Transcript: NIJ FY 2024 Evaluation of BJA Byrne State Crisis Intervention Program Solicitation Webinar

Download the slide presentation.

Transcript

STACY LEE: Thanks for joining us today for the National Institute of Justice Fiscal Year 2024 Evaluation of the Bureau of Justice Assistance Byrne State Crisis Intervention Program Solicitation Webinar. It is my pleasure to introduce Dr. Danielle Crimmins, Social Science Research Analyst at NIJ.

DR. DANIELLE CRIMMINS: Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for joining today's webinar. I'm really excited to see so many people interested in this solicitation. I want to first start by thanking Janine, Marie, and Michelle for helping facilitate today. And I'd also like to thank Stacy and Daryl for making this possible. Before getting into more specifics about the solicitation and the application process, I'd like to hand it over to NIJ's Executive Science Advisor, Dr. Janine Zweig, who will provide some comments about this solicitation and NIJ's priorities to open up our webinar today. Janine?

DR. JANINE ZWEIG: Thanks, Danielle. And good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for joining us as we present the Fiscal Year 2024 Evaluation of Bureau of Justice Assistance's Byrne State Crisis Intervention Program or SCIP Solicitation, the Scan of Practices and Evaluability Assessment. I'm Dr. Janine Zweig, Executive Science Advisor here at the National Institute of Justice, which is the research, development, and evaluation agency of the US Department of Justice. Here at NIJ, we are dedicated to improving knowledge and understanding of crime and criminal justice issues. NIJ accomplishes its mission using a model of listen, learn, and inform. We listen to the field, we learn by investing in research across scientific disciplines to provide evidence-based knowledge to strengthen the justice system, and we inform the field by disseminating results of rigorous and objective scientific research.

NIJ is one of six program offices within the Office of Justice Programs or OJP. OJP is the largest grant-making component under Department of Justice and houses the department's criminal and juvenile justice-related science, statistics, and programmatic agencies. NIJ is pleased to collaborate with our federal partner, the Bureau of Justice Assistance or BJA on this solicitation. The BJA Byrne SCIP program provides federal funding to implement state gun crisis intervention court proceedings and related programs or initiatives. This is including but not limited to extreme risk protection order or ERPO programs that works to keep firearms out of the hands of people who pose a threat to themselves or others, mental health courts, drug courts, and veterans' courts as well.

Before we dive into additional details surrounding this collaborative effort and the requirements of the solicitation, I'd like to spend a few minutes discussing a few of the NIJ Director's priorities, which are embedded in the solicitation. One priority is inclusive research. We think it's important for proposals to include in its methodologies and its dissemination activities engaging with the people that are closer to the issue or problem under study. We also like to see the consideration of a racial equity lens to identify and mitigate biases around both topic of study and the research process itself. We are interested in studies that consider biases according to race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and so forth, which are more pronounced in the justice system. Strong proposals will acknowledge the possibility of biases and propose methodologies that will enable the detection of those biases and account for them in analyses and the findings as they are presented back. 

For all evaluations, we are looking for applications that infuse research with strong implementation science to ensure documentation of implementation fidelity, in addition to intended impact and unintended consequences. Multi-disciplinary research teams are another key priority for NIJ. We know that it's easy to become siloed, but it's important that we tear down those barriers and create multi-disciplinary teams. Research-practitioner partnerships provide opportunities to include varied perspectives and disciplines in the design and execution of research. We think that makes for better, more rigorous, and more nuanced research. 

Robust dissemination plans are also encouraged. While scholarly articles and presentations are important, we encourage creative dissemination strategies and approaches to engage with practitioners, impacted communities, and the general public. This works to uphold the priority of ensuring that research evidence is translated into actionable information to promote change in the field. That's just a broad overview of the NIJ Director's priorities and you can find more online about those. Thank you again for all your interest in this solicitation and we look forward to seeing your application. I'm going to now turn the mic over to BJA's Deputy Director of Programs, Michelle Garcia, who will provide more specific details on BJA's Byrne SCIP program.

MICHELLE GARCIA: Thank you, Janine, and thank you to the entire NIJ team for your partnership on this program. For those of you who may not be as familiar with BJA as you are with NIJ, the Bureau of Justice Assistance was established in 1984 to reduce violent crime, create safer communities, and reform our nation's criminal justice system. We're pleased to be celebrating our 40th anniversary this year. Our work involves a variety of strategies including engaging with the field, communities, and stakeholders, sharing knowledge, but also making investments in jurisdictions across the country.

