Video Transcript: Research to Improve Officer Decision-Making, Solicitation Webinar (FY 2017)

Speaking in this video:

  • Chris Tillery, Director, Office of Science and Technology
  • Joeseph Heaps, Policy Advisor
  • Brett Chapman, Social Science Analyst
  • Mary Jo Giovacchini, National Criminal Justice Reference Service

This webinar will provide details and guidance for potential applicants to NIJ’s Research to Improve Officer Decision-making solicitation. The presenters will discuss the purpose and goals of this opportunity and address frequently asked questions. A Q&A session will conclude this webinar.

Transcript

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to today’s webinar. Research Funding to Improve Officer Decision-making hosted by the National Institute of Justice. At this time, I would like to introduce Chris Tillery, Director of the Office of Science and Technology at the National Institute of Justice.

CHRIS TILLERY: Good afternoon. Before we start, I’d like to extend NIJ’s appreciation for your interest in this funding opportunity. What follows is found in this solicitation. I will not read from the slides as I said because the information is in the solicitation, rather what I will try to do is emphasize areas--clarify areas that in the past have caused some confusion for some of the applicants.

We’ll start this afternoon’s session with an overview of NIJ and the solicitation. We’ll next touch on the areas of interest called out in the solicitation followed by a discussion of funding, deliverables, and then general information concerning the solicitation.

Beginning with the overview, for those of you who are new to the National Institute of Justice, we’re one of the two science agencies with--within the US Department of Justice. Basically, our mission is to provide knowledge and tools to improve criminal justice policy and practice in the United States through the application of science. Our major activities include research and development, the administration of assistance capacity enhancement programs, and the development of equipment standards. This particular solicitation deals with research and not development of standards, nor the provision of technology assistance activities.

With regard to the solicitation itself, the provision of policing services involves interaction between an officer and individuals in the communities that they serve. In many instances, those interactions occur when the officer is a citizen or both, or under a great deal of stress with little time to make a decision that could result in death, injury, or both. One of NIJ’s research priorities is promoting research to optimize workforce development including officers as well as the civilian personnel of police agencies. This particular solicitation deals with police officers.

Policing services cannot be delivered effectively if the officer and the civilian personnel providing them do not have the requisite interpersonal and technical skills, particularly those skills needed for effective engagement with community served. To that end, NIJ is interested in research dealing with the background, skills, education, and experience needed for today’s workforce and in an evaluation of the impact of officer training, that includes academy, in-field, recertification and specialized training and training curricular on police performance.

With regard to officer performance, NIJ is particularly interested in examining the factors that inform use of force decision-making to include the impact of organization and culture with the police agency on police citizen encounters.

Projects of interests include but are not limited to research dealing with the impact of the following topics on how well an officer makes decisions, personality traits, environment, and training. These topics are independent. Personality traits or characteristics are the habitual patterns of behavior of an individual that defines how they interact with others as opposed to skills which may be learned. Some aspects of personality can change with age. Additionally, certain factors such as social roles and stressful life events can also be a source of personality change. Personality influence is the learning style of individuals, moreover they influence an officers--the influence on officer’s environment and years on the job has on decision-making and training requires further investigation as these factors are interrelated with personality.

This slide highlights three questions that were noted in the solicitation concerning personality traits. This slide highlights some of the questions or the questions called out on the solicitation regarding environment and again, these are example questions. They do not limit what you may propose under this area. I would note that organizational structure is defined as how the activities of an organization are directed toward the achievement of its goals. This includes consideration of hierarchy and how activities are supervised.  Put simply, how decisions are made within an organization and who makes those decisions. From that perspective, organizational structure also shapes the individual’s view of their role within the organization and what decisions they can make and how those decisions should be made.

The fourth question above deals with how officers relate or do not relate to the communities in which they serve, how those communities relate to them, and how that affects decision-making. In large part, this deals with the issues of cognitive bias and how police officers view their role as law enforcement in the communities they serve and how those communities view that role.

And here are the excerpt from the solicitation with regard to example questions dealing with training. The first question includes consideration. Not only the academy training but also the frequency refresher training required to retain critical skills, just in time training, training interventions and so on.

