WORKPLACE VIOLENCE PREVENTION RESEARCH

RELEASE DATE:  May 2, 2002

RFA: OH-02-011  (This RFA has been modified, see RFA-OH-06-004)

PARTICIPATING INSTITUTES AND CENTERS (ICs): 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 
 (http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/homepage.html)

LETTER OF INTENT RECEIPT DATE: June 11, 2002
   
APPLICATION RECEIPT DATE: July 11, 2002 

THIS RFA CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION

o Purpose of the RFA
o Research Objectives
o Useful References
o Mechanism(s)of Support
o Funds Available
o Eligible Institutions
o Individuals Eligible to Become Principal Investigations
o Where to Send Inquiries
o Letter of Intent
o Submitting an Application
o Peer Review Process
o Review Criteria
o Programmatic Review Criteria
o Receipt and Review Schedule
o Award Criteria
o Required Federal Citations

PURPOSE OF THIS RFA

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the 
availability of funds for fiscal year (FY) 2002 for research grant 
(R01) applications to support innovative research designed to 
reduce future health and safety impacts associated with violence 
in the workplace. The purpose of this announcement is to enhance 
existing knowledge and improve the safety and health of workers by 
supporting research on workplace violence which addresses risk 
factors, development of new interventions, and evaluation of 
existing interventions.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

Background

In the 9-year period from 1992 through 2000, there were an average 
of 896 workplace homicides in the U.S. each year, ranging from a 
high of 1,080 in 1994 to a low of 651 in 1999.  The most common 
scenario of workplace homicide was a retail worker killed during 
the course of a robbery or other crime.  Taxicab drivers have the 
very highest rates of workplace homicide.  Other circumstances or 
perpetrators of workplace homicides include co-workers or former 
co-workers,  customers, clients or patients, and current or former 
domestic partners.  From 1993 to 1999, there were an average 1.7 
million nonfatal violent victimizations in the U.S. each year, 
accounting for 18% of all violent crime during the 7-year period. 
 Of the occupations for which data were available, police officers 
had the highest rate of workplace violent crime at 261 per 1,000 
persons, followed by corrections officers (156 per 1,000) and 
taxicab drivers (128 per 1,000).  The vast majority (75%) of the 
violent victimizations were simple assaults.

Although the risks for fatal workplace violence have been more 
completely described and recognized over the last decade, there 
remain a number of questions regarding the nature, magnitude and 
impact of workplace violence, especially with regard to nonfatal 
events.  As well, with increasing recognition of the problem, 
employers, workers, labor unions, and others have developed and 
implemented a range of strategies to address the risk factors for 
workplace violence.  Unfortunately, however, there has been little 
rigorous evaluation of the effectiveness of the range of efforts 
undertaken to date. Therefore, regulators, employers, workers, and 
safety and health professionals do not know the most effective 
components of a violence prevention program, either generally or 
for specific high-risk settings.

In April 2000, the University of Iowa sponsored a Workplace 
Violence Intervention Research Workshop in Washington, DC.  One of 
the fundamental organizing principles from the workshop is that 
research and prevention efforts may be more clearly understood 
when workplace violence is divided into four categories: Criminal 
Intent (Type I) when the perpetrator has no legitimate 
relationship to the business and is usually committing a crime in 
conjunction with the violence, Customer/Client (Type II) when the 
perpetrator has a legitimate relationship with the business and 
becomes violent while being served by the business, Worker-on-
Worker (Type III) when the perpetrator is an employee or past 
employee of the business who attacks or threatens another 
employee, and Personal Relationship (Type IV) when the perpetrator 
does not have a relationship with the workplace, but has a 
personal relationship with the intended victim.  "Workplace 
Violence: A Report to the Nation" identifies important research 
questions in each of these four categories. 

Research Goals

Despite efforts on the part of researchers and others in 
government, industry, labor, and academia, our knowledge regarding 
the incidence and distribution of workplace violence, especially 
nonfatal workplace violence, is still incomplete.  As well, there 
has been little rigorous scientific research on the development of 
new interventions and the effectiveness of existing strategies for 
the reduction of workplace violence.

