text:
INTEGRITY OF RESEARCH POLICY AND PROCEDURES
P&RA
100 - I&R Policy and Organization
Classification Guide
Section: 100-4
Effective: 10/04/2018
Supersedes: 09/20/2018
Next Review Date: 10/04/2021
Issuance Date: 10/04/2018
Issuing Office: Office of Research Affairs
PPM 100-4 Policy [pdf format]
PPM 100-4 Appendix A [pdf format]
PPM 100-4 Appendix B [pdf format]
UCSD Integrity of Research Policy and Procedures
I. POLICY
A1. This Policy is based on the principle that quality research requires adherence to the highest standards of integrity in proposing, conducting, reviewing, and reporting research. All University of California San Diego ("UC San Diego") Researchers are subject to this Policy and are expected to be aware of and to comply with all applicable policies and procedures of the University, campus, and departments, as well as external entities funding their research. This policy applies only to allegations of research misconduct that occurred within six years of the date UC San Diego received the allegation, subject to the exceptions in federal regulations including (a) if the Respondent continues or renews any incident of alleged research misconduct occurring before the six-year limitation through citation, republication or other use; or (b) if it is determined that the alleged misconduct would have a substantial adverse effect on the health or safety of the public.
A2. All UC San Diego Researchers are expected to maintain intellectual integrity. UC San Diego is committed to promoting the integrity of research and to meeting the obligations defined by extramural funding agencies.
A3. The purpose of this Policy is to address Research Misconduct, which is defined as Fabrication, Falsification, or Plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.
A4. Any individual affiliated with UC San Diego has an ethical responsibility to act if he or she suspects Research Misconduct has occurred. Appropriate actions may include raising questions, seeking perspective from peers or more experienced individuals (including campus ombudspersons), or making an Allegation of Research Misconduct to the Department Head or Research Integrity Officer.
A5. Individuals associated with UC San Diego are expected to cooperate with Research Integrity Officers and other institutional officials in the review of Allegations of Research Misconduct and the conduct of Inquiries and Investigations into such Allegations, including providing evidence or materials relevant to the Allegations. It is the policy of UC San Diego to respond fully and fairly to all Allegations of Research Misconduct and to comply with the reporting requirements of applicable funding agencies.
A6. Some improper practices are not considered Research Misconduct under this Policy, but are nonetheless considered misconduct under other University policies including, but not limited to, guidelines relating to conflict of interest, export control, intellectual property, biosafety, use of human and animal subjects, use of University facilities, outside professional activities of faculty members, and teacher-student relations.
II. -DEFINITIONS
Academic Unit. An Academic Unit is a Department, Departmental Division, or Organized Research Unit.
Allegation. An Allegation is any oral or written statement or other evidence of one or more apparent instances of Research Misconduct.
Appropriate Vice Chancellor. Depending on the Respondent's faculty appointment, employment and/or student status, in the judgment of the RIO, the Appropriate Vice Chancellor is one or more of the following Vice Chancellors at UC San Diego: Executive Vice Chancellor-Academic Affairs; Vice Chancellor-Resource Management and Planning; Vice Chancellor-Health Sciences; Vice Chancellor-Marine Sciences; or Vice Chancellor-Student Affairs.
Bad Faith. An action is in Bad Faith if it is made with reckless disregard for or willful ignorance of facts that would disprove the Allegation or if it is made falsely with malicious intent to harm the Respondent.
Complainant. A Complainant is a person who makes a good faith Allegation.
Conflict of Interest. A Conflict of Interest exists when a relationship between a decision-maker and the Complainant, the Respondent, or the Research that is the subject of an Allegation creates the potential for compromised judgment or decision-making.
Department Head. A Department Head is the head of the Academic Unit in which Research Misconduct is alleged to have occurred.
Fabrication. Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
Falsification. Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the Research is not accurately represented in the Research Record.
Inquiry. An Inquiry is an informal process for gathering information and initial fact-finding to determine whether an Allegation warrants an Investigation.
Intentional. An action is taken with purposeful intent to deceive.
Investigation. An Investigation is the formal examination and evaluation of all relevant facts to determine, based upon a Preponderance of the Evidence, whether Research Misconduct has occurred, and, if so, its extent and consequences and the responsible person or persons.
Knowingly. An action is taken with actual knowledge or deliberate ignorance.
Personnel Review File. The Personnel Review File is that portion of an individual's academic personnel record which is maintained by the University for purposes of considering personnel actions under the relevant criteria and should contain only material relevant to these purposes. Final administrative decisions are to be based solely upon the material contained in the individual's Personnel Review File.
Plagiarism. Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's words, ideas or research results without acknowledgement, and passing them off as one's own.
Policy. The Policy is the University of California San Diego "Integrity of Research Policy."
Preponderance of the Evidence. There is a Preponderance of the Evidence when the greater weight of credible evidence shows that it is more likely than not that a Respondent committed the alleged act.
Probable Cause. Probable cause is a reasonable belief based on evidence such that a person of ordinary caution or prudence would be led to believe and conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion that a violation may have occurred.
Reckless. Permitting, tolerating or causing conditions in experimentation, documentation, analysis, or preparation of publications that a reasonable scholar would understand to have a high probability of resulting in falsified or fabricated data or plagiarism.
Research. Research means a systematic investigation, including development, testing, evaluation, or publication to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge. Activities that meet this definition constitute Research for purposes of this Policy, whether they are conducted or supported under a program that is considered Research for other purposes.
Researcher. A Researcher is any person who is engaged in the design, conduct, review, or reporting of Research at or for UC San Diego.
Research Integrity Officer (RIO). The RIO is responsible for assessing Allegations and determining when such Allegations warrant Inquiries, and overseeing Inquiries and Investigations. The Vice Chancellor for Research is the RIO for UC San Diego. General oversight of the Policy is the responsibility of the Vice Chancellor for Research.
Research Misconduct. Research Misconduct is Fabrication, Falsification, or Plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing Research, or in reporting Research results. Research Misconduct does not include disputes about authorship or attribution of credit, confidentiality, access to data, honest error or differences of opinion.
Research Records. Research Records are the records of data or results that embody the facts resulting from scholarly inquiry, and include, but are not limited to, Research proposals, laboratory records, both physical and electronic, progress reports, abstracts, theses, oral presentations, internal reports, and journal articles.
Respondent. A Respondent is a person against whom an Allegation is made. The respondent is required to cooperate with the conduct of an Inquiry and Investigation.
Retaliation. Retaliation is an action taken by UC San Diego or its employees that adversely affects the institutional status of a person who is employed by or affiliated with UC San Diego, including Researchers, clinicians, technicians, fellows, students, and independent contractors, or adversely affects the person's terms and conditions of employment in a material and negative way, including, but not limited to, failure to hire, corrective action (including written warning, corrective salary decrease, demotion, suspension), and termination, and where the adverse action is taken as a result of such person's making of an Allegation or cooperating in an Inquiry or Investigation. Retaliation does not include disciplinary or other adverse action taken by the University in the event a person's conduct in connection with the matter was in violation of University policy or done in Bad Faith.
RIO. See "Research Integrity Officer."
Standing Inquiry Committee for Integrity of Research. The Committee, consisting of seven to nine faculty, is selected for disciplinary breadth in consultation with the Academic Senate. The Committee's charge is to examine relevant research records and conduct interviews to determine whether there is Probable Cause that Research Misconduct may have occurred, warranting Investigation. Members of the Committee are guided by this Policy and University Guidelines for Conducting an Inquiry.
Whistleblower. See "Complainant."
III. PROCEDURES FOR RESPONDING TO ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT
A. OBJECTIVES AND GENERAL PROVISIONS
A1. Objectives: In dealing with Allegations under these procedures, UC San Diego shall be guided by the following general objectives:
A1.1 UC San Diego is committed to ensuring integrity in Research.
A1.2 Appropriate and timely action shall be taken to review and address all Allegations.
A1.3 Funding agency requirements for timely notification shall be followed.
A1.4 These Procedures shall be administered in a manner that fairly protects: (i) the due process rights of the Respondent; (ii) the interests of Complainants and those serving as witnesses in the Investigation of Research Misconduct; and (iii) the public interest in preserving the Integrity of Research.
A1.5 Efforts will be made to prevent misjudgments caused by bias or Conflict of
A1.6 Campus officials shall administer these Procedures in coordination with other applicable policies and procedures.
A2. General Provisions: The following are generally applicable to Allegations, Inquiries, and Investigations under these Procedures:
A2.1 Confidentiality. Except as otherwise authorized by law or by this Policy or by other University policy, the Research Integrity Officer (RIO) and all committee members will limit disclosure of the identity of Respondents and Complainants and the disclosure of any records or evidence collected during the processes described in this Policy to those who need to know in order to carry out a thorough, competent, objective and fair Research Misconduct proceeding, make appropriate reports to Research sponsors and/or Research collaborators, pursue or impose discipline or protect the public or the Research community. The Complainant, the Respondent, and the witnesses, shall be encouraged to maintain the confidentiality of the proceedings to preserve the Integrity of the Research Misconduct proceedings. Only the chairs of the committees or the RIO or his/her designee should contact potential witnesses. Further, interviews of witnesses outside of the University should occur only after consultation with the RIO to assure the necessity of such interviews and the development of an appropriate approach to maximize the confidentiality of the Inquiry or Investigation.
A2.2 Sequestration of Records. In a timely manner, the RIO shall take reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of and secure all the Research Records and evidence needed to conduct the Research Misconduct proceeding. Research Records belong to the University and those involved in an Allegation must be surrendered to the RIO upon request. The RIO may engage Audit & Management Advisory Services to take possession of potentially relevant evidence. Failure to surrender Research Records upon request may result in discipline.
A2.3 Risk of Loss or Abuse of Funds, Equipment, or Materials. If, in the judgment of the RIO, there appears to be a risk of loss or misuse of funds from circumstances relating to an Allegation, or a risk of destruction or abuse of University property, or equipment or materials purchased with those funds, the RIO will initiate administrative actions to protect those funds, equipment, or materials.
A2.4 Rights and Roles of Complainant.
A2.4.1 Confidentiality of Complainant's Identity. The Complainant may request that his or her identity be kept confidential, and in that case, efforts shall be made to protect the identity of the Complainant, but confidentiality cannot be assured. For example, it may be necessary for the Complainant to testify before one or more faculty committees in the course of an Inquiry or Investigation and his or her identity may be subject to disclosure under various State and Federal laws.
A2.4.2 Disclosure of Allegations. Complainants are encouraged to raise Allegations through these Procedures rather than through public disclosure.
A2.4.3 Complainant as Witness. After making an Allegation, the Complainant's role is to serve as a witness if needed.
A2.5 Retaliation against Complainants or Other Persons. University of California employees may not retaliate against Complainants, witnesses, or Committee members. Individuals who witness retaliation or believe they have been retaliated against should immediately report any alleged or apparent retaliation to the RIO or to the Locally Designated Official, who will make all reasonable and practical efforts to counter any potential or actual retaliation in accordance with the Policy for Protection of Whistleblowers from Retaliation (PPM 200-14). Persons not covered by the Whistleblower Protection Policy may report claims of actual or threatened Retaliation to the RIO, who will undertake efforts to protect them from Retaliation. In addition, the RIO shall direct all participants in any aspect of an Inquiry or Investigation, including members of Inquiry and Investigation committees, the Respondent, and witnesses not to retaliate against the Complainant or other witnesses at any time after an Allegation has been made.
A2.6 Duty to Respond. After receiving an Allegation, the University must undertake an Inquiry if the RIO determines that an Inquiry is warranted (Section B2). The University is required to respond to Allegations and to take them seriously.
A2.7 Respondent's Separation from University. The resignation or termination of employment, enrollment, or appointment of a Respondent shall not, in itself, result in the dismissal of a proceeding hereunder, although it may affect the imposition of discipline.
A2.8 Delays. The failure to complete an Inquiry, Investigation, or other process within the time frames prescribed in these Procedures shall not be grounds for the dismissal of an Allegation.
