California Air Resources Board

Scope of Work

Pre-Proposal Requirements

Go back to the solicitation landing page to access the template, frequently asked questions, and link to the zoom meeting registration and slides.

Background

Multiple environmental stressors, including air pollution, water and soil contamination, and extreme weather events linked to climate change, impact the health and well-being of all Californians. Social determinants of health such as poverty, healthcare access, and linguistic isolation can exacerbate the effects from these environmental stressors. The cumulative impacts from such stressors drive place-based disparities in health outcomes. [1], [2] Given the combined stressors and resulting disparities, researchers [3] and scientific institutions [4], [5] have called for cumulative impact assessments to inform regulatory decisions and analyses. Within CARB, Resolution 20-13 directs staff to develop new quantitative and qualitative approaches to assess the health benefits of the agency’s regulatory actions and programs. [6] As outlined in CARB’s Five-Year Strategic Research Plan [7], which was informed by community input, understanding the cumulative health impacts of multiple air pollution stressors is a key research priority to advance and expand CARB’s health impact assessment.

The California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) defines cumulative impacts as exposures or effects on public health or the environment from all emissions or discharges in an area, including those that may be routine, accidental, or otherwise. [8] Similarly, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (U.S. EPA) definition refers to the totality of exposures to combined chemical and non-chemical stressors and their effects on health, well-being, and quality of life. [9] Guided by these definitions, several frameworks and reports discuss research priorities and recommendations for environmental and public health regulatory agencies on cumulative impacts assessments. In Cumulative Impacts Research: Recommendations for EPA’s Office of Research and Development [10], U.S. EPA’s cumulative impacts scoping workgroup notes that identifying and characterizing stressors must go beyond single-stressor evaluations; rather, the workgroup recommends considering the health effects from multiple stressors through quantitative and qualitative datasets and methods. This report also highlights the lack of high-resolution spatial and temporal data characterizing exposure, health, and socioeconomics as a hindrance to conducting cumulative impact assessments, particularly in urban areas.

Subsequently, U.S. EPA published the Interim Framework for Advancing Consideration of Cumulative Impacts [11], which builds on the workgroup’s recommendations to specify the need for combined impacts from multiple chemicals, ecological and population characteristics, and community vulnerabilities. State of the Science and the Future of Cumulative Impact Assessment [12], a consensus study report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, corroborates these observations and recommends research on technical indicators and community-defined quantitative and/or qualitative metrics of cumulative health burdens. All reports cite the need to include community expertise to identify stressors and health outcomes of elevated concern.

In developing this solicitation, CARB aimed to build on the recommendations from the aforementioned reports, advance the science on cumulative health assessments, inform CARB’s health impact assessments, and respond to community concerns. CARB staff held dozens of one-on-one conversations with academic and technical experts, state and local government stakeholders, air districts, community experts, and community-based organizations in California to provide further insights. CARB initially developed four research concepts based on literature review and these conversations: 1) characterize health endpoints from multipollutant exposures, 2) characterize local health outcomes from multipollutant exposures in communities, 3) investigate health effects of air pollution exposures integrated over a lifetime, and 4) analyze impacts of social and environmental stressors on health effects of air pollution. Stakeholders also identified the need for mixed methods evaluations [13] and health assessments of toxic air contaminants, especially those with spatially limited but persistent exposure footprints. Staff presented these concepts at a public meeting, where stakeholders provided input on scientific merit, feasibility, and priority. [14]

Based on this scientific review and public engagement, CARB is soliciting research proposals 1) to develop statewide health impact functions from multipollutant exposures and 2) to conduct community-scale mixed methods health assessments, hereafter referred to as health assessments, from exposures to toxic air pollutants. Health impact functions refer to quantitative concentration-response estimates intended to inform CARB’s regulatory health impact analysis, whereas health assessments refer to evidence-based qualitative and quantitative evaluations to characterize health effects of environmental exposures. [15] Several recent studies compare health impacts estimated from single and multipollutant approaches but note that multipollutant assessments are computationally complex and generally require further research characterizing exposure error, joint effects, and confounding before regulatory applications. [16], [17] CARB’s current health analysis methodology [18] relies on single-pollutant approaches, and this solicitation would investigate the benefits of a more comprehensive health analysis methodology that captures real-world conditions of multipollutant exposures. In addition, the solicitation seeks mixed methods community-scale health assessments from exposure to multiple toxic pollutants in communities. Mixed methods approaches integrate quantitative datasets with qualitative datasets (e.g., experiences of communities facing an environmental burden). [19], [20] The results of these studies will inform CARB’s ability to characterize and integrate cumulative impacts into health assessments at a state level and in overburdened communities. Due to the broad scope of this project, multidisciplinary teams, multi-university teams, teams with established collaborations with community-based organizations, and teams engaged with monitoring of localized or emerging pollutants are encouraged to apply.

Objective

Health assessments of environmental policies and programs generally consider health impacts from exposure to individual chemicals despite the prevailing recognition that cumulative approaches that capture numerous pollutants from an array of sources would better represent real-world exposures, particularly in overburdened communities. [1], [21] In response to this need, CARB seeks to investigate quantitative and qualitative characterizations of health impacts associated with 1) simultaneous exposure to multiple criteria air pollutants, including components of fine particulate matter (PM_2.5), across California and 2) toxic air contaminants of elevated concern within overburdened communities. This research will inform CARB’s health impact analysis by developing California-specific, statewide multipollutant health impact functions (Pillar I) as well as quantitative or qualitative health assessments from exposure to toxic air pollutants in communities with elevated exposures or health burdens (Pillar II).

