“Healthy volunteers needed for a study on brain activity when you are
performing certain tasks.”
The purpose of this study is to learn more about brain activity when you are
performing certain tasks. Participants will have magnetic resonance imaging
(MRI) to look at brain areas that are active when these are exposed to
different conditions. The study requires one or two outpatient visits to the
NIH Clinical Center. Compensation may be provided.
You may be eligible to participate if you:
Are 21 to 60 years old
Drink alcohol daily or almost daily (15 + drinks/week
for females and 20 + drinks/week for males)
Are not seeking treatment for drinking alcohol
Are right-handed
You may not be eligible if you:
Have a current problem of drug abuse
Have metals in your body such as pacemakers, medication
pumps, aneurysm clips or other metals that would make an MRI unsafe
Have colorblindness
Location: The NIH Clinical Center, America’s research hospital, is located
on the Metro red line (Medical Center stop) in Bethesda, Maryland.
For more information, call:
Office of Patient Recruitment 1-866-444-1132
TTY: 1-866-411-1010
Online: https://go.usa.gov/xXYXf Study #14-AA-0094
More than 90% of health care workers at 2
facilities in Ghana were not adequately trained to handle suspected Ebola Virus
Disease (EVD) cases when researchers interviewed them in late 2015, says a new
BioMed Central study.
Researchers administered a questionnaire—adapted from WHO and CDC Ebola
preparedness checklists—to 101 health care workers. Only 26% of participants
believed their facilities were properly equipped to handle EVD, and only 9%
were able to identify the disinfectant to use after patient contact. Fewer than
half of the workers were willing to attend to a patient who might have EVD.
How to Fix the Broken Humanitarian System: A Q&A with Paul
Spiegel
Last night the Lancet published a multi-part
series on humanitarian response. It couldn’t be more timely as the
world struggles with multiple crises that have forced tens of millions of
people from their homes—a scale unseen since World War II.
Unfortunately, the humanitarian response system designed to help them is
broken, says Paul Spiegel, author of an article in the series.
Reconfiguring humanitarian response to make it more coordinated and effective
in dealing with prolonged crises like that of Syria is essential for the
future, says Spiegel, director of the Hopkins Center for Humanitarian Health at
the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
What’s needed? Stronger command and control of response, integration of
displaced people into local economies and national health systems and fewer
organizations involved in response, says Spiegel in a GHN Q&A.
DHS ANNOUNCES FUNDING OPPORTUNITY FOR FY 2017
PREPAREDNESS GRANTS
Today,
Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly announced the release of Fiscal Year
(FY) 2017 Notices of Funding Opportunity for 10 DHS preparedness grant programs
totaling more than $1.6 billion. The grant programs provide funding to
state, local, tribal, and territorial governments, as well as transportation
authorities, nonprofit organizations, and the private sector, to improve the
nation’s readiness in preventing, protecting against, responding to, recovering
from and mitigating terrorist attacks, major disasters and other
emergencies. The grants reflect the Department’s focus on funding for
programs that address our nation’s immediate security needs and ensure public
safety in our communities.
The
FY 2017 grant guidance will continue to focus on the nation’s highest risk
areas, including urban areas that face the most significant threats. For
FY 2017, the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) will enhance regional
preparedness and capabilities by funding 33 high-threat, high-density urban
areas. This represents Congressional intent to limit FY 2017 UASI funding
to those Urban Areas that represent up to 85 percent of the nationwide risk, as
stated in the Explanatory Statement accompanying the Department of Homeland
Security Appropriations Act, 2017 (Pub. L. No. 1154-31).
Consistent
with previous grant guidance, dedicated funding is provided for law enforcement
and terrorism prevention throughout the country to prepare for, prevent and
respond to pre-operational activity and other crimes that are precursors or
indicators of terrorist activity.
Grant
recipients are encouraged to use grant funding to maintain and sustain current
critical core capabilities through investments in training and exercises,
updates to current planning and procedures, and lifecycle replacement of
equipment. New capabilities that are built using homeland security grant
funding must be deployable if needed to support regional and national
efforts. All capabilities being built or sustained must have a clear
linkage to the core capabilities in the National Preparedness Goal.
Preparedness Grant Program Allocations for Fiscal Year 2017:
Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG)—provides more than $350
million to assist state, local, tribal, territorial governments in
enhancing and sustaining all-hazards emergency management capabilities.
Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP)—provides more than
$1 billion for states and urban areas to prevent, protect against,
mitigate, respond to, and recover from acts of terrorism and other threats.
State Homeland Security Program (SHSP)—provides $402
million to support the implementation of risk-driven,
capabilities-based State Homeland Security Strategies to address capability
targets. States are required to dedicate 25 percent of SHSP funds to law
enforcement terrorism prevention activities.
Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI)—provides $580
million to enhance regional preparedness and capabilities in 33
high-threat, high-density areas. States and Urban Areas are required to
dedicate 25 percent of UASI funds to law enforcement terrorism prevention activities.
Operation Stonegarden (OPSG)—provides $55
million to enhance cooperation and coordination among local, tribal,
territorial, state and federal law enforcement agencies to jointly enhance
security along the United States land and water borders.
Since
the enactment of the 9/11 Act, FEMA has required states to ensure that at least
25 percent of the total funds awarded to them under SHSP and UASI are dedicated
toward law enforcement terrorism prevention activities (LETPA). The total
LETPA allocation can be satisfied from SHSP, UASI or both. In addition, states
must obligate at least 80 percent of the funds awarded under SHSP and UASI to
local or tribal units of government within 45 days of receipt of the funds.
Tribal Homeland Security Grant Program (THSGP)—provides $10
million to eligible tribal nations to implement preparedness
initiatives to help strengthen the nation against risk associated with
potential terrorist attacks and other hazards.
Nonprofit Security Grant Program (NSGP)—provides $25
million to support target hardening and other physical security
enhancements for nonprofit organizations that are at high risk of a terrorist
attack and located within one of the FY 2015 UASI-eligible urban areas.
Intercity Passenger Rail - Amtrak (IPR) Program—provides $10
million to protect critical surface transportation infrastructure and
the traveling public from acts of terrorism and increase the resilience of the
Amtrak rail system.
Port Security Grant Program (PSGP)—provides $100
million to help protect critical port infrastructure from terrorism,
enhance maritime domain awareness, improve port-wide maritime security risk
management, and maintain or reestablish maritime security mitigation protocols
that support port recovery and resiliency capabilities.
Transit Security Grant Program (TSGP)—provides $88
million to owners and operators of transit systems to protect critical
surface transportation and the traveling public from acts of terrorism and to
increase the resilience of transit infrastructure.
Intercity Bus Security Grant Program (IBSGP)—provides $2
million to owners and operators of intercity bus systems to protect
critical surface transportation infrastructure and the traveling public from
acts of terrorism and to increase the resilience of transit
infrastructure.
All
preparedness Notices of Funding Opportunities can be found at www.grants.gov.
Final submissions must be made
through the Non-Disaster (ND) Grants system located at https://portal.fema.gov.
John Boyd remembers watching a USDA official toss his loan application in the trash. It was the late ’80s, and Boyd, a fourth-generation black farmer from Baskerville, Va., was counting on a $5,000 loan to keep his family farm in business. Boyd was told to come back the next week to re-file his paperwork, but a white farmer walked out of the office with a $157,000 check.
Boyd wasn’t alone. By 1982, African-American farmers received just 1 percent of farm-ownership loans. In fiscal year 1980, the USDA allotted 398 farm-ownership loans to black farmers, totaling $15.9 million. By fiscal year 1983, the agency administered 109 loans, valued at $4.3 million. Such stark data, as well as a growing body of testimonies from African-American farmers like Boyd, raised the question of discriminatory practices by the USDA — and the role those practices played in removing black farmers from the American landscape. So Boyd and others took action. In 1995 Boyd founded the National Black Farmers Association, a nonprofit support group that challenged the USDA’s track record of denying black farmers loans. The following year he marched to the White House with a group of 60 farmers.
Boyd’s work helped spark a landmark legal case in 1997. In the class-action lawsuit Pigford v. Glickman, 400 black farmers alleged that the United States Department of Agriculture had denied them loans based on racial discrimination. The decision eventually awarded thousands of black farmers payments up to $50,000 for discrimination claims. In 2010, President Obama announced an additional $1.25 billion settlement, known as Pigford II, to fund any additional unfiled claims. Native American, female, and Latino farmers were also eventually awarded similar settlements, too. A New York Timesinvestigation into the settlement later raised suspicions of fraud by some claimants, which led to a fiery media dialogue about how to prove discrimination.
Boyd eventually received a settlement from the lawsuit. He also got his farm back, making him one of the lucky ones. He still manages 400 acres of soybeans, wheat, corn, and a 100-head herd of beef cattle with his brother, father, and two cousins. But across the country there’s a conspicuous lack of black farmers. According to the 2012 Census of Agriculture, the number of black farmers has increased 12 percent since 2007, but black farmers still make up less than 2 percent of our nation’s farmers as a whole. To compare, in 1920, black farmers represented about 14 percent of the country’s farmers. Black farmers now also operate just 0.4 percent of all the country’s farmland and account for 0.2 percent of total agricultural sales. Boyd says there’s still a lot of progress to be made to get black farmers — especially younger ones — back on the land.