A2.9 Retention of Records. At the closure of a case under this Policy, the case file consisting of the Allegation, the reports of the Inquiry and/or Investigation committees, correspondence, transcripts, and other records related to the case shall be maintained by the RIO. Essential evidence (records and evidence needed to conduct the Research Misconduct proceeding) shall be kept for three (3) years after the date of a final Inquiry report if the matter does not proceed to Investigation or seven (7) years after completion of an Investigation proceeding or the completion of any federal proceeding involving the Research Misconduct Allegation. Records shall be retained as required by federal policies as applicable. The RIO may use his or her discretion in determining what constitutes essential evidence. Examples of factors to be considered are whether Research Misconduct was found, the importance of the evidence to the finding of Research Misconduct, the uniqueness of the materials, and the extent to which the evidence is needed in connection with ongoing Research.
A2.10 Legal Advice. Throughout the process of handling an Allegation, the RIO, and committee members shall consult with Campus or University Counsel, as needed, for advice and to ensure compliance with these Procedures. Complainants, Respondents, and witnesses may be accompanied by an advisor during any interview, but only for the purposes of observation and advice.
A2.11 RIO Discretion. In the interest of fairness and consistent with the requirements of external funding agencies and other University policies, the RIO has the discretion to extend time frames, expand the scope of the Inquiry or Investigation, or take other action he or she deems appropriate in applying these Procedures. If the RIO expands the scope of the Inquiry or Investigation, the affected Respondent will be provided notice of the expanded scope and offered the opportunity to submit additional documents.
B. ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT
B1. Reporting Suspected Misconduct. Allegations of Research Misconduct may be made to a Department Head or may be directed to the RIO. If an individual is unsure whether a suspected incident falls within the definition ofResearch Misconduct, he or she may meet with or contact the RIO to discuss the suspected Research Misconduct informally, which may include discussing it anonymously and/or hypothetically. If the circumstances described by the individual do not meet the definition of Research Misconduct, the RIO may refer the individual or Allegation to other offices or officials with responsibility for resolving the problem. Reports from outside the University should always be directed to the RIO.
B2. Initial Assessment of Allegation. The Department Head receiving an Allegation shall notify the RIO and only take such further action as directed by the RIO. The RIO receiving an Allegation shall perform an initial assessment of the Allegation as provided in this Section.
B2.1 Allegations of Research Misconduct. Upon receiving an Allegation of Research Misconduct, the RIO will assess the Allegation to determine whether it is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of Research Misconduct may be identified, and whether the Allegation falls within the definition of Research Misconduct. An Inquiry must be conducted if these criteria are met. If the Complainant has not placed the Allegation in writing, then the RIO shall do so. If the RIO believes that the Allegation is clearly groundless, i.e. either not credible, not sufficiently specific, or not Research Misconduct within the purview of this Policy), the RIO shall prepare and maintain a memorandum and shall inform the Complainant of the decision not to proceed. In such a case, the Respondent does not need to be informed of the Allegation.
B2.2 Dispute about Research Practices, including Authorship and Data Ownership, which do not Involve Research Misconduct. If the Allegation does not involve Research Misconduct, the RIO may refer the matter to the Department Head or another appropriate University official or may close the matter with no further action. If after due diligence by the Department Head, the Allegation cannot be resolved, the Allegation may be referred to the RIO to facilitate a resolution.
B2.3 Allegations against Students. An Allegation of Research Misconduct against a student engaged in Research shall be handled under this Policy, even if the Allegation may also be the subject of an administrative inquiry under the Policy on Integrity of Scholarship. See sections C1.3 and D1.3 Notification of Interested Parties.
B2.4 Multiple Policies Involved. If an Allegation gives rise to investigative responsibilities under more than one University policy, the RIO shall consult with other appropriate administrative offices to coordinate a consistent and effective review of the facts under this and related policies.
C. INQUIRY
C1. Initiating an Inquiry. The RIO, upon determining that an Inquiry is warranted, shall take the following actions:
C1.1 Convene the Standing Inquiry Committee. Within fourteen (14) calendar days, of accepting an Allegation under Section B2.1, the RIO shall convene the Standing Inquiry Committee for Integrity of Research. The RIO and the members of the Standing Inquiry Committee shall make efforts to prevent misjudgments by requiring explicit disclosure of any possible conflicts. Members of the committee from the same Academic Unit as the Respondent or Complainant, or who have a personal, professional, or financial Conflict of Interest with either the Respondent or Complainant shall recuse themselves from the proceedings. The RIO will prepare a charge letter for the committee that describes the Allegation, states the purpose of the Inquiry, directs the committee to prepare a written report for review and sets forth the timeline for completion of the Inquiry. The RIO may provide the committee with material about the Allegation and instructions for carrying out the Inquiry as the RIO deems necessary or appropriate.
C1.2 Identification of Funding Sources. The RIO shall identify all relevant research grants and funding agencies involved in the Research that is the subject of the Allegation.
C1.3 Notification of Interested Parties. Immediately after convening the Standing Inquiry Committee, the RIO shall provide written notification of the Allegation and the membership of the Standing Inquiry Committee to the Respondent. The RIO may also notify others with a need to know, including the Complainant and the Respondent's Department Head and/or Dean. If the Respondent is an academic appointee, then the Executive Vice Chancellor, shall be notified and, if it is the judgment of the RIO, the Appropriate Vice Chancellor and Graduate/Undergraduate Deans (when appropriate) may also be notified. If required by law or agency requirements, or contract or funding agreement, or if in the judgment of the RIO it is necessary, then the RIO will inform the appropriate external agencies or private sponsors that an Inquiry is being undertaken. Another institution will be notified only if the RIO has reason to believe that the alleged Research Misconduct occurred at that institution or if the Respondent has a joint appointment at the institution and notification is required by an inter-institutional agreement. The RIO shall provide the Respondent with a copy of the Policy and these Procedures.
C2. Time Limit. The entire Inquiry process shall normally be completed within sixty (60) calendar days following the first meeting of the Standing Inquiry Committee. Any extension of this time limit requires approval of the RIO, must be documented in the final Inquiry report, and should comply with the applicable requirements of external funding agencies.
C3. Responsibilities of the Standing Inquiry Committee. The Standing Inquiry Committee shall take the following actions:
C3.1 Fact-Finding. Examine and evaluate relevant Research Records and materials, and conduct sufficient interviews and preliminary fact-finding to determine whether there is Probable Cause that Research Misconduct may have occurred and an Investigation is warranted.
C3.2 Interviews. Interview the Complainant, Respondent, and other key witnesses with respect to the Allegation, as determined by the Standing Inquiry Committee.
C3.3 Respondent. Provide an opportunity for the Respondent to respond to the Allegation, both in writing and UC San Diego orally during one or more interviews conducted at the UC San Diego campus. The Respondent should be given the opportunity to admit that Research Misconduct occurred and that he or she committed the Research Misconduct. The RIO may terminate the review of an Allegation that has been admitted, if acceptance of the admission and any proposed settlement is supported and approved by applicable extramural funding agency policies.
C3.4 Prepare Report. The Standing Inquiry Committee shall prepare a report of its findings within 30 calendar days of the date of its initial meeting.
C4. Report of the Standing Inquiry Committee. The written Inquiry report shall include the name and title of the committee members and experts, if any, consulted by the committee; the Allegation and individual(s) named; the funding sources for the Research; how and from whom relevant information was obtained; a list of the Research Records reviewed; and a finding (a) that there is Probable Cause as to all or part of the Allegation that Research Misconduct may have occurred, or (b) that the Allegation involves questionable Research practices that do not meet the definition of Research Misconduct, or (c) that the Allegation is without substance.
C5. Finalizing the Report of the Standing Inquiry Committee.
C5.1 RIO Review. The RIO shall review the report within seven (7) calendar days of his or her receipt to ensure that: (i) the committee has completed its charge; (ii) the report provides sufficient information to justify the committee's findings; (iii) the report does not include information that is inappropriate; and (iv) the report is in proper form. If the report is inadequate in any of these respects, the RIO shall ordinarily request the necessary modifications. If the committee fails to make the necessary changes, then at his or her discretion, the RIO may accept the report as is.
C5.2 Revisions by Committee. If the report has been referred back to the Standing Inquiry Committee for modification or revision, the committee shall submit a final, signed report, satisfactory to the RIO, within seven (7) calendar days of such request. If additional time is needed to revise the report or conduct further Inquiry, then the committee shall request an extension of time from the RIO.
C5.3 Determination by the RIO. Within seven (7) calendar days of his or her receipt of the final report, the RIO shall determine whether Probable Cause exists that Research Misconduct may have occurred and if an Investigation is warranted.
C6. Notifications and Actions. Upon acceptance of the final report of Inquiry, the RIO shall promptly take action as follows:
C6.1 Notification of Respondent. The RIO shall provide the Respondent with the final Standing Inquiry Committee report and his or her determination as to whether Probable Cause exists that Research Misconduct may have occurred, warranting an Investigation. The Respondent may comment in writing within fifteen (15) calendar days and such response shall become part of the record of the Inquiry.
C6.2 Notification of Interested Parties. At his or her discretion, the RIO may provide Complainants, witnesses, Department Heads, Deans, and other University officials with a written summary of the Standing Inquiry Committee's findings and the RIO's determination in the case.
C6.3 Actions.
C6.3.1 Finding that an Allegation Lacks Substance. If the RIO accepts the Standing Inquiry Committee finding that the Allegation was unsubstantiated, then, the RIO shall, in consultation with the Respondent, make efforts to restore the Respondent's reputation if it has been affected by the Allegation. Any written responses to these efforts shall be placed in the record of the Inquiry. If the RIO makes a finding that the Allegation was made in Bad Faith, then the RIO shall take appropriate administrative action.
C6.3.2 Finding of Violations other than Research Misconduct. If the RIO accepts the finding that Probable Cause does not exist to believe that Research Misconduct occurred, but finds that the Respondent may have violated commonly accepted Research standards or other University policies, then the RIO may refer such possible violations in a separate summary memorandum to the appropriate administrative officer (who may be the RIO) and/or the Researcher's supervisor for action or discipline. If appropriate, such information may be considered in the applicable performance review process.
C6.3.3 Finding that Research Misconduct May Have Occurred. If the RIO accepts the findings of the Standing Inquiry Committee that there is Probable Cause to believe that Research Misconduct may have occurred, then the RIO will proceed with an Investigation (Section D).
C7. Process for Re-Opening an Inquiry of the Report of Standing Inquiry Committee
C7.1 The RIO may re-open an Inquiry if, after finding that an Allegation lacks substance, the RIO subsequently determines that: (i) substantial new evidence has been discovered; (ii) appropriate procedures were not properly followed; or (iii) one or more committee members had a Conflict of Interest. If the RIO re-opens an Inquiry, the RIO will reconvene the Standing Inquiry Committee and specify the issues to be addressed and persons to be interviewed. The Standing Inquiry Committee will prepare a new report following Section C5.
D. INVESTIGATION
D1. Initiating an Investigation. The RIO, upon determining that an Investigation is required, shall take the following actions:
D1.1 Appointment of Committee. Within thirty (30) calendar days of making his or her determination for action under Section C6, the RIO shall appoint an Investigation Committee consisting of, at least, three (3) or more academic scholars. Individuals appointed to the Investigation committee may also have served on the Standing Inquiry committee.
D1.1.1 Membership. The Investigation Committee must include at least one individual with specific scientific expertise to evaluate the evidence and issues related to the Allegation and Research in question. The Investigation Committee must consist of individuals who do not have personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with those involved with the investigation and should not be from the same Academic Unit as the Respondent. Academic scholars from other research institutions may be asked to serve on the committee.
D1.1.2 Conflicts of Interest. Prior to appointing members to the committee, the RIO shall request that proposed members of the committee disclose any Conflicts of Interest and shall notify the Respondent of the proposed committee membership. If the Respondent submits a written objection within seven (7) calendar days to any proposed member of the Investigation Committee, the RIO may, in his or her discretion, replace the challenged member with a qualified substitute. If the Respondent does not object in a timely fashion, he or she will be deemed to have accepted the proposed committee membership.
