Notice of Award (NoA) will be provided to the applicant organization. The NoA signed by the Grants Management Officer (GMO) is the authorizing document. HHS/CDC will mail and/or e-mail this document to the recipient fiscal officer identified in the application.
Selection of the application for award is not an authorization to begin performance. Any cost incurred before receipt of the NoA is at the recipient's risk. These costs may be reimbursed only to the extent considered allowable pre-award costs. See also Section IV.5. Funding Restrictions.
CDC may grant expanded authority to eligible grantees under this announcement.
The following terms and
conditions will be incorporated into the NoA and will be
provided to the appropriate institutional official and a
courtesy copy to the PD/PI at the time of award.
2.A. Cooperative Agreement
The following terms of award
are in addition to, and not in lieu of, otherwise applicable
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) administrative
guidelines, HHS grant administration regulations at 45 CFR
Parts 74 and 92 (Part 92 is applicable when State and local
Governments are eligible to apply), and other HHS/CDC grant
administration policies.
administrative and funding instrument used for this program
will be the cooperative agreement U01,
"assistance" instrument (rather than an "acquisition"
instrument) in which substantial HHS/CDC programmatic
involvement with the awardees is anticipated during the
performance of the activities. Under the cooperative
agreement, the HHS/CDC purpose is to support and stimulate
the recipients' activities by involvement in, and otherwise
working jointly with, the award recipients in a partnership
role; it is not to assume direction, prime responsibility,
or a dominant role in the activities. Consistent with this
concept, the dominant role and prime responsibility resides
with the awardees for the project as a whole; although
specific tasks and activities may be shared among the
awardees and the HHS/CDC may share specific tasks and
activities, as defined above.
2.A.1. Recipient Rights and Responsibilities
The Recipient will have the primary responsibility for the following:
Non-Competing Grant Progress Report, (use form PHS 2590, posted on the HHS/CDC website, http://www.cdc.gov/od/pgo/funding/forms.htm and at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/2590/2590.htm, no less than 120 days prior to the end of the current budget period. The progress report will serve as the non-competing continuation application.2.
The annual performance report is due 90 days after the end of the budget period.3.
Financial status report, no more than 90 days after the end of the budget period.4.
Final financial and performance reports, no more than 90 days after the end of the project period.
Recipient Organization must forward these reports by the U.S. Postal Service or express delivery to the Grants Management Specialist listed in the "Agency Contacts" section of this FOA.
Although the financial plans of the HHS/CDC CIO(s) provide support for this program, awards pursuant to this funding opportunity are contingent upon the availability of funds, evidence of satisfactory progress by the recipient (as documented in required reports) and the determination that continued funding is in the best interest of the Federal government.
Section VII. Agency Contacts
HHS/CDC encourages your inquiries concerning this FOA and welcomes the opportunity to answer questions from potential applicants. Inquiries can fall into three areas: scientific/research, peer review, and financial or grants management issues:
Matthew Breiding,
Division of Violence
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
4770 Buford Hwy, NE, Mailstop F-64
Atlanta, GA 30341
Telephone: (770) 488- 1396
Email: email@example.com
2. Peer Review Contacts:
Jane Suen, Ph.D.
Scientific Review Administrator
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
4770 Buford Hwy, NE, Mailstop F-62
Atlanta, GA 30341
Telephone: (770) 488-4281
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
3. Financial or Grants Management Contacts:
Barbara R. Benyard
Procurement and Grants Office
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
2920 Brandywine Road, MS-E-09
Atlanta, GA 30341
Telephone: (770) 488-2757
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
4. General Questions Contacts:
Technical Information
Management Section
CDC Procurement and Grants Office
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
2920 Brandywine Road
Atlanta, GA 30341
Telephone: 770-488-2700
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
5. Special Guidelines for Technical Assistance:
NCIPC Website: For additional help in preparing your grant application please see the "frequently asked questions" section on the NCIPC webpage at: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/erpo/faqs.htm.
Technical assistance will be available for potential applicants during one conference call to be held on January 8, 2009 from 1:30 – 3:00 p.m. (Eastern Time). The conference can be accessed by calling: 888-458-5154 and entering the passcode: 2172983.
Section VIII. Other Information
Required Federal Citations
Human Subjects Protection:
Federal regulations (45 CFR
Part 46)
require that applications
and proposals involving human subjects must be evaluated
with reference to the risks to the subjects, the adequacy of
protection against these risks, the potential benefits of
the research to the subjects and others, and the importance
of the knowledge gained or to be gained (http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm).
Additional HHS/CDC Requirements under AR-1 Human Subjects
Requirements can be found on the Internet at the following
Requirements for Inclusion of
Women and Racial and Ethnic Minorities in Research
It is the policy of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) to ensure that individuals of both sexes and the various racial and ethnic groups will be included in CDC/ATSDR-supported research projects involving human subjects, whenever feasible and appropriate. Racial and ethnic groups are those defined in OMB Directive No. 15 and include American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. Applicants shall ensure that women, racial and ethnic minority populations are appropriately represented in applications for research involving human subjects. Where clear and compelling rationale exist that inclusion is inappropriate or not feasible, this situation must be explained as part of the application. This policy does not apply to research studies when the investigator cannot control the race, ethnicity, and/or sex of subjects. Further guidance to this policy is contained in the Federal Register, Vol. 60, No. 179, pages 47947-47951, and dated Friday, September 15, 1995.
The policy of CDC is that persons under the age of 21 must
be included in all human subjects research that is conducted
or supported by CDC, unless there are scientific and ethical
reasons not to include them. This policy applies to all
CDC-conducted or CDC-supported research involving human
subjects, including research that is otherwise exempt in
accordance with Sections 101(b) and 401(b) of
45 C.F.R. Part 46, HHS Policy for the Protection of Human
Subjects. Therefore, proposals for research
involving human subjects must include a description of plans
for including persons under the age of 21. If persons under
the age of 21 will be excluded from the research, the
application or proposal must present an acceptable
justification for the exclusion.
