Children's Bureau Proposed Research Priorities for Fiscal Years 2006-2008, 51831-51833 [06-7364]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 169 / Thursday, August 31, 2006 / Notices
interdisciplinary research concerning
issues of civil society.
The grant will support an 18-month
project at a cost of $96,000 in Federal
support. The project is also being
supported through non-Federal funding
sources.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Richard Jakopic, Office of Planning,
Research and Evaluation,
Administration for Children and
Families, 370 L’Enfant Promenade, SW.,
Washington, DC 20447; phone: 202–
205–5930.
Dated: August 25, 2006.
Naomi Goldstein,
Director, Office of Planning, Research and
Evaluation.
[FR Doc. 06–7367 Filed 8–30–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and
Families
Children’s Bureau Proposed Research
Priorities for Fiscal Years 2006–2008
Administration on Children,
Youth and Families (ACYF),
Administration for Children and
Families (ACF), U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS).
ACTION: Response to Notice of Proposed
Child Abuse and Neglect Research
Priorities for Fiscal Years 2006–2008.
AGENCY:
erjones on PROD1PC72 with NOTICES
SUMMARY: The Children’s Bureau
solicited comments from the public on
the Proposed Research Priorities for
Fiscal Years 2006–2008 in Volume 71,
Number 23 of the Federal Register on
February 3, 2006. Comments were due
by April 4, 2006. All comments received
by the deadline were reviewed and
given consideration in the preparation
of this notice.
Summary of Public Comments
Section 104 (a)(4) of the Child Abuse
Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA),
as amended by the Keeping Children
and Families Safe Act of 2003, Public
Law (Pub. L.). 108–36, requires the
Secretary of the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) to
publish proposed priorities for research
activities for public comment and to
maintain an official record of such
public comment. In response to this
requirement, proposed priorities were
published in February 2006 for public
comment and the responses received are
detailed in this document.
The Children’s Bureau received over
a dozen written responses from a variety
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:29 Aug 30, 2006
Jkt 208001
of sources; State protection and
advocacy systems; community agencies
for children and families; national, State
and local associations and non-profit
organizations; universities; hospitals;
children’’s medical centers; mental
health services agencies; agencies
serving children with disabilities; and
private citizens.
Legislative Topics
One response commented on the
proposed research topic of the causes of
child abuse and neglect. The commenter
noted this issue as a high priority,
suggested that understanding the cause
of child abuse and neglect is central to
understanding the dynamics of the
issues as a whole, and necessary for
designing effective prevention and
intervention services. In contradiction
to this comment, another set of
comments received ranked causes of
abuse and neglect as a low priority and
suggested that there has been a wealth
of research conducted in this area.
A comment was received in response
to the proposed research topic on the
socio-economic distinctions and
consequences of child abuse and
neglect. The commenter suggested
issues surrounding cultural and socioeconomic distinctions be studied in
more depth given the recent studies on
overrepresentation of children of color
in the child welfare and juvenile justice
systems. The commenter suggested that
a longitudinal study be conducted on
this issue, and determination of how
culture, ethnicity and race play into the
identification, assessment, prevention
and treatment and the consequences
faced by families of color as a result of
involvement with the child protection
system.
A number of comments were received
in response to the proposed research
priority on the identification of
successful early intervention services or
other needed services; these responses
supported the Children’s Bureau’s
attention to this area.
The evaluation and dissemination of
best practices was mentioned in a
number of responses. One response
supported proposed research on Statelevel strategies to improve child
protection systems under this topic area.
Another commenter noted that attention
to ‘‘what works’’ in child protection and
child welfare services has reached a
‘‘new low,’’ and greater support is
needed in establishing a body of
evidence about effective services.
A number of comments were received
in response to paragraphs (1) through
(14), under the heading of the
evaluation and dissemination of best
practices consistent with the goals of
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
51831
achieving improvements in child
protective services systems of the States
in accordance with CAPTA [Section
106(a), Grant to States for Child Abuse
and Neglect Prevention and Treatment
Program].
A comment was received encouraging
that priority be given to paragraph (ii):
Creating and improving the use of
multidisciplinary teams and interagency
protocol to enhance investigation, and
improving legal preparation and
representation.
Another comment was received
encouraging that priority be given to
paragraph (iv): Enhancing the general
child protective system by developing,
improving and implementing risk and
safety assessment tools and protocols.
This response specifically requested
research on differential response in
child protective services.