For Pillar II, the selected team will work with CARB staff to develop and refine the work plan for community-specific assessments; final selection of communities, air pollutants and health outcomes, exposure and health datasets, analysis methods, and other key decisions will be subject to CARB review and approval. CARB expects this research could help improve understanding and estimation of the public health impacts of simultaneous exposure to multiple air pollutants, and provide methods for improving evaluation of health benefits of pollution reduction programs, particularly in overburdened and disadvantaged communities.

Scope of work

Pillar I: Statewide multipollutant exposures and health endpoints

Investigators will develop California-wide risk estimates to quantify health impacts from exposure to multiple criteria air pollutants. This pillar will compare health impact estimates between multipollutant health impact functions with single-pollutant and additive approaches. Investigators will use fine spatial resolution air quality data (1km or higher resolution) and health data representative of California’s populations to develop California-specific, stratified health impact functions for health endpoints included in CARB’s health impact assessment [18] or for health endpoints categorized as causal or likely to be causal in U.S. EPA’s Integrated Science Assessments [22]. The investigators will identify and apply scientifically supported epidemiological methods for estimating health risks from multipollutant exposures. The health impact functions will be stratified for relevant population subgroups (as identified based on literature review and covariate analysis) where possible. The investigators should use existing spatially and temporally resolved exposure datasets to the extent feasible. The results from this research will help CARB, the greater scientific community, other environmental protection agencies, and the general public to better understand the public health impacts of simultaneous exposure to multiple air pollutants and the benefits of using multipollutant analysis vs. single pollutant analysis.

Task I.1: Literature Review

The investigator shall conduct a comprehensive literature review on recent research and exposure datasets and modeling tools 1) that characterize spatially and temporally resolved human exposures to multiple air pollutants and to speciated PM_2.5 and 2) that characterize the association between multipollutant and speciated PM_2.5 exposures and health endpoints.

• The investigator shall compare and contrast uncertainties, strengths, and weaknesses of ecological and individual-level study designs of multipollutant exposures, specifically for applications in regulatory health impact analyses.
• Discuss potential limitations and strengths in the interpretation of health impact functions and whether existing monetization approaches such as those used in BenMAP can be applied to health endpoints estimated from multipollutant exposures compared to those derived from single pollutant exposures. Note that new monetization methods or models are not needed.
• Discuss considerations for modeling health endpoints by region- or air basin-specific multipollutant health associations instead of statewide health associations to appropriately capture the unique topography, meteorology, microclimates, and prevailing exposures (e.g., NO_x [oxides of nitrogen] or VOC [volatile organic compounds] dominated regions) across CA.
• Identify covariates and effect modifiers, including population characteristics and social and environmental factors.
• Identify existing methodologies for incorporating socioeconomic metrics in health analysis to capture elevated health impacts in overburdened communities from exposure to air pollution.
• Identify suitable combinations of air pollutants and health endpoints for analysis with CARB approval.

Interim Deliverable

1. Literature review covering items listed above. This review will be included in the draft final report.
2. Proposed combination of air pollutants and health endpoints along with scientific rationale. This deliverable should include preliminary discussion on whether the health impact functions would differ by regions of California or by pollutant mixture (i.e., separate effect estimates for ranges of NO_x/VOC [nitrogen oxides/volatile organic compounds] ratio).

Task I.2: Obtain multipollutant exposure data

Based on air pollutants identified in Task I.1, the investigator shall identify, acquire, and prepare multipollutant and speciated PM_2.5 statewide exposure datasets for specific time periods determined with CARB approval. PM_2.5 must be included in the analysis, and the investigator should consider other pollutants relevant to CARB’s health analyses including speciated PM_2.5, NO₂ (nitrogen dioxide), O₃ (ozone), SO₂, and other pollutants where exposure data are available. 
CARB prefers, but does not require, that the investigator leverage existing CARB exposure datasets where appropriate, including available daily, gridded 1km resolution data for 2000-2020 for speciated PM_2.5, NO₂, and O₃. [23] The investigator may propose additional exposure datasets or methods if they are scientifically justified and appropriate for the study.

Interim Deliverable

1. A summary identifying the pollutants and exposure datasets selected with CARB approval, the rationale for pollutant selection, along with the strengths, weaknesses, and limitations of the datasets. 
2. A summary of statistical comparisons of air quality data for the selected combination of pollutants, including typical or prevalent exposures in California regions (e.g., air basins or regions where exposures are dominated by VOCs, NO_x, or other pollutants). 
3. If using exposure datasets from a source other than CARB, provide final exposure datasets. 

Task I.3: Obtain health data and covariates from existing datasets

The investigators shall identify and obtain health outcome data, population, and covariates from datasets suitable for health assessments of multipollutant exposures in California for time periods identified in Tasks I.1 and I.2. Potential health data sources may include, but are not limited to HCAI (California Department of Health Care Access and Information), CHIS (California Health Interview Survey), or individual health datasets. The investigators shall evaluate whether the selected datasets and study population support analyses that are representative of California’s diversity (e.g., age, racial/ethnic background, socioeconomic status (SES), pre-existing health conditions, etc.).

