Video Transcript: Solicitation Webinar - Elder Abuse Prevention Demonstration Project, Planning Phase

Ms. Giovacchini: Good afternoon everyone and welcome to today's webinar on the Elder Abuse Prevention Demonstration Project hosted by the National Institute of Justice. Before we get started I would like to go over a few things with you so you know how to participate in today's event. You can opt to listen to the webinar via phone or your computer. If you are having difficulty hearing the audio using your computer, we suggest that you hang up and dial in using a telephone. This webinar is being live captioned for those who are hearing impaired, and I will speak a little bit more about that in a few seconds.

I would like to go through the screen that you are looking at. At the top right of your screen are several icons that you can use during the webinar. Moving left to right you are going to see Participants, Chat, Q and A, and Media Viewer. In order to use these items, you can click on the item to engage it and it will turn blue, and a screen will pop up below. The chat feature should be used if you are having any technical difficulties. The Q&A feature will give you an opportunity to submit questions to the presenter. You will type the question into the Q&A box and we will respond to them at a later time. Please do not use the Q&A box for technical assistance: use the chat box. You may send questions at any time during the presentation and we will collect these and address them at the end during the Q&A session. We may not be able to answer all the questions during today's webinar, but we will host an FAQ at the end providing the questions and answers.

The Media Viewer window will capture the live captioning of today's webinar. If you need to use this feature, please expand the Media Viewer window and you will be able to read what is being said. This webinar and the related slides will be posted to the NIJ website and will be available approximately five days from now.

At this time I would like to introduce you to Doctor Carrie Mulford. Dr. Mulford is a social science analyst at the National Institute of Justice. She received her Ph.D. in psychology from the University of Virginia in 2004 and her B.A. from Rice University in 1992. Doctor Mulford has been involved with research on youth violence, teen dating violence, child abuse, elder mistreatment, and biased crime. She has co-authored numerous scholarly articles, primarily focused on violence prevention and interpersonal violence across the lifespan. Since joining the National Institute of Justice in 2004, Dr. Mulford has managed the elder abuse research portfolio and represented NIJ on the Elder Justice Working Group.

Dr. Mulford: Thank you very much, Ms. Giovacchini. The reason that we are having this webinar today is because - and some of you may have noticed this – this whole solicitation is quite different in a couple respects from our general solicitations that we’ve offered on elder abuse in the past. First of all, it's very targeted on one topic. We are looking only for evaluations of prevention efforts. There is also a phase nature of the project that creates an application that will be somewhat different than what most of you have submitted to us to the past. As you see – Oh, I didn’t advance my slides. I apologize. Hold on. Okay.

As you can see on this slide the solicitation is due to close on May 2, and it has been posted since February 9. So what I will do on this webinar is talk about the background and the goals of the solicitation, give you some of the expectations and requirements that we expect for the application, provide some recommendations, and just briefly go over our review process for those of you who are not familiar with that. At the very end, I have a slide that is the application checklist, but I really won’t be discussing that in much detail.

What I will not be doing today is talking about forms and issues, so if that is what you’re hoping for, you probably could hang up. I’m not going to be covering those things. You should just go straight to the solicitation. There is a number on there to call and an email address on there to call for NCJRS for help with those kinds of issues.

For a brief history of our funding on elder mistreatment: over the past decade we have funded dozens of projects on a number of elder abuse issues. I’m not going to go into great detail about those. We have repeatedly requested rigorous research to test the effectiveness of elder abuse prevention interventions: not every year but many times. Although we have funded over 30 projects related to the abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation of elderly individuals during this time period, only two of those projects involved intervention research: and of those two, neither of them were testing the effectiveness of a prevention program or preventive intervention. As noted in several places in the literature, there has really been no rigorous evaluation research to determine the effectiveness of a program designed to prevent elder abuse, either in the general population of elders, which we would consider to be a universal or primary prevention effort, or among an at-risk population of elders for a selected or secondary prevention effort.

