Grantee Research Project Results
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
National Center for Environmental Research
Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Program
CLOSED - FOR REFERENCES PURPOSES ONLY
Healthy Schools: Environmental Factors, Children’s Health and Performance, and Sustainable Building Practices
This is the initial announcement of this funding opportunity.
Funding Opportunity Number: EPA-G2013-STAR-H1
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 66.509
Solicitation Opening Date: June 7, 2013
Solicitation Closing Date: October 8, 2013, 11:59:59 pm Eastern Time
Eligibility Contact: Ron Josephson (josephson.ron@epa.gov); phone: 703-308-0442
Electronic Submissions: Todd Peterson (peterson.todd@epa.gov); phone: 703-308-7224
Technical Contact: Devon C. Payne-Sturges (payne-sturges.devon@epa.gov); phone: 703-347-8055
Access Standard STAR Forms (Forms and Standard Instructions Download Page)
View research awarded under previous solicitations (Funding Opportunities: Archive Page)
SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
Synopsis of Program:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as part of its Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program, is seeking applications proposing research that will inform school (K-12 educational facilities) building design, construction and operation practices in order to foster safe and healthy school environments and maximize student achievement and teacher and staff effectiveness. Specifically, the goal is to understand the relationship between environmental factors defined broadly and the health, safety and performance of students, teachers and staff. In addition to health-related concerns, the school environment may similarly impact the performance of students, teachers and staff, including lowering student achievement outcomes, and reducing teacher effectiveness. Accordingly, research is needed to better understand the negative impacts of the school environment on students’ health, safety, and achievement, and to measure the positive potential benefits of effectively managing environmental factors and applying sustainable building practices. The results of this research will help ensure that the risks of environmentally-induced illness and injury to America’s students, teachers and other school staff are diminished or avoided and that students, teachers and staff are provided with optimal learning environments in their schools.
This solicitation provides the opportunity for the submission of applications for projects that may involve human subjects research. Human subjects research supported by the EPA is governed by EPA Regulation 40 CFR Part 26 (Protection of Human Subjects). This includes the Common Rule at subpart A and prohibitions and additional protections for pregnant women and fetuses, nursing women, and children at subparts B, C, and D. Research meeting the regulatory definition of intentional exposure research found in subpart B is prohibited by that subpart in pregnant women, nursing women, and children. Research meeting the regulatory definition of observational research found in subparts C and D is subject to the additional protections found in those subparts for pregnant women and fetuses (subpart C) and children (subpart D). All applications must include a Human Subjects Research Statement (HSRS, as described in Section IV.B.5.c), and if the project involves human subjects research, it will be subject to an additional level of review prior to funding decisions being made as described in Sections V.C and V.D of this solicitation.
Guidance and training for investigators conducting EPA-funded research involving human subjects may be obtained here:
Ethics, Regulations, and Policies (https://www.epa.gov/osainter/phre/policy.htm)
Human Subjects Research at the Environmental Protection Agency: Ethical Standards and Regulatory Requirements (https://www.epa.gov/osainter/phre/phre_course/index.htm)
Award Information:
Anticipated Type of Award: Grant or Cooperative Agreement
Estimated Number of Awards: Approximately 6 awards
Anticipated Funding Amount: Approximately $6 million total for all awards
Potential Funding per Award: Up to a total of $1,000,000, including direct and indirect costs, with a maximum duration of 4 years. Cost-sharing is not required. Proposals with budgets exceeding the total award limits will not be considered.
Eligibility Information:
Public nonprofit institutions/organizations (includes public institutions of higher education and hospitals) and private nonprofit institutions/organizations (includes private institutions of higher education and hospitals) located in the U.S., state and local governments, Federally Recognized Indian Tribal Governments, and U.S. territories or possessions are eligible to apply. See full announcement for more details.
Application Materials:
To apply under this solicitation, use the application package available at Grants.gov (for further submission information see Section IV.E. “Submission Instructions and other Submission Requirements”). The necessary forms for submitting a STAR application will be found on the National Center for Environmental Research (NCER) web site, Forms and Standard Instructions Download Page (https://www.epa.gov/research-grants/funding-opportunities-how-apply-and-required-forms). If your organization is not currently registered with Grants.gov, you need to allow approximately one week to complete the registration process. This registration, and electronic submission of your application, must be performed by an authorized representative of your organization.
If you do not have the technical capability to utilize the Grants.gov application submission process for this solicitation, send a webmail message at least 15 calendar days before the submission deadline to assure timely receipt of alternate submission instructions. In your message provide the funding opportunity number and title of the program, specify that you are requesting alternate submission instructions, and provide a telephone number, fax number, and an email address, if available. Alternate instructions will be emailed whenever possible. Any applications submitted through alternate submission methods must comply with all the provisions of this Request for Applications (RFA), including Section IV, and be received by the solicitation closing date identified above.