I think I’m so old that my motor skills are going too pot so please, excuse me as I sometimes stumble with slides.

This again is an excerpt from the solicitation with regard to the deliverables that are expected as the result of any award under the solicitation. The deliverables are intended in part to support implementation of what is learned and to practice as well as contributing to increasing scientific understanding.

The next section deals with funding. The key point regarding funding is that we’re trying to encourage applicants to submit proposals where the funding request and period of performance support the research rather than research being crafted to fit within defined funding and time constraints. There are three caveats that are noted in the solicitation. First, NIJ anticipates that up to three million will be available to support work under the solicitation in the FY17.  Second, all awards are subject to the availability of appropriate funds and to any modifications or additional requirements that may be imposed by law. Third, decisions to provide additional funding in future years to support an award will be informed by consideration of among other factors, the availability of appropriations, OJPs, the Office of Justice Programs, strategic priorities, and the Office of Justice Programs’ assessment of both. The management of the award for example, timeliness and quality of progress reports and the actual progress of the work funded under the award.Asking applicants to structure their proposals, specifically including the narrative, expect deliverables, timelines, milestones, budget detail worksheet and narrative in this manner provides NIJ the information needed to make considered decisions regarding the viability of partially funding awards. Your budget narrative and program narrative should be for the full period of performance, the standard Form 424, you submit with your application should only be for the initial period of performance.

On to general information.

First question is, who is eligible under this award? The one point I would like to make is that other federal agencies are not precluded from applying.  Any award made to a federal agency will be made as an interagency reimbursable agreement. Federal agencies will have to play by the same rules of the other applicants as delineated in the solicitation.

The point of this slide is that applicants may team, but if they team, they still have to submit one application and one of the applicants has to be in charge.

And we go into the process of proposal review. There are four elements that have to be in in your application or it cannot be advanced to peer review and those are called basic minimum requirements. And with this particular solicitation, those are your program narrative, budget detail worksheet, budget narrative, and resumes of key personnel. We would strongly encourage you to use descriptive file names like program narrative when you upload the files. There have been instances in the past where applicants have merged files together or used other than clear descriptions in their file names and it causes a fair amount of effort on our part to in fact confirm that those four required pieces are in fact there.

One of the things that we look for concurrently with ensuring that the four items we just discussed through there is whether or not the application is in fact responsive to solicitation. The point of this particular slide, again the information may be found in the solicitation, is that this is a research award. It’s not a technical assistance award. And while we will fund or NIJ will fund the procurement of, for example, equipment or materials or supplies, it will only fund them as far as they serve the larger purpose of the award, which is research.

The solicitation also included some additional guidance, which are things that applicants are particularly asked to ensure they have. One of which is that if you are partnering with a law enforcement agency or other organization in this--in this endeavor that there in fact be a letter of commitment provided to NIJ as part of the application package.

The other thing I would note in here is that the research we’re looking for is research that can be translated on a national basis. In other words, we’re not looking re--for research proposals that only look at the specific requirements of a jurisdiction. What we’re asking for is a research that we can take and in fact translate nationally, that’ll have an impact on policing policy and practice on a national basis.

We’ll touch a little bit now on peer review. The proposals that are submitted will be subjected to peer review to a peer review panel, which will evaluate score and rate applications that meet basic minimum requirements that are found responsive to the solicitation. NIJ may use internal peer reviewers, external peer reviewers, or a combination to asses application on their technical merits using the--our review criteria called out in the solicitation. An external peer reviewer is an expert in the subject matter of a given solicitation who is not a current DOJ employee, Department of Justice employee. An internal reviewer is a current Department of Justice employee who is well-versed or has experience or expertise in the subject matter of this solicitation. Our current intent is for the applications to this solicitation to have an external review.

What are the selection criteria? I’d like to note first that applications do not compete against each other. They’re evaluated against the selection criteria identified in the solicitation. Although the proposed budget does not receive a numeral score, it is considered by the reviewers who may comment on the following additional items in the context of scientific and technical merit, total cost of the project relative to the perceived benefit, cost effectiveness, appropriateness of the budget relative to the level of effort, use of--use of existing resources to conserve cost, alignment of the proposed budget with the proposed project activities, and the proposed plan to produce or to make available to broader interested audience, summary information, and plan scholarly projects resulting from this project.