And we do that through both formula and discretionary awards, including Byrne SCIP, which as authorized by the Bipartisan Safe Communities Act of 2022, provides formula funding to states to implement, as Janine said, state crisis intervention, court proceedings, and related programs or initiatives including, but not limited to, extreme risk protection order programs to keep the guns out of the hands of those who pose a threat to themselves or others, as well as mental health courts, drug courts, and veterans' treatment courts. BJA understands related programs or initiatives to mean those programs or initiatives that have a direct connection to crisis intervention, which is focused on identifying risk and intervening before harm occurs.

Related programs or initiatives can include certain court-based programs, programs that deflect individuals to behavioral health services, as well as gun safety programs. On our website, we provide additional information about the Byrne SCIP program. You can also see the solicitations that we released for the first year of funding, which was combined, FY 22-FY 23 funding, as well as the FY 24 solicitation. You can see a list of examples in those solicitations or programs and activities that can be supported with the funding. On the funding website, you'll also see a list of the awards that had been made. Last fiscal year, we made 51 awards to states totaling over $248 million and we anticipate making the FY 24 awards in the coming weeks.

One thing to note is that there is a requirement for states to establish crisis intervention advisory boards to guide and approve their plans for the funding. And as states develop and approve those plans and submit them to BJA for approval, the award information on our website will be updated with the information from states as to how they plan to use those funds. For states that do not yet have an approved plan, you'll see placeholder language, indicating that the abstract will be updated when BJA has approved a complete program plan and budget submitted by the grantee, reflecting approval of the state's crisis intervention advisory boards. I highlight that just to know that you will not yet see every state that has their activity reflected since not all of the 51 awardees from last year have yet submitted and have their state plans approved, but over 30 have.

So, you can start to get a sense of what types of activities states will be engaging in across the country with the use of the Byrne SCIP program. Again, you can find more information about BJA's administration of Byrne SCIP on our website. And I'm also a resource to answer any questions that you might have. With that, I'll turn it back over to the NIJ team.

DR. DANIELLE CRIMMINS: Thank you, Michelle. NIJ and myself are very grateful for your contribution today and throughout this collaborative effort so far. Thank you very much. A lot of the resources that Michelle referenced are linked in the NIJ solicitation, as well as BJA's comprehensive website dedicated to this effort, so we encourage you all to go take a look at that when reviewing this solicitation.

So, to start today, I want to provide an overview of the solicitation and also outline the goals, objectives, and specific information necessary to understand this solicitation. With this solicitation, NIJ seeks proposals to examine programs funded by the BJA Byrne SCIP in Fiscal Years FY 2022 and FY 2023, the combined effort Michelle referenced, and then FY 2024, which will be released shortly. As Michelle discussed, the BJA Byrne SCIP program provides funding for the implementation and/or creation of specific program areas, which include extreme risk protection order programs, courts responses to people in crisis, community-based services for people in crisis, and funding for law enforcement crisis intervention programs or initiative. 

This NIJ solicitation seeks research addressing two categories. The first is a scan of practices of state crisis intervention activities, including those funded by BJA. NIJ anticipates making one award of up to $600,000 for category one. Category two is for evaluability assessments for each of the four program areas funded by BJA. For category two, NIJ anticipates making four awards of up to $1.5 million per award. For more information, you can see page four of the solicitation. 

The goal of this solicitation is to independently and objectively examine the programs funded under the BJA Byrne SCIP. Findings from this research will assist state, local, and Tribal jurisdictions in preventing or reducing crime and violence, with a particular focus on gun violence.

The objectives of this solicitation are to promote and fund a comprehensive overview of the BJA Byrne SCIP and assess the feasibility of conducting rigorous evaluations of the BJA Byrne SCIP sites. Information on the goals and objectives can be found on page 16 of the solicitation. 

Next, I want to provide specific details for each category, starting with the first. As a reminder, NIJ anticipates making one award for Category 1 of up to $600,000. For this category, NIJ is soliciting proposals to conduct a scan of practices of state crisis intervention activities funded by BJA. The goal of Category 1 is to improve and better understand violence prevention activities generally and SCIP-funded programs specifically, and how they complement and/or supplement one another at both the state and local levels.