Agency Contacts:
Eligibility Contact: Ron Josephson (josephson.ron@epa.gov); phone: 703-308-0442
Electronic Submissions: Todd Peterson (peterson.todd@epa.gov); phone: 703-308-7224
Technical Contact: Devon C. Payne-Sturges (payne-sturges.devon@epa.gov); phone: 703-347-8055
I. FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION
A. Introduction
The EPA places a high priority on protecting children’s health and development from potentially damaging environmental exposures and injuries [Executive Order 13045, 62 Fed.Reg. 19885 (Apr. 21, 1997)] and insuring that children enjoy clean and safe environments where they live, learn and play. Children’s health and safety continues to be a high priority in the current administration with respect to both regulatory reform and non-regulatory practices that may disproportionately impact children (Jackson 2009). American children spend a significant portion of their day in school and accumulating evidence indicates that the quality of indoor school environments may affect the health and productivity of children as well as their adult teachers and school staff. School facilities in poor condition not only present serious health risks, but may also lower academic outcomes, and diminish teacher and staff effectiveness. EPA therefore has a growing interest in seeing schools designed to be free of adverse environmental effects.
In addition to improving the safety, health, and performance of students, teachers and staff, increased attention to the design, construction, and operational practices of schools can contribute to national sustainability goals for the environment. Therefore, integrating research on sustainable building practices with health and safety issues, student achievement, and teacher and staff effectiveness has been identified as a priority research area by EPA, especially the Office of Air and Radiation and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) subcommittee on Building Technology Research and Development (US EPA 2005, OSTP, 2008). The EPA, Office of Research and Development (ORD), National Center for Environmental Research (NCER), as part of its STAR program, is seeking grant applications for multidisciplinary research on the relationship between environmental factors in K-12 educational facilities and the safety, health, and academic performance of children, and the effectiveness of teachers and staff.
This solicitation provides the opportunity for the submission of applications for projects that may involve human subjects research. Human subjects research supported by the EPA is governed by EPA Regulation 40 CFR Part 26 (Protection of Human Subjects). This includes the Common Rule at subpart A and prohibitions and additional protections for pregnant women and fetuses, nursing women, and children at subparts B, C, and D. Research meeting the regulatory definition of intentional exposure research found in subpart B is prohibited by that subpart in pregnant women, nursing women, and children. Research meeting the regulatory definition of observational research found in subparts C and D is subject to the additional protections found in those subparts for pregnant women and fetuses (subpart C) and children (subpart D). All applications must include a Human Subjects Research Statement (HSRS, as described in Section IV.B.5.c), and if the project involves human subjects research, it will be subject to an additional level of review prior to funding decisions being made as described in Sections V.C and V.D of this solicitation.
Guidance and training for investigators conducting EPA-funded research involving human subjects may be obtained here:
Ethics, Regulations, and Policies (https://www.epa.gov/osainter/phre/policy.htm)
Human Subjects Research at the Environmental Protection Agency: Ethical Standards and Regulatory Requirements (https://www.epa.gov/osainter/phre/phre_course/index.htm)
B. Background
More than 55 million elementary and secondary students attend approximately 132,000 public and private schools in the United States (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2009a, and 2009b). Along with approximately 3 million teachers and staff, this represents about 20% of the U.S. population. Children on average spend about 1,300 hours in a school building each year; teachers and employees spend even longer periods of time in school buildings (Juster 2004; U.S. Department of Education 1992).
According to the National Center for Education Statistics report, The Condition of America’s Public School Facilities: 2000, about one-quarter of schools report that they need extensive repair or replacement of one or more buildings. Approximately 11 million students attend these schools. About 40% of schools report at least one unsatisfactory environmental condition such as poor ventilation, heating or lighting problems, or poor physical security. According to a 1996 study by the General Accounting Office, School Facilities: America’s Schools Report Differing Conditions, these unsatisfactory environmental conditions are most often reported in urban schools, schools with high minority student enrollment, and schools with a high percentage of low income students. Generally, many of these schools also receive Federal Title I funding under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). In part, Title I programs are intended to close the achievement gap between high- and low-performing children, especially the achievement gaps between minority and nonminority students, and between disadvantaged children and their more advantaged peers.
In some instances, low-income and racial/ethnic minorities experience increased exposure to environmental hazards and suffer disproportionately from environmentally related diseases (Dilworth-Bart and Moore 2006; Evans and Kantrowitz 2002). For example, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has estimated that African-American children are three times more likely than white children to be hospitalized for asthma and asthma-related conditions; and are four to six times more likely to die from asthma. Minority children also have significantly higher rates of elevated blood lead levels. Thus, unhealthy conditions in schools may exacerbate the health of children who are already disproportionately impacted by environmental hazards.
To date, school facility conditions have not been widely perceived as playing a critical role in the educational process, largely due to the fact that research into the complex relationship between aspects of the physical environment, including environmental factors, and the well-being, health, productivity, and academic performance of students is only now emerging. However, recent research suggests that students attending schools in poor condition score lower on standardized tests than students who attend schools in good condition.