Risk factor studies are especially needed on nonfatal workplace 
violence of all four types.  There is a particular dearth of 
information on organizational factors and the risks for workplace 
violence. Scientific research for the development of new 
interventions is also needed.  Intervention evaluation proposals 
should include both process and outcome measures.  Process 
measures should be detailed enough to allow for replication of the 
intervention.  Outcome measures of interest include, but are not 
limited to: incidence, distribution, and magnitude of workplace 
violence among various worker populations and the costs of 
workplace violence to victims (i.e. workers), employers, and 
society.  Research proposals need to indicate that the study 
design and size is sufficient to produce generalizeable results, 
to detect intervention effects, and to distinguish changes in 
outcomes of interest from the intervention with confounding 
variables, such as natural changes, extraneous events, etc.  
Proposals that focus on or include intervention evaluation will be 
given priority. 

USEFUL REFERENCES

In April 2000, with funding from the National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health and the National Center for Injury 
Prevention and Control, the University of Iowa sponsored a 
Workplace Violence Intervention Research Workshop in Washington, 
DC.  Thirty-seven invited participants representing industry, 
organized labor, municipal, state, and federal governments, and 
academia gathered to review the state of knowledge regarding 
workplace violence and to make recommendations for research.  
Theme papers from the workshop addressing the roles of 
surveillance and evaluation research, legislation, and regulation 
as well as business and labor perspectives on workplace violence 
were published in the February 2001 issue of the American Journal 
of Preventive Medicine.  The discussions and recommendations from 
the workshop were summarized in "Workplace Violence: A Report to 
the Nation" published in February 2001. The full report is 
available at www.public-health.uiowa.edu/iprc  

MECHANISM OF SUPPORT

The administrative and funding instrument to be used for this 
program will be a research grant (R01).  The total requested 
project period for an application submitted in response to this 
RFA may not exceed five (5) years. The award and level of support 
depends on the receipt of applications of high scientific merit. 
Although this program is provided for in the financial plans of 
NIOSH, the award pursuant to this RFA is contingent upon the 
availability of funds for this purpose.

This RFA uses just-in-time concepts. This RFA uses the detailed 
budget format rather than the modular budget format.

FUNDS AVAILABLE

NIOSH intends to commit approximately $1,500,000 in FY 2002 to 
fund 4-7 research grant awards (R01). The maximum amount that may 
be requested is $250,000 in direct costs for both risk factor 
research and new intervention research and $400,000 in direct 
costs for intervention evaluation research.

Awards will be made for a twelve-month budget period within a 
project period up to three (3) years for both risk factor and new 
intervention research and up to five (5) years for intervention 
evaluation research.

USE OF FUNDS

Applicants should include in their budgets funds for one trip per 
year for an annual meeting of grantees to provide an opportunity 
for the exchange of program and scientific information, to be held 
in Morgantown, WV.

ELIGIBLE INSTITUTIONS 

You may submit an application(s) if your institution has any of 
the following characteristics: 

o For-profit or non-profit organizations 
o Public or private institutions, such as universities, colleges, 
hospitals, and laboratories 
o Units of State and local governments
o Eligible agencies of the Federal government  
o Domestic or foreign

Note: Title 2 of the United States Code section 1611 states that 
an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal 
Revenue Code that engages in lobbying activities is not eligible 
to receive Federal funds constituting an award, grant, or loan.

INDIVIDUALS ELIGIBLE TO BECOME PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS

Any individual with the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary 
to carry out the proposed research is invited to work with their 
institution to develop an application for support.  Individuals 
from under-represented racial and ethnic groups as well as 
individuals with disabilities are always encouraged to apply for 
NIOSH programs.

WHERE TO SEND INQUIRIES

We encourage inquiries concerning this RFA and welcome the 
opportunity to answer questions from potential applicants.  
Inquiries may fall into two areas: scientific/research and 
financial or grants management issues.  This RFA and other CDC 
Announcements can be found on the CDC HomePage (www.cdc.gov) under 
the Funding section (see Grants and Cooperative Agreements scroll 
down to Occupational Safety and Health).  This RFA can also be 
found on the NIOSH HomePage (www.cdc.gov/niosh) under Funding 
Opportunities.