I spoke with Boyd about Pigford, land loss, and the future of black farming in America. Below is an edited and condensed version of our conversation.
Q.It’s been about five years since the last Pigford settlement. Is the fight over yet, or was the lawsuit just a step in the right direction?
A. We have so many hurdles to cross before we [are on] a level playing field. We’re just not there yet, even with a black president — and the president was doing his part. People ask me all the time, ‘Do you think the president has done enough?’ He signed that bill for a billion dollars and he put his name on there. George Bush didn’t do it. I’ve spoken with every president since Jimmy Carter about black farmers, can you believe that?
Q.What’s the lasting significance of Pigford?
A. It admitted that a lot of these things transpired. It doesn’t fix all those problems, but it said, hey, here’s what happened to America’s black farmers when they tried to apply for credit at the United States Department of Agriculture. Their applications were torn up and put in the trash can, they were spit on, they were humiliated, they were spoken [down to] by these racist agents that were very pervasive in the South. For me, the 30-year struggle took too long; it took too long to bring justice. So when the president signed that bill on Dec. 8, 2010, it was [a] huge weight lifted off my shoulders. But for many of the farmers who started the campaign with me, all of these great advocates didn’t get to live to see that day. So that’s very painful for me. We marched year after year and I lobbied Congress year after year, and I went home and didn’t win year after year.
Q.What are the unique circumstances of the black farmer today?
A. A lot of farmers are looking for new markets, and we’ve also been struggling to get young farmers into farming and agribusiness. We [The National Black Farmers Association] listen to the concerns and what farmers are looking for; they’re looking for access to credit and they’re looking for full usability to all USDA programs. There’s a huge trust factor between the black farmer and the United States Department of Agriculture because of systemic racism and our long journey and our long fight with the government.
Although we had two historic settlements, many of the challenges that stemmed that fight are still in place. There were very few people, actually just a handful, that were terminated or penalized for the act of discriminating against black farmers. So we hear a host of these things and these issues at our annual convention. [The settlement] was a huge victory for not only black farmers but for black people, because it showed that a ragtag group of people could take on the government and win.
Q.Is racism still an issue?
A. Many of the places where I’m selling grain, these people may look at me and may not know I’m John Boyd, you know what I mean? I’m coming in as a farmer and yes, I do see the different ways they treat me as an African-American farmer and the way they treat the white farmer. There’s a clear difference the way they treat us when we come in. It’s a race thing and I don’t know how to fix that; that may not happen in my lifetime. [Racism] is real. We have a real race problem in this country and there’s no better issue to look at on race than the black farmer, if [Americans] really want to see what happens in this country. There are all sorts of uphill battles we had to overcome and by the grace of God, a handful of us are still out here farming.
What has happened is that a lot of family farms have been left to the next generation, and they’re really not set up to continue farming. That has created a huge challenge for black people in this country as far as being agriculturalists and maintaining and contributing to America’s fabric, which is why black people were brought into this country in the first place. We were brought to this country to work the land and we’ve done it for hundreds of years for scot-free. Here we are hundreds of years later, barely holding on here.
Q.Why is land ownership particularly important for black farmers?
A. If we don’t have land as a group of people, we don’t have any power. We don’t value land the way white America values land, and I’ve been fighting to change that. You know, when daddy dies, don’t be so quick to sell daddy’s farm. We moved up [away from the] South, we moved away from the farm. Many generations, my generation and the generation before that, said, “I want to get as far away from this farm and this mule as I can, I never want to come back here again because I’ve had such a bad experience.” And that should never be the case. When we lose our land, we’re also losing a part of our history. We’re losing a part of our identity in that community.
Q.What can people do to regain lost farmland?
A. One thing people can do is to start growing their own food in their backyard. That is a huge step in the right direction of reconnecting their children with the land and food and showing their children where their food actually comes from. These are all things that can be done on a small scale that would improve the lives of black Americans here in the United States.
We need people to become concerned that God doesn’t make any more land. They make a new Cadillac and a new Mercedes-Benz every day, but the actual land, once it gets away from you and your family loses that land, it’s very difficult to go back and buy it from a white farmer because they’re not going to sell it back to you. We can’t continue to give our land away for pennies on the dollar and move to suburbs and condominiums. That’s a real problem.
Q.Why should young black farmers care about farming?
A. Given the history we’ve had, that a lot of the older black farmers don’t want anything to do with the government is rightfully and understandably so. But the next generation that’s coming along, we’ve worked so hard to put all these programs in place. I want to see the next generation go in and start to apply and take part in all these federal programs that white farmers have really been taking advantage of. I’m really asking our people to take a second look at farming and agribusiness. As my grandfather said, “I can’t leave my PhD to my children, but I can leave my raggedy farm to them.”