One comment was received related to
paragraph (x): Developing,
implementing or operating programs to
assist in obtaining or coordinating
necessary services for families of
disabled infants with life-threatening
conditions. The comment received
related to this paragraph noted the lack
of mention given to issues related to
persons with disabilities, specifically
parents with disabilities or to children
with disabilities (beyond this mention
of disabled infants). Additional
attention to this response can be found
below in the field-initiated research
area.
One comment was received in
response to paragraph (xi): Developing
and delivering information to improve
public education relating to the role and
responsibilities of the child protection
system and the nature and basis for
reporting suspected incidents of child
abuse and neglect. This commenter
noted that mandated reporters often
experience confusion as to their
responsibility to report suspected child
abuse or neglect, even after receiving
training in this area. Due to the severity
of child abuse and neglect and the
consequences at stake, the commenter
suggested additional research be
conducted to explore better ways to
develop and deliver training and
information to mandated reporters and
the public.
A comment was received encouraging
that priority be given to paragraph (xii):
Developing and enhancing the capacity
of community-based programs to
integrate shared leadership strategies
between parents and professionals to
prevent and treat child abuse and
neglect at the neighborhood level.
One response was a comment
encouraging that priority be given to
paragraph (xiii): Supporting and
E:\FR\FM\31AUN1.SGM
31AUN1
51832
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 169 / Thursday, August 31, 2006 / Notices
erjones on PROD1PC72 with NOTICES
enhancing interagency collaboration
between the child protection system and
the juvenile justice system for improved
delivery of services and treatment,
including methods for continuity of
treatment plans and services as children
transition between systems.
Two responses were submitted in
response to paragraph (xiv): Supporting
and enhancing collaboration among
public health agencies, the child
protection system and private
community-based programs to provide
child abuse and neglect prevention and
treatment services (including linkages
with education systems) and to address
the health needs, including mental
health needs, of children identified as
abused or neglected, including
supporting prompt, comprehensive
health and developmental evaluations
for children who are the subject of
substantiated child maltreatment
reports. One response suggested
researching the use of differential
response in child protective services in
reference to this priority area, focused
on collaboration among child protection
systems and other public and private
agencies.
Other Topics
A number of comments addressed the
priority area of prevention practices.
Responses were received noting
particular interest in effective child
abuse and neglect prevention practices,
supporting focused research to enlarge
the knowledge base in this area.
Responses were received stating support
for the approach included in the CAPTA
amendments for ‘‘an evaluation of the
redundancies and gaps in services in the
field of child abuse and neglect
prevention in order to make better use
of resources.’’ Two comments received
suggest that prevention research be the
highest priority, and strongly supported
the Bureau’s emphasis on prevention.
Another comment supported the
Children’s Bureau priority of the
evaluation of services to prevent abuse
and the recurrence of abuse. Attention
to home visitation as a prevention
strategy is suggested by two
commenters. The use of respite care is
suggested in one submission. Research
on respite, particularly used to support
families of children with disabilities is
the focus of this comment.
In response to the priority area of
child protection systems, a comment
was received in regards to
disproportionality within child welfare
and as noted earlier, comments were
received in terms of collaborative efforts
among service providers targeting
children involved in the child welfare
system or at risk of involvement.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:29 Aug 30, 2006
Jkt 208001
A number of responses were directed
at the services research priority area.
Comments were received supporting
assessment of services needed by and
provided to children and families. One
commenter responded encouraging the
prioritization of research in the
identification of early intervention
services and the assessment and
provision of services to children and
families, and the analysis of services
provided to victims of child
maltreatment and the response of
protective services to children’s mental
health issues. As noted earlier in terms
of best practices, a response supported
attention to ‘‘what works’’ in child
protective and child welfare services.
This commenter also supported the
assessment of services provided to
children and families and the
relationship of these services to
outcomes, as outlined in the proposed
research priorities. This commenter
suggested that little is known about the
services provided to children and
families, and encouraged furthering this
concept to encompass the inclusion of
documentation for services received by
in-home and community service cases.
A comment was received related to
the provision of legal services for
children, specifically legal counsel. It
suggested research to examine state and
local policies for appointing legal
representation for children in court
proceedings, and to analyze disparities
in outcome for children who are or are
not appointed legal counsel.
A comment was submitted
encouraging research in the area of
service provision to both children and
parents with mental health needs.