Health endpoints should include, but are not limited to, endpoints included in CARB’s health impact assessment methodology or endpoints reviewed in recent CARB research. CARB prefers the following health endpoints to be evaluated at minimum:

• All-cause and cardiopulmonary mortality
• Emergency room visits and hospitalizations for respiratory or cardiovascular illnesses

If resources are available, additional health endpoints can be included such as birth (preterm birth, low term birth weight), neurodevelopmental, neurodegenerative, neurological, metabolic, respiratory, cardiovascular, or other health endpoints, particularly if identified in EPA’s Integrated Science Assessments as having ‘causal’, ‘likely to be causal,’ or ‘suggestive of causal’ links to air pollution exposure.

The investigator shall consider the ability to use health endpoints to estimate annual economic costs using existing methods like willingness-to-pay or valuation functions used in U.S. EPA’s BenMAP. The investigator shall also identify and include effect modifiers and covariates based on the literature review conducted under Task I.1, (e.g. income, education, race/ethnicity, age, language, housing, health care access, green space, noise, proximity to sources).

Interim Deliverable

1. A description of proposed health outcome, population, and covariate data sources for subsequent analysis, including the rationale for dataset selection, data sources, geographical region, spatial and temporal resolution, limitations, and the extent to which the datasets are representative of California’s population including characteristics such as age, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, pre-existing health conditions, and other covariates identified for analysis.
2. Non-confidential, or otherwise publicly available, raw data selected for subsequent analysis in electronic format.
3. Final selection of the combination of air pollutants and health endpoints (selected from deliverables in Task I.1). The selection of air pollutants and endpoints for subsequent analyses must be with CARB approval based on considerations like data availability, feasibility and uncertainty in modeling, limitations to interpretations of health associations, methods available to estimate economic costs of the health endpoints, and relevance to CARB’s health impact assessment methodology.

Task I.4: Characterize the association between multipollutant exposure and health endpoints

Develop statewide health impact functions for the selected endpoints and pollutants at census tract-level (or higher resolution, as exposure and health datasets permit), along with associated uncertainty factors, using multipollutant approach(es). The functions should be suitable for use in CARB’s health impact assessment. The statistical methods should be selected based on the literature review (Task I.1) and with CARB approval. As part of this task, investigators shall:

• Develop a comprehensive statistical analysis plan that includes sensitivity analyses and model validation tests (e.g., goodness-of-fit assessments). This plan should include methods or criteria to determine whether the multipollutant health impacts functions should be stratified by regions of California based on prevalent pollutant mixtures (i.e., NO_x vs VOC dominated regions, NO_x/VOC ratio), topography, meteorology, or microclimates.
• Investigate effect modification by covariates identified in literature review or suggested under Task I.1. For example, this could include stratification and interaction analyses for socioeconomic metrics (e.g., race, ethnicity, and income groups) to examine elevated burdens in disadvantaged population subgroups or disadvantaged communities.

Interim Deliverable

1. Statistical analysis plan as described above.
2. Health impact functions of endpoints selected in Task I.3 based on exposures to the combination of air pollutants selected in Task I.2 using a multipollutant assessment. Investigators should report effect estimates and the associated uncertainties of all pollutants or speciated components included.
3. Comparison of health impacts estimated from multipollutant approaches to existing single pollutant approaches and to sum of single-pollutant approaches. Comparison should include exposure lags, if relevant.
4. Limitations or takeaways relevant for regulatory agencies on interpreting or adopting the proposed health impact functions for health impact assessments.

Task I.5: Deliver reports, data, and meetings

The investigators will submit quarterly progress reports, a draft final report and final report to CARB, participate in progress update meetings and present findings at a research seminar geared toward a wide audience at the conclusion of the project. Expected deliverables include:

1. Quarterly progress reports and monthly progress update meetings with CARB staff.
2. ADA-compliant draft final report covering deliverables from Tasks I.1 to I.4, along with final exposure data and non-confidential health datasets in electronic format.
3. Public meetings (kickoff at the onset of the contract, final seminar at the conclusion of the contract) accessible to a wide audience.
4. Peer-reviewed journal articles as appropriate; provide a preview of manuscripts to CARB for staff comments prior to submission. Submitting articles to open-access journals is recommended.
5. Plain-language products (e.g., 1-page fact sheets) to share with public audiences, as requested by CARB staff.

Note that the project team can conduct Pillar I and Pillar II concurrently. Teams may combine deliverables like progress reports and update meetings from Pillar I with corresponding deliverables from Pillar II, as permitted by the timelines of tasks.

Pillar II: Community-scale health assessments of exposure to toxic air contaminants

The investigator shall propose two or three community-scale health assessments in California in region(s) of elevated concern from multiple toxic air contaminants. These assessments, as described in the Background, should characterize exposures to mixtures of toxic air pollutants or combinations of toxic pollutants and criteria pollutants, by leveraging existing modeling or monitoring datasets, then conduct health assessments using mixed methods approaches that integrate qualitative and quantitative methods. This project is not intended to fund new monitoring deployment or redeployment of monitoring equipment.

