Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 128
5 Grant Management This chapter addresses the following two key study questions: Key Question #3. What planning and budgetary processes does the grantee use to promote high-quality outputs? Key Question #5. To what extent are the results of the reviewed re- search and development outputs used to inform new projects by both the grantee and NIDRR? These questions are addressed together in this chapter within the larger framework of grant management because the information gathered by the committee indicated they are interrelated. A firm foundation of grant management processes at the agency and grant levels (in terms of planning, quality assurance, reporting, and resource management) sets the stage for successful grant implementation and production of outputs, which in turn can influence the likelihood of informing new projects. To correspond with the Key Question #3, the first section of this chapter describes how the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Re- search (NIDRR) manages grants through its agency structure and processes, the planning and budgetary processes used by grantees in managing their grants to promote high-quality outputs, and how NIDRR’s grant monitoring efforts facilitate grantees’ planning and budgetary processes. Correspond- ing to Key Question #5, the second section summarizes information from grantees concerning how their research and development outputs have been used to inform new projects and collaborations, as well as how NIDRR 128
OCR for page 129
129 GRANT MANAGEMENT uses the results of grantees’ research. Conclusions are presented at the end of each section; the first section also includes recommendations to improve the grant management process. GRANT MANAGEMENT PROCESSES To address the planning and budgetary processes used by grantees, it is necessary to examine these grantee-level processes and associated require- ments in the larger context of the structure and processes that support grant management at NIDRR and to obtain the perspectives of both NIDRR grantees and NIDRR staff. To these ends, the committee reviewed existing documentation on NIDRR’s grant management and monitoring processes, interviewed NIDRR management to gather additional information about the processes,1 collected information from principal investigators about the processes they use for managing grants, and interviewed NIDRR staff to obtain their perspectives on how grant monitoring facilitates grantees’ ef- forts to manage their grants for successful results. NIDRR’s Grant Management Structure and Processes NIDRR uses both the U.S. Department of Education (ED) and its own postaward grant management procedures and practices (U.S. Department of Education, 2009) to establish working partnerships with grantees and to monitor projects for performance and financial compliance. Grant manage- ment activities are supported by ED’s web-based grant management system, called G5; by the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services’ (OSERS’) web-based records management system, called TRIM; and by NIDRR’s Annual Performance Report (APR) system. A postaward confer- ence sets the stage for managing individual grants with regard to needs and expectations, and NIDRR uses various strategies to monitor grantee progress. Setting the Stage for Individual Grant Management The planning and budgetary processes used by grantees evolve directly from NIDRR procedures concerning grant selection, the peer review pro- cess, and negotiated postaward grant management activities (National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, 2010). The evaluation of grant proposals includes rating such elements as plans for operation and evaluation, as well as the adequacy and reasonableness of the budget 1 The committee conducted interviews with NIDRR and ED management in four sessions during summer 2010 and one session in spring 2011.
OCR for page 130
130 REVIEW OF DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION RESEARCH and resources. Within 30 days of an award, NIDRR project staff conduct a postaward conference with the grantee (U.S. Department of Education, 2009). The purpose of this conference is to • e stablish a mutual understanding of the expected project outcomes; • e stablish a mutual understanding of the measures to be used for assessing the project’s progress and results; • c larify the frequency of and methods for project monitoring and ongoing communication between NIDRR and the grantee; • d iscuss other technical assistance to be provided by NIDRR or other service providers; • r eview and clarify relevant regulatory or statutory requirements; and • r eview and clarify project activity and/or budget issues and concerns. NIDRR staff generally conduct the conference via telephone, but the conference may also take place in person or via e-mail or written communi- cation. Staff use a standard checklist to conduct the conference that covers such items as the grant award notification; the content of the initial award letter; the content of the proposal; peer reviewers’ comments and concerns; progress toward Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, where appli- cable; relevant performance measures; expectations regarding NIDRR’s on- line APR; and planning and reporting of outcomes. NIDRR staff document the content of the conference and all subsequent contacts with the grantee in the official grant file. NIDRR’s Grant Monitoring NIDRR’s written procedures call for establishing working partnerships with grantees to monitor projects for performance and financial compliance (U.S. Department of Education, 2009). Following the postaward conference, periodic monitoring takes place as appropriate in accordance with a basic set of monitoring procedures to ensure the achievement of results specific to the application and any revisions, as well as progress against established performance measures that were discussed in the conference. Monitoring tools include electronic quarterly fiscal reporting and annual monitoring reports on activities undertaken during the previous fiscal year. Recipients of multiyear discretionary awards must complete an APR and submit it to NIDRR. Fiscal monitoring As part of the monitoring process, NIDRR project of- ficers pay particular attention to grantees’ fiscal activities (U.S. Department of Education, 2009). The project officers review grantees’ cash drawn down