One comment was received in
response to the proposed program
evaluation of priority area initiatives (or
Evaluation of Programs Addressing
Administration Priorities). This
comment expressed support of the
evaluation of effectiveness of healthy
marriage promotion and fatherhood
initiatives to prevent child abuse and
neglect.
Two comments were received in
response to the proposed research area
entitled Perpetrators. Specifically, one
comment supported research in the area
of characterizations of perpetrators to
inform more effective intervention and
prevention efforts. One commenter
submitted a response supporting the
pre-existing item ‘‘research on
perpetrators and their patterns of
perpetrating behaviors,’’ and supporting
integrating recognition of perpetrator
subgroups though the research
priorities.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Additional Comments
Finally, several respondents
recommended additional areas of
research. In addition to supporting the
research priorities already outlined by
the Children’s Bureau, a number of
additional suggestions were submitted.
Research related to the CAPTA
requirement linked to IDEA Part C was
noted by three commenters. Research in
the area of privatization, specifically in
terms of cost effectiveness and
efficiency (noting workload and
workforce issues) was submitted in
response to this solicitation for
comment.
A response was received encouraging
that attention be paid to the
documentation of in-home or
community-based services and the lack
of a data collection systems for these
services.
Research projects focusing on
attention to risk factors associated with
child abuse and neglect, including
domestic violence, substance abuse,
mental health issues, poverty and
perpetrators experience as a victim of
child abuse were submitted as a
comment.
One response encouraged research on
the effectiveness of supervised visitation
programs and trauma and the
engagement of caregivers in treatment of
trauma.
Comments were received including
research in the areas of non-violent
households and research on corporal
and physical punishment as they relate
to child maltreatment.
Two comments were received on
research in the field of disabilities, for
children faced with disabilities and
parents with disabilities involved in the
child welfare system.
A comment was received supporting
research to ascertain the prevalence of
fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) and fetal
alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) in the
foster care population, research on the
development of a protocol of services
for children in the foster care system
diagnosed with FAS/FASD, and a
longitudinal study on the impact of
intervention, treatment and services on
children in foster care diagnosed with
FAS/FASD.
Conclusion
Throughout the Fiscal Years 2006–
2008, the Children’s Bureau will
address these proposed priorities, taking
into consideration the public comments
and current funding cycles in drafting
future announcements. All grant
applications will be posted
E:\FR\FM\31AUN1.SGM
31AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 169 / Thursday, August 31, 2006 / Notices
electronically each every fiscal year at
https://www.grants.gov.
Joan E. Ohl,
Commissioner, Administration on Children,
Youth and Families.
[FR Doc. 06–7364 Filed 8–30–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184–01–P
Dated: August 25, 2006.
Randall W. Lutter,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and
Planning.
[FR Doc. 06–7310 Filed 8–30–06; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
Anti-Infective Drugs Advisory
Committee Meeting; Amendment of
Notice
AGENCY:
BILLING CODE 4160–01–S
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
ACTION:
Notice.
erjones on PROD1PC72 with NOTICES
15:29 Aug 30, 2006
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
National Institutes of Health
The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is announcing an
amendment to the notice of a meeting of
the Anti-Infective Drugs Advisory
Committee. This meeting was
announced in the Federal Register of
July 25, 2006 (71 FR 42096). The
amendment is being made to reflect a
change in the Date and Time and
Agenda portions of the document. The
meeting scheduled for September 11,
2006, has been cancelled. There are no
other changes.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sohail Mosaddegh, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research (HFD–21),
Food and Drug Administration, 5600
Fishers Lane (for express delivery, 5630
Fishers Lane, rm. 1093), Rockville, MD
20857, 301–827–7001, FAX: 301–827–
6776, e-mail:
sohail.mosaddegh@fda.hhs.gov, or FDA
Advisory Committee Information Line,
1–800–741–8138 (301–443–0572 in the
Washington DC area), code 3014512530.
Please call the Information Line for upto-date information on this meeting.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the
Federal Register of July 25, 2006 (71 FR
42096), FDA announced that a meeting
of the Anti-Infective Drugs would be
held on September 11 and 12, 2006. On
page 42096, in the second column, the
Date and Time portion of the meeting is
amended to read as follows:
Date and Time: The meeting will held
on September 12, 2006, from 8 a.m. to
5 p.m.
On page 42096, third column, the
Agenda portion of the meeting is
amended to read as follows:
Agenda: On September 12, 2006, the
committee will discuss supplemental
SUMMARY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
new drug application (sNDA) 21–158/S–
006, FACTIVE (gemifloxacin mesylate)
Tablets, submitted by Oscient
Pharmaceuticals Corp., for the proposed
treatment of acute baterial sinusitis.