Regions or communities of elevated concern may include areas with high pollutant concentrations, a high number or several types of emission sources or sectors, or populations experiencing exacerbated air pollution-related health outcomes due in part to local sources. Communities may be selected to represent different pollutant mixtures or to compare health outcomes across similar demographic or socioeconomic characteristics but differing levels or types of air pollution burden (e.g., one community with a mix of sources more common in rural areas such as San Joaquin Valley, and another with sources more common in urban environments like Bay Area and South Coast air basins). Information from emission inventories (e.g., California Emissions Inventory Data Analysis and Reporting System [CEIDARS], National Emissions Inventory [NEI]), SB 535 communities from CalEnviroScreen, the AB 617 Community Air Protection Program [24]) and other venues can inform the selection of communities and pollutants. We encourage investigators to consider consistently nominated AB 617 communities list. [25] Further guidance on community selection is included below.

Researchers will use the following criteria to prioritize and, with CARB approval, select communities:

1. Communities must have existing air quality datasets that provide reliable exposures representative of the region in addition to those from district or other regulatory monitors. Existing datasets must be of high quality and validated using regulatory monitoring data or other best practices. The strength of the existing datasets will be a key factor in pre-proposal scoring. 
2. Communities that have demonstrated concern about health impacts of multiple sources of toxic air pollutants or that have expressed interest to engage in cumulative health impacts research.
3. Communities that are overburdened and face multiple health burdens based on CalEnviroScreen, CalHealthMap, Healthy Places Index, emission inventories, consistently nominated AB 617 communities list, or other screening tools. CARB intends for this solicitation to facilitate new and expanded analyses in communities where health effects of toxic air contaminants are understudied.

The community-scale health assessments will involve close collaboration between investigators and community partners. Findings from the community studies should include characterization of health outcomes from exposure to combinations of air pollutants and air toxics in the selected communities. Findings on health outcomes for the combinations of pollutants should be relevant and transferable to other California communities with similar demographic characteristics and emission sources.

The pre-proposal must identify 1) community partners and their roles in a Community Advisory Group (CAG), 2) the proposed communities, toxic air contaminants, and health outcomes, 3) briefly, the statistical methods for the health assessments, and 4) methods for interpreting and disseminating results.

Task II.1: Develop work plan for community-specific assessments

The investigators shall develop a workplan that includes:

• A community engagement plan that sets up a Community Advisory Group (CAG) to advise the research team, defines the roles and responsibilities of CAG members, describes when and how the CAG will convene to support the timely integration of community priorities throughout the projects, and methods for disseminating the results in accessible language to the relevant communities. The CAG will consist of equitably compensated community experts and community-based organizations operating in the selected communities and will provide input on air contaminants and health outcomes of local concern. Community partners should be subcontracted or equitably compensated, including travel costs, for their contributions to the project. Investigators can refer to CARB’s Community Engagement Model [26] and CalEPA’s Community Science Practitioner’s Guide [27] for more information.

At least two letters(s) of support from key community partner(s) to the academic partner are required and should be submitted with the pre-proposal. Budget allocation for Consultants or Subawardees for Pillar II must be consistent with CAG responsibilities in the community engagement plan.

• Selected regions or communities experiencing or expressing concern of exposures to multiple air toxic pollutants for the health assessments. It is preferred for investigators to have established partnerships with the selected communities and demonstrable experience in community outreach and engagement.
• Proposed toxic air contaminants and other pollutants of concern, along with the corresponding sources of exposure datasets, for each community (see Task II.2 for additional details).
• Proposed health outcomes for the health assessments in each community based on available datasets (see Task II.3 for additional details).
• Statistical analysis plan for a mixed methods health assessments for combinations of toxic air contaminants. This plan should include a literature review of potential statistical methods or analyses, along with the corresponding strengths, weaknesses, and limitations. As supported by the literature review, the plan should include approaches to handle covariates, sensitivity analyses, model validation tests (e.g., goodness-of-fit assessments), and methods for interpreting the results in public health  contexts. Spatial and temporal resolutions of the assessments should be tailored to available datasets.

Stratification of results by population subgroups (e.g., race, ethnicity) should be included as permitted by data availability. Methods proposed may be quantitative and/or qualitative and should be specific to the assessment: not all community assessments need to use the same methods, and analytical methods should be selected based on relevance to the community, air pollutants, and health outcomes. As part of identifying these methods, investigators should seek and incorporate CAG’s perspectives on analyses or results that would be of value to the communities.

• List of deliverables specifying milestones, reports, meetings, community engagement materials, and other products covering all tasks in this Pillar. 

CARB staff will facilitate review of the community-specific workplans with the relevant air districts and other state or local agencies; the investigators shall incorporate feedback from these reviews in the final workplan.

Interim Deliverable

1. Workplan to conduct the community-specific health assessments consisting of items listed in the above description.
2. Establishment of CAG with community experts and community-based organizations.
3. Selection of 2-3 communities, along with corresponding toxic air contaminants and health outcomes, for subsequent tasks with CARB approval.