In an extramural research plan, the investigator should create a section titled "Participation of persons under the age of 21." This section should provide either a description of the plans to include persons under the age of 21 and a rationale for selecting or excluding a specific age range, or an explanation of the reason(s) for excluding persons under the age of 21 as participants in the research. When persons under the age of 21 are included, the plan must also include a description of the expertise of the investigative team for dealing with individuals at the ages included, the appropriateness of the available facilities to accommodate the included age groups, and the inclusion of a sufficient number of persons under the age of 21 to contribute to a meaningful analysis relative to the purpose of the study. Scientific review groups at CDC will assess each application as being acceptable or unacceptable in regard to the age-appropriate inclusion or exclusion of persons under the age of 21 in the research project, in addition to evaluating the plans for conducting the research in accordance with these provisions.
The inclusion of children (as defined by the applicable law of the jurisdiction in which the research will be conducted) as subjects in research must be in compliance with all applicable subparts of 45 C.F.R. Part 46, as well as with other pertinent federal laws and regulations.
The policy of inclusion of persons under the age of 21 in CDC-conducted or CDC-supported research activities in foreign countries (including collaborative activities) is the same as that for research conducted in the United States.
Paperwork Reduction Act Requirements
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, projects that involve the collection of information from 10 or more individuals and funded by a grant or a cooperative agreement will be subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Smoke-Free Workplace Requirements
CDC strongly encourages all recipients to provide a smoke-free workplace and to promote abstinence from all tobacco products. Public Law 103-227, the Pro-Children Act of 1994, prohibits smoking in certain facilities that receive Federal funds in which education, library, day care, health care, or early childhood development services are provided to children.
The Public Health Service (PHS)
is committed to achieving the health promotion and disease
prevention objectives of "Healthy People 2010," a PHS-led
national activity for setting priority areas. This PA is
related to one or more of the priority areas. Potential
applicants may obtain a copy of "Healthy People 2010" at
Applicants should be aware of restrictions on the use of HHS funds for lobbying of Federal or State legislative bodies. Under the provisions of 31 U.S.C. Section 1352, recipients (and their sub-tier contractors) are prohibited from using appropriated Federal funds (other than profits from a Federal contract) for lobbying congress or any Federal agency in connection with the award of a particular contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or loan. This includes grants/cooperative agreements that, in whole or in part, involve conferences for which Federal funds cannot be used directly or indirectly to encourage participants to lobby or to instruct participants on how to lobby.
In addition no part of CDC appropriated funds, shall be used, other than for normal and recognized executive-legislative relationships, for publicity or propaganda purposes, for the preparation, distribution, or use of any kit, pamphlet, booklet, publication, radio, television, or video presentation designed to support or defeat legislation pending before the Congress or any State or local legislature, except in presentation to the Congress or any State or local legislature itself. No part of the appropriated funds shall be used to pay the salary or expenses of any grant or contract recipient, or agent acting for such recipient, related to any activity designed to influence legislation or appropriations pending before the Congress or any State or local legislature.
Any activity designed to influence action in regard to a particular piece of pending legislation would be considered "lobbying." That is lobbying for or against pending legislation, as well as indirect or "grass roots" lobbying efforts by award recipients that are directed at inducing members of the public to contact their elected representatives at the Federal or State levels to urge support of, or opposition to, pending legislative proposals is prohibited. As a matter of policy, HHS/CDC extends the prohibitions to lobbying with respect to local legislation and local legislative bodies.
The provisions are not intended to prohibit all interaction with the legislative branch, or to prohibit educational efforts pertaining to public health. Clearly there are circumstances when it is advisable and permissible to provide information to the legislative branch in order to foster implementation of prevention strategies to promote public health. However, it would not be permissible to influence, directly or indirectly, a specific piece of pending legislation
It remains permissible to use HHS/CDC funds to engage in activity to enhance prevention; collect and analyze data; publish and disseminate results of research and surveillance data; implement prevention strategies; conduct community outreach services; provide leadership and training, and foster safe and healthful environments.
Recipients of HHS/CDC grants and cooperative agreements need to be careful to prevent CDC funds from being used to influence or promote pending legislation. With respect to conferences, public events, publications, and "grassroots" activities that relate to specific legislation, recipients of HHS/CDC funds should give close attention to isolating and separating the appropriate use of HHS/CDC funds from non-CDC funds. HHS/CDC also cautions recipients of HHS/CDC funds to be careful not to give the appearance that HHS/CDC funds are being used to carry out activities in a manner that is prohibited under Federal law.
Prohibition on Use of CDC Funds for Certain Gun Control Activities
The Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act specifies that: "None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control."
Anti-Lobbying Act requirements prohibit lobbying Congress with appropriated Federal monies. Specifically, this Act prohibits the use of Federal funds for direct or indirect communications intended or designed to influence a member of Congress with regard to specific Federal legislation. This prohibition includes the funding and assistance of public grassroots campaigns intended or designed to influence members of Congress with regard to specific legislation or appropriation by Congress.
In addition to the restrictions in the Anti-Lobbying Act, HHS/CDC interprets the language in the HHS/CDC's Appropriations Act to mean that HHS/CDC's funds may not be spent on political action or other activities designed to affect the passage of specific Federal, State, or local legislation intended to restrict or control the purchase or use of firearms.
Accounting System Requirements
The services of a certified public accountant licensed by the State Board of Accountancy or the equivalent must be retained throughout the project as a part of the recipient's staff or as a consultant to the recipient's accounting personnel. These services may include the design, implementation, and maintenance of an accounting system that will record receipts and expenditures of Federal funds in accordance with accounting principles, Federal regulations, and terms of the cooperative agreement or grant.