At minimum, the scan of practice should include a systematic review of all BJA SCIP state and territory grantee plans approved at the time of data collection, and the current status of programs and initiatives. A review of state and local level crisis intervention and violence prevention activities to understand how SCIP funding is being implemented in concert with and contributing to other relevant state and local efforts, and relevant data collection from state-level coordinators, subgrantees relevant to the state plan, and other relevant state- and/or local-level stakeholders implementing crisis intervention and violence prevention efforts. More information on this can be found on page 12 of the solicitation. 

This solicitation includes a description of expected deliverables on page 17. I want to take a moment to highlight the expected deliverables specific to Category 1, which include an outline of the final report, a draft final report and executive summary, monthly conference calls. Additional deliverables include a publication of the findings of the scan of practices oriented specifically towards policy makers and practitioners. Quarterly progress reports to keep NIJ and BJA apprised of the status of the scan of practices, as well as a summary progress report of all award-related activities and interim findings for each fiscal year for the life of the grant.

The information for the specific deliverables for Category 1 can be found on page 17 of the solicitation. The performance period for Category 1 should not exceed 16 months. 

Next, we’ll discuss Category number 2, which is Evaluability Assessments for each of the four program areas funded by BJA. As a reminder, NIJ anticipates making four awards of up to $1.5 million per award for Category 2. NIJ anticipates funding four evaluability assessments, one focused on each of the topical areas funded under Byrne SCIP. Applicants, however, may apply to assess multiple program areas where applicable.

Each study's evaluability assessment plan should include but would not be limited to description of the approach to complete the following tasks, such as a plan to assess implementation fidelity, development of a logic model, assessment and development of an outcome study design and identification of a counterfactual, assessment of data availability and quality, development of primary data collection tools, and a power analysis. More information on the task list including a task description for each of the tasks can be found on page 13 and 14 of the solicitation. 

Similar to Category 1, there are additional expected deliverables for Category 2, which include an outline of the final report, a draft final report and executive summary.

This final report and executive summary should detail the results of the evaluability assessment for each site, an outcome evaluation design and data collection tool, any significant policy implications and lessons learned, and provide a general description of the methods used and activities performed. One evaluability assessment report for each program assessed is also required, which must include recommendations on whether an evaluation is feasible and rationales for the type of evaluations that would be suitable for each site.

A case study report describing the program strategies and how they were implemented, collaborations within the site, and details on how SCIP was implemented in concert with or complementary to other violence prevention efforts in the locality and including the site's logic model is also required as a deliverable. Additional deliverables include bi-monthly calls with NIJ, bi-annual meetings with NIJ and BJA, and additional meetings as necessary or required, quarterly reports, and a summary progress report for all award-related activities including interim findings for each fiscal year for the life of the grant. 

For Category 2, the performance period should not exceed 30 months.

Next, I want to cover the type of awards that will be made in the solicitation. For Category 1, NIJ expects to make one award under this category as a grant. For Category 2, NIJ expects to make four awards under this category as cooperative agreements. Cooperative agreements provide for NIJ to have substantial involvement in carrying out award activities. 

For an application to be reviewed, it must be responsive to the solicitation. The following are not within the scope of the solicitation and will not be reviewed. Applications primarily to purchase equipment, materials, or supplies or to provide direct services, applications that are not responsive to the purpose of this specific solicitation, and applications that do not propose to conduct a scan of practices or an evaluability assessment of BJA's Byrne SCIP.

As described on the solicitation on page 24 and 25, there are several application elements that should be submitted. There are few critical elements that must be submitted in order to have the application move forward in the review process. This includes the program narrative, the budget web-based form, which allows for the inclusion of budget details as well as the narrative, and CVs or resumes for senior or key personnel. In addition, there are two required forms which are standard for federal assistance. This includes the SF-424, which is the Application for Federal Assistance and the SF-LLL, which is the Disclosure of Lobbying Activities. Information on this can be found on page 24 and 25.

For the application, there is a two-step submission process. This is described in the how to apply section on page 22 of the solicitation. First, you must register on Grants.gov and submit your SF-424 and SF-LLL by November 19th. Then, the second step is submitting the full application via JustGrants by December 3, 2024. If you do not do both steps, your application will not advance to peer review. 