Task II.2: Obtain air toxics exposure data and develop community exposure profile

For communities selected in Task II.1, investigators shall acquire modeled and monitored exposure datasets, preferably for multiple toxic air contaminants as identified in the workplan, to characterize the population’s exposure. Investigators will integrate modeled and observed datasets into spatiotemporally resolved cumulative exposure profiles for each community. Data sources could include U.S. EPA’s AirToxScreen, California Air Toxics Assessment (CATA), and observed data from existing or ongoing stationary or mobile air quality monitoring or sampling such as Study of Neighborhood Air near Petroleum Sources (SNAPS), Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (MATES), and Statewide Mobile Monitoring Initiative (SMMI). Leveraging data from ongoing or completed monitoring and measurements from AB 617 Community Air Monitoring Plans, AB 617 Community Air Grant projects, or consistently nominated communities is encouraged. Investigators should validate the observed datasets for quality control and quality assurance (QA/QC) in siting, calibration, and maintenance of monitoring or sampling equipment as well as in data collection and processing; this validation shall include comparison to regulatory monitoring data as available. This project is not intended to fund new monitoring deployment, redeployment of monitoring equipment, or exposure modeling based on emission data.

Investigators may select toxic air contaminants and other pollutants of concern with CARB approval based on availability of exposure datasets, input from the CAG, and consideration of emission sources within or nearby the selected communities. Emission sources may include, but are not limited to, on-road mobile sources, off-road mobile sources (e.g., locomotives, ocean-going vessels, aircraft), area sources (e.g. construction, wildfire, agricultural activities, dry cleaners, gas stations), and stationary point sources (refineries, power plants, industrial facilities).

Interim Deliverable

1. Statistical description and comparison of selected modeled and observed exposure datasets, including strengths, weaknesses, and limitations of obtained datasets.
2. Documented methodology for integrating modeled and observed exposure datasets into community-scale cumulative exposure profiles.
3. Community-scale cumulative exposure profiles for each selected community.
4. Datasets from modeled exposures and monitoring, along with sampling frequency, spatial coverage, data completeness, QA/QC procedures, comparison to regulatory monitoring data, and any data processing and validation methods applied, in electronic format.
5. Description of the model evaluation and calibration, including performance statistics, model bias, and adjustments applied for emissions, meteorology, or other factors.

Task II.3: Obtain health data from existing datasets

Investigators will identify and obtain individual-level or cohort-based population and health data (e.g., electronic medical records) relevant to the pollutants of interest identified in the workplan. Qualitative datasets from surveys or self-reported health datasets may also be acceptable. Investigators should evaluate whether the obtained datasets are representative of the corresponding communities or representative of subpopulations experiencing elevated health burdens in the communities; these subpopulations can be characterized by racial/ethnic metrics, SES metrics, pre-existing health conditions, etc. Health outcomes for subsequent analyses can be cancer or non-cancer outcomes and should be selected with CARB approval.

Interim Deliverable

1. A description of proposed health outcome, population, and covariate data sources for subsequent analysis, including the rationale for dataset selection, data sources, limitations, and the extent to which the dataset(s) represent the population in the corresponding communities.
2. Non-confidential, or otherwise publicly available, raw data selected for subsequent analysis in electronic format.
3. Health outcomes selected for final analysis. The selection of outcomes will be with CARB approval based on considerations like data availability, limitations to interpretations of health associations, and relevance to CARB’s health impact assessment methodology.

Task II.4: Conduct health assessments to characterize toxic air contaminant exposures and health outcomes

Investigators shall conduct health assessments from cumulative exposures to the mixtures of toxic air contaminants using mixed methods as determined in the statistical analysis plan. This analysis should also investigate effect modification by covariates, disproportionality in health impacts by overburdened population subgroups, and other sensitivity analyses as statistically suitable, identified in the literature review, or included in the statistical analysis plan. As described in Task II.1, spatiotemporal resolution will be dictated by the available exposure and health datasets, with refinements guided by the literature review or recommendations from CARB staff.

Based on the health assessments, the investigators shall discuss the appropriate use and limitations of the results for informing health benefits analysis and identify gaps or needs for future toxic air contaminants monitoring, health data collection, and analysis tools and methods.

Interim Deliverable

1. Mixed methods health assessments for the selected health outcomes and multi-pollutant exposures, along with the corresponding uncertainties and stratifications by population subgroups, as consistent with the workplan. Exposures and estimated health impacts results should be visualized through maps or other appropriate formats.
2. Recommendations on strengths, limitations or takeaways relevant for state agencies on interpreting the results and incorporating mixed methods assessments in health analysis.
3. Discussion of future monitoring needs and research gaps in the selected communities as informed by the health impact assessments.

Task II.5: Disseminate and translate research findings

The project team will consolidate and share key research findings from the community assessments with a variety of audiences including communities, CARB, stakeholders (e.g., community-based organizations and state/local agencies), and academic institutions. CAG and other community partners should be a priority audience. Dissemination materials should be tailored to the target audience and culturally appropriate, including the use of clear, accessible language and translation into the audience’s primary language, as appropriate. For example, the project team could prepare lay-friendly fact sheets, maps, and presentation materials to communicate the project design, key findings, and potential applications to state programs and policies.