This notice is issued under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14,
relating to advisory committees.
Jkt 208001
Proposed Data Collection; Comment
Request; California Health Interview
Survey 2007
SUMMARY: In compliance with the
requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
for opportunity for public comment on
proposed data collection projects,
National Cancer Institute (NCI), the
National Institute of Health (NIH) will
publish periodic summaries of proposed
projects to be submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval.
The first California Health Interview
Survey (CHIS) Cancer Control Module
(CCM) took place in 2001 (2000 CHIS
CCM, OMB No. 0925–0478, Federal
Register, May 8, 2000, Vol. 65, No. 89,
p. 26620). The second survey took place
in 2003 (2003 CHIS CCM, OMB No.
0925–0518, Federal Register, October 3,
2002, Volume 67, No. 192, pp. 62067–
62068) and the third in 2005 (2005 CHIS
CCM, OMB No. 0925–0000, Federal
Register, Vol. 69, No. 150, Aug. 5, 2004,
pp. 47450–47451, and Federal Register,
Vol. 70, No. 1, Jan. 3, 2005, pp. 93–94).
Proposed Collection
Title: California Health Interview
Survey (CHIS) 2007 Cancer Control
Module (CCM). Type of Information
Collection Request: New. Need and Use
of Information Collection: The NCI has
sponsored three Cancer Control
Modules in the California Health
Interview Survey (CHIS), and will be
sponsoring a fourth to be administered
in 2007.
The CHIS is a telephone survey
designed to provide population-based,
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
51833
standardized health-related data to
assess California’s progress in meeting
Healthy People 2010 objectives for the
nation and the state. The CHIS sample
is designed to provide statistically
reliable estimates statewide, for
California counties, and for California’s
ethnically and racially diverse
population. Initiated by the UCLA
Center for Health Policy Research, the
California Department of Health
Services, and the California Public
Health Institute, the survey is funded by
a number of public and private sources.
It was first administered in 2001 to
55,428 adults and subsequently in 2003
and 2005 to 42,043 and 43,020 adults
respectively. These adults are a
representative sample of California’s
non-institutionalized population living
in households.
CHIS 2007, the fourth bi-annual
survey, is planned for administration to
55,000 adult Californians. The cancer
control module, which is similar to that
administered in CHIS 2001, CHIS 2003,
and CHIS 2005, will allow NCI to
examine trends in breast cancer
screening and diagnosis, as well as to
study other cancer-related topics such
as diet, physical activity, and obesity.
Because California is the most
populous and the most racially and
ethnically diverse state in the nation,
the CHIS 2007 sample will yield
adequate numbers of respondents in key
ethnic and racial groups, including
African Americans, Latinos, Asians, and
American Indian/Alaska Natives. The
Latino group will include large numbers
of respondents in the Mexican, Central
American, South American, and other
Latino subgroups; the Asian group will
include large numbers of respondents in
the Chinese, Filipino, Japanese,
Vietnamese, and Korean subgroups. NCI
will compare the CHIS and National
Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data in
order to conduct comparative analyses
and better estimate cancer risk factors
and screening among racial/ethnic
minority populations. The CHIS sample
size also permits NCI to create estimates
for ethnic subdomains of the
population, for which NHIS has
insufficient numbers for analysis.
Frequency of Response: One-time.
Affected public: Individuals or
households. Types of Respondents: U.S.
adults (persons 18 years of age and
older).
The annual reporting burden is as
follows.
E:\FR\FM\31AUN1.SGM
31AUN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 169 (Thursday, August 31, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51831-51833]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-7364]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and Families
Children's Bureau Proposed Research Priorities for Fiscal Years
2006-2008
AGENCY: Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF),
Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS).
ACTION: Response to Notice of Proposed Child Abuse and Neglect Research
Priorities for Fiscal Years 2006-2008.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Children's Bureau solicited comments from the public on
the Proposed Research Priorities for Fiscal Years 2006-2008 in Volume
71, Number 23 of the Federal Register on February 3, 2006. Comments
were due by April 4, 2006. All comments received by the deadline were
reviewed and given consideration in the preparation of this notice.
Summary of Public Comments
Section 104 (a)(4) of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act
(CAPTA), as amended by the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of
2003, Public Law (Pub. L.). 108-36, requires the Secretary of the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to publish proposed
priorities for research activities for public comment and to maintain
an official record of such public comment. In response to this
requirement, proposed priorities were published in February 2006 for
public comment and the responses received are detailed in this
document.