The point of this slide is that while the recommendations of the peer review panel are important, the ultimate decision as to making an award resides with the NIJ Director. Peer review findings and any resulting recommendations or advisory, although review--reviewers’ views are considered carefully. Other important considerations include underserved populations, geographic diversity, agency priorities, and available funding, as well as plan scholarly products the extent to which the budget detail worksheet and budget, narrative accurately explained project costs that are reasonable, necessary and allowable under the federal law and applicable federal cost principles.

If you have any questions concerning the solicitation, page two of the solicitation provides contact information both with regard to technical questions and with regard to administrative questions. It’s all fairly well-lined out--laid out. The one point I would like to make is that when you go to the solicitation, you will not find any contact information in it for any particular NIJ, member of the NIJ staff, not for myself nor for anyone else associated with the solicitation. We do that to ensure the fairness of the solicitation process. So, what happens is you send a question in for example, concerning clarification of some point in the solicitation, that question is captured at the central point, it’s passed to the appropriate expert at the institute to answer, and then both the question and the response are posted under the Q and As, questions and answers for the solicitation on the NIJ website so they inform all respective applicants.

That’s it with regard to the solicitation itself. I’ll just point out again for--primarily for those not previously associated with the Institute that there are a number of different funding opportunities that NIJ makes available and they can all be found on the NIJ website. We’re also very--we’re trying to be very transparent with regard to the past awards we’ve made. So, if you have an interest, please come up and visit us on our website. And I think I’ve actually made it all the way through the briefing without fumbling again.

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: You did great. Thanks, Chris. At this time, we will start addressing the questions that have been coming in.

The first question was something that was submitted during the registration process and that is, to what degree is the grant interested in the mechanism of officer’s decision-making process in addition to emphasizing the strategies to improve officer’s decision-making?

CHRIS TILLERY: The ultimate goal in this solicitation is to improve officer decision-making. And so, the short answer to the question is it’ll depend on what’s proposed, right? I can’t, at this time, tell you, “Well, we’re 80% more interested in this than that.” I mean, we know what we’re interested in, which is improving decision-making. And when we get the proposals in and we have them evaluated, then we’ll make the--we’ll make the decision from there.

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: Before we go further to the next question, I just want to remind everybody if you do have a question, please use the Q and A tab and submit the question there and select all participants or all panelists so that everybody on this end can see your questions.

Our next question is, can you provide a sample of a cost-benefit analysis that was acceptable to NIJ in the past? See page nine in the solicitation.

CHRIS TILLERY: So, with regard to the question of providing an example of a cost-benefit analysis, the acceptability or suitability of a cost-benefit analysis is going to depend on the totality of the proposal, so I’m not really sure this would be of assistance to anyone.

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: Next question, on page four of the solicitation discussing workforce development, et cetera, can you confirm if anything is construed to mean for the purpose of screening police office candidates based on personality?

CHRIS TILLERY: I think the solicitation stands on its own. I think the question is clear.

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: Can you state in your own words, not the solicitation, what the overarching problem is that you want to solve?

CHRIS TILLERY: I believe the solicitation states that rather clearly and I wouldn’t interject my own, sort of, view of things, which might muddy the water. If there’s a specific question on the meaning of a specific word or phrase or something in the solicitation, if you submit the question, we will--we will try to resolve that for you. But I think it’s rather clear.

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: What has been the level of funding per award in the past?

CHRIS TILLERY: It has varied depending on the nature of the proposed research. We have funded some awards that have run into the millions of dollars over a number of years and others have, you know, been funded considerably a --considerably less. It depends on what you’re proposing to do.

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: And with regards to the most recent question that you’re answering, what are your expectations in this regard for this solicitation?

CHRIS TILLERY: I would look at the, I think, it’s Section B, which is funding in the solicitation. I think it’s rather clear. There’s a--there’s an award amount we expect to be available this year, but we’re asking applicants to propose their budget and their period of performance based on the research question.

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: What level of interest is there in efforts to prove out an idea, approach, or technology, feasibility studies, pilot studies?