This solicitation is informed by the work of other agencies and our interactions with those other agencies: in particular, the Administration on Aging’s Elder Abuse Prevention Intervention Demonstration Initiative. This was funded in FY 13 to five state grantees to test interventions designed to prevent elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation. A preliminary evaluation was conducted that provides some information about the development and implementation of the intervention, the characteristics of victims and perpetrators of elder abuse, those at risk, and the use of prevention services and outcomes; however, comparison groups were not included in the evaluation, so the impact of the interventions cannot be determined. Within the solicitation there is a link to get more information about those intervention sites, and I encourage you to go there to look at those.

Our solicitation was also informed by the National Institute on Aging’s Multiple Approaches to Understanding and Preventing Elder Abuse workshop that was held in October. In particular, there were two panels: one on novel intervention and prevention strategies, and another session on identifying elder abuse that were of particular interest to this effort. I did look that up today, and it looks like a webcast of that entire workshop is available if you’re interested in looking at that: but in a lot of ways it was our interacting with our colleagues about this afterwards that informed what we put into the solicitation, so it’s not essential that you watch that webcast or telecast or whatever they call it to get a sense of what we’re looking for.

The goal of this solicitation is to find a rigorous, multiyear demonstration project to prevent abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation of elderly individuals who reside in the community and are at risk for elder abuse. Our intention is to make up to two awards in the form of cooperative agreements, each for an 18-month planning phase.

Our hope is that we will ultimately find at least one full intervention study, and that will happen in three phases. Phase 1, which is the solicitation that is out right now, is for this 18-month planning phase, and the NIJ expects to make up to two awards of approximately $400,000 each. Then in Phase 2, if Phase 1 is successful, NIJ expects to award an additional 18-month supplement for a pilot test of the intervention model. Then, if the pilot project in Phase 2 shows promise for preventing elder abuse, NIJ expects to award an implementation study of three or more years. This phase would also be awarded as a supplement. So over all we are looking at a five-plus-year project, and I will detail some of what we expect to see in your applications.

There are two pages of these expectations for proposed interventions and they are in no particular order, the different items, so I am just going to go through them. We expect that people will propose an intervention strongly grounded in theory and specify the theory of change. We expect that applications will build on evidence-based violence prevention or health promotion interventions in related fields, that they will identify a rationale and strategy for selecting participants, and that the projects that are proposed can be replicated, scaled up, and independently evaluated eventually, although that would not be part of the three phases. We would want to make sure that eventually they could be scaled up so they have to be manualized and replicable.

Interventions may focus on a single or multiple forms of elder mistreatment. I think this is going to be a common question we would get. You can focus on one form, you can focus on two forms together, or all forms. We would like to encourage folks to consider the use of a home visiting component if that makes sense in the type of intervention that you’re considering. Likewise, if it makes sense for your recruitment and intervention strategy, we would like to encourage you to partner with the integrated healthcare system - page 2 of Expectations.

We expect folks to use scientifically rigorous designs such as an RCP, propensity score matching, or regression discontinuity, or you can propose another scientifically rigorous design for the evaluation. We expect you to identify meaningful and measurable short- and long-term outcomes that are theoretically linked to the intervention, with careful consideration given to how appropriate health, safety, and wellness outcomes will be selected. We would like you to include reliable, valid, and generalizable measures of independent and dependent variables, at least generalizable to the population that you are trying to serve, also for mediators and moderators. If those don't exist, we expect to see a plan for developing those and testing the measures that you are going to develop. We would like to encourage the use of administrative data sets, if applicable, if that makes sense for your project.

And now we're moving for the expectations for the proposed research team, and this comes straight out of the solicitation. The team should be multidisciplinary and have the following expertise: experience in the administration and conduct of multidisciplinary and multicomponent research; intervention development and implementation experience and expertise; expertise in elder abuse; and then, in addition, expertise in another area of violence prevention, child abuse prevention, or prevention of violence against women, some violence prevention research (or, I was thinking later, it also could be a related field that was relevant to your proposed intervention model). If you were looking at just financial exploitation, it's possible you would have some other relevant expert that may not fit into one of these categories but would also be considered acceptable. We need you to have evaluation research expertise on your team; longitudinal research design and data analysis expertise; expertise in instrument development, design, and testing; use of administrative data if you are going to be using administrative data; and some expertise in cost analysis research.