Public concern about adverse effects of indoor air has increased in recent decades, beginning with a series of episodes in the 1970s in which occupants of residences and commercial and institutional buildings reported health problems associated with their buildings (Kreiss 1989). Among the commonly reported complaints in these episodes were upper respiratory irritation, headache, fatigue, and lethargy, and less commonly, breathing difficulties or asthma. These episodes continue to occur, particularly in commercial buildings and schools, with the reported health effects sometimes lasting for weeks, months, or years. Wider recognition of this problem has increased concerns that health problems from poor indoor environments may affect the performance of individuals working in these buildings (Fisk 2000).
Key determinants of indoor air quality in schools include both outdoor and indoor sources of contaminants. Ambient air pollution (e.g., ozone, particulate matter), local point sources and traffic related pollutants can contribute to indoor air pollutant concentrations when outdoor air is drawn into school buildings through air intakes, as well as through doors, windows, ventilation shafts and leaks in the building envelope. Both the location of schools in proximity to air pollution sources such as industry and roadways, as well as practices on school grounds, such as vehicle idling near school doorways, windows and air intakes, may result in higher levels of outdoor air pollutants being drawn indoors (NRC 2006). Indoor pollutants include combustion gases such as carbon monoxide, allergens (including mold and other asthma triggers), volatile organic compounds, and particulate matter. Sources of indoor pollutants include building materials (e.g., structural materials such as particleboard, adhesives, insulation); finishes (paints and coatings); furnishings (carpets, furniture); products used in a building (cleaning materials, pesticides, markers, art supplies); and equipment (copiers and printers).
Indoor environments in schools have been of particular public concern, for 4 major reasons:
- Schools, relative to other buildings, are seen as particularly likely to have environmental deficiencies because chronic shortages of funding for schools contribute to inadequate operation and maintenance of facilities.
- Children, who breathe higher volumes of air relative to their body weights and are actively growing, have greater susceptibility to some environmental pollutants than adults.
- Children spend more time in school than in any other indoor environment outside the home.
- Positive or negative environmental effects on student achievement and teacher and staff effectiveness in schools could have important short- and long-term consequences, for students, teachers and society.
In addition, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) provided funding for school weatherization and physical improvement. Although this should have measureable benefits on energy efficiency and the comfort of school buildings, there are concerns that certain weatherization products and techniques could compromise indoor air quality conditions, thereby exacerbating occupant health risks. These potential increased risks could lead to greater absenteeism of students and teachers, reduced academic performance of school children, and the effectiveness of teachers and staff.
As public interest in possible adverse effects of indoor environments on health and performance has increased, scientific information on this topic has also grown, although slowly. Recent scientific attention has focused on indoor environmental factors such as pollutants, thermal conditions, and ventilation rates and on a range of adverse effects including recognized diseases, nonspecific health problems, and impaired performance.
Indoor environments in schools might cause health effects that directly impair concentration or memory, or other health effects that affect learning. Health outcomes associated with indoor environmental quality (IEQ) can influence performance directly or through effects on attendance. For instance, indoor pollutants might cause neurologic effects, or might exacerbate diseases such as asthma or allergy that produces symptoms or absenteeism that in turn impair learning. Risks for asthma and allergy in children are of particular concern, as the prevalence of these diseases remains at an all-time high and asthma is also a common cause of school absences. Parents report 13 million lost school days annually due to asthma, and research does show a correlation between asthma and high rates of student absenteeism (Akinbami 2006, Taras and Potts-Datema 2005). Chronic absenteeism can have far reaching impact. When too many students miss two or more days per month, everyone in the class may suffer because teachers will have to repeat old material when chronically absent children are present, or slow the progress of the entire class to accommodate them (Balfanz and Byrnes 2012). IEQ factors can also influence performance through discomfort or other physiologic processes. Adverse effects of IEQ on students may have additional indirect effects through direct adverse effects on the teachers, with consequent impaired teaching ability that impairs learning and increased teacher absenteeism. As a consequence there is a growing interest in designing and operating schools to have fewer adverse and more beneficial environmental and health conditions.
The specific Strategic Goal and Objective from the EPA’s Strategic Plan that relate to this solicitation are:
Goal 3: Cleaning Up Communities and Advancing Sustainable Development, Objective 3.1: Promote Sustainable and Livable Communities
More information can be found in EPA’s FY 2014-2018 Strategic Plan
C. Authority and Regulations
The authority for this RFA and resulting awards is contained in the Safe Drinking Water Act, Section 1442, 42 U.S.C. 300j-1, Toxic Substances Control Act, Section 10, 15 U.S.C. 2609, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, Section 20, 7 U.S.C. 136r, Clean Air Act, Section 103, 42 U.S.C. 7403, Clean Water Act, Section 104, 33 U.S.C. 1254, Solid Waste Disposal Act, Section 8001, 42 U.S.C. 6981.
For research with an international aspect, the above statutes are supplemented, as appropriate, by the National Environmental Policy Act, Section 102(2)(F).