Capability Assessment
It may be necessary to conduct an on-site evaluation of some applicant organization's financial management capabilities prior to or immediately following the award of the grant or cooperative agreement. Independent audit statements from a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) for the preceding two fiscal years may also be required.
Proof of Non-profit
Proof of nonprofit status must be submitted by private nonprofit organizations with the application. Any of the following is acceptable evidence of nonprofit status: (a) a reference to the applicant organization's listing in the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) most recent list of tax-exempt organizations described in section 501(c)(3) of the IRS Code; (b) a copy of a currently valid IRS tax exemption certificate; (c) a statement from a State taxing body, State Attorney General, or other appropriate State Official certifying that the applicant organization has a nonprofit status and that none of the net earnings accrue to any private shareholders or individuals; (d) a certified copy of the organization's certificate of incorporation or similar document that clearly establishes nonprofit status; (e) any of the above proof for a State or national parent organization and a statement signed by the parent organization that the applicant organization is a local nonprofit affiliate.
Small, Minority, And Women-owned Business
It is a national policy to place a fair share of purchases with small, minority and women-owned business firms. The Department of Health and Human Services is strongly committed to the objective of this policy and encourages all recipients of its grants and cooperative agreements to take affirmative steps to ensure such fairness. In particular, recipients should:
Research Integrity
The signature of the institution official on the face page of the application submitted under this Funding Opportunity Announcement is certifying compliance with the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) regulations in Title 42 Part 93, Subparts A-E, entitled PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT.
The regulation places requirements on institutions receiving or applying for funds under the PHS Act that are monitored by the DHHS Office of Research Integrity (ORI) (http://ori.hhs.gov./policies/statutes.shtml).
For example:
Section 93.301 Institutional assurances. (a) General policy. An institution with PHS supported biomedical or behavioral research, research training or activities related to that research or research training must provide PHS with an assurance of compliance with this part, satisfactory to the Secretary. PHS funding components may authorize [[Page 28389]] funds for biomedical and behavioral research, research training, or activities related to that research or research training only to institutions that have approved assurances and required renewals on file with ORI. (b) Institutional Assurance. The responsible institutional official must assure on behalf of the institution that the institution-- (1) Has written policies and procedures in compliance with this part for inquiring into and investigating allegations of research misconduct; and (2) Complies with its own policies and procedures and the requirements of this part.
Compliance with Executive Order 13279
Faith-based organization are eligible to receive federal financial assistance, and their applications are evaluated in the same manner and using the same criteria as those for non-faith-based organizations in accordance with Executive Order 13279, Equal Protection of the Laws for Faith-Based and Community Organizations. All applicants should, however, be aware of restrictions on the use of direct financial assistance from the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) for inherently religious activities. Under the provisions of Title 45, Parts 74, 87, 92 and 96, organizations that receive direct financial assistance from DHHS under any DHHS program may not engage in inherently religious activities, such as worship, religious instruction, or proselytization as a part of the programs or services funded with direct financial assistance from DHHS. If an organization engages in such activities, it must offer them separately, in time or location, from the programs or services funded with direct DHHS assistance, and participation must be voluntary for the beneficiaries of the programs or services funded with such assistance. A religious organization that participates in the DHHS funded programs or services will retain its independence from Federal, State, and local governments, and may continue to carry out its mission, including the definition, practice, and expression of its religious beliefs, provided that it does not use direct financial assistance from DHHS to support inherently religious activities such as those activities described above. A faith-based organization may, however, use space in its facilities to provide programs or services funded with financial assistance from DHHS without removing religious art, icons, scriptures, or other religious symbols. In addition, a religious organization that receives financial assistance from DHHS retains its authority over its internal governance, and it may retain religious terms in its organization=s name, select its board members on a religious basis, and include religious references in its organization=s mission statements and other governing documents in accordance with all program requirements, statutes, and other applicable requirements governing the conduct of DHHS funded activities. For further guidance on the use of DHHS direct financial assistance see Title 45, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 87, Equal Treatment for Faith-Based Organizations, and visit the internet site:
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Requirements
Recipients of this grant award should note that pursuant to the Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information promulgated under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) (45 CFR Parts 160 and 164) covered entities may disclose protected health information to public health authorities authorized by law to collect or receive such information for the purpose of preventing or controlling disease, injury, or disability, including, but not limited to, the reporting of disease, injury, vital events such as birth or death, and the conduct of public health surveillance, public health investigations, and public health interventions. The definition of a public health authority includes a person or entity acting under a grant of authority from or contract with such public agency. HHS/CDC considers this project a public health activity consistent with the Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information and CDC will provide successful recipients a specific grant of public health authority for the purposes of this project.
Release and Sharing of Data
The Data Release Plan is the Grantee's assurance that the dissemination of any and all data collected under the CDC data sharing agreement will be released as follows:
When required (see note below) applications
must include a copy of the applicant's Data Release Plan. Applicants should provide CDC with appropriate documentation on the reliability of the data. Applications submitted without the required Plan may be ineligible for award. Award will be made when reviewing officials have approved an acceptable Plan. The successful applicant and the Program Manager will determine the documentation format. HHS/CDC recommends data is released in the form closest to micro data and one that will preserve confidentiality.Note: Only proposals submitted to NCIPC for individual research projects of $500,000 or more in total (direct and indirect) costs per year require the applicant to include a data-sharing plan. Because the ceiling for this FOA is below $500,000, a data sharing plan is not required.