CHRIS TILLERY: I’m not sure I understand that particular question. It’s--again, it’s--submit your proposal and, you know, it--it’s a matter of how responsive it is to the--to the goals and objective of this--of the solicitation and the specific criteria within it.

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: And at this time, I’m actually going to move the slides back to where you can find information. I’ll leave that up here for a little while so that you can write down the information for the National Criminal Justice Reference Service.

Our next question is, I am currently working with a colleague who is a tenured faculty member at the US Air Force Academy. He will be--he will be a Co-Investigator. Am I correct to assume that this will constitute as a government agency and thus qualify?

CHRIS TILLERY: Was it, “thus qualify?”

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: Yes, and that--and therefore he would qualify or they would qualify as an applicant.

CHRIS TILLERY: It--again, I’m not sure I understand the question. The applicant is the entity submitting the proposal, and I’m not sure from the question what the teaming arrangements are. Is the US Air Force Academy going to submit the proposal and the questionnaire is going to be a collaborator or is the questionnaires--or the questionnaire or their organization going to submit the proposal and the Air Force Academy researchers the collaborator? I think it’s sort of…

MALE: Depend.

CHRIS TILLERY: …depends. I mean, in either instance it would have appear on its face, not seeing the proposal of the application to be within the eligible range.

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: If there’s anything else that you would like to provide to clarify your question, you can go ahead and submit that.

Our next question, should applicants provide a training for this funding or can evaluate existing training courses offered by in-house Police Academy associated to individual officers--the officer’s decision-making?

CHRIS TILLERY: The proposal needs to be responsive to the solicitation. I mean, I can’t--I can’t speak to individual proposals or applications. I mean, I’m--again, I’m not sure what the question is.

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: Next question. Any preference on research design, e.g. experimental design, quasi-environmental design, propensity score, et cetera?

CHRIS TILLERY: Research design should be appropriate to the research question.

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: Can international consultants be a part of the project?

CHRIS TILLERY: The award has to be made to a US entity.

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: The example--question on training, all related to personality trait and/or the transfer of knowledge overtime, would a project that focuses on the effect of a specific training strategy on officer decision-making fit into the training category even if it--and its looks like the question got cut off.

CHRIS TILLERY: If it’s responsive to the goals and objectives of the solicitation. Oh, in the short--a short answer is I can’t tell you specifically until, you know, the proposal and the application comes in, and I can’t comment at this point on specific research designs or proposals. You got to make the decision yourself based on what’s called out in the solicitation, and if you need a clarifying--if you need an answer to clarify a particular point in the solicitation, please submit that through the--one of the contacts on page two as appropriate.

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: Can the budget include summer pay for faculty members and or funding for undergraduate research assistants?

CHRIS TILLERY: I don’t see why not, but, I mean, it depends again on the totality of the proposal and how it fits in. With regard to that last question, I would--I would also strongly urge the applicants should they submit a proposal to review carefully the solicitation with regard to salaries and compensation, and also the Officer Justice Programs Financial Guide which is reference in the solicitation.

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: Is the level of higher education by rank a critical requirement that needs to be known? The person that asked the question about the level of higher education, if you could please submit a follow-up question clarifying what it is that you’re trying to ask, that would be great.

Your solicitation indicated an interest in relationship between personality traits and decision-making, is there any interest in the relationship between physical fitness and/or aging in decision-making in deadly force encounters?

CHRIS TILLERY: Again, the questions that were posited in the solicitation were examples. The goal of the solicitation is to improve officer decision-making. I mean, that’s the ultimate goal. If an applicant makes a persuasive argument that the research they’re proposing will advance that goal and that it’s sound research then we--you know, it would be responsive. I mean, at this point in time, I can’t say yes or no because I haven’t, you know, think--we don’t have a proposal in front of us or an application in front of us.

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: Can the PI of a training evaluation have developed one of the--of the trainings be evaluated if they declare a conflict of interest?

CHRIS TILLERY: The simple declaration of a conflict of interest would not be sufficient. I mean, the proposal would have to demonstrate a high degree of research, independence, and integrity. All right.

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: Is it acceptable to bid customization of existing technology to use in capturing relevant decision-making performance data?