Interim Deliverable

1. Materials and products in multiple formats (e.g., maps or other visualizations of exposures and health burdens, factsheets, community meetings, recommendations to policymakers), tailored and translated as needed to meet the needs of various audiences.

Task II.6: Deliver reports, data, and meetings

The investigators will submit quarterly progress reports, a draft final report, and final report to CARB; the investigators will also participate in progress update meetings and a seminar geared toward a wide audience at the conclusion of the project. Expected deliverables include:

1. Quarterly progress reports and monthly progress update meetings with CARB staff.
2. ADA-compliant draft final report covering deliverables from Tasks II.1 to II.5, along with final exposure data and non-confidential health datasets in electronic format.
3. Public meetings (kickoff at the onset of the contract, final seminar at the conclusion of the contract) accessible to a wide audience.
4. Peer-reviewed journal articles as appropriate; provide a preview of manuscripts to CARB for staff comments prior to submission. Submitting articles to open-access journals is recommended.
5. Plain-language products (e.g., 1-page fact sheets) to share with public audiences, as requested by CARB staff.
6. Products and presentation materials developed in Task II.5.

Note that the project team can conduct Pillar I and Pillar II concurrently. Teams may combine deliverables like progress reports and update meetings from Pillar II with corresponding deliverables from Pillar I, as permitted by the timelines of tasks.

Project Deliverables

At the Pre-Proposal Stage

In addition to the specific deliverables listed in the Scope of Work, the project proposal shall include the following deliverables:

• For Pillar II, provide an outline of work plan, including partners for the CAG, regions or communities for the assessments, and tentative toxic air contaminants and health outcomes.

At the Beginning of the Contract

• All researchers must undergo cultural competency training (examples include implicit bias training, racial equity training, etc.). Trainings should be completed or scheduled within 30 days of contract execution.
• Work with CARB staff at the beginning of the project to create a 1-page plain-language outreach deliverable and to hold a lay-oriented webinar for public describing the project’s goals, process, and planned deliverables (available in multiple languages, template will be provided) in combination with the kickoff of the contract.

During the Active Contract Period

• The Contractor shall host a lay-friendly kick-off meeting for the public.
• The Contractor must submit Quarterly Progress Reports. These reports shall include plain-language summaries that can be posted publicly. CARB will provide the progress report template.
• The Contractor shall engage in frequent (e.g., monthly) consultation calls with CARB and key stakeholders.
• For community engagement efforts, the contractor must collaborate with CARB staff to co-create meeting materials, including presentation slides, flyers, prompts, and speaking notes. The contractor must also ensure that CARB policies are accurately represented to the public. CARB participation in community meetings is preferred, provided that CARB’s presence does not negatively impact community engagement efforts.
• The contractor shall submit Interim reports to keep CARB staff informed. These reports are expected at the end of each task, upon CARB staff’s request, to ensure that progress is being made.

Prior to Contract Close

• The contractor shall submit all data, analyses, and analytical tools generated during this project.
• For Pillar I, the contractor shall develop health impact functions for statewide health outcomes based on exposure to multiple criteria air pollutants, along with stratifications by race, ethnicity, income, or other population characteristics as well as effect modification by covariates. The contractor shall also discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the health impact functions to inform CARB’s methodology for health benefits assessment.
• For Pillar II, the contractor shall develop quantitative or qualitative health assessments for two to three communities exposed to combinations of toxic air contaminants, along with the corresponding uncertainties and stratifications by population subgroups. The contractor shall develop and disseminate results, including through maps or other suitable visualizations, to community stakeholders. The contractor shall discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the health assessments to inform government agencies conducting public health assessments; the contractor shall also identify future monitoring needs and research gaps in the selected communities.
• The contractor shall satisfy the following requirements of the Draft Final Report (DFR):
  • DFR will be copy-edited, reviewed, and approved by the Principal Investigator.
  • Include a plain language summary in DFR. This summary should discuss 1) relevance of the deliverables and findings to CARB’s health impact analysis and to public health outcomes from air pollution exposure in California and 2) how the findings contribute to the body of research on cumulative health assessments in government health impact analyses.
  • Include an equity implications section in DFR.
  • If applicable, have the DFR reviewed by community representatives.
• The contractor must work with CARB to create plain-language outreach deliverables summarizing the results and impact of the project, with relevant translations, for the public.
• The Final Report submitted to CARB must be ADA-compliant.
• The contractor will participate in a virtual or in-person seminar to present the project findings.
• Peer-reviewed publications should be publicly available (please budget for this expense; submission-ready publications shall be reviewed by CARB staff).
• Additional deliverables shall be determined in consultation with CARB staff.

Timeline

It is anticipated this project will be completed in 36 months from the start date. This allows 27 months for completion of all work through the delivery of a draft final report. The last 9 months are for review of the draft final report by CARB staff and the Research Screening Committee (RSC), modification of the report by the contractor in response to CARB staff and RSC comments, and delivery of a revised final report and data files to the CARB. Cost shall not exceed $1,200,000.

Scoring Criteria

Pre-proposals will not be considered if the air quality datasets proposed for Pillar II cannot meet quality control and quality assurance criteria described in Task II.2.