Note that a project’s focus is to consist of activities within the statutory terms of EPA’s financial assistance authorities; specifically, the statute(s) listed above. Generally, a project must address the causes, effects, extent, prevention, reduction, and elimination of air pollution, water pollution, solid/hazardous waste pollution, toxic substances control, or pesticide control depending on which statute(s) is listed above. These activities should relate to the gathering or transferring of information or advancing the state of knowledge. Proposals should emphasize this “learning” concept, as opposed to “fixing” an environmental problem via a well-established method. Proposals relating to other topics which are sometimes included within the term “environment” such as recreation, conservation, restoration, protection of wildlife habitats, etc., must describe the relationship of these topics to the statutorily required purpose of pollution prevention and/or control.
Applicable regulations include: 40 CFR Part 30 (Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations), 40 CFR Part 31 (Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments) and 40 CFR Part 40 (Research and Demonstration Grants). Applicable OMB Circulars include: OMB Circular A-21 (Cost Principles for Educational Institutions) relocated to 2 CFR Part 220, OMB Circular A-87 (Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments) relocated to 2 CFR Part 225, and OMB Circular A-122 (Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations) relocated to 2 CFR Part 230.
D. Specific Research Areas of Interest/Expected Outputs and Outcomes
Note to applicant: The term “output” means an environmental activity or effort, and associated work products, related to a specific environmental goal(s), (e.g., testing a new methodology), that will be produced or developed over a period of time under the agreement. The term “outcome” means the result, effect, or consequence that will occur from the above activit(ies) that is related to an environmental, behavioral, or health-related objective.
Reviews of the existing literature on human health impacts, productivity/performance relationships, and benefits of sustainable building design suggest that the evidence linking indoor air quality and health is robust (mainly supported by research on office or residential buildings (Katz 2006; NRC 2006; USGBC 2007)).
Studies of environmental impact on occupant/student health: Evidence from schools and office building studies demonstrate that various environmental conditions are closely associated with the incidence of measurable adverse health effects, and that indoor air quality problems can result in increased absences because of respiratory infections, allergic diseases from biological contaminants, or adverse reactions to chemicals used in the building. Building factors or pollution in buildings most frequently and consistently associated with respiratory health effects are the presence of moisture, water damage, and microbiological pollutants (IOM 2000; Bornehag 2001); animal and other biological allergens; and combustion products (Burr 2000) including nitrogen dioxide (Pilotto, et al. 2000; Norback et al., 2000). Other risk factors for respiratory health effects include: moisture or dirt in HVAC systems (Mendell 2003; Sieber 1996); low ventilation rates (Menzies 1993; Milton 2000); formaldehyde (Norback 2000; Pazdrak 1993; Wantke 1996; Smedje 1996, 1997; Garret 1999; Franklin 2000; McCoach 1999); chemicals in cleaning products (McCoach 1999; Zock 2001) and outdoor pollutants or vehicle exhaust (Guo 1999; Wyler 2000; Steerenberg 2001). Of particular recent concern is the impact of dampness and mold on respiratory health. A variety of studies show that dampness and mold in homes, offices, and schools results in a significant increase in a variety of respiratory- and asthma-related health outcomes (Fisk 2007; Mudari 2007).
Studies of overall physical and environmental conditions of schools and student achievement and teacher and staff effectiveness: Some research to date suggests that good physical condition of school buildings overall tends to reduce absenteeism of students and teachers, reduce school dropout rates, and improve student test scores. For example, a number of studies that measure school conditions using an index of several variables consistently show higher scores on standardized tests as school conditions improve (Schneider 2002; Cash 1993; Earthman 1996; and Hines 1996). “Natural experiment” studies where children moved out of older school buildings into newer facilities with “green” building design features also have found that the overall condition of school buildings impacts student performance. For example, students in Oregon who moved into a “green” designed Ask Creek Intermediate School experienced a 15% reduction in absenteeism (Katz 2006). In another study, students moving from a conventional school to Clearview Elementary School, a 2002 LEED Gold building in Pennsylvania, reported substantial improvements in health and test scores (Katz 2006). In the NRC report on Green Schools, a 1993 study on high schools in rural Virginia found significant differences between achievement scores of students in substandard buildings and those in above-standard buildings. Conditions of school buildings were evaluated using a questionnaire and student achievement was measured by student test scores on a standardized state-level test (Cash 1993). A more recent study by Schneider (2002) found that students in schools with good physical conditions performed 3 to 4 percentage points better on standardized reading and math tests than students in buildings with poorer conditions, after controlling for poverty, ethnicity, and school size. A similar study (although not reviewed by NRC) was conducted on 95 elementary schools in Manhattan, NY and also found a relationship between building quality and academic outcomes (Duran-Narucki 2008). In this study, the authors used statistical modeling to investigate whether school attendance acts as a mediator between building conditions and performance (Duran-Narucki 2008).
Additional examples of student performance and school IEQ evidence include: associations between outdoor pollutants measured near schools (e.g., ozone, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter (PM)) and school attendance; correlations between lower indoor temperature and increased task completion; and associations between increased indoor concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and an increase in student absences (NRC 2007; Chen, et al. 2000; Ransom and Pope 1992; Makino 2000; Gilliland et al. 2001).