OCR for page 131
131 GRANT MANAGEMENT on an annual basis (or more frequently if a grantee experiences performance problems). They generally use the G5 system to determine whether actual cash draws are consistent with expected expenditures based on a project’s scope of work and milestones. Annual Performance Report The APR that recipients of multiyear discre- tionary awards must submit to their project officer provides data that re- late progress based on the scope and objectives of the approved application or any approved revisions (U.S. Department of Education, 2009). NIDRR has developed the APR as a web-based online reporting system (National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, 2009). The APR system contains sections on general information, award abstract, budget, funding, descriptions of research and development projects, output sum- maries, and descriptions of the most important outputs. Grantees also report on their progress in implementing their disability-focused research, development, training, technical assistance, and knowledge translation. Grantees use the APR as well to report on the results or accomplishments of this work. According to NIDRR documentation, the APR system ex- ceeds the minimum ED requirements for reporting (National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, 2010). Project officers use their grantees’ APRs for monitoring and tracking progress and results. The APR is maintained by an external contractor who also performs analyses of the data for management and reporting purposes according to specifications provided by NIDRR. Formative reviews Formative reviews with individual grantees are occa- sionally convened (two to three times a year) to give grantees who have been identified as needing additional assistance the opportunity to discuss their research methodology with experts in their field. A formative review is typically conducted after the project officer has tried other means of as- sisting the grantee. Experts from the original peer review panel are invited if available; if not, other experts in the grantee’s topic area are invited. The experts generally conduct the review by teleconference or webinar and pro- vide suggestions to the grantee for improving the research plan. Monitoring of at-risk grants The processes described above pertain to rou- tine monitoring of grants. In response to a recent ED initiative, NIDRR is instituting a new process for identifying grants at risk of failure to comply with program requirements, reach performance goals, comply with grant administration and financial management requirements, and/or account for past performance (National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, 2010). At-risk grants may be identified at different points. One point may be during the peer review process. Although a grant application
OCR for page 132
132 REVIEW OF DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION RESEARCH may receive a fundable score in peer review, there may be concerns about certain elements of the application (e.g., feasibility of achieving the projected sample size). At-risk grants may also be identified at the postfunding confer- ence, through routine teleconferences, or through a grantee’s APR. Criteria for identifying grants that may be at risk for not reaching performance goals include prior performance; peer reviewer concerns; concerns raised during the site visit; staff concerns regarding feasibility with respect to staffing, resources, or design; slow startup; failure to hire key staff; slow enrollment of subjects; loss of a key collaborator; or failure to report progress. Admin- istrative and financial criteria for identifying at-risk grants include failure to draw down funds, excessive drawdown, or some other financial disclosure or deviation that demonstrates failure to adhere to ED guidelines. Strate- gies for monitoring at-risk grants, used as needed and in consultation with NIDRR management, include conducting formative reviews; establishing performance targets; scheduling regular, frequent written or oral updates; conducting site visits; changing the status of a grant to a cooperative agree- ment; and delaying continuation awards (National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, 2010). Grantee Perspectives on Their Grant Management Processes To obtain grantees’ perspectives on their grant management processes, the 30 grantees who participated in the summative evaluation were asked to complete a set of written questions asking them to describe what types of planning, project management, and budgetary processes were used to promote high-quality outputs. They were asked to consider the following questions when crafting their statements: • W hich processes you used were helpful and how? How could they be improved? • D id you dedicate funds for quality assurance activities? • H ow did you track progress and spending against your original plans for the grant? • I f grants or projects were jointly funded by NIDRR and other ex- tramural or intramural sources, how did you ensure that NIDRR resources were used exclusively for NIDRR-funded activities? • H ow do NIDRR grant management processes influence the quality of outputs? This set of questions on grant management was asked at the end of a longer questionnaire on which the grantees described the outputs that were to be reviewed by the committee in the summative evaluation. Principal investigators of 28 of the 30 grantees that participated in the summative evaluation responded to this set of questions. Because respondents did not
OCR for page 133