Conference Disclaimer and Use of Logos
Disclaimer: Where a conference is funded by a grant or cooperative agreement, a subgrant or a contract the recipient must include the following statement on conference materials, including promotional materials, agenda, and internet sites:
"Funding for this conference was made possible [in part] by [insert grant or cooperative agreement award number] from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention(CDC) or the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) . The views expressed in written conference materials or publications and by speakers and moderators do not necessarily reflect the official policies of the Department of Health and Human Services; nor does mention of trade names, commercial practices, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government."
Logos: Neither the HHS nor the CDC ("CDC" includes ATSDR) logo may be displayed if such display would cause confusion as to the source of the conference or give the false appearance of Government endorsement. A non-federal entity's unauthorized use of the HHS name or logo is governed by U.S.C. § 1320b-10, which prohibits the misuse of the HHS name and emblem in written communication. The appropriate use of the HHS logo is subject to the review and approval of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs (OASPA). Moreover, the Office of the Inspector General has authority to impose civil monetary penalties for violations (42 C.F.R. Part 1003). Neither the HHS nor the CDC logo can be used on conference materials under a grant, cooperative agreement, contract or co-sponsorship agreement without the expressed, written consent of either the Project Officer or the Grants Management Officer. It is the responsibility of the grantee (or recipient of funds under a cooperative agreement) to request consent for the use of the logo in sufficient detail to assure a complete depiction and disclosure of all uses of the Government logos, and to assure that in all cases of the use of Government logos, the written consent of either the Project Officer or the Grants Management Officer has been received.
Questions and Answers
Question: What is meant by "project narrative" in the SF424 (R&R)?
Answer: The "project narrative" attachment is required in the SF424 (R&R). As described in the SF424 (R&R) application guide, the project narrative should describe the relevance of the research. Using no more than two or three sentences, describe the relevance of this research to public health. In this section, be succinct and use plain language that can be understood by a general, lay audience.
Question: If my role is to serve as mentor, 'senior author,' career promoter, and not the lead on publications, does it satisfy the eligibility criteria as specified in Section III. Eligibility Information (3. Other-Special Eligibility Criteria)?
Answer: According to the Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA), the application must provide "at least one first-authored journal article on violence prevention research OR previous grant support for such research". It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all required criterion relating to FOA are submitted for review purposes. Substantiated evidence must be provided in order for the application to move forward to the next level of review. Below is an excerpt of the required information as noted in the FOA:
Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) Number:
Identifying Neighborhood Level Protective and Promotive Factors for Youth Violence (U01).
3. Other-Special
Eligibility Criteria
To be considered responsive to this announcement, the principal investigator (on behalf of the applicant institution) must adhere to the following:
Provide documentation that the principal investigator(s) has prior experience in conducting research on violence. This must be evidenced by at least one first-authored journal article on violence prevention research or previous grant support for such research. Applicant should clearly identify the relevant publications or grant support in the SF-424 and Research and Related Senior/Key Personnel Biographical Sketch.
There must be an overall match between the applicant's proposed research as described in the research plan and the research objective of this FOA as described in Section I under the heading "Research Objectives."
Documentation of effective and well-defined working relationships with any organization and/or outside entities expected to participate in the proposed research. This should be evidenced by letters of support detailing the nature and extent of the involvement from the performing organization and relevant outside entities (include in the appendices).
CDC Home Page: http://www.cdc.gov
CDC Funding Web Page: http://www.cdc.gov/od/pgo/funding/FOAs.htm
CDC Forms Web Page: http://www.cdc.gov/od/pgo/funding/grants/app_and_forms.shtm


text:
Start learning with our library of video tutorials taught by experts. Get started
Explores every device in the rack, including the Transport panel, ReGroove mixer, and the RPG-8 arpeggiator.
"It is like taking college classes without leaving home. Great for total beginners and long-time veterans." —Trevor C.
more from our members »

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Don Cheadle
With less than a year to go, fans of "Avengers: Age of Ultron" are getting an extra-special treat courtesy of Marvel Studios.
This week, Entertainment Weekly debuted a slew of new still photos from the London set, including the venerable superhero wardrobe closet.
Bringing us his seventh installment of "Mean Tweets," Jimmy Kimmel invited some of today's hottest stars to read what gets written about them in the Twitterverse.
Ashton Kutcher seemed a bit hurt when he read, "Ashton Kutcher needs to get hit by a bus. ASAP," while Courteney Cox got a kick out of her message, "I hate Courtney Cox I f*cking hate her. P*ssy hoe."
In a competitive field of great programs, there's not always a guarantee that our favorite shows will see the light of another season.
However, fans of "Shameless" and "House of Lies" can breathe easy- Showtime has extended both projects for at least 12 more episodes.
They always bring their A-game when it comes to the Super Bowl, and on Friday (January 31), Bud Light released their hilarious commercial that will air on Sunday.
The star-studded ad features appearances by Reggie Watts, Minka Kelly, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Don Cheadle, and One Republic.
It's going to be an amazing evening of talent and celebration, and the 20th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards just shared some of the presenters on the roster.
"Argo" hunk Ben Affleck has signed on for the gig, as has his wife Jennifer Garner, Don Cheadle, Sasha Alexander and Clark Gregg.
With the third season of his hit HBO series "House of Lies" slated to premiere Sunday (January 12th), Don Cheadle landed a feature in the February 2014 issue of DETAILS magazine.
During his Q&A session, the "Iron Man 3" star discussed details about the show and even chatted about his appearance in a 1989 music video.
Taking a break from their usual duties, Chris Pine, Don Cheadle, Orlando Bloom and Will Forte headed over to the Beverly Hilton for the 71st Golden Globes earlier tonight (January 12).
The "Star Trek" stud and "The Desolation of Smaug" star flashed handsome smiles to the shutterbugs, meandering their way inside to catch all the star-studded action, along with "House of Lies" lead, Cheadle and "Trouble Dolls" star, Forte.
He's gearing up for the third season premiere of "House of Lies" and during promotions, Don Cheadle scored the cover spot of Emmy magazine.