The physical condition of a school is also likely to influence teaching quality and teacher retention rates. In a study of teachers in Chicago and Washington D.C., for example, almost 80% of teachers reported that school facility conditions are an important factor in determining teaching quality, and almost half who graded their facilities at a “C” or below considered leaving. In that study, the most frequently identified problem with school conditions was bad indoor air quality (Schneider, 2002).
Methodology Limitations: Although the aforementioned studies provide some evidence of impacts of school building conditions on health and performance, there are methodological limitations to consider. For example, few studies have looked systematically at changes in exposure, health, or productivity based on specific changes in building materials, cleaning products or cleaning practices. Evidence on the effects of indoor environments on student and teacher health tends to be based on school-specific studies. In order to advance scientific understanding, studies are needed that look across many schools and produce results that are generalizable. Some studies linking building conditions to student absenteeism or student performance have been based on opinions of school administrators. More objective measures of outcomes are needed that are statistically sound (controlling for other factors like socio-economic status (SES), race/ethnicity, school size, teacher quality). A majority of current studies tend to look only at students in elementary schools. Studies on older students are also important as adolescents and students in higher grades who miss more school days are at risk of dropping out, which has significant economic costs for individuals and the Nation as a whole. Also, studies linking school building environments to student heath and achievement and teacher and staff effectiveness need to include neighborhood data in order to better understand the relationship between the school environment and its surrounding community. Finally, the research methodologies reviewed in the NRC report (NRC 2006) correlating overall building conditions with student academic performance were designed to address more general questions and did not provide evidence regarding the role of specific aspects of school design or school building operation and maintenance on student health, achievement or teacher and staff effectiveness.
The Agency is therefore soliciting proposals for innovative and multidisciplinary research that will result in an improved understanding of how environmental exposures associated with school building location, features, and operation/maintenance activities are linked with human outcomes (e.g., the health of students, teachers and staff, student achievement and teacher and staff effectiveness). For example, research to examine building performance characteristics (e.g., exposures from building materials, cleaning products and cleaning), will be informed by the development of a theory (conceptual models) linking those characteristics and student and/or teacher outcomes, and then testing the linkages using adequate measures of the outcomes of interest and fully specific regression models. In addition, better understanding of the links between the environmental exposures associated with building location, features/maintenance and human outcomes also depends on better understanding the links between health and performance. This may include identifying the kinds of illnesses or symptoms that interfere with specific types of tasks and the underlying mechanisms, and evaluating how building-related illness affects concentration, logical-thinking or memory which are important to productivity, especially in a knowledge-based economy. Applicants must study an environmental agent/chemical/stressor to which there is potential for human exposure. This may include any ambient environmental pollutant, chemical(s) or organic solvents, particulate matter (PM), pesticides, phytochemicals or metals. Non-chemical stressors (e.g., nutrition, temperature, humidity, lighting, and acoustics), social, and cultural factors cannot be considered alone, but applicants are encouraged to include them as secondary or modifier variables to the primary environmental stressor. Successful applicants are required to translate and apply their research findings into information for the affected communities, school districts, general public, policy-makers and public health professionals with the ultimate goal of protecting children’s health and improving children’s performance in schools.
This RFA solicits proposals from multidisciplinary teams for innovative research that would address one or more of the following topics of interest:
- How does exposure to indoor contaminants in school buildings in combination with other building conditions such as environmental conditions in and around the school facilities, temperature, humidity, lighting, and acoustics relate to observed adverse health effects in students, teachers, and staff; diminished student achievement; and reduced teacher and staff effectiveness? What is the relative importance of the various factors and conditions?
- Taking into account environmental risk factors, exposures, building features and maintenance practices, and health effects (positive and negative effects) associated with environmental conditions in and around the school facilities, how do these factors singly and in combination vary across population segments (e.g., race/ethnicity, class, geography)?
- What are the mechanisms that mediate the relationships between student’s in-school indoor environmental risk factors or exposures, health, academic achievement, and teacher and staff effectiveness? What is the relative importance of the various factors and conditions?
- What combination of building features, materials, construction practices, and operations and maintenance practices are most effective in creating healthy indoor air quality resulting in an optimal health and safe learning environment, contributing positively to student health, student achievement and teacher effectiveness, consistent with other sustainability objectives such as energy efficiency, sustainable water management, and materials recycling?
Community-Engaged Research (CEnR)
Community-Engaged Research (CEnR) is a framework or orientation for conducting research that supports the premise that people ought to be involved in the decisions, as well as the cultivation of information those decisions are guided by, that affect their lives (Cornwall and Jewkes 1995; Israel et al. 1998). CEnR also acknowledges that communities harbor a wealth of information about their own experiences and perspectives that may be used to positively inform and shape research endeavors. It encourages recognition of the strengths of the community institutions and individual members. CEnR builds upon those strengths to help inform the research project and produce the results that may benefit both the academic or institutional researchers (henceforth referred to as just “researchers”) and community partners (e.g. community-based organizations) (Israel 2005). CEnR may incorporate both qualitative and quantitative methodologies and can be applied to a range of topics including environmental science and engineering, public health, and social sciences. CEnR is not a uniform approach, but can occur along a continuum in a variety of forms, from outreach, through more shared leadership/participatory research approaches (e.g. community-based participatory research) to community-driven/community-led research.