Responsiveness to the goals and objectives outlined in the proposal solicitation (Pillar I: 5 points, Pillar II: 10 points)

Proposers should demonstrate a clear understanding of the policy objectives and research needs that CARB aims to address with this project while highlighting their expertise on the subject. The proposal should present a clear research question or testable hypothesis, consider various aspects of the research need, and identify or acknowledge any potential biases. It should outline, in sufficient detail, the proposed approach to meeting the requirements of the Solicitation.

The draft proposal must detail work that aligns with the objectives outlined in the Research Solicitation: California-specific, statewide health impact functions from multipollutant approaches (Pillar I) and two to three community-scale health impact assessments of toxic air contaminants and other air pollutants of elevated concern within overburdened communities (Pillar II). For Pillar I, the study should evaluate how health impacts estimated using multipollutant approaches compare with those estimated using single-pollutant or additive approaches. For Pillar II, proposals should include a work plan consisting of a community engagement plan that describes how community partners will be involved in or contribute to the research process. Responsiveness on community selection will be evaluated based on the three criteria listed under Task II.1. These efforts should inform CARB’s health impact assessment methodology for evaluating health benefits, particularly in disadvantaged and overburdened communities.

Policy relevance/benefits to the state (10 points)

Does the proposal describe how the project will provide data, information, and/or products to support CARB in achieving its mission? Results from both pillars of the study should inform CARB’s  health impact assessment methodology. This research is part of CARB’s broader effort in response to Board Resolution 20-13, which calls for expanded health evaluation in support of air quality and climate regulations and programs. The findings may inform future health analyses for CARB regulations, plans, and programs, particularly where cumulative health burdens are relevant.

Previous work (Pillar I: 5 points, Pillar II: 15 points)

For both pillars, do the researchers have relevant experience in this area? Is the team composed of a multi-disciplinary team of experts? Do they discuss how they will build on previous relevant work funded by CARB, other state agencies, and any other appropriate organizations (e.g. community-based organizations, air districts)?

Of the 15 points for Pillar II:

Five points will be reserved for project teams that meet at least one of the following criteria:

1. The project team is multi-disciplinary.
2. The project team includes members from various universities, non-academic institutions, or community-based organizations.
3. The project team includes one or more members who will contribute significantly to the project (e.g., a principal investigator, co-principal investigator, or co-investigator, contributing 25% or more of their time) who have not worked with CARB in the past 5 years.

Five points will be reserved for project teams with previous demonstrable experience in community-based health assessments of air pollution exposure. For these points, the team should:

1. Describe prior experience in community engagement and describe how their previous work has benefitted communities.
2. Demonstrate the research team plans to implement engagement and incorporate community feedback through the project.

The pre-proposal must address the following:

For Pillar II, the research team’s existing community partnerships or ongoing local/regional monitoring efforts or datasets, and how the proposed work would build on, rather than duplicate, existing health research.

Technical merit (Pillar I: 10 points, Pillar II: 15 points)

Describe the technical strengths and/or weaknesses of the pre-proposal. Proposers should demonstrate the logic and feasibility of the methodology and technical approach, outline the sequence and relationships of major tasks, and explain how the work will be carried out. The proposal should also explain how the proposed methods are robust and how the results will be validated. Consider how well the draft proposal addresses these areas:

1. Is the proposed measurement approach appropriate? Are the technologies being considered suitable, and will the proposed analysis yield relevant results?
2. Does the proposed work address all the deliverables outlined in the “Deliverables” section? If not, the proposal should not be considered for funding.
3. The review team will select only one draft proposal for development into a full proposal. If this draft proposal shows potential, what areas or topics should be prioritized or further explained in the full proposal?

The pre-proposal must address the following:

For Pillar I, the research team’s ability to use existing fine spatial resolution exposure datasets, including CARB’s exposure datasets for multiple criteria pollutants and for speciated fine particulate matter where appropriate, to support the development of statewide multipollutant health impact functions.

For Pillar II, partners and their roles in the community advisory group and other elements of the workplan like communities, toxic air contaminants, and health outcomes of interest (see Task II.1). The pre-proposal must describe the research team’s existing and/or tentative access to existing community-scale exposure and health data, including individual level or cohort-based data over aggregated population data. If aggregate population-level data are preferred, the pre-proposal should justify their use and explain how limitations will be addressed. The pre-proposal must describe the mixed methods approaches in consideration for the health assessments and must include at least two letters of support from community partners.

Level and quality of effort to be provided (15 points)

Does the proposal allocate time and resources effectively to ensure the study objectives are met? Is the supervision and oversight sufficient to keep the project on schedule? Is the distribution appropriate for activities such as research, evaluation, analysis, data reduction, computer simulation, report preparation, meetings, and travel?

Cost effectiveness (15 points)

Is the cost appropriate for the proposed work? Does the proposed work appear feasible within the requested budget? Projects that include co-funding should be evaluated more favorably.

Scoring Criteria Scoring Guidance

91-100 points. Exceptionally strong. The submission is technically strong, meets stated research objectives, is cost-effective, and has a high potential to be successfully completed.

81-90 points. Strong. The submission is technically sound.

71-80 points. Mixed. The submission has either strong technical merit or strong policy significance, but not both.

61-70 points. Weak. The submission is not sufficiently linked to the needs of the Board and offers limited technical merit.