On the screen, there's a QR code for one of our great resources, which is general guidance for applicants and awardees. This is a great resource where you can read about details including NIJ's requirements for human subject protections, the application process, and more.

Next, I want to highlight our application review process here at NIJ. First, we determine whether the applications meet Basic Minimum Requirements or BMR. This means we make sure the Program Narrative, Budget Detail and Narrative, and CVs have been submitted and have the appropriate content. Next, all applications that meet BMR are moved to External Merit Review. At this time, subject matter experts review the application and provide scores and comments. Applications are also reviewed internally by NIJ staff and leadership and other federal subject matter experts as appropriate. All funding decisions are made at the discretion of the NIJ Director.

The NIJ review process is rigorous. Each application is judged on several categories that each hold different weight in the overall scoring. The solicitation has detailed information on what should be included in each section, which can be found on page 35 and 36 in the solicitation. 

I'd like to talk about some of the critiques we see raised during the peer review process. For the Statement of the Problem, which accounts for 10% of the overall score, common critiques include the application fails to identify gaps in the current literature or demonstrate an understanding of current research. The literature review is insufficient, and the scope of the proposed research is extremely limited or too ambitious.

For the Project Design and Implementation, which accounts for the most weight of any section at 45%, common critiques include the overall strategy is not articulated. The design and method approach do not logically flow, or they are unclear. The proposed sample size is not supported by a power analysis, or the project is not feasible.

For capabilities and competencies, which is worth 25%, we hear that the proposed staff does not demonstrate familiarity or proficiency with the proposed methods or that the project team does not include necessary and appropriate subject matter experts.

For the potential impact, worth 15%, some common critiques are the dissemination plan lacks specificity and/or is not innovative or there's no plan for reaching non-academic audiences. 

For the budget at 5% of the total score, we see critiques for insufficient budget or staff time for the proposed activities or staff duties are not well articulated. 

We also want to provide some tips for proposal writing. The proposal should be responsive to the funding opportunity. The proposal should be well-written and innovative, timely, rigorous and well-designed, feasible, and impactful. 

We highly encourage applicants to read the solicitation carefully and in its entirety.

Also, if an application proposes research including research and development and/or evaluation, the application must demonstrate research and evaluation independence and integrity, which should be submitted as an attachment in JustGrants. 

Letters of support are also important for all solicitations. Applications should include for each named supporting entity a signed letter of support that outlines the supporting entity’s reason for supporting the project and the scope of work they are committing to.

This slide (Slide 25) provides a list of more great resources as you begin writing your application, which includes contact information for the OJP Response Center, Grants.gov, and JustGrants. This next slide (Slide 26) also provides additional resources for the OJP Funding Resource Center, DOJ Grant Financial Guide, and the NIJ Funding FAQ page. 

At this time, we are going to start the question-and-answer session. Please submit questions to the Q&A box and select all panelists. Also, if you emailed questions prior to the webinar, we will also be including those in the session. Thank you.

DR. MARIE GARCIA: Great. Thank you, Danielle, and good afternoon everyone. My name is Marie Garcia. I'm with NIJ and I will manage the Q&A session this afternoon. Please send your questions in the chat, either in the chat function or the Q&A. I'll be checking both of those. So to start, we have three questions submitted earlier this week. The first question for Danielle and the team is: can NIJ please clarify the statement, "Within Category 2, applicants may apply to assess programs that cover more than one BJA program area or applicable". Does this mean applicants can submit one proposal that addresses two areas or does it mean that an applicant must submit one proposal per area?

DR. DANIELLE CRIMMINS: Thanks, Marie. Yes, applicants can submit proposals for more than one area. I believe information on this is clarified on page four of the solicitation.

DR. MARIE GARCIA: Okay. Great. Question number two, “Based on the expected timeline for when Category 2 must start, for example, is it expected that applicants must wait for the completion of the Category 1 award? Can NIJ please clarify what activities will be expected during the first half of the award?”

DR. DANIELLE CRIMMINS: I can take the question. Yes, first, you can find the information on this on page 14. After awards are made, the grantees are going to work with NIJ and BJA to revise and finalize their research plan. This includes solidifying the sites for the study. Also, as interim findings from the scan of practices are made available, those will be discussed in collaboration with NIJ and BJA. In addition, the selected grantees will work on IRB approval, data archiving plans, and any other administrative task before to start of the grant.

