Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 169 / Thursday, August 31, 2006 / Notices 51831 

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 

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 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 

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 


erjones on PROD1PC72 with NOTICES
51832 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 169 / Thursday, August 31, 2006 / 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. 

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 


erjones on PROD1PC72 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 169 / Thursday, August 31, 2006 / Notices 51833 

electronically each every fiscal year at 

http://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 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Food and Drug Administration 

Anti-Infective Drugs Advisory 

Committee Meeting; Amendment of 

Notice 

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, 

HHS. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: 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 

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. 

Dated: August 25, 2006. 

Randall W. Lutter, 

Associate Commissioner for Policy and 

Planning. 

[FR Doc. 06–7310 Filed 8–30–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160–01–S 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

National Institutes of Health 

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, 

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. 


erjones on PROD1PC72 with NOTICES