Direct inquiries regarding programmatic issues to:

Lee M. Sanderson, Ph.D.
Office of Extramural Programs
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
1600 Clifton Road, N.E.
Executive Park Building 24, Room 1429, MS E-74
Atlanta, GA  30333
Telephone: 404/498-2546
FAX: 404/498-2571
Email: [email protected]

Direct inquiries regarding grants management business matters to:

Mildred Garner or Robert Williams
Announcement Number OH-02-010
Grants Management Branch, Procurement and Grants Office
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
2920 Brandywine Road, Suite 3000
Atlanta, Georgia 30341
Telephone: 770-488-2745 or 770-488-2656
Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

LETTER OF INTENT

Prospective applicants are asked to submit a letter of intent by 
June 11, 2002, that includes the following information:

o Descriptive title of the proposed research
o Name, address, and telephone number of the Principal 
Investigator
o Names of other key personnel
o Participating institutions
o Number and title of this RFA

Although a letter of intent is not required, is not binding, and 
does not enter into the review of an application, the information 
that it contains is used to estimate the potential review workload 
and plan the review.

The letter of intent should be sent to: 

Gwendolyn Cattledge, Ph.D., M.S.E.H.
Office of Extramural Programs
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
1600 Clifton Road, N.E.
Executive Park Building 24, Room 1423, MS E-74
Atlanta, GA  30333
Telephone: 404/498-2508
FAX: 404/498-2571
Email: [email protected]
 
SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION   

Applications must be prepared using the PHS 398 research grant 
application instructions and forms (rev. 5/2001).  The PHS 398 is 
available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/phs398.html in an 
interactive format. For further assistance contact GrantsInfo, 
Telephone 301/710-0267, Email: [email protected].  Information to 
prepare a detailed budget is provided in the instructions.  If the 
proposed project involves organizations or persons other than 
those affiliated with the applicant organization, letters of 
support and/or cooperation must be included. 

USING THE RFA LABEL: The RFA label available in the PHS 398 (rev. 
5/2001) application form must be affixed to the bottom of the face 
page of the application.  Type the RFA number on the label.  
Failure to use this label could result in delayed processing of 
the application such that it may not reach the review committee in 
time for review.  In addition, the RFA title and number must be 
typed on line 2 of the face page of the application form and the 
YES box must be marked. The RFA label is also available at: 
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/labels.pdf
  
SENDING AN APPLICATION TO NIOSH: Submit a signed, typewritten 
original of the application, including the Checklist, and three 
signed photocopies, in one package to:  

Center for Scientific Review (CSR)
National Institutes of Health
6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 1040, MSC 7710
Bethesda, MD  20892-7710
Bethesda, MD  20817 (for express/courier service)

At the time of submission, two additional copies of the 
application must also be sent to:

Gwendolyn Cattledge, Ph.D., M.S.E.H.
Office of Extramural Programs
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
1600 Clifton Road, N.E.
Executive Park Building 24, Room 1423, MS E-74
Atlanta, GA  30333
Telephone: 404/498-2508
FAX: 404/498-2571
Email: [email protected]

APPLICATION PROCESSING: Applications must be received by July 11, 
2002.  If an application is received after that date, it will be 
returned to the applicant without review.  

The CDC and NIOSH will not accept any application in response to 
this RFA that is essentially the same as one currently pending 
initial review, unless the applicant withdraws the pending 
application.  CDC and NIOSH will not accept any application that 
is essentially the same as one already reviewed.  This does not 
preclude the submission of a substantial revision of an 
application already reviewed, but such an application must include 
an introduction addressing the previous critique.

PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Upon receipt, applications will be reviewed for completeness by 
CDC and responsiveness by NIOSH.  Incomplete or non-responsive 
applications will be returned to the applicant without further 
consideration.

