Robinson testified that the budget request of almost $3.1 billion for OJP, including a $22 million increase for the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), reflects four themes:  1) strengthening partnerships with state, local and tribal stakeholders; 2) restoring the role of research in criminal and juvenile justice policy and practice; 3) promoting evidence-based approaches to crime and violence; and 4) ensuring fairness, transparency and effectiveness in grant administration.

Regarding the second theme, she declared that one of my goals in returning to OJP (she had served as AAG in the Clinton Administration) was "to help restore the role of science in our work in criminal and juvenile justice."  "We've got employ smart-on-crime approaches," and "a robust research program," she asserted.  She pointed out that the budget proposal calls for a three percent set-aside of all OJP grant and reimbursement funds to support research and statistics, which would bring the total request for these activities to $189 million in FY 2011.

To help states and localities put into place crime-fighting strategies that work, OJP, Robinson reported, has developed an Evidence Integration Initiative "that would assess our understanding about what works in reducing and preventing crime."  There are two elements to this initiative, she told the panel, a What Works Clearinghouse and a diagnostic center or help desk to provide technical assistance and training in how to implement evidence-based approaches.  Both of these would apply research into the OJP's programs and distill and translate that knowledge for police chiefs and other practitioners.

Returning to his interest on re-entry and recidivism, Mollohan asked Robinson, "What progress are we making with regard to devising different models...and testing the success of different approaches?"  The AAG responded that "I don't think we have learned as much as I would've hoped we would have learned...from the research."  She informed the panel that OJP now has four solicitations on the street, including a field experiment that will use a randomized control trial to investigate solutions to the problem.  She admitted that understanding re-entry is "a very messy business."  This occurs, she explained, because "we have offenders moving back in very, very different circumstances with very, very different backgrounds with very, very different kinds of problems."  Thus, the research so far "is very unclear about what kind of interventions made a difference."

Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), the Subcommittee's Ranking Republican, strongly criticized the Administration and Robinson for "diverting funding away from some of the critical and proven programs."  These included reductions in the proposed budget for prescription drug monitoring, victims of trafficking, the Prison Rape Prevention and Prosecution program, and the National White Collar Crime Center.   Robinson acknowledged that "there is not agreement on all the offsets proposed in the budget," and defended the reductions.  Yet as Wolf noted about these programs, "You felt maybe Congress would put it [the money] back, so you took it out."

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) expressed concern about the elimination of the $10 million Congress provided in FY 2010 for Justice Reinvestment activities from the proposed FY 2011 budget. These activities invest funds in communities to which prisoners return in the hopes of reducing recidivism.  Robinson suggested that its omission from the FY 2011 proposal resulted from a "budget cycle problem."   She indicated that this was not likely to happen again in FY 2012 since "the Attorney General and I are very favorably disposed toward working on justice reinvestment."

Mollohan concluded the hearing by praising Robinson for "the excellent work you're doing and the attitude that your bringing to the job, not to mention the experience."  He indicated that the Subcommittee would "get down to the details and see how we can support your work as best we can."

Committee Chairman Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) opened the hearing by noting that in order for our country to develop a world-class education system, "it is vital that we have a clear understanding of what students need to learn, and develop ways to accurately assess their progress."  The panel's Ranking Member, Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) agreed, but warned that the "federal government should stay out of the way," and "assist, not coerce" the states in their education reform efforts.

President Obama has called for all students to be ready for some sort of postsecondary education.  Others have discussed the notion of "college or career ready."  Cynthia Schmeiser, President and CEO of ACT, told the Committee that her organization defines college readiness "as an acquisition of knowledge and skills a student needs to enroll and succeed in credit-bearing, first year courses at a postsecondary institution...Simply stated, readiness for college means not needing to take remedial courses in postsecondary or training programs."  Unfortunately, she reported, of the 1.5 million high school graduates who took the ACT tests in 2008-09, 33 percent were not ready for college-level English, 47 percent were not ready for college social science, 58 percent were not ready for college algebra, and 72 percent were not ready for college biology.

At the same time, Schmeiser noted that career readiness "requires the same level of foundational knowledge and skills in mathematics and reading that college readiness does," especially for 21^st Century jobs.  Regrettably, she asserted, there are far too many people in this country who believe that those students who plan to enter workforce training programs need a far lower level of high school preparation.