During his sit down with the publication, the "Iron Man" star shared details about his Showtime series and chatted about his saxophone skills.
It's going to be a project of epic proportions, and "Avengers: Age of Ultron" just got another big boost of star power courtesy of Don Cheadle.
The "Traffic" actor will play Colonel Rhodes, aka War Machine when Tony Stark and the rest of the gang reconvene to battle the sentient robot known as Ultron.
Finding humor in a scary situation, Kristen Bell responded to an incident of real-life gunfire near the set of "House of Lies" in Los Angeles on Friday (November 15).
After shots rang out near the Nickerson Gardens project after the stars had finished shooting, Don Cheadle tweeted, "Holy sh*t, I'm dead (TMZ)."
Hottest Videos
Sign-Up For Celebrity Newsletter
Hottest Stories
- 1)
- 2)
- 3)
- 4)
- 5)


text:
Medication adherence, compliance and persistence are closely related terms, but all call for the involvement of an active patient to be successful.
Retail News Breaks Archives
SAN DIEGO – Medication adherence, compliance and persistence are closely related terms, but all call for the involvement of an active patient to be successful.
David Nau, senior director of research and performance measurement at the Pharmacy Quality Alliance (PQA), and Rick Mohall, director of clinical services at Rite Aid Corp., outlined innovative approaches that pharmacies and health care groups have been taking to improve medication adherence and patient health outcomes in a session at the National Association of Chain Drug Stores Pharmacy and Technology Conference.
Pharmacies, as health and wellness destinations for the public, are key providers of compliance and adherence programs, noted Mohall, who has responsibility for medication therapy management (MTM) and other programs at Rite Aid.
"We continue to develop programs to increase compliance and adherence," Mohall said, citing Rite Aid's wellness+ loyalty program (which provides members with health and wellness benefits) and services such as medication therapy management, automated courtesy prescription refills and reminder calls.
"This approach is a win-win-win for our patients, for pharmaceutical companies and for our bottom line," he explained. "Our loyalty card program incents customers to fill their prescriptions, our refill program also allows our pharmacists to monitor compliance, and our MTM program provides patients with complex therapies an opportunity to measure adherence and outcomes."
In one initiative, Rite Aid has forged a PQA partnership with Highmark Blue Shield, a large regional health plan based in western Pennsylvania, and CECity.com, a technology partner, to improve the quality of pharmacy services.
Under the alliance, Rite Aid's pharmacists have been trained to understand the compliance and adherence measurements in the PQA program, and the pharmacists have been provided with tools leading to patient interventions to ensure they understand the importance of compliance and adherence. The initiative is slated to lead to pharmacist reimbursement for those services.
Originally involving 54 Rite Aid locations in western Pennsylvania, the project has since been expanded to 240 stores so that pharmacists can compare their efforts with those of their colleagues.
To increase adherence, Mohall said, pharmacists should ask patients such questions as whether they feel their medications are doing more harm than good, whether they understand how their medicines can improve their health and whether filling their prescriptions presents them with a financial burden.
According to Nau, lack of medication has been cited as "America's other drug problem." It has contributed to progression of disease and complications that have led to lower quality of life and even death. A higher adherence rate, he added, most often results in reduced rates for hospitals and total medical spending.
Employers are increasingly analyzing prescription data to examine such factors as the impact on productivity and the effect that nonadherence has on their total health care expenditures, Nau added, pointing to figures from the New England Healthcare Institute showing that a typical midsize employer with $10 million in annual claims might waste over $1 million because of nonadherence.
Efforts that Nau said have been attempted to increase adherence include electronic prescribing and reducing health plan member costs for chronic care medications.
The Pharmacy Quality Alliance aims to identify appropriate quality metrics for medication use and medication therapy management services. The alliance represents pharmacy providers, health plans, employers, PBMs, academicians, outcomes researchers, senior advocacy groups, health IT vendors, state and national health care associations and members of the pharmaceutical industry.


text:
More On Airguns – Two More States Legalize Airguns For Hunting
August 12, 2013
This is pretty cool! In a recent press release from Crosman, I saw the exciting news that Alabama and Arizona have opened the doors for airgun hunters on multiple new species.
According to the piece, Alabama will now allow hunters using airguns .30 caliber or larger for predators, hogs, and whitetail deer. This is pretty cool news, especially in a state where much of the hunting is done at reasonably close range from stands or blinds. I've always thought whitetail would be the perfect game for airgun hunting, just as they are for bow hunters.
In AZ, the regulations are a little more diverse, but the news is still good for the big bore airgun enthusiast. Here's how it breaks down, according to the Crosman article:
- Allow the take of big game animals including pronghorn, deer (mule deer and Coues whitetail), black bear, mountain lion, bighorn sheep (desert and Rocky Mountain) and javelina, but excluding bison and elk, with "big-bore" PCP air rifles .35 caliber and larger, during general (rifle) seasons.
- Allow the take of predators, including coyotes, foxes and skunks and fur-bearing animals, including bobcats, raccoons, weasels, badgers and ringtail cats withPCP air rifles .22 caliber and larger, during general (rifle) seasons.
- Small game (rabbits and squirrels), other animals including coati and Gunnison's prairie dogs, and birds including Eurasian collared-doves, crows and upland birds (quail, grouse, partridge and pheasant) will continue to be legal for harvest during general seasons with a variety of pneumatic weapons includingPCP's, the popular break-barrels powered by springs or gas pistons, and the venerable variable pump and CO2 charged air rifles."
While I'm certain that controversy will continue regarding the ability of air rifles to humanely kill game animals, there's no question that this genie is out of the bottle. Many states allow the use of airguns for nuisance species and small game, and with AZ and AL added, there are seven states which now permit the use of airguns (with specific qualifications) to hunt whitetail deer. Here in Texas, you still can't hunt whitetails with an air rifle, but they are permitted for all non-native species and several small game animals as well.