Applications that are complete and responsive to the RFA will be 
evaluated for scientific and technical merit by a scientific 
review group convened by NIOSH in accordance with the review 
criteria stated below.  As part of the initial merit review, all 
applications will:

o Receive a written critique
o Undergo a process in which only those applicants deemed to have 
the highest scientific or technical merit, generally the top half 
of the applications under review, will be discussed and assigned a 
priority score
o Receive a second level of review by the NIOSH Secondary Review 
Committee.

REVIEW CRITERIA

The criteria that NIOSH will use to review applications for 
scientific merit and for meeting program objectives are provided 
below.  In the written comments, reviewers will be asked to 
discuss the following aspects of your application in order to 
judge the likelihood that the proposed research will have a 
substantial impact on the pursuit of these goals:

o Significance
o Approach
o Innovation
o Investigator
o Environment
o Other

The scientific review group will address and consider each of 
these criteria in assigning your application=s overall score, 
weighting them as appropriate for each application.  Your 
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 you may propose to carry out 
important work that by its nature is not innovative but essential 
to move a field forward.

(1) SIGNIFICANCE: Did the applicant communicate the public health 
importance of occupational violence? Have the broad, long-term 
objectives of the project and expected accomplishments been 
defined? Does this research address an important problem related 
to the topical research issues outlined in this announcement?  
Does the application describe the importance of the proposed 
research and the role it will play in reducing the occupational 
safety burden of violence in the workplace? If the aims of the 
application are achieved, how will scientific knowledge be 
advanced?  What will be the effect of this research on the 
concepts or methods that drive this field?   

(2) APPROACH: Are the conceptual framework, design (including 
composition of study population), methods, and analyses adequately 
developed, well-integrated and appropriate to the aims of the 
project?  Does the applicant acknowledge potential problem areas 
and consider alternative tactics? Is the time line proposed for 
the project suitable and realistic?

(3) INNOVATION: Does the project employ novel concepts, approaches 
or methods?  Are the aims original and innovative? Does the 
project challenge existing paradigms or develop new methodologies 
or technologies?

(4) INVESTIGATORS: Are the principal investigator and 
collaborators appropriately trained and well-suited to carry out 
this work? Is the research proposed appropriate to the experience 
level of the principal investigator and other researchers?

(5) ENVIRONMENT: Does the scientific environment in which the work 
will be done contribute to the probability of success?  Do the 
proposed experiments take advantage of unique features of the 
scientific environment or employ useful collaborative 
arrangements?  Is there documentation of cooperation from 
industry, unions, communities, or other participants in the 
project, where applicable?  Is there evidence of institutional 
support and availability of resources necessary to perform the 
project?

(6) OTHER: Adequacy of plans to include both genders, minorities 
and their subgroups, and children as appropriate for the 
scientific goals of the project.  The adequacy of the proposed 
protection of humans to the extent that they may be adversely 
affected by the project proposed in the application.  Does the 
applicant fully describe the involvement of human subjects and 
protections?  The reasonableness of the proposed budget and 
duration to the proposed research.  

PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW CRITERIA

(1) Magnitude and severity of the condition (problem) in the 
worker population.

(2) Likelihood of developing applied technical knowledge for the 
prevention of occupational safety and health hazards on a national 
or regional basis.

RECEIPT AND REVIEW SCHEDULE

Letter of Intent Receipt Date: June 11, 2002
Application Receipt Date: July 11, 2002
Anticipated Award Date: September 30,2002

AWARD CRITERIA

Award criteria that will be used to make award decisions include:

o Scientific merit
o Availability of funds 
o Programmatic priorities
o Program balance for the three study types (priority for funding 
at least one risk factor research project, one intervention 
research project and one intervention evaluation project) provided 
applications are of sufficient scientific merit.

REQUIRED FEDERAL CITATIONS

INCLUSION OF WOMEN AND MINORITIES IN RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN 
SUBJECTS:  It is the policy of the CDC to ensure that individuals 
of both sexes and the various racial and ethnic groups will be 
included in CDC-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.