The requirements for the application are standard for all of our applications NIJ. The only difference here, and that is highlighted in red, is that we have extended the page limit to 40 pages because we know we are asking for quite a lot in this application. But all of the items listed here are the same things that we require for all of our applications. I don't think I need to read those to you. Details about all of them are in the solicitation. Questions about those should be directed to NCJRS, not to me, unless it’s about the program narrative.

Requirements. This is where it starts getting complicated and exciting. The program narrative should include the initial intervention model and an initial research design for the full implementation study. I'm going to detail what goes in to those two items in the next couple slides, so just hold onto that thought. The program narrative should also include your plans for the planning phase: your plans to test intervention components, your plans for testing recruitment strategies, and data collection protocols. Things like cognitive testing and the concept of how you will recruit folks – will that work to test that out? Next you would also have plans for the pilot study in there, along with a detailed communication plan for communicating with NIJ.

The way that I was thinking about this as I was preparing to talk to you today, is that you are really proposing a five-plus-year project, you are just only proposing the budget for the 18-month project. I want you to think about the full project when you put together your proposal. I think that covers that slide.

Now what to include in the initial intervention model. This is what you are going to do. What is the intervention? For that we would like to see a draft logic model. We understand creating a full logic model is a lot of work, and that would actually be part of the planning phase, not something we would expect you to submit right away. But a draft logic model: what is the concept, the theory concept? Why would we expect what you propose to work? A description of the population for whom the intervention is designed, and a description of intervention components, and where the intervention would be delivered most likely. Who would deliver the intervention components? Are we talking about an intervention in the home with nurses or at a medical facility with doctors? And there are a whole bunch of possible other options, but that is the idea. There is also the length and intensity of the exposure to the intervention and how you will determine success. What kind of outcomes do you want to see? Again, these things are going to be proposed in the intervention, but we want you to understand that the 18-month planning phase is a time for soliciting feedback from us and other violence prevention experts. You will have a lot of opportunity to modify the logic model, the intervention model. We want you to include a plan for how you are going to solicit feedback from experts and include that in your application.

What we expect to see in your initial research design is a sampling framework. What's your population of interest and how are you going to sample from that population to get the sample you need? Power analysis. Data collection mode, the data collection strategy, and the timeline. How often you expect to check in with people and collect data. Your retention strategy. Participant incentives, assuming you will have those. Proposed constructs to be measured along with the measurement and assessment tools. If you will be developing those tools, then the testing of those tools would happen in the earlier phases of the project. Again, you will have a plan in your application for how you will solicit feedback from NIJ, other federal stakeholders, and methodology experts. Then you would use that information to refine and revise your research design.

This is another long one. The deliverables that we expect at the end of the 18-month planning phase. The first one is standard and is a final progress report that documents what you’ve done, the revised intervention model that we discussed two slides ago, the revised research design that was discussed on the last slide for the full implementation study, and also a revised plan for the pilot study. So you are going to be submitting a plan for the pilot study but that may change during the 18-month planning phase. So we need almost a revised application but without the planning phase in it. If this is applicable, a signed Memorandum of Understanding or Data Sharing Agreement: if you are going to be using administrative records you may need that. So for the intervention, you will also need to develop a Manual of Procedures and a corresponding logic model and fidelity indicators for that. You want to develop some participant safety protocols, a compendium of all the measures that you are going to be using, and a description of the administrative data sets you be using. Plan to collect intervention implementation costs, and you want include a timeline, staffing plan, and cost estimates for the pilot study. At that point, after the 18 months is up, we will need to be ready to move forward with the pilot study and so we will need that timeline and the cost of that. If it is needed, which we will see, an OMB package will need to be prepared as well, and we would like everyone to include in their application plans to come to NIJ to give a presentation at the conclusion of the 18-month planning phase.