The Children's Bureau received over a dozen written responses from
a variety of sources; State protection and advocacy systems; community
agencies for children and families; national, State and local
associations and non-profit organizations; universities; hospitals;
children''s medical centers; mental health services agencies; agencies
serving children with disabilities; and private citizens.
Legislative Topics
One response commented on the proposed research topic of the causes
of child abuse and neglect. The commenter noted this issue as a high
priority, suggested that understanding the cause of child abuse and
neglect is central to understanding the dynamics of the issues as a
whole, and necessary for designing effective prevention and
intervention services. In contradiction to this comment, another set of
comments received ranked causes of abuse and neglect as a low priority
and suggested that there has been a wealth of research conducted in
this area.
A comment was received in response to the proposed research topic
on the socio-economic distinctions and consequences of child abuse and
neglect. The commenter suggested issues surrounding cultural and socio-
economic distinctions be studied in more depth given the recent studies
on overrepresentation of children of color in the child welfare and
juvenile justice systems. The commenter suggested that a longitudinal
study be conducted on this issue, and determination of how culture,
ethnicity and race play into the identification, assessment, prevention
and treatment and the consequences faced by families of color as a
result of involvement with the child protection system.
A number of comments were received in response to the proposed
research priority on the identification of successful early
intervention services or other needed services; these responses
supported the Children's Bureau's attention to this area.
The evaluation and dissemination of best practices was mentioned in
a number of responses. One response supported proposed research on
State-level strategies to improve child protection systems under this
topic area. Another commenter noted that attention to ``what works'' in
child protection and child welfare services has reached a ``new low,''
and greater support is needed in establishing a body of evidence about
effective services.
A number of comments were received in response to paragraphs (1)
through (14), under the heading of the evaluation and dissemination of
best practices consistent with the goals of achieving improvements in
child protective services systems of the States in accordance with
CAPTA [Section 106(a), Grant to States for Child Abuse and Neglect
Prevention and Treatment Program].
A comment was received encouraging that priority be given to
paragraph (ii): Creating and improving the use of multidisciplinary
teams and interagency protocol to enhance investigation, and improving
legal preparation and representation.
Another comment was received encouraging that priority be given to
paragraph (iv): Enhancing the general child protective system by
developing, improving and implementing risk and safety assessment tools
and protocols. This response specifically requested research on
differential response in child protective services.
One comment was received related to paragraph (x): Developing,
implementing or operating programs to assist in obtaining or
coordinating necessary services for families of disabled infants with
life-threatening conditions. The comment received related to this
paragraph noted the lack of mention given to issues related to persons
with disabilities, specifically parents with disabilities or to
children with disabilities (beyond this mention of disabled infants).
Additional attention to this response can be found below in the field-
initiated research area.
One comment was received in response to paragraph (xi): Developing
and delivering information to improve public education relating to the
role and responsibilities of the child protection system and the nature
and basis for reporting suspected incidents of child abuse and neglect.
This commenter noted that mandated reporters often experience confusion
as to their responsibility to report suspected child abuse or neglect,
even after receiving training in this area. Due to the severity of
child abuse and neglect and the consequences at stake, the commenter
suggested additional research be conducted to explore better ways to
develop and deliver training and information to mandated reporters and
the public.
A comment was received encouraging that priority be given to
paragraph (xii): Developing and enhancing the capacity of community-
based programs to integrate shared leadership strategies between
parents and professionals to prevent and treat child abuse and neglect
at the neighborhood level.
One response was a comment encouraging that priority be given to
paragraph (xiii): Supporting and
[[Page 51832]]
enhancing interagency collaboration between the child protection system
and the juvenile justice system for improved delivery of services and
treatment, including methods for continuity of treatment plans and
services as children transition between systems.
Two responses were submitted in response to paragraph (xiv):
Supporting and enhancing collaboration among public health agencies,
the child protection system and private community-based programs to
provide child abuse and neglect prevention and treatment services
(including linkages with education systems) and to address the health
needs, including mental health needs, of children identified as abused
or neglected, including supporting prompt, comprehensive health and
developmental evaluations for children who are the subject of
substantiated child maltreatment reports. One response suggested
researching the use of differential response in child protective
services in reference to this priority area, focused on collaboration
among child protection systems and other public and private agencies.