CEnR continuum includes:
Outreach
Outreach describes one-way flows of information from researchers to the community. It provides the community with information on the status of the research, findings or interpretation of findings such as communication of risk and risk modification strategies. There is very little to no input into the research design or methods by the community.
Consultation
Consultation describes the process of obtaining the feedback or advice from the community to help inform the research project conducted by the researchers. The community input is primarily in the form of consultation, whereby the bulk of the design and methods are determined by the researchers. Community involvement typically occurs after researchers predetermine issues. Community’s input is limited.
Involvement
Involvement describes more community input and bidirectional communication between the academic researchers and community partners. Communities may be able to provide input into the design, aims, methods, or research questions before these have been predetermined. Both parties cooperate with each other in a more mutual partnership.
Shared leadership/participatory
Shared leadership/participatory describes equal shared power, decision-making abilities and ownership of the research project. This is the ideal community-based participatory research (CBPR) partnership (Minkler, M and Wallerstein, N, 2008). Community partners in CBPR typically have equal footing with academic researchers in determining the direction of the project, communicating finding and ownership of the data and information. These projects may also develop research aims that better reflect local concerns and may be more applicable to translating the research findings into actions. CBPR projects may also enable far greater flexibility in the choice of topics to be investigated.
Community-driven
Community-driven describes strong community-led research projects where communities take the lead and initiative in directing the research project. The final decision-making ability lies with the community. They may consult with external academic partners to assist with technical questions. This model of research has been called community-owned and managed research (COMR) and recognizes the community’s authority and ability to manage the research enterprise, from the management of funds to the collection of data and generation of findings (Heaney, et al, 2007).
Community is defined as a group of people with diverse characteristics who are linked by social ties, share common perspectives, and engage in joint action within similar geographical locations or settings. Community is not only defined by a common geography; communities may also develop around a particular interest, issue, identity, or subject matter.
Five core elements that define community are:
- Locus (a sense of place) such as a city, town, village, tribes, neighborhood, workplace, etc.,
- Sharing common interests and perspectives,
- Joint action that bring people together,
- Social ties such as family and friends, and
- Diversity of people and perspectives (MacQueen, et al, 2001).
Community-based organizations refer to organizations that may be involved in the research process as members or representatives of the community. In the case of this RFA, organizations such as parent-teacher organizations (PTOs), health delivery organizations (e.g., hospitals), local public health departments, health professional associations, non-governmental organizations, and federally qualified health centers are possible community partners.
To understand the key concepts and principles of CEnR, see Principles of Community Engagement, 2nd Edition (2011), Israel et al. (1998, 2001, 2005) and Minkler and Wallerstein (2008). For approaches to plan and evaluate CEnR, see Partnerships for Environmental Public Health Evaluation Metrics Manual published by National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences at Evaluation Metrics. Key areas addressed in the Manual include community-research partnerships, the translation and dissemination of messages based on research findings, education and training, and capacity building.
A CEnR plan (see Section IV.B.5.d) detailing the proposed level of community involvement should be provided. Since activities to address the research areas of interest may involve interacting with students, parents and teachers, collecting data on school premises, accessing school records (academic, health and building records) etc., applicants are expected to include a community engagement plan as part of their CEnR plan. Although a range of level of community involvement can be considered, applicants are encouraged to apply community-based participatory research (CBPR) principles and involve school personnel, students, parents and community members in the research process. In the application, the applicant must justify the level of community involvement that is being proposed. Educational institutions that receive Federal education funding under an applicable program of the U.S. Department of Education are subject to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. § 1232g. Educational institutions that are the subject of a grantee’s study need to comply with FERPA when determining whether or not they can share personally identifiable information from education records, as defined at 20 USC section 1232g(4)(A), with the grantee.
Applicants should be aware of the sensitivities of conducting research in a school setting and the need for adequate communication of study results. Community involvement in research on environmental hazards and children has been shown to make research more responsive to community needs, more likely to identify risks that researchers had not appreciated, improve informed consent, increase study enrollment, enhance data validity and quality, build trust for research, and help translate research into public policy. Community involvement allows researchers to understand the views of the community in which research studies are conducted and to respond to those perspectives so that the risks of a research project are minimized and appropriate in light of the anticipated benefits of the findings as required by federal regulations on conducting research involving human subjects.
Alignment with U.S. Department of Education School Improvement Grants Program
The mission of the Department of Education (ED) is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access. For this reason, many of its programs give priority to underserved communities to address inequities. For example, under its School Improvement Grants program (SIG), funded by the ARRA and Title I of the ESEA, ED provides funding to turn around the Nation’s persistently lowest-achieving schools. Numerous other programs give priority to schools and districts serving students who are eligible for free and reduced-price school meals, students with disabilities and students who are limited English proficient, migrant, or receiving services under other provisions of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
ED understands high achievement and equal access begin with a safe, healthy and educationally adequate school facility. Because many of the schools defined as underserved or low-performing by ED programs have concerns regarding their buildings and facilities, environmental health and school climate, EPA encourages applicants to consider submitting research proposals that specifically investigate the relationship between the physical school environment and the health, academic performance and school climate1 at these underserved and/or persistently low achieving schools, and the extent to which research results could be extrapolated or generalized to other schools with similar health, academic performance, and school climate issues.