Crosman offers a chart on their website for anyone interested in learning more about their state's regulations on airgun hunting. It's an interesting look at the regs across all of the states, and it is updated as of June of 2013. However, as always, I recommend verifying the regulations in your own state through the appropriate fish and game regulatory agency. Measure twice, cut once… ignorance of the law will not get you out of a hefty fine.
More Air Gun Hunting Stuff With The Benjamin Rogue
July 12, 2013
So, in keeping with the conversations about the big-bore air rifles (and because I don't really have anything else particularly interesting to write about), I figured I'd share the followingvideo . These guys have been all over the place with the Benjamin Rogue .357, and have shot a lot of animals with it.
I'm still not completely sold on the approach ("well, let's see what it will do to this critter"), but it is illuminating. At almost 60 yards, he achieves near pass-through on a red hartebeest, which is a lot bigger than a whitetail. From my slight experience with the African and Eurasian plains animals (oryx, axis, blackbuck, and fallow), these things are also pretty tough, and can tote a whack with aplomb. That says an awful lot about the capabilities of this rifle.
Of course, it also shows the value of precise shot placement. In these videos, the shots you see are damned near perfect. The use of a good bullet, such as the 145gr Nosler used in these hunts is also pretty critical. Even so, if you watch through the post-mortem in this vid, you'll see that there's not a heck of a lot of expansion. That bullet better hit something important.
Anyway, there's a lot more on the Team Wild TV YouTube channel if you're interested. It looks like they use the Rogue in several episodes, including hunts for Barbado sheep, Jacobs (4-horned) sheep, and wild hogs… as well as some smaller game.
Overall, it's intriguing, to say the least.
Suburban And Urban Deer Control With Air Rifles? Why Not?
July 10, 2013
So there's a New York Times piece floating throughout the Blogosphere right now, about the tiny, New York town of Hastings-on-Hudson and their battle with the overwhelming deer population. With multiple deer/vehicle collisions, destruction of the understory of parks and woodlands, an upsurge of lyme disease, and complaints from homeowners, the small-town mayor had to make a decision. The choice… to partner with Tufts University and explore a new immunocontraception drug.
The problem of suburban deer isn't a new one, particularly in the east. Whitetail deer are particularly adaptable to the proximity of human habitation, especially when there is no threat from the human "neighbors". Without hunting or any other type of predation to control their numbers, the deer capitalize on prime browsing of backyard (and front) gardens and the availability of suburban parklands. I recently reviewed Jim Sterba's book, Nature Wars, which provides some intriguing insight into this issue.
Solutions to the issue vary widely, and are often driven by the demographic of the area in question. The most successful approach so far has been the use of professional sharpshooters to cull overgrown herds. However, in more politically liberal areas, lethal options always seem to be a very last resort. Hastings-on-Hudson fits this profile, hence the decision to try contraception instead of killing. The approach is not particularly novel. Several municipalities have tried it, although the only apparent success to date has been in island habitats where the populations are geographically isolated. Nevertheless, the researchers at Tufts have continued to develop their solution and there's hope that the new immunocontraceptive will be effective.
Besides the public relations perspective, though, lethal means of control in suburban areas definitely have their drawbacks.
First, and most problematic is the suggestion that the deer be trapped (netted) and despatched by means of a captive bolt gun. While there's a certain efficiency in this approach, the sheer (apparent) cold-bloodedness of some guy walking through a net of flailing deer and quietly bolting each animal will simply not fly with the general public… and the outcry by animal welfare organizations will make the whole thing quite unappealing to municipal officials whose careers rely on the good will of voters.
Managed shooting is also a challenging option in the suburban/urban areas. While some municipalities have enlisted the assistance of sharpshooters (volunteer and professional), the use of firearms in a heavily populated environment is fraught with problems… from the noise of gunfire to the risk of stray bullets. There's simply too much fear of guns among the general populace… again, this is most pronounced in politically liberal areas… but even folks who tolerate guns and hunting often have issues when the shooting is taking place right outside their bedroom windows.
Archery is a good alternative to firearms. Bows are quiet. Arrows tend to travel a relatively short distance after release, especially when the shooting is done from an elevated position. The problem with archery, though, is that it doesn't usually result in an instant fatality. Even well-hit deer can travel a significant distance before expiring. This means there's a risk that some suburbanite will wake in the morning with a deer bleeding out in his driveway, or the kids will run out to play and find "Bambi" stretched out under the swingset. As you might imagine, a couple of these incidents can quickly turn public opinion against the archery solution.
But I think there's another option that I think is missing here… air guns.
I'm not talking about the kid stuff here… Red Ryders and Crossman Powerlines. But there are a variety of air rifles on the market that would prove more than capable of close-range deer culling. They're quiet. They're accurate. They have limited range, as air gun projectiles tend to shed energy rapidly. In all respects, they seem perfectly suited for this job.
One example, possibly on the lower end of the spectrum, is the Benjamin Marauder in .25 caliber. At 25 yards or so, this rifle delivers a solid thump with a hunting pellet. The shrouded, baffled barrel makes this rifle extremely quiet, and it's capable of very precise accuracy. A skilled sharpshooter could easily make headshots on deer-sized targets which would result in instant kills (and no deer thrashing out their last in some homeowner's flower bed).
If the .25 is considered too small, there's also the Benjamin Rogue, which comes in .357 caliber. This rifle is definitely powerful enough at 20 to 40 yards to cleanly kill whitetail deer, and accurate enough to do so with headshots. It is also designed to be relatively quiet, so it can be used in proximity to homes.