One key to developing both college and career readiness is the development of core state standards.  Steve Paine, West Virginia State Superintendent of Schools and President of the Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), testified to the panel on the efforts of the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Chiefs to lead in this area. 

Forty-eight states, two territories, and the District of Columbia have worked collectively to advance a common core in English language arts and mathematics, Paine related.  He indicated the principles that guided their work mean that the common standards must be: 1) higher, clearer, and fewer; 2) internationally benchmarked; 3) include content knowledge and skills; 4) evidence and research based; and 5) prepare students for college and career. 

With stakeholder and public comments, the NGA and CCSSO were able to complete the initial phase by publishing in the fall of 2009 common standards illustrating what students should know at the end of high school.  The second phase, Paine explained, has focused on "back-mapping the college and career ready standards on a grade-by-grade basis for Kindergarten through Grade 12."  He reported that Kentucky has already adopted the common core and other states, including his own West Virginia, will soon follow.

Paine agreed with Enzi that this effort should remain in the hands of the states and that the federal government's role is to provide "greater flexibility" to help the states, particularly with regard to accountability systems.  He praised the $350 million in federal Race to the Top Assessment funds as furthering state cooperation to develop common, high quality assessments.

Time for 21^st Century Assessments Using Technology

Regarding these assessments, Gary Phillips, former Acting Commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics and now Vice President and Chief Scientist at the American Institutes for Research (a COSSA member) testified that it was time to take advantage of modern technology.  He proposed that "Congress encourage states to abandon their outmoded 20^th Century paper/pencil based testing paradigm for a new generation of 21^st Century technology-based tests that are more accurate, less burdensome, faster, and cheaper."  He also added that any assessment activities need to be internationally benchmarked.

Three states, Delaware, Hawaii, and Oregon, have turned over their entire student state testing programs to these computer-adaptive tests, Phillips remarked.  He explained that "the test consists of multiple-choice items and challenging constructed-response items that are both administered and scored by computer."  The tests can provide formative assessments for diagnostic purposes and interim assessments for teacher use to measure student progress as well as a summative test at the end of the school year.  What makes these assessments valuable, Phillips asserted, is the almost instantaneous feedback; results are available for each student in 15 seconds.

He also suggested that this kind of test is helpful to measure the performance of students with disabilities and English language learners.  The former was the concern of Martha Thurlow, Director of the National Center on Educational Outcomes, and the latter to Charlene Rivera of the Center for Equity and Excellence in Education at the George Washington University, in their testimony to the committee. 

Most of the other Senators present including former U.S. Secretary of Education Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and former Denver Schools Superintendent Michael Bennet (D-CO) supported the effort on common core standards and improved assessments.  Alexander, as Harkin had done in his opening statement, reviewed the long litany of education reform efforts in the past 27 years since the publication of A Nation at Risk in 1983.  Bennet, in particular, decried the "springtime ritual" of the statewide tests and curricula that tried "to cover the waterfront."  Sens. Patty Murray (D-WA), Al Franken (D-MN), Kay Hagan (D-NC) and Robert Casey (D-PA) expressed support for higher standards for all.  Casey also noted the importance of teacher training.  Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA) joined Harkin's and Thurlow's concern for including students with disabilities in these reform efforts.

A video of the hearing as well as the testimony of the witnesses is available at:  http://help.senate.gov/hearings/hearing/?id=717fefda-5056-9502-5da4-0d6384131206.

Interagency Working Group Releases White Paper: A Human Health Perspective on Climate Change

On April 21, an interagency working group released a white paper examining 11 key categories of diseases and other health consequences that are occurring or will occur due to climate change.  According to the working group, the report, A Human Health Perspective on Climate Change, provides a starting point for coordination of federal research to better understand climate's impact on human health. The recommendations of the working group include research to identify who will be most vulnerable, and what efforts will be most beneficial.

When releasing the report, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) director Linda Birnbaum explained that: "This white paper articulates, in a concrete way, that human beings are vulnerable in many ways to the health effects of climate change.  It lays out both what we know and what we need to know about these effects in a way that will allow the health research community to bring its collective knowledge to bear on solving these problems."  Birnbaum also observed that the "report provides a guide for researchers throughout the world who are working to improve the health of the planet and the health of all people." 