CHRIS TILLERY: So, again, as I’ve responded to a number of previous questions, it depends on what’s being proposed, right, and whether or not that’s responsive to the goals and objectives of the solicitation. I would note that efforts to use existing resources to offset costs, if I understand the question correctly, would be seen as a--as a benefit, but it’s ultimately, is what you’re proposing responsive to the goals and objectives of the solicitation and does the use of this technologies support the research you’re proposing to do?

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: All right. This is a follow-up to an earlier question about officer screening. There’s nothing in the solicitation about officer screening, and the question is whether it can be extended to screening or only decision-making?

CHRIS TILLERY: So, the solicitation is about improving officer decision-making and research to support that goal, and so the short answer is I can’t answer the question until we’ve seen the proposal and the application. What you--what you need to do is be mindful of the goal and the goals and objectives of the solicitation, and if the research you’re proposing to do supports that and you can articulate that clearly in your proposal then you should be responsive, but again, it’s--go back to the fundamental.

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: Participant supports costs and incentives. We are considering compensating officers for participation in our study, is this an allowable expense?

CHRIS TILLERY: Incentives are generally allowable--an allowable expense. I would refer the perspective applicant to the NIJ website for further discussion of what is and is not allowable. Again, you know, absent a proposal, I cannot make a call is to whether what you’re proposing is or is not allowable. Generally, they are--it is allowable with approval, and please see the NIJ website for further discussion. And if you submit a question back through NCJRS, we will be happy to, you know, point you at the link and provide you more information on the specifics.

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: This is a follow-up from an earlier question where the full question didn’t come through. The example question on training all related to personality traits and/or the transfer of knowledge overtime, would a project that focuses on the effect of a specific training strategy on decision-making be okay?

CHRIS TILLERY: Back to my stock answer, take a look at the solicitation, overall goals and objectives. If you are proposing research that will advance the goals and objectives of the solicitation and if that’s clearly articulated and persuasive, then it would be responsive.

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: Who owns any newly developed IP?

CHRIS TILLERY: The--again, if you would submit or request through NCJRS, we could provide you the link to the IP language. I think there’s actually a general Q&A on the NIJ website that talks to IP, but it’s basically the applicant--the developer owns the IP and then there is a government rights portion of that for government purposes, but I’m pretty sure it’s on the NIJ website under general Q&As. If you can’t find it or if you submit a question through the NCJRS, we’ll get you a direct link to it so you can take a look at it, but it’s standard--we adhere to standard government principles regarding IP.

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: This is a follow-up from an earlier question. The US Air Force Academy would be the primary entity and the submission on the grant proposal would come from the academy.

CHRIS TILLERY: That’s fine.

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: Does a for-profit company that is subcontracting to a nonprofit awardee have to forego its profit or fee?

CHRIS TILLERY: NIJ and the Officer Justice Programs adhere to the Code of Financial Federal Regulation, CFR, on that. I would suggest that you take a look at the NIJ website and the OJP financial guide regarding how you are proposing to team and what it is you are proposing to do because the answer may vary depending on that. And then if you have a specific question after you’ve done that, come in through NCJRS and we’ll provide you the direct links to clarify the question.

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: Would this solicitation be interested in technology development that assists officer decision-making?

CHRIS TILLERY: Back to my stock answer, take a look at the solicitation. If you believe what you are proposing to do is responsive to the goals and objectives of the solicitation and you write a clear and persuasive argument that demonstrates that it is, then it should be, but again, it depends on what you’re proposing and how that relates to the goals and objectives of the solicitation.

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: What kind of data would you provide or prefer to use? For the person that asked the question about the data that you would provide or prefer to use, could you please submit a follow up question and clarify what it is that you are trying to get to? Is there a level detail expected in regards to a strategy on how to roll out findings nationally?

CHRIS TILLERY: The--if I understand the question correctly, one of the evaluation criteria is dissemination of knowledge, right? So it’s--whatever degree is necessary to demonstrate that you are going to--if I understand the question again, to disseminate the knowledge resulting from this effort effectively. I mean, it’s--it depends.

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: We want to ensure we have a representative officer sample, overtime payments are likely going to be required to maintain the sample throughout the proposed study. There’s nothing else with this question. I’m assuming that you’re asking if overtime payments are acceptable?