DR. MARIE GARCIA: Question number three. “Can NIJ confirm that it expects the the successful applicant to develop an outcome evaluation design and data collection instruments as part of the Category 2 project deliverables?”

DR. DANIELLE CRIMMINS: Yes. On page 13 and 14 of the solicitation, the task and a description for each task are described, and the design and development of instruments are part of that task list.

DR. MARIE GARCIA: Great. Thank you. That covers the first questions that were sent over during the week by email. So let's go to our current questions. The first question, “Do evaluability assessment proposals need to be written specifically to one of the four program areas?”

DR. DANIELLE CRIMMINS: The applicant can choose one of the four areas or multiple areas where applicable and if it makes sense.

DR. MARIE GARCIA: Okay. Next question. “What is the anticipated start date for the evaluability assessments given that they won't start until after the 16-month scan of practice is complete? Will this look like a July 26 timeline and budget start date?”

DR. DANIELLE CRIMMINS: For the awards for both categories, the start date is March 1st of 2025. But as discussed with one of the previous questions, when a grantee is getting started for the evaluability assessment, they will work with NIJ and BJA to discuss revising the research plan and then including in interim deliverables from the scan of practices as they become available.

DR. MARIE GARCIA: Thank you. Next question. “Should evaluability assessment applicants partner with funded grantees at the proposal stage?

DR. DANIELLE CRIMMINS: I would say we always encourage applicants to partner with practitioners or those closest to the issue. And again, as mentioned, including that letter of support where applicable.

DR. MARIE GARCIA: Next question. “Can small businesses (research firms) be the primary applicant?”

DR. DANIELLE CRIMMINS: Going to defer it to Marie but I believe so, yes.

DR. MARIE GARCIA: I don't have the solicitation in front of me but there is an eligibility section of the solicitation where we clearly delineate who is eligible. The only applicants that would not be eligible are individuals however please do check the eligibility section. I believe small businesses are allowed to apply but you'd need to confirm that in the solicitation text.

DR. DANIELLE CRIMMINS: I actually just pulled that up. It's on page five and small businesses are eligible.

DR. MARIE GARCIA: Next question. “How many sites would be studied for evaluability in each of the four Category 2 collaborative agreements? All 51 or less than that?”

DR. DANIELLE CRIMMINS: *We are hoping for up to eight sites per evaluability assessment. So not the entire 51.

*The above answer is a clarification from what was originally said at the webinar. 

DR. MARIE GARCIA: Okay. And this is a long one, so I'm going to read it in full. “Could you please provide some additional information about this content, ‘The successful applicants will be expected to assess up to eight programs in a single assessment project. The program subject to assessment will be determined by NIJ and BJA at a later date, and the final number of programs to be included in the evaluability assessment project may be subject to change.’ It sounds like NIJ and BJA would be providing a list of entities to be evaluated. Can you explain when and how this process might occur?”

DR. DANIELLE CRIMMINS: Sure. For the application we're requesting that eight sites be written in. However, as we've discussed the scan of practices, we'll be evaluating or looking at all of the BJA sites. And so based off of what we learned from the scan of practices it may inform the sites to be included by those who are selected for the evaluability assessment. Again, NIJ and BJA will collaborate with the grantees for both Category 1 and Category 2 to make this information available and include any of those finding from the scan of practices and any changes that might occur for the site selection.

DR. MARIE GARCIA: Janine, did you have a comment?

DR. JANINE ZWEIG: Yeah, I wanted to jump in and just share too that the sites at the BJA level are the state level grants as discussed, and so there will be sub sites among jurisdictions that are applying for funding and programming at the jurisdiction level too. So we want to make sure there's clarity there that eight sites might mean jurisdiction level sites, not eight state level sites. 

We just want to make sure that's very distinct because including eight states versus eight sites who are focused on a particular program is quite different. I just want to add that clarity. Thank you.

DR. MARIE GARCIA: Great. Thank you, Janine. Next question, “Can applicants submit proposals for Category 1 and also a proposal for Category 2 topic areas?”

DR. DANIELLE CRIMMINS: Yes. That would just be two proposals. I believe it says at the start of the solicitation include which category you're applying for with the application.

DR. MARIE GARCIA: Great. Next question. “Will NIJ be choosing the grantees for evaluability assessment for each successful applicant?”