D1.2 Instructions. The RIO shall provide the committee with written instructions for carrying out the Investigation. The purpose of the Investigation is to develop a factual record by exploring the Allegations in detail and examining the evidence in depth, leading to recommended findings on whether Research Misconduct has been committed, by whom, and to what extent. The Investigation will also determine whether there are additional instances of possible Research Misconduct that would justify broadening the scope beyond the initial Allegations.
D1.3 Notification of Interested Parties. Immediately after appointing an Investigation Committee, the RIO shall provide written notification of the Allegation, the appointment of the Investigation committee, and its membership to the Respondent and the Appropriate Vice Chancellor. The RIO may also notify others who need to know, including the Complainant and the Respondent's Department Head and/or Dean, and the Graduate/Undergraduate Deans (when appropriate). If the Respondent is an academic appointee, then the Executive Vice Chancellor, Academic Affairs shall be notified. Affiliated institutions in which the Respondent has a joint appointment shall be notified as required by inter-institutional agreements. The RIO shall inform the appropriate funding agencies, consistent with law, agency requirements, and contractual agreements, that an Investigation is being undertaken.
D2. Time Limit. The Investigation process shall normally be completed within one-hundred twenty (120) calendar days following the appointment of the Investigation Committee. Any extension of this time limit requires approval of the RIO, must be documented in the final Investigation report, and should comply with the applicable requirements of external funding agencies. If UC San Diego is unable to complete the Investigation within the time period required by any applicable external agency, the RIO shall submit a written request to the agency requesting an extension to comply with its regulations; such a request must include an explanation for the delay that includes an interim report on the progress to date and estimated dates of completion of the report and other necessary steps.
D3. Responsibilities of the Investigation Committee. The Investigation Committee shall take the following actions:
D3.1 Evidence. Examine all Research Records and relevant information to determine if Research Misconduct, by a Preponderance of the Evidence, has occurred and who is responsible.
D3.2 Interviews. Interview Complainant, Respondent, and other witnesses having information regarding any relevant aspects of the Investigation, including witnesses identified by the Respondent. Interviews should be recorded or transcribed, each interview and the recording or transcript should be included in the record of the UC San Diego investigation.
D3.4 Expertise. Secure necessary and appropriate expertise in consultation with the RIO.
D3.5 Prepare Report. The Investigation Committee shall prepare a report of its findings within 75 calendar days of the date of its appointment.
D4. Report of the Investigation Committee. The report of the Investigation Committee shall contain:
D4.1 Background. A clear description of the Allegation, the individual(s) named, the procedures followed by the committee to arrive at its findings, how and from whom relevant information was obtained, a summary of records compiled.
D4.2 Findings. A statement of findings for each allegation of Research Misconduct identified during the Investigation. Each finding must indicate that the Preponderance of the Evidence indicates that (a) Research Misconduct has occurred, or (b) a violation other than Research Misconduct has occurred, or (c) the Allegation is not supported.
For a finding that Research Misconduct has occurred, each finding must identify whether the Research Misconduct was committed Intentionally, Knowingly, or Recklessly and must summarize the facts and the analysis that support the conclusion.
D4.3 Evidence. A discussion of the documentary or other physical evidence, testimony, and reasoning that supports the committee's decision.
D5. Finalizing the Report of the Investigation Committee.
D5.1 RIO Review. RIO review shall follow the same process as that set forth in Section C5.1 above.
D5.2 Revisions by Committee. If the report has been referred back to the Investigation Committee for modification or revision, the Committee shall submit a signed report, satisfactory to the RIO, within seven (7) calendar days of such request. If additional time is needed for revisions or further Investigation, then the Committee may request an extension of time from the RIO. After revisions satisfactory to the RIO have been made, a final signed report shall be submitted to the RIO.
D5.3 Review and Response by Respondent. The RIO shall provide the Respondent with a copy of the report and make available a copy of or supervised access to the evidence on which the report is based. The Respondent shall submit his or her written comments or requested corrections of any factual errors to the RIO within fourteen (14) calendar days of receipt of the report. Upon receipt, the RIO shall promptly forward the response to the Investigation Committee, which may revise the report. The response shall become part of the record of the Investigation.
D5.4 Revisions by Committee. A final, signed report, satisfactory to the RIO, shall be submitted within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of the response from the Respondent. If additional time is needed to review the Respondent's response, conduct additional Investigation, or correct any factual errors, then the Committee shall request an extension of time from the RIO.
D5.5 Determination by RIO. Within seven (7) calendar days of his or her receipt of the final report, the RIO shall determine whether a Preponderance of Evidence in the Investigation Committee report supports a finding of Research Misconduct. If this determination varies from the findings of the Investigation Committee, the RIO will, as part of his/her written determination, explain in detail the basis for rendering a decision different from the findings of the Investigation Committee. Alternatively, the RIO may return the report to the Investigation Committee with a request for further fact-finding or analysis.
D6. Notifications and Actions. Upon acceptance of the final report of Investigation, the RIO shall promptly take the following actions.
D6.1 Notification of Respondent. The RIO shall provide the Respondent with a final copy of the Investigation report and his or her determination about whether Research Misconduct has occurred.
D6.2 Notification of Interested Parties. At his or her discretion, the RIO may provide Complainants, witnesses, Department Heads, Deans, and other University officials with a written summary of the Investigation Committee's findings and the RIO's determination in the case.
D6.3 Actions. Depending on the findings, the RIO shall take appropriate actions.
D6.3.1 Finding that an Allegation is not Supported. If the RIO finds that the Allegation is not supported by a Preponderance of the Evidence, then the RIO shall, in consultation with the Respondent, make efforts to restore the Respondent's reputation if affected by the Allegation. Written responses to these efforts shall be placed in the record of the Investigation.
D6.3.2 Finding of Violations other than Research Misconduct. If the RIO accepts the finding that Research Misconduct did not occur, but that the Respondent may have violated commonly accepted Research standards or other University policies, then the RIO may refer such possible violations in a separate summary memorandum to the appropriate administrative officer (who may be the RIO) and/or the Researcher's supervisor for action or discipline. If appropriate, such information may be considered in the applicable performance review process.
D6.3.3 Finding of Research Misconduct. If the RIO finds that Research Misconduct has occurred, then he or she shall initiate disciplinary action (Section E) and, in consultation with Campus or University Counsel, shall take any necessary corrective steps, including correction of the published record. The RIO is responsible for ensuring compliance with all notification requirements of funding or sponsoring agencies. If a finding of Research Misconduct is made, confidentiality limits extend only to the conclusion of additional federal regulatory actions or processes.
D7. Submission of Final Report. Within seven (7) calendar days after the RIO's determination as to whether Research Misconduct has occurred, the RIO shall provide a copy of the final report to the appropriate funding agency and to affiliated institutions, in compliance with regulations or contractual agreements. The final report shall include the actual text or an accurate summary of the views of any Respondent found to have engaged in Research Misconduct, as well as a description of any sanctions taken against such individual.
D8. Appeals. Neither the findings of an Investigation Committee, nor the RIO's determination regarding Research Misconduct, shall be subject to further appeal by any party.
E. CLOSING OF A RESEARCH MISCONDUCT PROCEEDING
E1. Discipline. Upon a finding of Research Misconduct, the RIO will notify the Chancellor and refer the matter to the appropriate offices for the imposition of discipline, consistent with applicable UC San Diego University policy and collective bargaining agreements, and will take steps to ensure that appropriate corrective actions and sanctions are implemented.
E2. Notification to External Agencies. If the case is reviewed by an external agency, then the RIO may report the final disposition to interested parties. The RIO is responsible for maintaining and providing to the sponsoring agency, records of Research Misconduct proceedings upon request. The RIO is responsible for maintaining records of Rresearch Misconduct proceedings in a secure manner for the period required by federal and state law, University policy, and the sponsoring agency, unless advised in writing otherwise.
2018-09-20 Policy revised.
2018-10-04 Grammar and formatting edits made to policy and Appendix B.
Other Policies and Disciplinary Procedures Relevant to Integrity of Research
University of California Integrity of Research Policy
· University of California Policy on Integrity of Research: https://policy.ucop.edu/doc/2500496/IntegrityInResearch
Academic Appointee Discipline and Grievances
· University of California Faculty Code of Conduct, Academic Personnel Manual: https://www.ucop.edu/academic-personnel-programs/academic-personnel-policy/policy-issuances-and-guidelines/revised-apm-015-and-016.html
· University of California Policy on Faculty Conduct and the Administration of Discipline, Academic Personnel Manual 016: https://www.ucop.edu/academic-personnel-programs/academic-personnel-policy/policy-issuances-and-guidelines/revised-apm-015-and-016.html
· University of California Policy on Corrective Action and Dismissal of Non-Senate Academic Appointees, Academic Personnel Manual 150: https://www.ucop.edu/academic-personnel-programs/_files/apm/apm-150.pdf
· UC San Diego Policy on Grievances of Non-Senate Academic Appointees, PPM 230-5: http://adminrecords.ucsd.edu/PPM/docs/230-5.HTML
Student Integrity of Scholarship Policy
· UC San Diego Policy on Integrity of Scholarship (this policy applies to academic course work for both undergraduate and graduate students): http://senate.ucsd.edu/Operating-Procedures/Senate-Manual/Appendices/2
Student Discipline and Grievances
· University of California Policies Applying to Campus Activities, Organizations, and Students, Section 100.00 Student Conduct and Discipline: https://policy.ucop.edu/doc/2710530/PACAOS-100
· UC San Diego Policies Applying to Student Activities, Section 22.00 Student Conduct and Discipline: https://students.ucsd.edu/sponsor/student-conduct/regulations/22.00.html
· UC San Diego Graduate Student Appeals, Graduate Student Handbook, Conflict Resolution and Student Appeals: http://gradlife.ucsd.edu/health-wellbeing/conflict-resolution/index.html
Postdoctoral Scholars Discipline and Grievances
· UC San Diego Policy on Postdoctoral Scholar Corrective Action and Discipline (see section 390-50): https://www.ucop.edu/academic-personnel-programs/_files/apm/apm-390.pdf
· UC San Diego Policy on Postdoctoral Scholar Grievances (see section 390-40): https://www.ucop.edu/academic-personnel-programs/_files/apm/apm-390.pdf
Employee Discipline and Grievances
· Procedures for administration of discipline for staff employees in accordance with applicable personnel policies
o Bargaining Units and Contracts are available at: https://ucnet.universityofcalifornia.edu/labor/bargaining-units/index.html
o Personnel Policies for Staff Members are available at: https://policy.ucop.edu/manuals/personnel-policies-for-staff-members.html
Extramural Agency Policies
· Applicable policies or regulations concerning research fraud and unethical conduct issued by federal, State, and private agencies from which UC San Diego has accepted research funding. Such regulations include Public Health Service (PHS) Policies on Research Misconduct – 42 CFR Part 93 – June 2005 (https://ori.hhs.gov/FR_Doc_05-9643), and the National Science Foundation regulations on Misconduct in Science and Engineering Research (45 CFR Part 689) (https://www.nsf.gov/oig/regulations/)
· University of California Policy on Reporting and Investigating Allegations of Suspected Improper Governmental Activities: https://policy.ucop.edu/doc/1100171/Whistleblower
· University of California Policy for Whistleblowers Protection: https://policy.ucop.edu/doc/1100563/WPP
· Protection of Whistleblowers from Retaliation UC San Diego Implementing Procedure: http://adminrecords.ucsd.edu/ppm/docs/200-14.html
Professional Society Statements of Professional Ethics and Responsibility
· In considering Allegations of Research Misconduct, the University will, if it deems it to be appropriate, consider the statements of professional ethics and responsibility of the professional society of which a Respondent is a member.
Instructions for the RIO and the Committee
The following is a suggested timeline for completion of the Inquiry process following receipt of an Allegation by the RIO:
(calendar days)
RIO Convenes Standing Inquiry Committee
Inquiry Committee submission of report to RIO
Initial review of report by RIO
Revision of report by Inquiry Committee, if necessary;
Inquiry committee submission of signed report to RIO
Decision to accept Inquiry Committee report as final;
determination as to whether Research Misconduct may have occurred; and notification of interested parties of determination by RIO
The following is a suggested timeline for completion of the Investigation process following the RIO's decision to accept the Inquiry committee report as final:
Appointment of Investigation Committee by RIO
Investigation Committee submission of report to RIO
Review of report by RIO;
when acceptable, report provided to Respondent
Respondent submission of response to report to RIO
Revision of report by Investigation Committee;
Investigation Committee submission of signed report to RIO
Decision to accept Investigation Committee report as final;
determination as to whether Research Misconduct has occurred; and
notification of interested parties of determination by RIO
Submission of final report to appropriate external agency by RIO