Innovation and Sustainability
To the extent practicable, research proposals must embody innovation and sustainability. Innovation for the purposes of this RFA is defined as the process of making changes; a new method, custom or device. Innovative research can take the form of wholly new applications or applications that build on existing knowledge and approaches for new uses. Research proposals must include a discussion on how the proposed research is innovative (see Section IV.B.5.a). The concept of sustainability is based on language in the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). This definition is reiterated in Executive Order 13514, Federal Leadership in Environment, Energy, and Economic Performance, stating that the goal of sustainability is to, “create and maintain conditions, under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony, that permit fulfilling the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations.” Research proposals must include a discussion on how the proposed research will seek sustainable solutions that protect the environment and strengthen our communities (see Section IV.B.5.a). ORD will draw from all of the above-mentioned innovation and sustainability definitions in the review/evaluation process of recommending research proposals (see Section V.A).
Outputs expected from the research funded under this RFA may include reports, presentations, and articles in peer-reviewed journals describing the relationship between environmental factors and the health, safety and performance of students, teachers and staff; methods and research protocols for measuring human health and performance impacts related to school building conditions and IEQ; and conceptual models/frameworks linking school building characteristics to student and/or teacher and staff outcomes. Research protocols might include, for example, standardized tests of task performance (e.g., involving memory, concentration, comprehension or calculation tasks), standardized test scores or teacher evaluations based, at least in part, on student growth, absenteeism (student and/or teacher) and its relationship to student achievement, or the relationships between self-assessed performance and objective measures of performance. Human health assessment methods and protocols might include health assessment questionnaires, analysis of school-based health clinic data or health data maintained by school nurses. Outputs may include models to estimate performance decrements from independent knowledge of health or discomfort outcomes. Statistical associations developed between IEQ and school building characteristics parameters and health and performance impacts can then be used to estimate the proportion of diseases attributable to IEQ and track this information better in the future. Research outputs may also include design or management strategies for school buildings that protect the health and performance of students, teachers, and staff.
Outcomes from this research will include active engagement of a community and other stakeholders in research on environmental conditions in and around schools and impacts on children’s health and performance, and translation and sharing of research findings with school officials, parents, students, teachers, community-based organizations and public health professionals to promote and improve children’s health. Outcomes from this research can also inform future school infrastructure investments and operational practices. Ultimately, the outcome from this research will be improved learning environments in schools, less school absenteeism, healthier children, and improved educational performance.
1 School climate refers to the quality and character of school life. School climate is based on patterns of students', parents' and school personnel's experience of school life and reflects norms, goals, values, interpersonal relationships, teaching and learning practices, organizational structures and care of the physical environment. For more information see School Climate)
E. References
Anastas, P.T. 2011. “Ethical Requirements for Human Observational Exposure Studies Conducted and Supported by EPA.” Memorandum to Assistant Administrators, Deputy Assistant Administrators, Regional Administrators, Deputy Regional Administrators, Associate Administrators, U.S. EPA. 19 January 2011.
Balfanz, R., & Byrnes, V. 2012. Chronic Absenteeism: Summarizing What We Know From Nationally Available Data. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Center for Social Organization of Schools.
Bornehag, C.G., G. Blomquist, et al. 2001. “Dampness in buildings and health: Nordic interdisciplinary review of the scientific evidence on associations between exposure to ‘dampness’ in buildings and health effects (NORDDAMP).” Indoor Air: International Journal of Indoor Air Quality and Climate 11(2):72-86.
Burr, M.L. 2000. Combustion Products. In: Indoor Air Quality Handbook. Eds., J. Spengler and J.M. Samet. New York, McGraw-Hill:29.3-29.25.
Cash, C.S. 1993. Building conditions and student achievement and behavior (PDF) (159 pp, 3.65 MB). Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytech Institute and State University.
Chen, L., B.L. Jennison, et al. 2000. Elementary school absenteeism and air pollution. Inhalation Toxicology 12(11):997– 1016.
Cornwall, A; Jewkes, J. 1995. What is Participatory Action Research? Social Science & Medicine. 41(12):1667-76.
Dilworth-Bart, JE and Moore, CF. 2006. Mercy Mercy Me: Social Injustice and the Prevention of Environmental Pollutant Exposures Among Ethnic Minority and Poor Children. Child Development, Volume 77, Number 2, Pages 247-265.
Duran- Narucki, V. School building condition, school attendance, and academic achievement in New York City public schools: A mediation model. 2008. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 28: 278-286.
Earthman, G.I., C.S. Cash, and D. Van Berkum. 1995. “Student achievement and behavior and school building condition.” Journal of School Business Management, 8(3).