60 points or below. Unacceptable. The submission is not linked to the interests or needs of the Board and lacks technical merit.

1. Morello-Frosch, R., Zuk, M., Jerrett, M., Shamasunder, B., & Kyle, A. D. (2011). Understanding the Cumulative Impacts of Inequalities in Environmental Health: Implications for Policy. Health Affairs, 30(5), 879-887. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0153
2. Solomon, G. M., Morello-Frosh, R., Zeise, L., & Faust, J. B. (2016). Cumulative Environmental Impacts: Science and Policy to Protect Communities. Annu. Rev. Public Health, 37, 83-96. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032315-021807
3. Greenbaum, D., & Shaikh, R. (2010). First Steps Toward Multipollutant Science for Air Quality Decisions. Epidemiology, 21(2), 195-197. https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181ccc52a
4. National Research Council. 2009. Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
5. HEI Special Panel on Cumulative Impact Assessment. 2025. Roadmap to Health: Assessing Adverse and Beneficial Environmental, Social, and Economic Cumulative Exposures. Special Report 2. Boston, MA: Health Effects Institute.
6. California Air Resources Board. 2020. Health Evaluation of Air Quality and Climate Regulations and Programs: Resolution 20-13. Sacramento, CA: CARB. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/board/res/2020/res20-1….
7. California Air Resources Board. 2025. Proposed Five-Year Strategic Research Plan for Fiscal Years 2025-2030. Sacramento, CA: CARB. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2025-08/1.%20CARB%20Proposed…
8. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2021. CalEnviroScreen 4.0. Sacramento, CA: California Environmental Protection Agency. https://oehha.ca.gov/sites/default/files/media/downloads/calenviroscree…
9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2025. Cumulative Impacts Explained. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. https://www.epa.gov/cumulative-impacts/cumulative-impacts-explained
10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2022. Cumulative Impacts Research: Recommendations for EPA’s Office of Research and Development. U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C., EPA/600/R-22/014a.
11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2024. Interim Framework for Advancing Consideration of Cumulative Impacts. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-11/epa-interim-cumulati…
12. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. State of the Science and the Future of Cumulative Impact Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/29182.
13. Ellickson, K. M., Pauli, B. J., & Whitehead, S. (2025). Mixed Methods Approaches: Structures and Methodologies for Cumulative Impact Assessment Development. Env Justice, 18(3), 182-188. https://doi.org/10.1089/env.2023.0045
14. California Air Resources Board. 2026. Proposed Concepts for CARB’s Cumulative Impacts Research. Sacramento, CA: CARB. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/events/public-meeting-proposed-concepts-carbs-cu…
15. McDermott, R., Douglas, M. J., Haigh, F., Takemon, N., & Green, L. (2024). A Systematic Review of Whether Health Impact Assessment Frameworks Support Best Practice Principles. Public Health, 233, 137-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2024.05.008
16. Oakes, M., Baxter, L., & Long, T. C. (2014). Evaluating the Application of Multipollutant Exposure Metrics in Air Pollution Health Studies. Environ. Int, 69, 90-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2014.03.030
17. Dominici, F., Peng, R. D., Barr, C., & Bell, M. L. (2010). Protecting Human Health from Air Pollution: Shifting from a Single-Pollutant to a Multipollutant Approach. Epidemiology, 21(2), 187-194. https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181cc86e8
18. California Air Resources Board. (2026, June 10). CARB’s Methodology for Estimating the Health Effects of Air Pollution. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/carbs-methodology-estimating…
19. Shamasunder, B., Collier-Oxandale, A., Blickley, J., Sadd, J., Chan, M., Navarro, S., Hannigan, M., & Wong, N. J. (2018). Community-Based Health and Exposure Study around Urban Oil Developments in South Los Angeles. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 15(1), 138. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15010138
20. Heaney, C. D., Wing, S., Campbell, R.L., Caldwell, D., Hopkins, B., Richardson, D., Yeatts, K. (2011). Relation Between Malodor, Ambient Hydrogen Sulfide, and Health in a Community Bordering a Landfill. Environ. Res. 111, 847–852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2011.05.021
21. Chiger AA, Nachman KE. (2024). Invited Perspective: Advancing Cumulative Approaches in Regulatory Decision Making. Environ. Health Perspect, 132(3):31303. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP14610.
22. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2026, June 4). Integrated Science Assessment (ISA). https://www.epa.gov/isa
23. He, Q., Li, M., Hotz, J., Xu, Z., Franklin, M., Berrocal, V. J., & Wu, J. (2026). Characterizing Spatiotemporal Trends in PM2.5 Component Exposures Across the Western United States Using Daily 1-Km Estimates from Multi-Source Data and Deep Learning. J. Environ. Manage, 404, 129322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2026.129322
24. California Air Resources Board. (2026, May 14). Community Air Protection Program. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/capp/community-air-protection-program
25. California Air Resources Board. (2026, May 27). Consistently Nominated AB 617 Communities list. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/capp/resources/consistently-nominated-ab-617-com…
26. California Air Resources Board. 2024. Community Engagement Model. Sacramento, CA: CARB. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2025-01/CARB_Community_Engag…
27. California Environmental Protection Agency. (2026, June 10). Environmental Justice Program. https://calepa.ca.gov/envjustice/