Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
2006a), about 15 percent of AFF funding has been allocated to surveillance (Ag
Center allocation to surveillance unknown). Additional surveillance efforts occur
with respect to high-priority populations and would increase surveillance fund-
ing, but the amount cannot be determined from the data provided. As mentioned
previously, the distribution of FTEs by AFF Program goals (Figure 2-14 in NIOSH,
2006a) shows a disproportionate number devoted to health effects (roughly twice
that to surveillance). There may be valid logistical reasons for program goals to
require different levels of personnel, but it is unclear why a goal that is fundamental
to the success of the AFF Program (surveillance) would require so many fewer FTEs.
Even if high-priority population FTEs (about 40) are combined with surveillance
FTEs (about 140), the total (180) is still much lower than the number for health
effects (about 270).
The distribution of intramural and extramural funding across the AFF Pro-
gram appears to be roughly comparable (about $30-40 million) for surveillance
and health effects over the period 1997-2006 (Figure 2-9 in NIOSH, 2006a). Again,
given the critical nature of surveillance, an equal distribution of resources across
the goals may not be the most effective strategy. AFF Program leaders, stakeholders,
partners, and so on would need to first determine what resources would be required
to establish a comprehensive surveillance program for AFF populations, implement
the strategy, and then use the resulting data to allocate remaining resources and
direct research in the other subjects.
Planned Transfer Activities
The most recent request for application (RFA) for Ag Centers (PAR-06-057)
states specific goals requiring elements of transfer activities. These include the
development, implementation, and evaluation of education projects; providing
consultation or training to researchers, safety and health professionals, and agri-
cultural extension agents; development, implementation, and evaluation of model
programs for prevention of illness and injury; and development of linkages and
communication with other government and non-government bodies involved in
agricultural health and safety with emphasis on communication with other agri-
cultural safety and health programs. Those requirements ensure that Ag Centers
engage in some minimal amount of transfer activity. That is not to suggest that
the centers are not now engaged in transfer activities; centers undertake extensive
education and outreach activities as described in the comprehensive reports in the
evidence package.
Although the AFF Program does not have a planned set of transfer activi-
ties, it has funded the development and maintenance of the National Agriculture
Safety Database (NASD). That project established a national central repository of
Search WWH ::




Custom Search