There are any number of other air guns out there that would do fine work on deer-sized game, ranging from .38 to .54 caliber. Some of them are pretty loud, but they are still safer in the suburban/urban environment than firearms.
So why aren't air rifles being proposed as a valid option in suburban/urban deer control situations? I'd love to hear any insight from folks who've been involved in these discussions.
A Very Short Note – Airgun Hunting Turkeys
January 3, 2013
So, after a couple of years of waiting, yesterday finally brought my first opportunity to take a turkey with my Benjamin Marauder, .25 caliber air rifle. On my cameras, I saw where the birds had been passing through the past few days, and yesterday when I looked out, I could see a few in the barn pasture. I quickly aired up the rifle and dove into the woods to circle around.
About halfway to where I'd seen the three birds, I heard a rustling in the brush ahead. I froze and squatted down. On a well-worn deer trail, about 25 yards away, I spotted a feathery breast. The bird came right up the trail, and as she did, I realized there were several more in line behind her. I quickly took a sitting rest, leveled the scope on an opening in the branches, and waited for a shot. I decided I'd aim for the base of the neck, which should make a killing shot with this rifle. A head shot was out of the question due to the movement of the birds and the level of the brush that kept obscuring them when they'd stop and look around.
The first two birds slipped through without stopping, but then a big hen stepped into the opening and stopped. The two-stage trigger seemed to take forever to engage, but then the pellet was away! Unfortunately, the bird had started to walk again at almost the same instant. I heard the "thwack", and realized I'd managed to hit the bird flat on the wing… about two inches from where I'd been aiming. The bird flapped and ran over a little rise, while about 15 other turkeys suddenly started racing around in chaos. When all was quiet, I went to see the damage.
Turkey wings are pretty damned tough. I've heard more than one story of .22 magnums bouncing off without any damage. I know, first hand, that a shotgun won't penetrate. And after yesterday, I now know that a .25 caliber pellet, fired from my Marauder won't penetrate a turkey's wings either.
I'll have another go with the air rifle, as soon as I get the chance. But I will definitely have to be a lot more careful about my shot selection.
From the Just Because You Can… Files
February 29, 2012
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a post about Jim Shockey hunting hogs with the new Rogue air rifle. It got some good discussion, and a lot of you folks were sort of down on the idea. Personally, I can see a place for it, but there are an awful lot of qualifiers that go into that. The common thread, though, was that, "just because you can, doesn't mean you should."
There's a lot of wisdom in that aphorism.
Well, I just got a note from the PR company that represents Barnett crossbows. Crossbow hunting is something that's interested me for quite some time, and something I intend to try (sooner or later). Mostly, I just think they're pretty cool weapons with a really interesting history. The ones I've shot were accurate and powerful… impressively so. As a hunting tool under the right conditions, they're deadly as can be. I've seen, up close and personal, what they'll do to hogs and whitetail deer.
I know there's a ton of politics behind their use as "archery tackle", and don't really want to go down that road right now. I'm more interested in their application as hunting tools, and whether you want to classify them as archery or gun or something else doesn't much concern me.
But like all hunting weapons, they have their limitations. The question we often ask is, how far should those limitations be pushed. For example, the following clip:
Please share your thoughts. Mine will follow.
Jim Shockey Shooting Hogs With An Air Rifle – Benjamin Rogue .357
February 3, 2012
I have a feeling we're going to start hearing more and more about air rifle hunting… not only the hunting stories, but discussions about the ethics of using these "low-powered" rifles to kill game animals. It's an area of firearms and hunting in which I'm only slightly immersed, but it is an area that holds a lot of interest to me. Hunting is the primary purpose for my Marauder (even though it hasn't really had a chance yet).
Anyway, Jim Shockey is really on the forefront of celebrity hunters who are embracing the airgun technology. He's become a regular spokesman for Crosman and Benjamin airguns, and he's on video now hunting everything from grouse and rabbits to wild hogs.
Yes. Wild hogs. With an airgun.
Of course these aren't ordinary airguns. Lately, he's been doing a lot of hunts with the Benjamin Rogue, .357. I had the opportunity to shoot the prototype of this rifle last year, and they've done a lot of work to get it into production. It's an incredibly accurate gun, and delivers some pretty significant impact on target. With the Nosler hunting bullets, I have no doubt this is plenty of gun for stuff like coyotes and bobcats. Hogs, though, are a different question. Shockey answers the question, though, in a series of videos on YouTube,including the one below. A well-placed shot at close range is definitely enough to bring down a pig.
But is it a good idea? What do you guys think?
Detailed Write-up On The Benjamin Marauder
January 26, 2012
Some of you may be sick to death of my posts about the Benjamin Marauder, and to you I apologize. I really hadn't intended to write about it again so soon, but then I read this great article on RealGuns.com. The write-up covers a level of detail that I simply didn't (and won't) get to, and it is really good stuff for the more technically minded. It's also some good stuff for anyone thinking about hunting with one of these rifles, as he gets into kinetic energy at various ranges.
If you don't want to actually read the article, here's how he sums it all up. It's not too different from my own summation, except he gets here with a much more detailed examination.
The Benjamin Marauder is interesting. It isn't a firearm and it wouldn't be fair to compare it to one. Compared to other air rifles I have worked with, the Marauder is well made, nicely finished and a good performer. As marketed by Crosman, the gun is lethal on lawn and garden pests, small game and some smaller predators. As is the case with other quality PCP guns, owning and shooting one is an investment, into the rifle and in the support systems required to make it a daily shooter. For situation where neighbors are relatively close in, noise is a problem, as are bullets that carry a long distances, the .25 Caliber Marauder may be one of the best solutions.


text:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
JN may refer to:
- Jan Mayen (FIPS PUB 10-4 territory code), an island in the Arctic Ocean
- Johnson–Nyquist noise, electrical noise generated by random thermal motion in a conductor
- Jornal de Notícias, a Portuguese newspaper
- Jornal Nacional, a Brazilian news program
- Excel Airways (IATA airline designator)
Jn or Jn. may refer to:
This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the title JN. If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article. |


text:
This story, which recently won a Science in Society award from the National Association of Science Writers, originally ran in CJR's January/February 2010 issue.
The small makeup room off the main floor of KUSI's studios, in a suburban canyon on the north end of San Diego, has seen better days. The carpet is stained; the couch sags. John Coleman, KUSI's weatherman, pulls off the brown sweatshirt he has been wearing over his shirt and tie all day and appraises himself in the mirror, smoothing back his white hair and opening a makeup kit. "I kid that I have to use a trowel, to fill the crevasses of age," he says, swiping powder under one eye and then the other. "People have tried to convince me to use more advanced makeup, but I don't. I don't try to fool anyone."
Coleman is seventy-five years old, and looks it, which is refreshing in the Dorian Gray-like environs of television news. He refers to his position at KUSI, a modestly eccentric independent station in San Diego whose evening newscast usually runs fifth out of five in the local market, as his retirement job. When he steps in front of the green screen, it's clear why he has chosen it over actual retirement; in front of the camera he moves, if not quite like a man half his age, then at least like a man three quarters of it. His eyes light up, and the slight stoop with which he otherwise carries himself disappears. His rumble of a voice evens out into a theatrical baritone, full of the practiced jocularity of someone who has spent all but the first nineteen years of his life on TV.
By his own rough estimate, John Coleman has performed more than a quarter million weathercasts. It is not a stretch to say that he is largely responsible for the shape of the modern weather report. As the first weatherman on ABC's Good Morning America in the late 1970s and early '80s, Coleman pioneered the use of the onscreen satellite technology and computer graphics that are now standard nearly everywhere. In 1982, chafing at the limitations of his daily slot on GMA, Coleman used his spare time—and media mogul Frank Batten's money—to launch The Weather Channel. The idea seemed quixotic then, and his tenure as president ended a year later after an acrimonious split with Batten. But time proved Coleman to be something of a genius—the channel was turning a profit within four years, and by the time NBC-Universal bought it in 2008 it had 85 million viewers and a $3.5 billion price tag.
Those were the first two acts of Coleman's career. On a Sunday night in early November 2007, Coleman sat down at his home computer and started to write the 967 words that would launch the third. "It is the greatest scam in history," he began. "I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming: It is a SCAM."
What had set him off was a football game. The Eagles were playing the Cowboys in Philadelphia on Sunday Night Football, and as a gesture of environmental awareness—it was "Green is Universal" week at NBC-Universal—the studio lights were cut for portions of the pre-game and half-time shows. Coleman, who had been growing increasingly skeptical about global warming for more than a decade, finally snapped. "I couldn't take it anymore," he told me. "I did a Howard Beale."
Skepticism is, of course, the core value of scientific inquiry. But the essay that Coleman published that week, on the Web site ICECAP, would have more properly been termed rejectionism. Coleman wasn't arguing against the integrity of a particular conclusion based on careful original research—something that would have constituted useful scientific skepticism. Instead, he went after the motives of the scientists themselves. Climate researchers, he wrote, "look askance at the rest of us, certain of their superiority. They respect government and disrespect business, particularly big business. They are environmentalists above all else."
The Drudge Report picked up Coleman's essay, and within days its author was a cause célèbre on right-wing talk radio and cable television, beaming into Glenn Beck's TV show via satellite from the KUSI studios to elaborate on the scientists' conspiracy. "They all have an agenda," Coleman told Beck, "an environmental and political agenda that said, 'Let's pile on here, we're all going to make a lot of money, we're going to get research grants, we're going to get awards, we're going to become famous.'"


text:
Project Title: Replace Mission Creek West Bridge (FFS #R6HN)
State: Montana
Initial Project Description: Stimulus funds paid for a new bridge on the National Bison Range in western Montana. The project was one of the Mountain-Prairie Region's highest priority projects.
The National Bison range is one of the oldest wildlife refuges in the U.S. The Service established the refuge in 1908 with Congressional appropriations. The American Bison Society purchased the original herd of bison in 1909 with private money and donated them to the range, helping to prevent bison extinction.
There are 350 to 500 bison residing on the range. The range has populations of elk, mule deer, white-tailed deer, pronghorn, and bighorn sheep as well as coyotes, mountain lions, bears, and bobcats. Refuge personnel have spotted over 200 bird species including eagles, hawks, meadowlarks, bluebirds, ducks, and geese.
The 60-foot bridge will span a section of the Mission Creek. The bridge provides the most direct access for Service vehicles from the maintenance, fuel, and supply facilities to the main refuge.
The original wooden bridge's rating declined from 40-ton to eight-ton over a four-year stretch. The bridge first failed inspection following a high-water event, and progressively deteriorated. Finding a replacement became an immediate priority.
The rating decline prevented fuel and service trucks from accessing the fuel storage area via the bridge. The trucks had to leave the refuge using private property to access the storage areas. The landowner authorized the use, but the Service needed a permanent solution.
Workers will install the pre-fabricated metal bridge upon its completion, depending on ground and weather conditions.
June 2011 Project Update: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service contracted the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribe to replace the failed Mission Creek West Bridge at the National Bison Range. The bridge was originally constructed in the 1960s; after the bridge failed a recent inspection, the National Bison Range had to reduce the weight allowed on the bridge, limiting its use as a crossing point for heavy equipment. The Recovery Act allowed the Bison Range to construct a stronger, safer metal bridge. The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribe subcontracted the work to two local contractors who completed the project in May 2011.
Visit the National Bison Range website for additional information.
Originally posted 01/08/2010
Page Completed 06/20/2011