That concludes the section about what should be in your application. This is off the standard for NIJ. These are the selection criteria that peer reviewers will use when they look at your application. The statement of the problem, how well you understand the problem, and your awareness of the state of current research, that counts for 10% of your score. The project design and implementation, you can see that is really the bulk of what we’re focused on. That will include all three phases into that score. The potential impact of the program in the real world. Then your capabilities and competencies are 20%. The budget does not count, although the review panel does comment on that as is true for the plan for dissemination for broader audiences. I think that might not even be relevant for this one.

How our review process works. First there is a scan for the basic minimum requirements to make sure that you have submitted all the things that are required, in particular the budget, budget narrative and abstract. We have to have those. Then we will move the applications that pass what we call the BMR to a review panel. These applications will be reviewed by members of NIJ's Violence Against Women and Elder Abuse Standing Review Panel. Each application is reviewed by two technical reviewers, they will have experience in elder abuse, I will ensure that that happens. Then those will move to a full panel where there are 18 panelists who will then vote on the score of the application. After the recommendations are made by the review panel, it moves to an internal review by NIJ scientific staff, that's me, and I present the applications to leadership. And we have a funding partner in the civil division and they also will weigh in at that internal review by NIJ scientific staff phase. Ultimately we present our recommendations to the director and all final funding decisions are completely at the discretion of the NIJ director.

This is a picture of the application checklist. That is on page 30 of the solicitation so you want to make sure you include all of those items. We are about to move to the Q&A. I want to put in a little disclaimer here. Mary Jo is going to read me the questions. I haven’t been able to look as I’ve been presenting at what questions have been coming in. I will do my best to answer all questions that will not cause me to lose my job. So ask away.

Questions and Answers

The questions and answers from the webinar have been reviewed and edited for clarity but not substance. Review the clarified Q&As.

Ms. Giovacchini: At this time we don’t have any questions in the queue. If you do have any questions, please type them into the Q&A box.

Dr. Mulford: If we're waiting on those, I will just say that, if you have any questions after this webinar, those are fielded to me through the NCJRS contact. I am not permitted to have individual conversations or email exchanges with any applicants when a solicitation is out about that solicitation, so please do not, even if I know you from other grants, etc., or meetings, do not email me about your application. You have to submit them through there and then they will become available, as a question and answer, to everyone.

Ms. Giovacchini: We have our first question, and that question is, is there a cap on the number of applications from 1) each organization, and 2) each co-PI?

Dr. Mulford: There is not a cap. You can submit as many applications as you would like or be on as many applications as you would like. In this case, we only will only be funding up to two, so sometimes we say you’ve got to make sure that when you accept the award that you haven’t overcommitted your time. No, that’s fine. You can be on more than one application.

Ms. Giovacchini: Another question. Can you please define integrated healthcare partners and give us some examples.

Dr. Mulford: I was wondering if people were going to ask that. I am not the best person to answer that question. No, but I will get an answer for you. I will get suggestions from my HHS colleagues who are more aware of that. I know Kaiser has been involved in some studies so those are the types of organizations as an example, anyway. But I will get a better definition and we will post that. Thank you for the question.

Ms. Giovacchini: Another question. This proposal says that it is a cooperative agreement. Can you explain how this is different from other types of grants?

Dr. Mulford: Yes, that is a very good question and I should have had a slide for that. There are three ways that the government can provide funding. One is through a contract, the second is a cooperative agreement, and the third is a grant. At least the ones we use, there may be others. In a contract, we tell the person exactly what to do or the organization exactly what to do. In a grant, you tell us what you're going to do and we basically just give you the money to do that and we might provide some minor guidance along the way, but you do what you’ve proposed. A cooperative agreement is somewhere in the middle where the government has some input into the design and what is happening with the project, but it's not to the extent of a contract where we are telling you exactly what to do. It's the level of involvement by the government that drives whether it's a cooperative agreement or a grant. In terms of how the funding actually gets to you, it is very similar to a grant. There are a couple of reporting requirements for your budget office that are a little bit different. Those I’m not 100% familiar with, but they are not major, it's much more like a grant than a contract in terms of the processing.