DR. DANIELLE CRIMMINS: NIJ and BJA will be collaborating with the selected grantee but the applicants are to propose the types and the sites that they would be conducting the evaluability assessment.

DR. MARIE GARCIA: Great. Thank you. Next question. “If NIJ and BJA are lead for the site selection for the Category 2 proposals, how do you recommend working with practitioners in the proposal stage?”

DR. DANIELLE CRIMMINS: Kind of going back to the previous answer, we're requiring the applicants to propose a site for the application. Again, the sites, as Janine was mentioning, are not at the 51 states and territories that BJA has funded but at the programmatic level. And as Michelle was discussing when giving an overview of the program, BJA is updating the abstracts for these awards once the project plans are approved so that you can see what each state or territory is doing with their funding and the programs and initiatives that are being implemented. And so, we encourage you to go visit those websites.

DR. MARIE GARCIA: Okay. Next question, “Can sites be chosen to participate in more than one of the evaluability assessment subject areas or is each site only allowed to participate in one of the four assessments?”

DR. DANIELLE CRIMMINS: I'm not sure I understand the question. 

DR. MARIE GARCIA: If a grantee/site is working on more than one program area, will the evaluability assessment focus on a specific area for that grantee or would the assessment need to cover all program areas for a particular grantee?

DR. DANIELLE CRIMMINS: So, for this question, is the grantee that you're referring to the BJA grantee? If so, this goes back to what Janine was clarifying earlier, which is that the NIJ evaluability assessment are for the program areas going on at the BJA grant site. It would focus on a specific area for that grantee, not all of the program areas. If that question is referring to the BJA grantee.

DR. MARIE GARCIA: I believe that is the focus is the BJA grantee. If it's not, please do correct me in the chat. Next question, “Are Category 2 applicants required to identify potential sites in the application or is that fully determined post-award with NIJ and BJA?”

DR. DANIELLE CRIMMINS: Applicants are required to identify potential sites.

DR. MARIE GARCIA: Next question. “Building on Janine's response, should evaluability assessments focus on individual programs or the potential interplay between SCIP funded programs and others that are operating in those same sites? In other words, is the focus of the assessment the ecosystem of programs impacted by SCIP funding or is the focus on an individual program?”

DR. DANIELLE CRIMMINS: Janine, jump in if you want to on this one. But for the scan of practices, we're looking at the BJA programs themselves but also in collaboration and conjunction with any other crisis intervention programs operating in the space. And then the same would be true for the evaluability assessment.

DR. JANINE ZWEIG: With the interest of understanding the interplay of those efforts and how SCIP is additive and complementary to ongoing or existing crisis intervention programs that were already in place. And so, we are interested in the effectiveness of SCIP particularly but in concert with because we know there are other initiatives that have been happening. So taking those into account at the same time.

DR. MARIE GARCIA: Okay. Great. Thank you both. The next question, “Will applicants for Category 2 without previous evaluability assessment experience be considered if they provide data collection tools and a detailed evaluability assessment plan?”

DR. DANIELLE CRIMMINS: We ask that all applicants detail their experience in the application and also through their CVs and resumes, and all of that will be reviewed once we receive the application.

DR. MARIE GARCIA: If you do have any questions that you didn't ask during today's webinar, please use the NCJRS email address in the solicitation to send any questions and those will be routed to NIJ and to the appropriate staff person. Please continue to ask questions after today, should you have them. Okay. I have another question. “Is it expected that applicants for Category 2 need to select potential grantees in the proposal? I think you answered this but perhaps worth mentioning again.”

DR. DANIELLE CRIMMINS: The answer is yes. Since they’re having audio problems, perhaps we can put it in the chat since I'm not sure they're hearing us.

DR. MARIE GARCIA: We have another question in the Q&A section. “Just to confirm, an application for Category 2 needs to detail a site selection plan question. It's not NIJ, BJA making recommendations based on Category 1 findings.”

DR. DANIELLE CRIMMINS: Yes, applicants need to detail a site selection plan and then based off the findings from Category 1, NIJ and BJA will make recommendations if changes need to be made based off the findings [from the scan of practices]

DR. MARIE GARCIA: That looks like that's the last question, Danielle.

DR. DANIELLE CRIMMINS: Okay. Thank you so much.

STACY LEE: On behalf of our panelists today, thank you for joining today's webinar and this will end our presentation.