133 GRANT MANAGEMENT necessarily answer all the questions or answer the questions the same way, the number of respondents for each answer varies. Narrative data were analyzed using standard qualitative analysis techniques (see Chapter 2 for a description of these techniques). The number of grantees that responded to each set of questions is noted in the section headings below. Consensus Views Except for new product development projects and complex multicenter studies, grantees reported that the current NIDRR requirements for plan- ning, project management, and budgeting generally helped ensure quality outputs. Several commented on the positive trend in changes to the require- ments over the years. For example, one grantee cited the changes made during the grant under study: In Years 1 and 2 of the grant they were required to report more of an “output count” methodology. In year 3 a different reporting method was introduced focused on the development of short-term and long-term goals. Then “accom- plishment nuggets” were to be nominated, with rigorous reporting for each nomination, relating back to one of the outcome goals. Finally, in Years 4 and 5 NIDRR stabilized on a somewhat less rigorous, more easily understood report- ing of “most important” outputs, tied to one of up to four outcome oriented goals. . . . NIDRR has been making good progress in recent years on stabilizing its evaluation protocols and procedures. Planning (N = 14) The bulk of planning for the full range of projects was done in the proposal-writing stage, for which NIDRR has detailed requirements. As one respondent explained: The NIDRR requirements are quite detailed and extensive. . . . In the sense that the plans are well developed, the NIDRR grants make planning and manage- ment fairly routine since we are carrying out the commitments made in the proposal. It was also noted that having an evaluation plan was particularly helpful, as was having a quality assurance plan. In addition to up-front planning, continuous planning was carried out for more complex grants through regular planning meetings and consulta- tion with other researchers as needed. Although the many requirements were off-putting for some in the beginning, they proved to be helpful (except for new product development). One respondent noted: NIDRR built in the development of outputs into planning. This made us more thoughtful.
OCR for page 134
134 REVIEW OF DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION RESEARCH Respondents attributed success in implementing their plans to a number of factors—including not having overly ambitious goals, having a high degree of oversight by the project director, using feedback from multisite study investigators, and including the development of outputs in planning. Respondents also noted difficulties in creating and maintaining an adequate plan, which may be instructive in designing and implementing changes to the process. Examples given for difficulties encountered included the following: • P rojects deviating from more standard NIDRR research projects. For example, new product development was viewed as a fundamen- tally different type of project than other academic research efforts around which NIDRR processes were developed, so many require- ments and metrics did not fit these projects. • A complex, multisite project for which there were no planning models or in which fidelity of implementation over large numbers of sites caused management and budget issues. • P rojects may have been adequately planned under procedures in effect at the start of the grant, but plans had to be changed when NIDRR implemented process changes mid-project, such as impos- ing new reporting requirements. • C ases were cited in which unpredictable events impacted staffing. In one case, for example, project staff were jointly funded by funds for another project. When they lost the funds for the other project, the staff left the NIDRR project as well. Project Management (N = 24) The variety of the projects resulted in a range of management complex- ity, from a single action on small individual grants (e.g., Switzer)—writing one check to the university that oversaw the dispersal of salary funds—to highly complex protocols for larger center grants requiring complex man- agement and fidelity in implementation across many sites for success. Key project management elements specified by one or more respondents included the following: • t he APR was noted as particularly helpful in “keep[ing] to both the budget and the timeline,” although the APR may not reflect accomplishments, such as journal articles, not in the original plan and delayed until the end of the project; • q uarterly meetings with the NIDRR project officer; • t he quality of NIDRR project officers; • w eekly, monthly, and annual meetings of project staff;
OCR for page 135
135 GRANT MANAGEMENT • s pecification of the quality assurance responsibilities and tasks of project staff and committees; • a nnual meetings of project advisory boards; • o nline project planning tools, such as a commercial project manage- ment reporting system used by another research center or an online management tool provided by the institution; • t ask analytic project management; • s ufficient training and supervision for complex, multisite grant implementers; • u se of institutional grant management and budget management services where available; • f requent and consistent project monitoring; and • t he quality of investigators and technical staff. Dedicated Quality Assurance Funds (N = 14) Of the 14 respondents who addressed this issue, only 8 reported sepa- rating out quality assurance activities from the rest of their budget. Quality assurance activities were generally an integral part of the planned project. To the extent that oversight was part of staff responsibilities, salary for those staff was obligated for quality assurance activities. A few respondents men- tioned dedicating quality assurance funds for bringing in external experts on their oversight committee, for funding audio taping and ongoing data reports during the study, for monitoring implementation visits, for conduct- ing conference calls, and for traveling to NIDRR and principal investigator meetings. One comment noted that the respondent’s institution would not allow budgeting for quality assurance activities; however, it was not clear how the institution defined quality assurance activities. Budgetary Processes (N = 20) Monitoring of expenditures and budgets often was done by institu- tional grant management or accounting divisions or through the use of project management software. Others tracked the budget as part of the project director’s monitoring. When asked specifically about what proce- dures grantees used to ensure that only NIDRR funds were used to fund NIDRR activities in jointly funded projects, only three grantees indicated the use of joint funding. One grantee reported working with the NIDRR project officer to ensure that there was no double billing of time. Another stated that the principal investigator and project director identified for the university financial office how NIDRR resources were used exclusively to support NIDRR-funded activities and to track in-kind and other funding.