Ms. Giovacchini: Another question. To what extent should the intervention be one already in development by a practitioner as opposed to something newly designed?

Dr. Mulford: I leave that entirely up to you all and trust your expertise. Now that said, we do expect that the intervention or the intervention components will have been user-tested in other fields if they haven't been used in elder abuse, so there is some expectation that this could be useful, that there is some research that supports the use of that particular intervention for preventing elder abuse.

Ms. Giovacchini: I was late in joining in. Is financial elder abuse eligible?

Dr. Mulford: Yes.

Question: Another question. Can I save your PowerPoint?

Dr. Mulford: The PowerPoint, I believe will be made available. Correct? Yes, the PowerPoint will be made available. Can you answer how they will get that?

Ms. Giovacchini: Actually, the PowerPoint along with the taping of this webinar will be posted on the National Institute of Justice website. We will reach out to the participants that provided email addresses and notify you when that is done and provide you a link to the access.

Does the research team budgeted in Phase 1 need to include all the listed roles or can some of those roles be brought into the budget only in later phases?

Dr. Mulford: I think I’m understanding this question. We expect you to identify people who will be serving in those roles, and we do expect them to have some involvement in the planning phase. That involvement can be minimal. It could be in the form of a consultant agreement or an advisory board. Although, the main players we do expect to be involved in a financial way in the planning phase. One thing this reminded me of and I didn’t say but I was thinking of earlier today, is this application is kind of like a dream for a scientist because we are asking you to put together your dream intervention and your dream pie-in-the-sky evaluation plan without being unrealistic, because if you’re unrealistic then third years will note that. You only have to pay attention to the money in the first 18 months. In some ways you can think big, you don't have to say, “Oh, they are only offering $1 million, I’ve got to cut this or cut that.” So I think that this is really sort of a fun opportunity.

Ms. Giovacchini: Next question. Is there a certain number of participants in the pilot that you are looking for or considering?

Dr. Mulford: No. That will depend on an individual project, so no. Whatever you think you would need to get the answers: can we scale this up, does this have any hope of working. The one thing I would say is that you do want to have some sense from the pilot that there is some promise to the program. It doesn't have to be fully powered or that would be the intervention study. On the other hand, you are not just doing the cognitive testing part. You want to make sure everything works. That is really what the pilot is for, to make sure everything works. But if you could come away from that with a little bit of information about the possibility that this could be useful in terms of outcomes, that would be great.

Ms. Giovacchini: How important is the financial exploitation fraud of the elderly for this work rotation?

Dr. Mulford: Financial exploitation we consider to be quite important. I would be surprised if -- sort of like that scam fraud. I don't anticipate that is the direction that we are as interested in going. That's probably not going to be, but if it's financial exploitation within or by a family member or a caregiver, that is in the realm that we are interested in. We’ve been interested for a long time in financial exploitation, especially in the interaction that we have been calling hybrid financial exploitation: so financial exploitation in combination with another form of abuse. We've looked at that in a number of our studies.

Ms. Giovacchini: Is self-neglect a form of elder mistreatment that would be considered?

Dr. Mulford: Sorry, no. This is something we grapple with all the time or we hear about at meetings all the time. Because we are the Department of Justice, self-neglect is not, on its own, considered. However, we do want people to consider a full range of outcomes, and if you are preventing some other form of abuse and you also prevent self-neglect, then that's fine. If you're considering that as an additional health-related outcome, that is perfectly fine. But as a focus, we will not consider that.

Ms. Giovacchini: This is a longer question. When you say you are looking for research that is grounded in theory, does that refer specifically to named theories or generally being able to articulate your hypothesis about the relationship between measured variables?