text:
Press Week Ahead: February 3 - 7
Statement by USTR Michael Froman on the "Made In Rural America" Export and Investment Initiative
New Trade Enforcement Action Combats Barrier to U.S. Clean Energy Products
Press Week Ahead: February 10 - 14
Statement by United States Trade Representative Michael Froman On 2013 Record Setting Export Numbers
Announcement of the National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking
Statement by U.S. Ambassador to the World Trade Organization Michael Punke at the WTO Trade Policy Review of Tonga
Notorious Markets List Focuses Fight Against Global Piracy and Counterfeiting of American Products
Ambassador Froman Meets with Japan's Minister of State for Economic and Fiscal Policy Akira Amari
Statement by U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman Following Meetings with EU Commissioner Karel de Gucht
U.S. Trade Representative Froman Welcomes New Move to Streamline Trade for American Workers and Businesses
Ambassador Froman Travels to Singapore for Trans-Pacific Partnership Ministerial Meetings
Statement of the Ministers and Heads of Delegation for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Countries
Readout of Meeting between U.S. Trade Representative Froman and Georgian Prime Minister Garibashvili
Israel Removed from Special 301 Report
Monday, February 3
On February 3-5, Ambassador Froman will travel to Santiago, Chile and Lima, Peru to address bilateral issues and discuss a strategy for closing the TPP negotiations.
Santiago, Chile and Lima, Peru
Closed Press
Ambassador Sapiro will deliver remarks about T-TIP and the trade agenda's implications for jobs and growth at a discussion hosted by the American Business Forum on Europe (ABFE).
Acting Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Wendy Cutler will deliver remarks on U.S.-Korea trade relations at a conference organized by the U.S.-Korea Business Council.
Ambassador Froman will meet with Danish Trade Minister Nick Haekkerup.
Ambassador Froman will meet with Peter Beyer, a member of the German Bundestag.
Ambassador Froman will speak to The Business Council's winter meeting.
Key Biscayne, Florida
Ambassador Froman will meet with Catherine Day, the Secretary-General of the European Commission.
** Additional events may be announced throughout the week.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Ссылки
 Статья в популярной белорусской газете "СБ Беларусь сегодня" http://www.sb.by/post/98329/
 Список историко-культурных ценностей в сёлах - https://web.archive.org/web/20130910023159/http://www.svisloch.turizm.grodno.by/index2.htm