The Ad-hoc Interagency Working Group on Climate Change and Health was formed following a 2009 Institute of Medicine Roundtable on Environmental Health Sciences, Research, and Medicine on climate change.  At that meeting, leaders from NIEHS, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recognized that the scientific discussion around climate change needed reframing to emphasize the human health impacts and research needs to address them.

NIEHS led the interagency effort.   Membership of the working group also includes representatives from the National Institutes of Health Fogarty International Center, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Department of State, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, with support and input from the U.S. Global Change Research Program and others.

A Human Health Perspective on Climate Change

"The purpose of the paper is to identify research needs for all aspects of the research-to-decision making pathway that will help us to understand and mitigate the health effects of climate change, as well as ensure that we choose the healthiest and most efficient approaches to climate change."  Accordingly, the white paper highlights the state-of-the-science on the human health consequences of climate change on: Asthma, respiratory allergies, and airway diseases; Cancer; Cardiovascular disease and stroke; Foodborne diseases and nutrition; Heat-related morbidity and mortality; Human developmental effects; Mental health and stress-related disorders; Neurological diseases and disorders; Waterborne diseases; Weather-related morbidity and mortality; and Vectorborne and zoonotic diseases.

The report also examines a number of cross-cutting issues for federal research in this area, including susceptible, vulnerable, and displaced populations; public health and health care infrastructure; capacities and skills needed; and communication and education efforts.

It acknowledges that "data to support a broad understanding of which populations will be most susceptible and vulnerable to diseases affected by climate change are generally lacking at this time; however, data are available that identify vulnerable populations for some diseases with environmental causes or triggers that are likely to be altered by climate change."  The report emphasizes that if research efforts are to be effective, they "must involve a broad spectrum of research scientists from epidemiologists and physicians to environmental engineers and community planners. Such efforts also will require a broad-based, multi-agency federal program that builds on the strengths of each agency to develop an overall comprehensive research agenda."

The report notes that:  A greater emphasis must be placed on developing and maintaining interdisciplinary and inter-institutional collaborations, as well as on ensuring that established resources and expertise of all of the relevant disciplines, including climatology, modeling, environmental science, risk assessment, public health, and communications and education, are applied to these pressing problems. Many additional disciplines including ecology, social science, economics, geography, behavioral psychology, and others will need to play a vital role in climate and health decision making.

Other areas where public health professionals may contribute robustly to efforts to address the impacts of climate change are in communication and education. According to the paper, research is still needed to determine how to effectively educate and organize the public to respond.  The report notes that this is complicated by recent research showing that various audiences within the American public respond to the issue of climate change each in their own distinct way.Research is needed that will aid climate change communicators and educators in adapting their messages and approaches to most appropriately and effectively reach and be assimilated by each individual audience.

Through the process of developing this white paper, the working group noted that "it rapidly became clear that identifying research needs; mobilizing and creating the expertise, resources, tools, and technologies to address them; and translating these efforts into solutions that will enable human adaptation to our changing environment while protecting public health will require collaborations on an unprecedented scale."

NSF Seeks Proposals to Help Predict Climate Change Using Earth System Models

The National Science Foundation (NSF), in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Energy, seeks interdisciplinary proposals to develop the next-generation of Earth System Models to help predict climate changes.  The letter of intent deadline is May 24, 2010.  The full proposals are due on June 25, 2010.

According to the solicitation, the consequences of climate variability and change are becoming more immediate and profound than previously anticipated. Important impacts, such as the onset of prolonged droughts on several continents, increasing stresses on natural and managed ecosystems, loss of agricultural and forest productivity, altered biological feedbacks, degraded ocean and permafrost habitats, global sea level rise and the rapid retreat of ice sheets and glaciers, loss of Arctic sea ice, and changes in ocean currents, have highlighted that climate variability and change can have significant effects on decadal and shorter time scales, with significant consequences for plant, animal, human, and physical systems.

This activity enables interagency cooperation on one of the most pressing problems of the millennium--climate change--how it is likely to affect our world, and how we can proactively plan for its consequences. It allows the partner agencies to combine resources to identify and fund the most meritorious and highest-impact projects that support their respective missions, while eliminating duplication of effort and fostering collaboration between agencies and the investigators they support.