CHRIS TILLERY: And the, sort of, stock answer again, it’s--it depends on how the research is couched and how that--how that payment ties into the support of the research. I mean, so for example, are you talking about teaming with a law enforcement agency and so this is going to be part of the salary and compensation from the agency or are you talking about incentives? I would strongly urge you to visit the NIJ website and the OJP financial guide which is referenced in the solicitation to try to get some more specificity on your answer. If you’ve gone through that and you still have a question, submit to NCJRS and we’ll try to help, but it really is going to depend on how you structure the proposal and how this fits into the sort of larger approach to answering the research question.

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: All right. And we are approaching the last few seconds of this webinar. We do have one more question and then some closing stuff.

So the last question so far that we have is, if a for-profit organization is using its own proprietary software which has commercial license fees, are they able to include those license fees in the proposal?

CHRIS TILLERY: And so the answer is, depends. I hate to keep punting, but I’ve sort of seen this come down on both sides. The main principle here is for-profit entity may not make a profit off of the work, whether or not the cost is allowable, and I’m not really sure I understand the proposal, will depend on what it is they are proposing to do and how they propose to do it. And so again I would reference you to the CFR, Code of Federal Regulations and the OJP financial guide, and if you have specific questions after that, come in through J--NCJRS. I mean, I hate to keep saying it depends, but it--honestly, it does. I mean, I--for--on the question you’ve asked, I’ve seen it sort of fall both ways with regard to the question, and again, I’m not really sure I totally understand the question, so--but it does. It--if what you’re proposing to do addresses the goals and objectives of the solicitation, if you can clearly demonstrate that, if you can demonstrate that the cost you are trying to recover is allowable, you know, given government cost principles, you’re going to be able to recover it. It’s that that you have to focus in on, and it--and that is entirely dependent on what it is you’re proposing to do.

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: I have a couple more questions. Existing training, can we use or leverage off of it?

CHRIS TILLERY: Yes, if it is responsive to the goals and objectives of the solicitation.

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: To what extent--sorry. To what extent will a study site demographics be taken into consideration?

CHRIS TILLERY: I’m not sure I understand the question. I will defer it to my stock answer. It depends on, is what you’re proposing to do responsive to the goals and objectives of the solicitation and how does that enter into your research design.

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: Oh. For example, do you have existing data on personality traits of police officers and data records on their performance in decision-making? I think this is a follow-up from an earlier question about the data that you want or you’re looking for, something like that.

CHRIS TILLERY: Short answer to the question if I understand it correctly is no, we do not have data. It’s one of the reasons we’re going out for research.

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: All right. A proposal that seeks to address two of three areas of interests be looked upon more favorably than one that is addressing only one area of interest? A will--a proposal that…

CHRIS TILLERY: Each proposal is evaluated on its own merits based on the criteria called out in the solicitation.

MARY JO GIOVACCHINI: Okay. And at this time, that is our last question, and we are at 3:37, so there’s a couple of things that I would like to go over before we finish up here. On the screen again and has been on the screen the entire time during the Q&A is information on how to contact the National Criminal Justice Reference Service as well as grants.gov. In addition, if you need to find more information about upcoming funding opportunities or this opportunity, you can go to the NIJ website, and information is right now showing on your slide. This webinar, the recording, the powerpoint presentation as well as a transcript will be posted to the NIJ website. And if you go under Current Funding Opportunities, there’ll be a link to that. Everybody will receive an email when this information has been posted and it’ll contain links to each of those items I mentioned. It’ll take approximately 10 business days to get that information posted to nij.gov. At this time, we would like to conclude this webinar. As a reminder for everybody, this web--I’m sorry, this solicitation does close on March the 23rd, and you will need to submit your application to grants.gov--wait, grants.gov? Before that time. Do not wait until the last minute, until 9:00 PM on that day, in case of any technical difficulties. You want to get that in at least try to 24 hours in advance in case there’s any problems. So on behalf of Chris Tillery and the entire NIJ staff, we thank you very much for attending today’s webinar and we hope you have a great rest of your day.

Date Created: March 1, 2017