OCR for page 136
136 REVIEW OF DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION RESEARCH How NIDRR Grant Management Processes Influence Results (N = 18) When respondents were asked how NIDRR grant management pro- cesses influence grant results, topics cited most frequently with regard to fostering successful grants and high-quality outputs related to interactions with NIDRR project officers, reporting requirements, flexibility in manage- ment and budgeting, and timing of the grant application process. Following are some of the points made: Interactions with NIDRR project officers • —The attitude (high standards and emphasis on quality) of the NIDRR project officer has the greatest impact on quality (based on experience with three project officers). —One grantee stated that it would have been useful to have more regular contacts or reporting opportunities earlier in the final design and proceduralization stages of the study. R eporting requirements • —The APR requires that budget information be provided by the accounting department, which has been very useful. —The detailed tracking requirements of the online APR, although quite time-consuming and burdensome, provide motivation to keep focused on the overall project goals for high-quality products. —Quarterly reports are helpful as a quality assurance mechanism. —One grantee praised NIDRR for its recently implemented goal- and objective-oriented reporting scheme, which was viewed as far superior to previous schemes. The grantee did note, however, that the new scheme limits reporting of accomplishments, mean- ing some good work is not being reported. —One grantee suggested that reports should focus more on how the work of the grant is either succeeding or failing at bringing effective and practical new services and/or devices to the market. —Another commented that methods should be developed for cap- turing outputs produced at the end, or shortly after the end, of a project. • Flexibility in management and budgeting —One grantee commented that NIDRR needs more flexibility to ex- tend its research and development grants and adapt budgets not only to fit the initial scope of a project but also to accommodate discoveries and opportunities encountered during the course of the project. —Different management tools are needed for projects involving new product development rather than academic research.
OCR for page 137
137 GRANT MANAGEMENT —The level of funding of Model System grants is disproportionate to what is expected of grantees. For example, the insufficient funding is a major limiting factor for collaborative research efforts, which need to be well planned if scientifically rigorous treatment and intervention studies with adequate sample sizes are to be carried out. • Timing of the grant application process —Standard deadlines are needed for grant applications. Having predetermined dates for application submissions would improve timely notification of grant availability and give principal inves- tigators more time to prepare and consequently submit higher- quality plans and applications. —Applications submitted in January should receive notification of application status and award in the spring to avoid inadequate staffing at the start of the project and subsequent protracted timelines. NIDRR Staff Perspectives on Grant Monitoring and Grantee Management NIDRR project officers provide an important bridge between ED’s and NIDRR’s policies and procedures on grant management and the grantees’ management of their grants. They carry out the grant monitoring functions, described in the first section of this chapter, that are aimed at identifying is- sues related to performance and fiscal compliance with grant requirements.2 NIDRR procedures emphasize that monitoring activities are conducted in working partnerships with grantees. Comments made by grantees cited above referred to some of the ways in which NIDRR’s procedures and processes assist grantees in managing their grants and influence the grant results (e.g., APRs help in keeping grantees focused on goals and products, quarterly reports serve as a quality assurance mechanism, and some project officers promote high standards and an emphasis on quality). To learn more about this important interface between NIDRR’s grant monitoring processes and grantees’ management of their grants, 16 NIDRR project staff were interviewed in person and asked a series of open-ended questions about their activities and specific questions that related to grantee 2 In addition to grant monitoring, project officers have duties related to peer review and prior- ity setting (covered in other chapters of this report). Depending on their own areas of expertise, some also have responsibilities for coordinating activities for certain grant programs, such as the Field Initiated Project or Model System grants, and for developing special initiatives in such areas as knowledge translation. There are currently 14 project officer positions within NIDRR (National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, 2011), but 4 were vacant at the time of this writing. In fiscal year 2009, there were a total of 230 grants funded by NIDRR (U.S. Department of Education, 2011).