Историко-культурные ценности Республики Беларусь

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


50 Luxury toilet Bowl Ring Remover - Hi guys, meet again on my personal blog site, Shopstyleblanc. Within this occasion, I'm going to demonstrate 50 best photo collection with regards to 50 Luxury toilet Bowl Ring Remover. The selected photo is best for you which can be classed together with Ring tag.
photos gallery please abide by this specific url.
Finally, if you want to download this best photo about 50 Luxury toilet Bowl Ring Remover, please right click and choose 'save image as' to save this photo to your handphone. To find for similar photo you can open Ring page. Other than that, we also have a similar photo titled Toilet Bowl Ring Remover Best Of Lysol Lime Amp Rust Remover Toilet Bowl Cleaner 24oz 10x Cleaning, Toilet Bowl Ring Remover New Shinymod Pumice Cleaning Stone With Handle Toilet Toilet Bowl Ring, Toilet Bowl Ring Remover Photo Of Amazon Lysol Power Toilet Bowl Cleaner 192oz 4x2x24oz 10x, Toilet Bowl Ring Remover Luxury Amazon Brillo Sno Bol Toilet Cleaner 16 Oz Packaging May Vary, Toilet Bowl Ring Remover Photo Of Fluidmaster Better Than Wax Universal Toilet Seal 7530p24 The Home.
That's all of my posts about 50 Luxury toilet Bowl Ring Remover, hope that we will meet again, bye!


text:
'The Time Has Come' - McGinlay's Plea to Bolton Supporters
You heard the man!
By Will H Jones@Wi1lJ Jan 17, 2019, 9:00am GMT
Share All sharing options for: 'The Time Has Come' - McGinlay's Plea to Bolton Supporters
John McGinlay has issued a rallying cry to Bolton Wanderers supporters, as they prepare to partake in an organised protest against club owner and chairman Ken Anderson.
Prior to Monday's televised fixture at home to West Bromwich Albion, Wanderers fans are invited to congregate at the Nat Lofthouse memorial statue outside the University of Bolton Stadium from 7pm.
At 7:15, boosted by the presence of the legendary McGinlay and in front of the onlooking Sky Sports television cameras, supporters will complete a lap of the ground before gathering outside the main entrance area, where demonstrations in the form of noise and voices of discontent will continue.
Speaking at a fans' forum at the Victoria Hall, Bolton Town Centre, on Wednesday night, McGinlay urged followers of the club to make their voices heard before getting behind their team once the on-field action has commenced, stating the following.
"The time has come where we, as supporters, need to have our voices heard," McGinlay told BBC Radio Manchester.
"I think it's obvious to everybody that Mr Anderson doesn't like criticism. (We need) supporters turning up in good voice on Monday night, criticising the way he's running the club and showing their unhappiness at the way things have gone under his leadership."
"It's come to the stage where he's got to realise and know how much this football club means to us".
"Mr Anderson will take notice. He doesn't like criticism. He reads everything that's written on social media that's concerning him".
"I think we have to show a voice, get our feelings across within reason - nothing silly - but he's got to know".
"The man doesn't live in this town. The man comes in, goes to the game, and goes home. He's never been in the town, never sees anybody and doesn't know what goes on in this town. He hasn't got an interest in the town".
"As soon as this man sells this football club, at whatever point it is, we'll never see or hear of that man again."
Encouragement of this kind via Super John will only strengthen our cause and will hopefully bring both more numbers and on a wider scale, more attention to the issues which we intend on raising and will continue to do so until the club is guaranteed a secure future.
Let's keep up the momentum and bring the noise on Monday.
As SJM says "Let's build this club back up again!"
We'll do it ourselves if we have to and we'll show we're capable of doing so.
This club will not die, we won't let it.
Whoever's name is above the door
Whoever holds the key
They'll never own our football club
It belongs to you and me.
MOTM: Bolton Wanderers 2-0 Ipswich Town Lee picks his Man of the Match from yesterdays win


Al-Khawarizmi is a trusted name in Islamic Apps development for years. We have sold thousands of apps and incorporated customer suggestions/reviews based on many years of experience to make usage of Islamic Content on mobile devices a pleasurable experience.
We have over 150+ islamic apps on all islamic subjects. Please take a look at our portfolio.
Top Reviews and Ratings of our apps are a testimony to our quality.
Keeping pace with current trends and technologies, Al-Khawarizmi brings to the world an Iphone application that lets you conveniently browse and read the book of Shaykh-ul-Islam Dr Tahir-ul-quadri sahab on virtues of Fatima(RA).
The status of Sayyedah Fatimah (سلام الله عليها), the blessed daughter of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW), is so great that those who are oblivious to it are not only doing injustice to themselves by depriving themselves from her teachings but are also unknowingly showing disregard to the Prophet (SAW).
At a time when Muslim women are flooded with so-called female role models, who rather than encouraging a modest and pure lifestyle, practice and preach the contrary, it is indeed time for Muslim women to adopt the life style of Sayyedah Fatimah (سلام الله عليها) who received divine praise for her morality.
People will be shocked to learn of the high esteem which she was held by the Prophet (SAW) and how divine commandments were revealed to the Prophet (SAW) which were specifically regarding Sayyedah Fatimah (سلام الله عليها).
Please enjoy, help and support us in making more islamic literature on the latest electronic gadgets.


It has been great to be in revival in Sharonville, Ohio since Friday night. We had a wonderful time with excellent services. Praise God for His help each and every night!
Pastor Randy Brown and I grew up together and it is awesome to be able to preach revival for him and his church. I am sure that most people that knew us as kids could not imagine we would both be holiness preachers but that is a great testimony to the grace of God!
Wednesday night was the last night of revival and it finished with a bang. The folks responded so well to the preaching and God touched us all in the altar service. It was a little bittersweet to have to leave our friends.
We have some pictures below from this week and you will find a few more in our post from Monday. I hope you enjoy them all.


Enel S.p.A., through its U.S.-based renewables subsidiary Enel Green Power North America, Inc. (EGPNA), has been awarded two 20-year Renewable Energy Support Agreements (RESAs) for 146 MW of new wind capacity in Alberta, Canada. The tender launched by the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO).
According to the two agreements, Enel will build two new wind facilities: the 115-MW Riverview Wind project and the 30.6-MW Phase 2 of Castle Rock Ridge wind farm. Enel will also supply their power output and renewable credits to AESO. The overall investment in the construction of the two wind farms amounts to approximately $170 million.
Riverview Wind and Phase 2 of Castle Rock Ridge, which is an expansion of EGPNA's existing 76.2-MW Castle Rock Ridge wind farm, are both located in Pincher Creek, Alberta and are due to enter into service by 2019. Once operational, the two facilities are expected to generate around 555 GWh per year.
:We have experienced unprecedented development in North and Central America from Canada to the USA and Mexico over the last years and this award is yet another example of our success and global competitiveness," added Cammisecra.
EGPNA's award will more than double the company's capacity in Canada, which currently stands at more than 103 MW. AESO has launched this first tender under their Renewable Electricity Program, which was established as part of the Government of Alberta's Climate Leadership Plan aimed at creating a cost-efficient, cleaner and increasingly reliable energy system.
The program calls for the development of 5,000 MW of renewable electricity generation capacity connected to the Alberta grid by 2030. In Canada, EGP already operates two wind facilities, the aforementioned Castle Rock Ridge wind farm in Pincher Creek, which began operations in 2012, and the 27-MW St. Lawrence wind farm in Newfoundland, which began operations in 2009.