This interdisciplinary grand challenge calls for the development of next-generation Earth System Models that include coupled and interactive representations of ecosystems, agricultural working lands and forests, urban environments, biogeochemistry, atmospheric chemistry, ocean and atmospheric currents, the water cycle, land ice, and human activities.  The realization of these goals demands the engagement of diverse interdisciplinary teams of experimental, theoretical, modeling and computational researchers, including but not limited to, biologists, chemists, computer scientists, geoscientists, material scientists, mathematicians, physicists, cyberinfrastucture specialists, and social scientists. Successful proposals should develop intellectual excitement in the participating disciplinary communities.  Also encouraged are proposals that promote diversity and have broad educational or societal impacts.

Competitive projects should address key problems critical to linking relevant Earth system processes over a variety of spatial and temporal scales and to advancing the theoretical foundations for the modeling and simulation of existing data and data collected by the new and envisioned NSF environmental observatories. NSF encourages proposals that have the potential to dramatically improve our predictive capabilities as well as our understanding of how small and large scale processes lead to non-linearities and activation thresholds.

The specific goals of this solicitation are to improve upon and extend current modeling capabilities in order to:

1.    Achieve comprehensive, reliable global and regional predictions of decadal climate variability and change through advanced understanding of the coupled interactive physical, chemical, biological and human processes that drive the climate system.

2.    Quantify the impacts of climate variability and change on ecological, agricultural and other human systems, and identify and quantify feedback loops through which human systems help determine environmental outcomes.

3.    Maximize the utility of available observational and model data for impact and vulnerability/resilience assessments through up/downscaling activities.

4.    Effectively translate model results and associated uncertainties into the scientific basis for well-informed human adaptation to and management decisions for climate change.

NSF is soliciting two types of proposals--incubator/capacity building activities (Type 1) and large collaborative interdisciplinary research projects (Type 2).

For more information contact:  Cheryl Eavey at ceavey@nsf.gov; or (703) 292-7269.  The full solicitation is available at:  http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2010/nsf10554/nsf10554.pdf.

NIH Seeks Information on Priorities for the NIH Adherence Research Network

Poor adherence to prescription medications and treatments has been labeled a "worldwide problem of striking magnitude" by the World Health Organization.  Over the last 40 years, researchers have observed and documented universally poor adherence to prescription medications and behavioral treatments (e.g., diet change for hypertension, smoking cessation and screenings for cancer). They found that up to 20 percent of patients fail to fill new prescriptions and approximately 50 percent of people with chronic health conditions discontinue their medication within six months. Likewise, adherence to behavioral and biobehavioral treatments remains poor, no more that 30 percent of patients quit smoking when advised by their health care providers that quitting smoking was essential for their health, even those affected with lung conditions.  Despite this need for enhancing adherence at both the individual and population levels, research on interventions related to adherence remains underdeveloped.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research (OBSSR) and the NIH Adherence Research Network are seeking input from the scientific community, health professionals, patient advocates, community-based organizations, students, and the general public regarding current and emerging priorities in adherence research that offer the greatest potential for improving the nation's health and well-being. This input will inform the Adherence Research Network's strategic planning process and help the Network meet its mission of pursuing opportunities for strengthening adherence research at NIH while innovating beyond existing investments.  Launched May 2007, the Adherence Research Network is a working group with representatives from multiple NIH Institutes, Centers and Offices whose goal is to provide leadership and vision for this research at NIH.

The request for information (RFI) seeks information that will help NIH to identify priorities for adherence research that are consistent with the mission of the Network. Ideas for both short-term (1-2 years) and long-term (3-5 years) activities that focus on adherence are welcome. Members of the scientific community, scientific organizations, healthcare professionals, patient advocates, and the public are invited to respond to the following:

1.    The Challenge - Describe the critical gaps in the science of adherence. Gaps can be at the level of basic mechanisms, measurement, methodology and/or intervention.

2.    The Potential Solution - Describe what you believe to be the most innovative research approaches to address these challenges. Solutions should focus on potential research methodologies that could address scientific gaps in adherence science.

Suggestions on adherence that address the research priorities and public health challenges addressed in the NIH mission, which is to improve health and save lives across the full range of diseases and health problems, are especially welcome.  For each suggested priority, it is also requested that brief background information is provided.   Responses will be accepted until May 25, 2010 via email to Wendy Nilsen at nilsenwj@od.nih.gov.  For more information see: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-10-078.html.