Dr. Mulford: Really more the latter than the former. We want you to be able to articulate why you expect what you are doing to work. If that fits a known theory, in the violence prevention area, then you should include that. If it doesn't, that's fine. There is no problem with that. I should say that NIJ hosted a meeting in May or June the year before last on using theory in elder abuse research and I encourage you to look at the proceedings from that meeting, which would be on our website as well on the elder abuse page.

Ms. Giovacchini: Can any private funds be used to support practitioner implementation of the intervention?

Dr. Mulford: Yes. Is that a good enough answer?

Ms. Giovacchini: Yes. Can you clarify more about the external panel of expert? It says there should be a plan for incorporating feedback from an external panel of experts and NIJ? Are we to put together the panel of experts together or will NIJ?

Dr. Mulford: That is a good question because we ask you to include that plan in your application. I think that we would do that together. You can propose a strategy for getting together the external experts. You don’t have to name them. In fact, if you name all of your experts, then we can't you any of them for our peer reviews so that is not ideal. Yes, you can say in your application that there is an external panel of experts that you would develop in conjunction with NIJ and specify how you would use them, how frequently they would get together, maybe how many people and what kind of expertise they would bring.

Ms. Giovacchini: Does it matter whether we target incidence or prevalence? For example, individuals who have not experienced abuse but maybe are at risk as indicated by risk factor profiles or individuals who may already be experiencing or have experienced abuse?

Dr. Mulford: We are really hoping to focus on prevention, so I think we that would prioritize those studies that are focused on the former rather than the latter: people with risky profiles but who have not already been abused. I think when I was giving the history of NIJ’s research, some of the things we have funded is addressing folks who have already been identified and abused and some of the ways that the system has for dealing with those people at risk for re-abuse. So we have done a little of that work. What really hasn’t been done is the true prevention work.

Ms. Giovacchini: Could the elder abuse expert on the multidisciplinary team be someone other than a Ph.D. researcher, e.g., a lawyer, if the other members of the team have expertise in intervention, evaluation, and violence prevention, etc.?

Dr. Mulford: I suppose. Yes, it is not required that every single person on your team has a Ph.D. That’s for sure. I don't see why that wouldn't be acceptable. So if you put together a good proposal and rationale for including the people you are including, that seems fine.

Ms. Giovacchini: Is there a focus on the prevention model versus interventions that attempt to address the adjudication of perpetrators, or could both be included?

Dr. Mulford: As far as I know we are not dealing with adjudication of perpetrators. Unless I am misunderstanding the question. If I am, please write back, I think I sort of answered that in the question two questions ago about really wanting to do some either primary or secondary prevention preventing abuse among at-risk elders or universal prevention for all elders, so I think that perhaps my answer to that question would have answered your question.

Ms. Giovacchini: Should the pilot be exclusive or can it be inclusive of other interventions: e.g., LTSS, a focus on mental health, and quality of life improvement?

Dr. Mulford: I am going to read this question myself. Hold on one second. I’m trying to get down there. There are still a lot of questions.

Ms. Giovacchini: Yes, there are.

Dr. Mulford: I got to the theory one, so we’re getting close.

Ms. Giovacchini: It’s the next one.

Dr. Mulford: It’s the next one? OK. Should the pilot be exclusive or can it be inclusive of other interventions - oh respite - that focus on mental health and quality of life improvements? I am not sure how to answer this question. I wish I could talk to you because it would make it easier for me to understand exactly what you are asking. I can't quite figure out what you want to know with that. I am not totally understanding the question. I apologize. Are you are asking if you could look at an existing intervention and see if it prevents elder abuse, is that the question? We really are looking for someone to design intervention to prevent elder abuse. If respite is one of the components of that intervention, then it should be manualized. Maybe that answers your question. If not, please respond.

Ms. Giovacchini: Are outcomes that are thought to be on the causal path between exposure and abuse acceptable as targets for the pilot intervention, or is the expectation that the pilot will target abuse per se?