OCR for page 138
138 REVIEW OF DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION RESEARCH planning and budgeting processes designed to improve quality. Not all of the interviewees were project officers; some were in supervisory and other management roles. The discussion of these qualitative data is organized into issues and initiatives that could relate to the processes used by grantees to ensure quality. Issues Related to Time One issue that may be tangentially related to the amount and quality of grantee processes to promote high-quality outputs is the NIDRR staff time spent in monitoring activities. Staff reported a wide variation in the amount of time spent in monitoring grants—from 35 to 80 percent of their time. As stated above, NIDRR staff have other responsibilities to different degrees in addition to grant monitoring, which accounts for this wide varia- tion. However, staff commented that the large workload of project officers (approximately 20 to 25 grants) often does not allow for as much attention to grantees as is needed. Also as reported in the NIDRR Fiscal Year 2011 Grant Monitoring Plan, NIDRR has seen a 25 percent reduction in staff over the last 6 years (National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, 2010), which would impact caseload size. Issues Related to Type and Frequency of Communications with Grantees Staff reported that the type and frequency of communications with grantees also vary, depending largely on grantee needs and issues related to performance and fiscal compliance. A variety of monitoring procedures are used, including periodic telephone conversations, e-mails that ask questions or provide consultation information, teleconferences, quarterly written re- ports, and the APR. It was commented that NIDRR’s forms and reporting requirements are not easy for grantees because of the complexity of federal rules, which staff often must spend time translating for new grantees. Staff reported that the structured postaward teleconference has been helpful in establishing expectations for grantee performance and preventing poten- tial problems in complying with these federal rules. They commented that limited travel funds have not permitted sufficient on-site monitoring for grants that require higher levels of technical assistance. This observation is confirmed in the NIDRR Fiscal Year 2011 Grant Monitoring Plan (National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, 2010), which states that the number of on-site monitoring visits and formative reviews is affected by the budget.
OCR for page 147
147 GRANT MANAGEMENT ANNEX 5-1 SUMMARIES OF NEW GRANTS OR OTHER TYPES OF PROJECTS GENERATED BY NIDRR GRANTEES Grantees were asked to describe briefly what new grant applications, other projects, funding opportunities, or collaborations have resulted from the grant that was reviewed by the committee or prior NIDRR grants. The following table corresponds to Table 5-1 in the main text of the chapter and provides additional detail about the new projects for each of the 24 grantees who provided this information. The table is organized by program mechanism and grantee. Under “New Grant,” “X” refers to funded grants; “X*” refers to grant applications/proposals that have not, or not as yet, been funded. An X or X* may refer to more than one grant.