All investigators proposing research involving human subjects 
should read the NIH Guidelines For Inclusion of Women and 
Minorities as Subjects in Clinical Research-Amended, October 9, 
2001, published in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts on 
October 9, 2001, http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/women_min/women_min.htm
.,a complete copy of the updated Guidelines are available at 
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/women_min/guidelines_amended_10_2001.htm

INCLUSION OF CHILDREN AS PARTICIPANTS IN RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN 
SUBJECTS: It is the policy of NIH that children (i.e., individuals 
under the age of 21) must be included in all human subjects 
research, conducted or supported by the NIH, unless there are 
scientific and ethical reasons not to include them. This policy 
applies to all initial (Type 1) applications submitted for receipt 
dates after October 1, 1998.  This policy will be followed by 
NIOSH for this announcement. All investigators proposing research 
involving human subjects should read the NIH Policy and 
Guidelines, on the inclusion of children as participants in 
research involving human subjects that is available at 
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/children/children.htm
Investigators also may obtain copies of these policies from the 
program staff listed under INQUIRIES. Program staff may also 
provide additional relevant information concerning the policy.  

REQUIRED EDUCATION ON THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECT 
PARTICIPANTS:  If the proposed project involves research on human 
subjects, the applicant must comply with the Department of Health 
and Human Services (DHHS) Regulations (Title 45 Code of Federal 
Regulations Part 46) regarding the protection of human research 
subjects.  All awardees of CDC grants and cooperative agreements 
and their performance sites engaged in human subjects research 
must file an assurance of compliance with the regulations and have 
continuing reviews of the research protocol by appropriate 
institutional review boards.

In order to obtain a federal-wide Assurance (FWA) of Protection 
for Human Subjects, the applicant must complete an on-line 
application at the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) 
website or write to the OHRP for an application.  OHRP will verify 
that the signatory official and the Human Subjects Protections 
Administrator have completed the OHRP Assurance Training/Education 
Module before approving the FWA.  Existing Multiple Project 
Assurances (MPAs), Cooperative Project Assurances (CPAs), and 
Single Project Assurances (SPAs) remain in full effect until they 
expire or until December 31, 2003, whichever comes first.

To obtain a FWA contact the OHRP at: 
http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/assurances/assurances_index.html or write to:
Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP)
Department of Health and Human Services
6100 Executive Boulevard, Suite 3B01, MSC 7501
Rockville, Maryland 20892-7507
(Note: For Express or Hand Delivered Mail, Use Zip Code 20852)
Note: In addition to other applicable committees, Indian Health 
Service (IHS) institutional review committees must also review the 
project if any component of IHS will be involved with or will 
support the research.  If any American Indian community is 
involved, its tribal government must also approve the applicable 
portion of that project.  

Note: Investigators in states with existing statutes covering 
guidance for the protection of humans, will be asked to submit 
documentation detailing fully the state authority.  If a state 
does not have statutory authority for all the human subjects 
activities proposed in the application, the awardee must obtain 
human subject clearances as described above.  The project plan in 
the application must fully describe the involvement of human 
subjects and protections.  This information should be included in 
the Human Subjects Research Section of PHS 398.

PUBLIC ACCESS TO RESEARCH DATA THROUGH THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION 
ACT:  The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-110 has 
been revised to provide public access to research data through the 
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA-(45 CFR 74.36) under some 
circumstances.  Data that are (1) first produced in a project that 
is supported in whole or in part with Federal funds and (2) cited 
publicly and officially by a Federal agency in support of an 
action that has the force and effect of law (i.e., a regulation) 
may be accessed through FOIA.  It is important for applicants to 
understand the basic scope of this amendment.  Guidance is 
provided at: 
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/a110/a110_guidance_dec1999.htm 

Applicants may wish to place data collected under this RFA in a 
public archive, which can provide protections for the data and 
manage the distribution for an indefinite period of time.  If so, 
the application should include a description of the archiving plan 
in the study design and include information about this in the 
budget justification section of the application. In addition, 
applicants should think about how to structure informed consent 
statements and other human subjects procedures given the potential 
for wider use of data collected under this award. 