text:
No Such Thing as a "Muslim World"
November 17, 2010July 25, 2018By Jennifer S. Bryson
In Jakarta President Obama spoke astutely about Muslims, but he engaged in dangerous obfuscation regarding al-Qaeda.
President Obama's recent speech in Jakarta was a reminder of a significant yet little noticed strategic shift in the course of U.S. counter-terrorism. Since 9/11 widespread use of the phrase "the Muslim world" has supported the Osama bin Laden narrative that we live in a world of "Muslims vs. non-Muslims." In his June 2009 Cairo speech and again in his Jakarta speech this month, President Obama has spoken about "Muslim communities" and "Muslims around the world"—not "the Muslim world." Yet media coverage of his Cairo speech and again his Jakarta speech was framed in terms of "the Muslim world." The New York Times even went so far last week as to describe his Cairo and Jakarta speeches in terms of a false dichotomy, one never referenced in his speeches, of "the West," on the one hand, and "the Islamic world," on the other.
The phrase "the Muslim world" inaccurately implies that Muslims are in some separate location and that they are a monolith. Muslims, however, are not segregated in one part of the globe. Muslims live in many different communities, including right here in America. In America Muslims are part and parcel of my town, owners of businesses where I shop, colleagues at work, public servants in government, members of the military which protects us.
In the event one needed a reminder of how talk of "the Muslim world" is not only dangerous but also just simply ridiculous, consider Anwar al-Awlaki's recent assertion that Americans are "the Devil" and "of the party of Satan," and that therefore no fatwa is needed to target Americans for death. The fact of the matter is that al-Awlaki, while portraying himself as an uber-Muslim, is actually calling all of us Americans, non-Muslim and Muslim together, "the Devil," and "of the party of Satan," and al-Awlaki has opened hunting season in America for non-Muslims and Muslims alike.
Al-Qaeda leaders like al-Awlaki preach a hyper-simplified view of a black-and-white, us vs. them world. President Obama, meanwhile, has done well in making an effort not to encourage this with hyper-simplistic, factually inaccurate language such as "the Muslim world."
Muslim populations themselves contain complex diversity. Not only are there sects and sub-movements inside these sects of Islam, but also, and more significantly, Muslims have differing interpretations of their faith and robust internal engagement in questions of interpretation and meaning. The native languages of Muslims range from English to Bolaang Mongondow to Chinese and beyond. Muslims live in over sixty countries. In his Jakarta speech, President Obama was smart to sustain his use of phrases such as "Muslim communities" and "Muslims around the world."
President Obama offered a strategic reframing, insisting that "those who want to build must not cede ground to terrorists who seek to destroy." This is a war of builders vs. destroyers, not a war of non-Muslims vs. Muslims. Countering Islamist violent extremists is a task for Muslims and non-Muslims. Those who are truly "other" are the violent Islamist extremists. But there is work to be done, and responsibility for it lies with all "who want to build."
And yet, a counter-current in President Obama's Jakarta speech risks undermining this. I can understand President Obama reiterating the clarification President Bush made again and again, namely that America's post-9/11 defenses are not at war against Islam. Confusion about this abounds in some corners of the world, so reiteration is in order. However what I find baffling and, frankly, dangerous, is the president's claim that, "al-Qaeda and its affiliates…have no claim to be leaders of any religion—certainly not a great world religion like Islam." This strange phrase sidesteps the fact that these terrorists self-identify as Muslims. They are not generic terrorists (as if there were such a thing).
Muslims in many communities around the globe reject al-Qaeda-esque interpretations of Islam, and Muslims number among those risking their lives to counter Islamist violent extremism. And yet the fact remains that bin Laden and his cohorts self-identify as Muslims and cite their interpretation of Islam as a core component of their motivation.
Al-Qaeda claims to speak and act in the name of Islam. We must remember that recognizing that al-Qaeda supporters claim to act in the name of Islam is not the same as recognizing them as Islam. This is a vitally important distinction.
If the U.S. starting point in trying to counter al-Qaeda is based on obfuscation or even denial about who these violent extremists understand themselves to be, then we will launch our efforts on the wrong trajectory. With such an approach, efforts to counter al-Qaeda's bloody terrorism can amount to little more than stabbing blindly at imaginary windmills.
Al-Qaeda members are shouting loudly and clearly about who they understand themselves to be; we ignore them at our own peril. Let's face it: if religion is part of the problem, then it has to be part of the solution. As Chris Seiple, the President of the Institute for Global Engagement is fond of saying, "only good theology beats bad theology."
Intra-Muslim struggles underway today are at the heart of efforts to counter al-Qaeda's influence. In addition to (and at times as part of) the military efforts of the U.S. and NATO allies in places like Afghanistan, Muslims themselves number among those who are at the front lines fighting against Islamist extremists. Examples of the latter are in historian James Le Sueur's forthcoming documentary film on writers and creative intellectuals, including many Muslims, exiled from Muslim-majority communities and living with threats from Islamist-extremists of violence and even death.
Those of us who oppose Taliban-esque societal takeovers and terror need to find ways to understand anti-terrorist Muslims and remove the barriers, like widespread censorship, that limit their efforts. Denying, however, that Islam has anything whatsoever to do with this is a recipe for the U.S. government to waste taxpayer money and precious time and miss opportunities to support Muslims who can engage religiously in a way those of us who are not Muslim cannot.
When it came to the topic of religious freedom, President Obama in his Jakarta speech continued a trend in his presidency to speak only of one aspect of religious freedom, namely freedom to worship, as if this in and of itself were religious freedom. It is not. He spoke in Jakarta only of, "the freedom to practice your faith without fear or restriction," and that "people choose to worship God as they please."
This is an impoverished concept of religious freedom which does not reflect the Congressional mandate in the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act, nor Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, namely "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."
Curiously, President Obama followed his eviscerated references to religious freedom in Jakarta by advocating Americans and Indonesians treat what some might consider political programs—about progress, unity, and peaceful coexistence—as "truths" that we should share "with faith and determination…with all mankind."
Reducing discussions of truth to the endorsement of a political program while treating religion as a quaint set of cultural traditions or denying the relevance of religion outright will not empower populations to tackle the ideology of al Qaeda and related Islamist movements, nor will this foster authentic religious freedom.
If we Americans, non-Muslim and Muslim alike, want to seek meaningful partnerships with Muslims in other populations of the world for countering terrorism and fostering human welfare, we need to stop hiding behind verbal gymnastics to avoid facing the reality of the vital role faith plays in the lives of many populations in the world today. This includes those who respond in faith to build, and those who manipulate religion to destroy.
Pornography and the Muslim World
Promoting a sexually permissive pop-culture in the Muslim world gets the true foundations of ordered…
Religious Freedom in the Muslim World: A Nuanced Appraisal
What is the status of religious freedom in Islam, and what are its prospects? An…
Freedom in Muslim Countries: An Endangered Species
Encouraging peaceful, reformist Muslims requires freedom of speech and religion. Yet U.S. policies in Egypt…
Jennifer Bryson
Jennifer S. Bryson, Ph.D. studies religion, freedom, security, and sports. She was educated at Stanford and Yale. You can read her articles at jenniferbryson.net. Jennifer is the founder of LetAllPlay.org. She's on Twitter @brysonjs.


The Work Club gives personalised help, advice, guidance and encouragement to help young people find and keep the job they really want. Our advisors help people build a CV, search for jobs and assist participants in completing high quality applications.
•	To encourage clients to take advantage of opportunities for employment, further education, or training.


text:
Ontario's Debt Nightmare has Surpassed Even America's Most Indebted State
(February 11, 2013) There was some alarming news out of the Fraser Institute last month. The leading Canadian public policy think-tank released a report that pegs Ontario's financial situation as somewhere in between California and Greece—America's most indebted state and Europe's most indebted country. The report pronounces the genuine need for immediate reforms in Ontario to slow the rate of spending and reduce our deficit.
This is not good news for Ontarians, but it is not unexpected news either. The Liberal record of spending, taxes and waste speaks for itself. And, coupled with unaffordable and completely reckless policies it's really no surprise that our fiscal situation is the way it is.
Compared to California—well known for garnering headlines for being a fiscal train wreck—Ontario is in a worse position on every fiscal measure of indebtedness. In fact, the report shows that our debt ($236.6 billion) is almost twice as high as California's ($143.9 billion) despite the relatively small size of our economy and population.
And, not only are we in worse shape than America's most indebted state, the report reveals that if things don't dramatically change our economy is on its way to becoming the next Greece. In fact, Ontario's net debt-to-GDP ratio is 37 percent, the same ratio Greece had in 1984.
Year after year, the McGuinty-Wynne government has ignored warnings and expert advice all the while continuing down a path of out-of-control spending with no plan or forethought into the future for how to pay for it, but now the spending has caught up to us.
The Fraser Institute cites that the motivation behind their report as the government's complete "lack of genuine response" to the Drummond report, a 2012 report the Liberals paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to have done and then ignored after it revealed the cost-cutting measures necessary to reverse the debt that they created.
This government just doesn't get it.
More debt means less money for things we care about most. Every additional dollar that casually gets doled out by this government means another dollar we borrow from foreign lenders and another dollar we must pay interest on.
Last year alone Ontario added $12 billion to the provincial debt that we pay $11 billion in interest payments to service each year. Interest payments have become our third largest expenditure next to health and education.
Tens of billions of provincial taxpayer dollars are consistently being given to foreign lenders, and instead of making the necessary reforms to reduce our deficit and get Ontario back on a sustainable track the Liberal government continues to dig the hole deeper.
Not dealing with the fiscal realities in front of us is merely delaying the inevitable. And, as debt and interest continue to compound it's clear that this government is not up to the job.
Incoming Premier Kathleen Wynne has proudly vowed to "build on the legacy of Dalton McGuinty," a legacy that includes more spending and more debt. Ontario cannot afford this fate.
It's time for a new government and a new approach: A government that is focused on Ontario and is capable of doing what they were put there do to and that's managing the public purse.