Evans, G. W., Kantrowitz, E. 2002. Socioeconomic Status and Health: The Potential Role of Environmental Risk Exposures. Annu. Rev. Public Health 23: 303-331
Fisk, W.J., Q. Lei-Gomez, and M.J. Mendell. 2007. “Meta-analyses of the associations of respiratory health effects with dampness and mold in homes.” Indoor Air 17(4):284-295.
Garrett, M.H., M.A. Hooper, et al. 1999. “Increased risk of allergy in children due to formaldehyde exposure in homes.” Allergy 54(4):330-7.
Gilliland, F.D., K. Berhane, et al. 2001. The effects of ambient air pollution on school absenteeism due to respiratory illnesses. Epidemiology 12(1):43-54.
Guo, Y.L., Y.C. Lin, et al. 1999. “Climate, traffic-related air pollutants, and asthma prevalence in middle-school children in Taiwan.” Environmental Health Perspectives 107(12):1001-6.
Hines, E.W. 1996. “Building condition and student achievement and behavior.” Blacksburg, VA: Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Institute of Medicine. 2000. Clearing the Air:Asthma and Indoor Exposures. Committee on the Assessment of Asthma and Indoor Air. Washington, DC, National Academy Press.
Institute of Medicine. 2005. Ethical considerations for research on housing related hazards involving children National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.
Israel, BA; Schulz, AJ; Parker EA. et al. 1998. Review of Community-Based Research: Assessing Partnership Approaches to Improve Public Health. Annual Review of Public Health. 19: 173-202.
Israel, B.A., Eng, E., Schulz, A.J., Parker, E.A. (eds.) 2005. Methods in Community-Based Participatory Research for Health San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Israel, B.A., Schulz, J., Parker, E.A., & Becker, A.B. 2001. Community-Based Participatory Research: Policy Recommendations for Promoting a Partnership Approach in Health Research. Education for Health 14(2): 182-197.
Jackson, L.P. US EPA Administrator Remarks to the American Public Health Association, as prepared, 11/08/2009.
Juster, F.T., Ono H, and Stafford, F. 2004. Changing Times of American Youth: 1981-2003 (PDF) (15 pp, 567 K).> Institute for Social Research. University of Michigan. Ann Arbor.
Kats G. Greening America’s Schools Costs and Benefits. October 2006.
Lasker RD, Weiss ES. 2003.Broadening participation in community problem solving: a multidisciplinary model to support collaborative practice and research. Journal of Urban Health. 80(1):14-47; discussion 48-60.
Makino, K. 2000.Association of school absence with air pollution in areas around arterial roads. Journal of Epidemiology 10(5):292-9.
McCoach, J.S., A.S. Robertson, et al. 1999. “Floor cleaning materials as a cause of occupational asthma.” Indoor Air '99: The 8th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Edinburgh, Scotland, Construction Research Communications Ltd.
McDonald, MA. Practicing Community-engaged Research. Retrieved on October 17, 2012, from Duke Center for Community Research — DTMI
Menzies, R., R. Tamblyn, et al. 1993. “The effect of varying levels of outdoor-air supply on the symptoms of sick building syndrome.” New England Journal of Medicine 328(12):821-7.
Merlo DF, Knudsen, LE, Matusiewicz, K, Niebrój L, Vähäkangas KH. 2007. Ethics in studies on children and environmental health. Journal of Medical Ethics 33: 408-413.
Minkler M. 2005. Community-based research partnerships: challenges and opportunities. Journal of Urban Health. 82(2 Suppl 2):ii3-12.
Minkler, M. & Wallerstein, N., Eds. (2008). Community-Based Participatory Research for Health: From Process to Outcomes, 2nd Ed. Jossey-Bass Publishers, New York.
Mudarri, D. and W. J. Fisk, 2007. “Public health and economic impact of dampness and mold.” Indoor Air 17(3):226-235.
National Center for Education Statistics. U.S. Department of Education. 2000. Condition of America’s Public School Facilities: 1999. NCES 2000-032.
National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities.
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2012). Partnerships for Environmental Public Health Evaluation Metrics Manual. NIH Publication No. 12-7825. Available: Partnerships for Environmental Public Health (PEPH).
Norback, D., R. Walinder, et al. 2000. “Indoor air pollutants in schools: Nasal patency and biomarkers in nasal lavage.” Allergy 55(2):163-70.
NRC. 2006. Green Schools: Attributes for Health and Learning. The National Academies Press. Washington, D.C.
OSTP 2008. Federal Research and Development Agenda for Net Zero Energy High Performance Green Buildings (PDF) (60 pp, 2.57 MB).
Pazdrak, K., P. Gorski, et al. 1993. “Changes in nasal lavage fluid due to formaldehyde inhalation.” International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health 64(7):515-9.
Pilotto, L.S., R.M. Douglas, et al. 1997. “Respiratory effects associated with indoor nitrogen dioxide exposure in children.” International Journal of Epidemiology 26(4)
The perspectives, information and conclusions conveyed in research project abstracts, progress reports, final reports, journal abstracts and journal publications convey the viewpoints of the principal investigator and may not represent the views and policies of ORD and EPA. Conclusions drawn by the principal investigators have not been reviewed by the Agency.