URLS IN NIOSH GRANT APPLICATIONS OR APPENDICES: All applications 
and proposals must be self-contained within specified page 
limitations. Unless otherwise specified, internet addresses (URLs) 
should not be used to provide information necessary to the review 
because reviewers are under no obligation to view the internet 
sites. Reviewers are cautioned that their anonymity may be 
compromised when they directly access an internet site.

LOBBYING RESTRICTIONS:  Applicants should be aware of restrictions 
on the use of Health and Human Services (DHHS) funds for lobbying 
of Federal or State legislative bodies.  Under the provisions of 
31 U.S.C. Section 1352, recipients (and their subtier 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 the Center for Disease Control and 
Prevention (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, 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 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 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, publication, and grassroots: activities that relate to 
specific legislation, recipients of CDC funds should give 
attention to isolating and separating the appropriate use of CDC 
funds from non-CDC funds.  CDC also cautions recipients of CDC 
funds to be careful not to give the appearance that CDC funds are 
being used to carry out activities in a manner that is prohibited 
under Federal law.

SMOKE-FREE WORKPLACE:  CDC strongly encourages all grant 
recipients to provide a smoke-free workplace and promote the 
non-use of all tobacco products, and 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, and early childhood development services are provided 
to children.

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:

1. Place small, minority, women-owned business firms on bidders 
mailing lists.
2. Solicit these firms whenever they are potential sources of 
supplies, equipment, construction, or services.
3. Where feasible, divide total requirements into smaller needs, 
and set delivery schedules that will encourage participation by 
these firms.
4. Use the assistance of the Minority Business Development Agency 
of the Department of Commerce, the Office of Small and 
Disadvantaged Business Utilization, DHHS, and similar state and 
local offices.

RESEARCH INTEGRITY:  The signature of the institution official on 
the face page of the application submitted under this Program 
Announcement is certifying compliance with the Department of 
Health and Human Services (DHHS) regulations in Title 42 Part 50, 
Subpart A, entitled Responsibility of PHS Awardee and Applicant 
Institutions for Dealing with and Reporting Possible Misconduct in 
Science.

The regulation places several requirements on institutions 
receiving or applying for funds under the PHS Act that are 
monitored by the DHHS Office of Research Integrity"s (ORI) 
Assurance Program.
 
For examples: Section 50.103(a) of the regulation states: Each 
institution that applies for or receives assistance under the Act 
for any project or program which involves the conduct of 
biomedical or behavioral research must have an assurance 
satisfactory to the Secretary (DHHS) that the applicant: (1) Has 
established an administrative process, that meets the requirements 
of this subpart, for reviewing, investigating, and reporting 
allegations of misconduct in science in connection with PHS-
sponsored biomedical and behavioral research conducted at the 
applicant institution or sponsored by the applicant, and (2) Will 
comply with its own administrative process and the requirements of 
this Subpart.

Section 50.103(b) of the regulation states that: an applicant or 
recipient institution shall make an annual submission to the [ORI] 
as follows: (1) The institution"s assurance shall be submitted to 
the [ORI], on a form prescribed by the Secretary,...and updated 
annually thereafter...(2) An institution shall submit, along with 
its annual assurance, such aggregate information on allegations, 
inquiries, and investigations as the Secretary may prescribe.

HEALTHY PEOPLE 2010:  CDC is committed to achieving the health 
promotion and disease prevention objectives of Healthy People 
2010, a national activity to reduce morbidity and mortality and 
improve the quality of life.  For the conference copy of Healthy 
People 2010, visit the internet site:  
http://www.health.gov/healthypeople/default.htm

AUTHORITY AND REGULATIONS:  This program is described in the 
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 93.262 for the 
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).  
This program is authorized under the Public Health Service Act, as 
amended, Section 301(a) [42 U.S.C. 241(a)], and the Occupational 
Safety and Health Act of 1970, Section 20(a) [29 U.S.C. 669(a)].  
The applicable program regulation is 42 CFR Part 52.  This program 
is not subject to the intergovernmental review requirements of 
Executive Order 12372 or Health Systems Agency Review.

Weekly TOC for this Announcement
NIH Funding Opportunities and Notices

			Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
NIH... Turning Discovery Into Health®