Dr. Mulford: That is an awesome question. Yes. That is a better answer to -- I tried to answer this other question I was asked before and this is a better answer. Outcomes that are thought to be on the causal path between exposure and abuse are exactly the kinds of things we want for the pilot intervention. Is there some hope that this could ultimately prevent elder abuse? Those are exactly the kind of outcomes we would like to see in a pilot. Obviously you’re not going to have time in a pilot to look at the long-term effects of your program. That’s an excellent question and the answer is yes.

Ms. Giovacchini: I believe all the questions that we have right now in the queue have been answered. If there is anything else, please feel free to type your question, or if you believe that we've missed your question, please retype it. [Silence]

Dr. Mulford: All right, we’re giving you a 30-second countdown. Oh wait. Could you clarify more about the cooperative agreement – did we give that?

Ms. Giovacchini: Yes. We talked about the difference between a cooperative agreement, a grant, and a contract. We talked about the integrated health care.

Dr. Mulford: Somebody asked if efforts to reduce social isolation are considered an appropriate intervention. Yes, they could be, but you need to put that into a full -- that could be a component of your intervention. It's not important that you’ve had previous NIJ funding. I just saw that question come up. It’s right at the bottom. No, not at all. In fact, in no way will we discriminate against anyone who has had NIJ funding in the past, but we’re really trying to branch out and include other fields in this, so PI’s who are from another field, a related field, maybe part of NIJ funding but not related to other views – that’s great, too. Anything. I mean, that part is totally open.

Ms. Giovacchini: These are more questions coming through.

Dr. Mulford: Yes. We’re getting a bunch more.

Ms. Giovacchini: How important is it that applicants have previous NIJ funding?

Dr. Mulford: I just answered that.

Ms. Giovacchini: Sorry. OK. And you answered the question about the difference in NIJ’s involvement on the cooperative agreement?

Dr. Mulford: Yes. I saw that question come in again and I did answer that question. And that will be provided on the Q&A that comes out later?

Ms. Giovacchini: Yes.

Dr. Mulford: OK. So you can look back to that. I think I answered that as best I could.

Ms. Giovacchini: And you are good to get back on the integrated health care.

Dr. Mulford: I will. I don’t know the exact answer to that question, but instead of making it up, I will get a better answer.

Ms. Giovacchini: In terms of scope, would a multistate group focusing on rural residents be appropriate for the solicitation?

Dr. Mulford: I don’t see why not. If it fits all the other things, yes, that is fine.

Ms. Giovacchini: Another question about the difference in the types of awards and what types of ways NIJ would be involved in the cooperative agreement. That will definitely be addressed in the FAQs.

Dr. Mulford: Also, some of the NIJ role is put right into the solicitation: where we expect to be included is in a couple places. Not entirely, but there is some indication of that in the solicitation about including us on an expert panel.

Ms. Giovacchini: Again, I am not seeing any other questions that have not been answered.

Dr. Mulford: [Question] How important is it important that applicants have identified a practitioner partner committed to the intervention? That will be fairly important, depending on what you are proposing.

It depends on what you are proposing to do. I would like all of our applications, we would expect letters of support from agencies that you expect to be involved in the project. We’re not expecting MOUs until later on, just that they are interested and want to be involved at this stage.

[Question] Is there a goal for how large the target population is? That is, if we’re talking about an at-risk population that only makes up 2-5% of elders in the U.S., would this be an appropriate population to be targeted? It could be. I'm reading that to mean something along the line of maybe a cultural group or Alzheimer's patients, maybe somebody asked if that's okay? Yes, that’s fine. If you have a specific group of at-risk elders, and you want to target those, that’s fine.

Ms. Giovacchini: I take that answer to answer the next question about the specific subpopulation?

Dr. Mulford: Yes.

Ms. Giovacchini: Any other questions at this time?

[ Silence ]

Ms. Giovacchini: Okay. That’s all the questions that we have?

Dr. Mulford: Yes. OK. Thank you all very much. You can direct any further questions to or the phone number that’s provided on the screen there, and it's also in the solicitation. Thank you very much.

[ Event Concluded ]

Date Modified: March 9, 2016