Infrastructure is composed of standard x86 server technology without the necessity for external storage. Hyper-converged infrastructure proceeds to evolve significantly. It relies on both great hardware and great software. In the majority of cases, it would be unreasonable to put money into a Hyper-converged Infrastructure once the requirements are ordinary. Hyper-converged infrastructure has turned into a hot topic in IT. It is the latest buzz in IT circles. As soon as it is comparable to a converged infrastructure to some degree, hyper-convergence leans more toward software-based architecture.
IoT systems ought to be designed for prolonged and sustained advantages. Because of their all-in-one configuration, hyper-converged systems make it possible for you to build, scale and safeguard IT infrastructure more affordably and effectively than every other option available, he states. They also offer a range of operational benefits. On the flip side, Hyper Converged systems can on occasion be challenging to keep, complicated in functioning, and can be quite labor-intensive in the start. It's simple to spec a little converged system which pushes into the 7-figure selection. While you can get a pre-configured system prepared to power up and run, HPE also provides a software configuration tool named HPE OneView InstantOn (OVIO) to assist you through the procedure. Actually, now you can deploy high-performance, all-flash Virtual SAN systems at far lower cost than hybrid HCI solutions from different vendors.
VMware, Nutanix, Dell EMC, and HPE are a couple of critical players in the worldwide hyper-converged infrastructure marketplace. For instance, the server can be gotten rid of and utilized on its own and you'll be able to isolate and utilize individual storage units independently. Because of its capacity to support increased user density, the configuration causes a significantly lower cost per seat. For instance, it's possible to modify a present switch to another type, but doing that affects the networking capabilities of all of the digital machines connected to that switch. To handle various kinds of networking, you may add virtual switches and digital network adapters. As another instance, you can connect a digital network adapter to another switch, which you might do if you would like to connect to another network. Rather than altering the type, you'd add another digital network adapter and pick the proper type.
To remain in the market, you've got to think of new merchandise and solutions. Hyper Converged products are working to help the big storages with virtualization for servers. VDI items like HPE Hyper-Converged 380 offer a wide selection of benefits to organizations seeking to making their IT operations run better. Begin with a good specification and you will likely discover some vendors perform better against it than others. As there is more than 1 vendor handling your components, it will probably cost you high premiums and may get overly complicated. A number of providers are the end result of mergers and acquisitions, which makes it important to canvas HCI providers with the exact same skepticism and enthusiasm needed to get on the Cloud in the very first location.
The Internet is getting a humankind's neural network, which eventually will contain everybody's thoughts and memories in the form of tweets, videos and pictures (along with the additional benefit of having the ability to hunt for stuff!) You're going to want a minumum of one of each to establish networking for a digital machine. The simplest approach to establish fundamental networking is to make a digital switch when you install Hyper-V. If your organization serves a big and complicated IoT infrastructure, you should plan for the millions of devices which are likely to get on the web during the next several decades. You get just what you require for your business with our customizable servers according to your specifications. For the intent of providing in-depth information concerning the industry trend, the worldwide hyper-converged infrastructure market has been segmented on the grounds of application, end user and geography. As a consequence of continuing technology evolution, demand for a new kind of hardware has gotten to a fever pitch.
Software innovation is the thing that makes HCI possible. All the technology is wholly integrated, meaning it can't be divided up into separate components. In addition, it negates the need to buy separate virtualization software. The very best technology brings tangible business benefits deciding on the best storage technology can assist your business grow. The majority of the core technology is beginning to shift to software.
The very best IoT platforms are intended to close that loop. CI physical hardware has to be purchased and installed when more space is necessary, which can end up costing a lot. If very large amounts of storage are required, it is better to go with either a conventional SAN or a classic converged system that could support massive deployments. Storage for SMEs is provided by all the significant suppliers. You will also save yourself from having to put money into large quantities of physical space for an assortment of hardware CI is a single box system.


Music Therapy can be an effective way to help special needs children develop play skills. It takes musical instruments, helpful techniques, and a little patience.
In my days I have worked with many special needs children who just LOVE to throw things. Give them a toy and they throw it for the sheer thrill of it, or in some cases just for the pleasure of seeing someone else pick it up (one of my clients used to giggle every time someone bent over, so of course she tried to make that happen as often as possible!).
Most of the kids I've worked with who throw consistently have been nonverbal and diagnosed with a severe or profound disability. I've come to look at the function of throwing in a few different areas–Sensory, Emotional, and/or disinterest. I'll briefly describe how the throwing behavior stems from each of these areas, then discuss how a music therapist may address the issue and lead to increased success in object play, with a natural decline in throwing.
First off, a special needs child who is in his own world may throw an object solely for the Sensory experience. This may be found in the proprioceptive feedback of the throwing motion (the way it feels to have something in your hand one moment and flying across the room the next), or perhaps the visual stimulation a flying object provides.
An emotional reason for throwing may be frustration (this is a common one). If a child desires to avoid or escape a certain task he or she is being asked to do (or wants to do but can't quite get it right), he or she may become frustrated and throw the object(s) in question. This is a pretty normal response, I mean who doesn't feel like throwing the computer out the window sometimes when it's not working the way it should? I know I'm guilty. Of wanting to, that is…fortunately I have the skills I need in emotional regulation to either walk away from the computer or take a deep breath. Many special needs children need help in developing those skills in emotional regulation.
Another reason may be due to not knowing what to do with the object in the first place (which may also be a cause of the aforementioned frustration). I find that this is more common than we may think. Many children with Autism lack skills in pretend play, and instead of pretending that a toy truck is driving down the road, they may become enthralled with the way the wheels spin, the way it looks moving back and forth in front of their face, or, of course, the way it looks flying in the air across the room. I believe that this lack of inherent skill in pretend play can lead a child to essentially become disinterested or bored in his or her surroundings, and therefore choose to put off any object that is presented by another individual.
Whether the reason for throwing is due to sensory needs, frustration, or disinterest, music therapy can play a key role in helping special needs children develop the skills of sustained attention to an object, which will naturally decrease the throwing behavior if done right. I've worked with many children over the years whose goal was to "increase functional use of objects". This was often in tandem with the Occupational Therapist, and we would work together to develop ideas and create positive experiences for the individual. I will outline the general process I have gone through to help develop this skill–all using music, instruments, and music therapy techniques.
The first objective is usually that the child will "hold an item for 10 seconds", or whatever length of time is most appropriate for that child. They don't even have to play with it at first–just hold it–while the objectives increase the required time in gradual increments. The way I use music during this stage is as a temporal cue. I ask the child to hold the item for the length of a preferred song, often starting with short songs or even portions of songs if necessary. I've found that while I am playing the music and engaging affectively with the child, they almost forget that they are holding an item because I have drawn their attention elsewhere. Once the song is over they are free to put the object down, and I ask them to either put it in my hand or set it on the ground. If they do happen to throw it during the song, I stop singing, give them another item, and start over (I try not to give the satisfaction of the child seeing me pick up after them, but rather have a whole bucket of instruments to draw from). If they throw it after the song is over, I ignore the behavior and praise them for holding it while I sang. The whole process should be fun and lighthearted, which is naturally aided by the fact that you are singing the child's favorite songs!
The purpose of this objective is to address the "disinterest" root for why a child may be throwing. If a child develops the skills to engage effectively with an item, they will naturally be more inclined to sustain attention to that item because they know what to do with it. And, hopefully, they enjoy the result of their play. The key in this step is finding what items are most interesting to the child and working with those first. One child I worked with automatically threw anything that was small (such as shakers, bells, etc.), and tried to throw large items (such as a gathering drum or autoharp), but as I persisted with the large items and made it impossible for her to throw them (by securing them down), she gradually began to show sustained interest and interacted with the instruments once she realized she could not throw them. Over time she truly came to enjoy making music on the drum and autoharp, and even held a drum mallet and played the drum for several minutes at a time (which is something she used to throw the second it touched her hand).
The beautifully inherent thing about instruments is that they are fun and interesting to play with because they make noise. We can use this to our advantage by asking the child to participate in a music-making experience while we either play the same instrument (supporting the child with full or partial physical prompts), or support their play with the guitar, piano, voice, or other harmonic instrument.
Once the child demonstrates the ability to engage effectively with instruments and musical items, the natural next step is to help him or her learn how to functionally use other items they may have chosen to throw previously. This may include using utensils, books, toys, etc. This should be based on the child's interests, and may require elements from the first objective (i.e. sing about the item). The purpose of the music up to this point has been to help the child learn to tolerate holding an item, develop sustained attention, and to provide them with a successful experience in using an item functionally.
I've had several parents report that after having music therapy, their child began to hold on to items (such as utensils) and play with toys much more purposefully at home. It is so exciting to see these kids develop a basic skills that has a drastic impact on SO many other areas!


A number of educational programs have been incorporated into the Colleges in Surat with the help of the Government which encourages all educational endeavors. The success of the implementation of these programs is found in the Colleges in Surat which lays emphasis on all streams of education as well as in extracurricular activities.
The Colleges in Surat provide courses in various humanities, science and commerce streams. The worldwide acceptable Islamic Arabic academy with state-of-the-art facilities was later formed into a University which also promotes education for the Bohra girls.
Bachelor level education in IT as well as computer and electronics are also excellent, courses conducted in the Colleges in Surat help the students to go for post graduate courses which help in fulfillment of their dreams and aspirations.
Four year Engineering courses and five to five and a half year courses in medicine are offered in the professional Colleges in Surat. High class education and highly advanced facilities are provided in these Colleges in Surat. Diploma courses, degree courses and Post graduate courses in various disciplines are offered in the Colleges in Surat. Quality education is provided in the management Colleges in Surat. Medical colleges that award degree in MBBS as well as MD and MS are yet another attraction to those who plan their careers very well. There are homeopathy, physiotherapy and nursing Colleges in Surat as well. For admission to the professional courses the students have to clear the common entrance exams. Some of the professional Colleges in Surat has separate entrance tests which qualifies the candidate to that particular college. The Regional Engineering Colleges help meet the demand for trained and quality technical manpower which is necessary for development of the state.