OCR for page 148
148 REVIEW OF DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION RESEARCH TABLE A5-1 Grant (Program Mechanism) Nature of New Projects Grant 1 • ew NIDRR grant to evaluate a social skills training program to N (Burn Model overcome social anxiety during community reentry System) • study evaluating the effects of skin grafting on the ability of A individuals to improve temperature regulation • Burn Research State-of-the-Science Conference under the A leadership of Model System and the American Burn Association • unding from an institute in the Midwest and the American Burn F Association to hold a consensus meeting on a social skills training program • articipants in the NIDRR longitudinal database have participated P in another study at a medical center in the South • ideo led to strengthened collaborations with national-level V organizations • urn survivor support groups B Grant 2 • roposal for a project on seniors with sensory loss with a P (Disability and university in Canada Rehabilitation • roposed Field Initiated Projects (FIPs) in 2005/6/7 on low-vision P Research Project- service delivery models for older blind and dual sensory impaired General [DRRP]) seniors • ehabilitation Research and Training Center (RRTC)-funded R project on employment for persons who are blind or visually impaired • ontacted the National Eye Institute and National Institutes of C Health (NIH) about the need to have videos developed on various eye conditions, presented in American Sign Language; they were responsive to the need, but nothing has developed as yet • ood interactions and brainstorming with a Rehabilitation G Engineering Research Center (RERC) and several veteran centers • ollaboration with a national center on visual and auditory C impairment on one project Grant 3 • ed to successful application and awards to translate and test L (DRRP) surveys in Spanish and to conduct a field test with California Medicaid plans and a home- and community-based waiver program • rincipal investigator serving on two federal advisory panels P Grant 4 • epartment of Defense (DOD) funding to study the efficacy and D (DRRP) effectiveness of a telephone-based problem-solving treatment in service members after deployment; the study uses a detailed, scripted, and modular intervention focusing on problem-solving treatment and behavioral activation and involves collaborating with two military bases and a separate data center • se of lessons learned from this study and successful single-center U studies
OCR for page 149
149 GRANT MANAGEMENT Types of Projects Basis for Application conference of output to New grant or new agenda Collaboration other projects Commercialization X X X X X X X X X* X* X X X X X X X X X X X continued
OCR for page 150
150 REVIEW OF DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION RESEARCH TABLE A5-1 Continued Grant (Program Mechanism) Nature of New Projects Grant 5 • reliminary support by NIDRR has led to annual funding from P (DRRP) major private corporate foundations to continue the grant’s work • preliminary research framework on advancing economic self- A sufficiency for people with disabilities led to the development of curriculum and training programs in six states and funding from state developmental disability councils and Medicaid Infrastructure grants • n an annual basis, the $300,000 from NIDRR was leveraged to O support program development, additional research, expansion of financial service options, and an inclusive economic empowerment model in more than 100 cities • newsletter, which is received by more than 20,000 individuals in A the disability community monthly, has received additional support from multiple private foundations to help expand its reach • IDRR funding has led to new funding from the Social Security N Administration, the Department of Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Assets for Independence Act, and the Department of the Treasury • he principal investigator on the project has become the chair of T a work group within an important consortium that involves more than 750 community groups, financial institutions, government agencies, and businesses that are working together to advance new options for financial stability and mobility for working-age adults with disabilities Grant 6 • ew NIDRR grant for a Rehabilitation Research and Training N (Field Initiated Center Project [FIP]) • ollaboration across the university and with professional C associations to provide new knowledge about differences in employer practices in hiring, retaining, and advancing individuals with disabilities and the relationship between these practices and employment outcomes, leading to the design of targeted interventions Grant 7 • mall Business Innovation Research (SBIR) funding by one of the S (FIP) grantee’s strategic partners • he project has helped define and support a larger long-range T development agenda for applications that support self-management and community living
OCR for page 151
151 GRANT MANAGEMENT Types of Projects Basis for Application conference of output to New grant or new agenda Collaboration other projects Commercialization X X X X X X X X X X X continued
OCR for page 152