Other Topics
A number of comments addressed the priority area of prevention
practices. Responses were received noting particular interest in
effective child abuse and neglect prevention practices, supporting
focused research to enlarge the knowledge base in this area. Responses
were received stating support for the approach included in the CAPTA
amendments for ``an evaluation of the redundancies and gaps in services
in the field of child abuse and neglect prevention in order to make
better use of resources.'' Two comments received suggest that
prevention research be the highest priority, and strongly supported the
Bureau's emphasis on prevention. Another comment supported the
Children's Bureau priority of the evaluation of services to prevent
abuse and the recurrence of abuse. Attention to home visitation as a
prevention strategy is suggested by two commenters. The use of respite
care is suggested in one submission. Research on respite, particularly
used to support families of children with disabilities is the focus of
this comment.
In response to the priority area of child protection systems, a
comment was received in regards to disproportionality within child
welfare and as noted earlier, comments were received in terms of
collaborative efforts among service providers targeting children
involved in the child welfare system or at risk of involvement.
A number of responses were directed at the services research
priority area. Comments were received supporting assessment of services
needed by and provided to children and families. One commenter
responded encouraging the prioritization of research in the
identification of early intervention services and the assessment and
provision of services to children and families, and the analysis of
services provided to victims of child maltreatment and the response of
protective services to children's mental health issues. As noted
earlier in terms of best practices, a response supported attention to
``what works'' in child protective and child welfare services. This
commenter also supported the assessment of services provided to
children and families and the relationship of these services to
outcomes, as outlined in the proposed research priorities. This
commenter suggested that little is known about the services provided to
children and families, and encouraged furthering this concept to
encompass the inclusion of documentation for services received by in-
home and community service cases.
A comment was received related to the provision of legal services
for children, specifically legal counsel. It suggested research to
examine state and local policies for appointing legal representation
for children in court proceedings, and to analyze disparities in
outcome for children who are or are not appointed legal counsel.
A comment was submitted encouraging research in the area of service
provision to both children and parents with mental health needs.
One comment was received in response to the proposed program
evaluation of priority area initiatives (or Evaluation of Programs
Addressing Administration Priorities). This comment expressed support
of the evaluation of effectiveness of healthy marriage promotion and
fatherhood initiatives to prevent child abuse and neglect.
Two comments were received in response to the proposed research
area entitled Perpetrators. Specifically, one comment supported
research in the area of characterizations of perpetrators to inform
more effective intervention and prevention efforts. One commenter
submitted a response supporting the pre-existing item ``research on
perpetrators and their patterns of perpetrating behaviors,'' and
supporting integrating recognition of perpetrator subgroups though the
research priorities.
Additional Comments
Finally, several respondents recommended additional areas of
research. In addition to supporting the research priorities already
outlined by the Children's Bureau, a number of additional suggestions
were submitted.
Research related to the CAPTA requirement linked to IDEA Part C was
noted by three commenters. Research in the area of privatization,
specifically in terms of cost effectiveness and efficiency (noting
workload and workforce issues) was submitted in response to this
solicitation for comment.
A response was received encouraging that attention be paid to the
documentation of in-home or community-based services and the lack of a
data collection systems for these services.
Research projects focusing on attention to risk factors associated
with child abuse and neglect, including domestic violence, substance
abuse, mental health issues, poverty and perpetrators experience as a
victim of child abuse were submitted as a comment.
One response encouraged research on the effectiveness of supervised
visitation programs and trauma and the engagement of caregivers in
treatment of trauma.
Comments were received including research in the areas of non-
violent households and research on corporal and physical punishment as
they relate to child maltreatment.
Two comments were received on research in the field of
disabilities, for children faced with disabilities and parents with
disabilities involved in the child welfare system.
A comment was received supporting research to ascertain the
prevalence of fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) and fetal alcohol spectrum
disorder (FASD) in the foster care population, research on the
development of a protocol of services for children in the foster care
system diagnosed with FAS/FASD, and a longitudinal study on the impact
of intervention, treatment and services on children in foster care
diagnosed with FAS/FASD.
Conclusion
Throughout the Fiscal Years 2006-2008, the Children's Bureau will
address these proposed priorities, taking into consideration the public
comments and current funding cycles in drafting future announcements.
All grant applications will be posted
[[Page 51833]]
electronically each every fiscal year at https://www.grants.gov.
Joan E. Ohl,
Commissioner, Administration on Children, Youth and Families.
[FR Doc. 06-7364 Filed 8-30-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-P