The XL900 bioethanol burner from EcoSmart is part of their best-selling XL range of burners. At 961 mm long, the burner produces a fabulous long consistent flame which looks great in any style of fireplace. The XL900 can be used in conjunction with the Flex series of casings or built into other suitable structures. Contact us for details of how to use and install the XL900 and design ideas. Burner top finish available in brushed stainless steel and black. The EcoSmart range of burners and fires have tested against a number of global standards and certified for use in the UK and EU in accordance with EN16647. Please note room size requirements when ordering this burner.


text:
The World Bank In Central African Republic
The World Bank supports the Central African Republic's goal to transition from extended instability to long-term economic recovery.
Central African Republic Home
The Central African Republic (CAR) is a landlocked country embarking on a long path to recovery. In 2013, a security crisis unraveled its social fabric. Elections in 2016 brought hope for a gradual end to transition and turmoil. The CAR has a population of about 4.6 million (2016).
Political Context
For the first time in its history, CAR has a democratically-elected president and parliament. In March 2016, Faustin Touadera was declared president after a run-off with his main rival, Anicet Dologuele. Legislative elections placed Abdoul Meckassoua, from the Muslim minority, at the head of the National Assembly. The elections concluded the two-year mandate of Catherine Samba-Panza's transitional government.
CAR's crisis began when President François Bozizé was overthrown in March 2013 by the Séléka rebel movement. Less than a year later, Séléka leader Michel Djotodia was forced to step aside after conflict between the mainly Muslim Séléka and Christian Anti-Balaka. A ceasefire in July 2014, and the Bangui Forum in May 2015, marked an end to all-out conflict, although sectarian tensions have continued to erupt since.
The French Sangaris force and the United Nations played major roles in restoring peace. France's military mission ended in October 2016 but the UN Security Council extended the mandate of its MINUSCA force until November 2018, authorizing a force of 11,650 personnel, including military observers and staff officers, police and corrections officers. Its aim is more capacity to protect civilians.
Social Context
Internal displacement in the CAR rose in 2017, the UN reports: by early 2018, about 688,000 Central Africans were internally displaced and 546,000 were refugees in neighboring countries. Clashes in December 2017 displaced about 78,000 people from Ouham-Pendé Prefecture's Paoua town. At least 2.5 million people will need assistance in 2018, more than half the country's population. The government and Country Team launched a $515.6 million (CFAF 275.7 billion) Humanitarian Response Plan in 2018.
Economic recovery in CAR continued in 2017 with 4.3% real GDP growth rate, slightly slower than 2016 (4.5%), but better than the forecast made at the beginning of the second half of 2017 (3.8%). Private consumption contributed the most, along with a slight contribution from government. Export growth decelerated to 5.2% in 2017, after picking up at 8.2% of GDP in 2016 on the back of key exports, such as timber, gold, coffee, and cotton. Imports, including food, increased as security along the Bangui–Garoua Boulai corridor improved.
On the supply side, industrial sector growth rose from 2% in 2016 to 7.2% in 2017 (led by construction, agri-industry, and green diamonds), while the service sector struggled amid volatile security. The primary sector dropped from almost 6% in 2016 to about 3% in 2017.
Inflation fell from 4.6% in 2016 to 4.1% in 2017. The current account deficit reached 8.5% in 2017, down from 9.0% in 2016, reflecting a deceleration in food aid and slightly stronger forestry, diamonds, and gold exports. Public debt, 56.2% of GDP in 2016, is projected to fall to 51.8% of GDP in 2017, driven by the clearance of domestic arrears. However, the CAR remains at high risk of debt distress.
The government continued its fiscal consolidation and took action to meet its revenue target for the end of 2017. The domestic primary fiscal balance improved—from a deficit of 3.0% of GDP in 2015 to 1.1% in 2016—which led to an overall fiscal surplus (including grants) of 1.6% of GDP. The balance is estimated to be 1.9% of GDP in 2017, translating to a budget surplus of 0.5% of GDP.
Poverty remains pervasive and elevated: the last household survey was in 2008, making it difficult to monitor recent trends. But projections based on GDP per capita indicate that in 2017 about 75% of the population lived below the international poverty line (US$1.90 per day, 2011 PPP)—up from 66% in 2008. And, as per the 2016 Human Development Index, CAR had the world's lowest level of human development, ranking 188th out of 188 countries.
Protracted insecurity has left its mark. An escalation of conflict in 2017 triggered new waves of forced displacement not seen since 2014. Livelihoods of the poor are mostly in agriculture, and instability prevents farmers from tending their fields, undermines food security, and hinders the recovery of the agricultural sector.
Medium Term Outlook
The CAR's positive macroeconomic and poverty outlook strongly hinges on stability, as well as on investment and export growth. A worsening security situation will impact growth, due to stabilize at about 4.0% over the medium-term—contingent on the implementation of the government's investment plan. Poverty is expected to drop to 73% by 2019. Exports of diamond and wood could pick up, while cotton production and cotton exports may increase because the sector cleared its arrears in 2017. Imports of equipment are due to stay high as public and private investment resumes.
Fiscal consolidation will continue over the medium-term, with an average fiscal surplus of 0.7% for 2018–2020. While total expenditure will quicken as the CAR administration deploys beyond Bangui, total revenue is expected to return to its pre-crisis level of 9% of GDP.
Inflation is expected to fall to 3.6% in 2018, reaching the Central African Economic and Monetary Community convergence level of 3% by 2020. Strengthening debt management will reduce the debt burden, with total government debt declining to 39.6% of GDP in 2020. The current account balance is forecast to improve from a 8.4% deficit in 2018 to 6.7% in 2020.
World Bank Group Engagement in the Central African Republic
In 2015, the World Bank provided $10 million for FY16–17additional financing to the Emergency Public Services Response project, $12 million to the Health Sector Support project, and $20 million to the countrywide, labor-intensive public works "Londo" project. A series of policy notes have since informed a $250 million Turn-Around program of short-term stabilization efforts and long-term development activities. These include:
a financial reform project; development objectives and associated Technical Assistance; and a project to consolidate state capacity and improve resource allocation;
support for the reintegration of former combatants and for displaced populations; and
financing to improve service delivery in the water, energy, and social sectors, and in ICT. Support to the agricultural, mining, and forestry sectors, and for access to major basins of production, will create much-needed jobs.
The World Bank co-led a Recovery and Peacebuilding Assessment and played a key role in an international donor conference for CAR in November 2016 that resulted in a $2.2 billion pledge, including $2 billion for reconstruction and $0.2 billion for humanitarian assistance. This exceeded the $1.6 billion expected for the next 3 years, with the bulk of financing coming from IFIs such as the WB, AfDB, Arab funds, IMF, and the European Union (EU)—both EDF and European countries, among which France stood out.
The LONDO project (or 'Stand-Up' in Sango, the official language in CAR)
LONDO is a peacebuilding project that uses labor-intensive public works to promote social cohesion, economic recovery, and local governance. The first four phases of it have been completed; it is 75% executed and 70% disbursed. The government has asked for $25 million in additional financing (for delivery in early 2019) to support the return of state and public services in the provinces. As the largest cash-for-work program in CAR, it has almost a million man-days in 54 out of 71 districts. Through it, some 26,000 beneficiaries (35% of them women) have maintained 1,500 km of rural road to help their communities. The project benefits from collaboration with international and national partners working in the humanitarian-development-peace nexus.
Emergency Public Services Response project
The Emergency Public Services Response Project is to re-establish a government payroll and operational financial management systems. It supports the government to pay civil service salaries in civilian sectors (excluding the security forces and police). The project has helped over 17,000 civil servants, reducing the time between planned and actual pay days from 30 hours to 13 (the target is 10.) The percentage of customs staff who resumed work increased from 10% to 86% in 2015 alone. The percentage of teachers and health workers resuming work in districts where security has improved has increased from 0% to 89%.
Emergency Power Response Project
The Emergency Power Response Project is working to partially restore a reliable electricity supply to customers in Bangui, including the national water company and hospitals. The project is rehabilitating the Boali 1 and 2 hydropower facilities. Load shedding has stopped for essential services; 150 km of distribution lines have been constructed or rehabilitated; and annual electricity losses have been reduced by 9%.
Health System Support Project
The Health System Support Project aims to increase the use and improve the quality of maternal and child health services in targeted rural areas. It has supported over 3.2 million people, half of them women, and treated 3,391 female victims of violence. More than one million women have been given access to a basic health, nutrition, or reproductive health package.
The Emergency Urban Infrastructure Rehabilitation and Maintenance Project
The Emergency Urban Infrastructure Rehabilitation and Maintenance Project (closed in September 2016) increased access to infrastructure and urban services for the most deprived districts of Bangui. Close to 85,000 people benefited from improved drainage, and over 37,000 from access to improved water sources.
In a climate of instability, one where significant security risks remain, the World Bank Group is working closely with the United Nations peacekeeping mission MINUSCA (the UN's Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission), African Union, EU, France, and the United States. Collaboration has entailed assessments with the UN, United Kingdom's DFID, and France's Agence française de développement, in consultation with the CAR. The preparation of projects is coordinated with development partners.
Country Partnership Strategy
Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers
Central African Republic: Commitments by Fiscal Year (in millions of dollars)*
Find out what the Bank Group's branches are doing in Central African Republic.
Doing Business in Central African Republic
Rue des Missions
Bangui, Central African Republic
Franck Bitemo
Kinshasa, DRC
fbitemo@worldbank.org
caralert@worldbank.org