152 REVIEW OF DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION RESEARCH TABLE A5-1 Continued Grant (Program Mechanism) Nature of New Projects Grant 8 • IH grant on training methods for improving the intelligibility of N (FIP) speech in a noisy environment • grant submitted to NIH on methods of noise reduction in A hearing aids is in review Grant 9 • pened a whole new line of research in the United States on the O (FIP) relationship between multifocal lenses and falling and related crises • any possibilities for new lines of research regarding worker M safety, falling prevention, and other related health issues • ed to support for university intramural research L • IH applications regarding safety, falling prevention, and the N health of individuals related to the optics and brain function of adapting to multifocal lenses • IDRR proposals regarding safety, falling prevention, and the N health of individuals related to the optics and brain function of adapting to multifocal lenses Grant 10 • elp in editing a special 12-article supplement to the original H (FIP) study • elp in funding a research utilization conference H • everaged a Fulbright Scholar grant for an international data L analysis • pplied the approach to other issues, such as a comparative A effectiveness study of hip and knee replacement rehabilitation in skilled nursing facilities and inpatient rehabilitation facilities • sed the same study design for a new NIDRR-funded study U Grant 11 • his grant application arose as part of a Traumatic Brain Injury T (FIP) Model System (TBIMS) grant; the grantee expanded on the methodology as well as the theoretical concepts addressed in that first NIDRR-funded project Grant 12 • uilding on the results of the first grant, RERC was refunded B (Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center [RERC])
OCR for page 153
153 GRANT MANAGEMENT Types of Projects Basis for Application conference of output to New grant or new agenda Collaboration other projects Commercialization X X* X X X X* X* X X X X X X X continued
OCR for page 154
154 REVIEW OF DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION RESEARCH TABLE A5-1 Continued Grant (Program Mechanism) Nature of New Projects Grant 13 • his grant’s work has informed the work of a wide range of T (RERC) both commercial and research projects involving more than 100 different partners in more than a dozen countries totaling more than $50 million • he virtual assistive technology work has evolved into an T international collaborative effort involving more than 40 partners on every continent except Antarctica and has influenced grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF), NIDRR, the Canadian government, and the European Commission, among others • he work on accessibility guidelines has influenced policy T throughout the world and led to a large number of research and development projects internationally • he work on interfaces was used to inform the development of one T of the project areas in the current RERC • he cross-disability interface work has influenced both federal T regulations and commercial product design • he user needs work has influenced international policy and T standards design • he grant’s work led to follow-up work, including an invention T that allows people with “locked in” syndrome (which paralyzes the body, except for the eyes, but leaves the mind alert) to communicate; this invention was recognized as one of Time magazine’s 50 best inventions of 2009 Grant 14 • new RRTC was funded by NIDRR based on the work of this A (Rehabilitation grant Research and • OD funding for two projects based on the work of this grant D Training Center • his project was used to support a funded application for a Model T [RRTC]) System grant Grant 15 • IDRR funding to continue the center as an RRTC to support N (RRTC) three research areas; the NIDRR grant resulted in two articles • ational Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) N funding for collaboration to study injury among workers • DC contract to report on training and health promotion for the C workforce • ultiple Kaiser Family Foundation grants M Grant 16 • uccessful RRTC proposals for three subsequent RRTC grants S (RRTC) • 009 technical assistance grant 2 • ata from one RRTC project used by another project to inform D disability advocacy and policies • state agency replicated a reporting model developed under this A grant for use in a different grant
OCR for page 155
155 GRANT MANAGEMENT Types of Projects Basis for Application conference of output to New grant or new agenda Collaboration other projects Commercialization X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X continued
OCR for page 156
156 REVIEW OF DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION RESEARCH TABLE A5-1 Continued Grant (Program Mechanism) Nature of New Projects Grant 17 • ork has informed public access improvements at locations W (Small Business around the country Innovation • ngoing work with SBIR to develop a virtual collection of O Research II scientific, technical, economic, and mathematical images such as [SBIR-II]) the periodic table; a scientific calculator; the Sodoku game; and classic science images, such as cells and machinery—all designed to work in conjunction with the assistive technology designed as part of this grant Grant 18 • esults have provided the opportunity for commercialization of R (SBIR-II) the device • esults have provided opportunities for new research in R transportation Grant 19 • wo collaborative research projects T (Spinal Cord • he Model System increased visibility and has provided the T Injury Model infrastructure for conducting research, allowing the grantee to System [SCIMS]) partner with a Department of Veterans Affairs medical center; networking efforts resulted in a wider range of patient and physician and other clinician participation • ecured a comprehensive network of collaborative partnerships S resulting in a successful NIH R-01 application Grant 20 • mall funding ($50,000) to do more with testosterone research S (SCIMS) Grant 21 • IDRR FIP grant N (Switzer • hree separate grants from separate funders using prospective data T Fellowship to test social network analysis [Switzer]) • IH R24 pilot award and collaborations with three specialists in N three different institutions Grant 22 • sing the lessons learned from this study, the grantee has been U (Switzer) funded for a follow-up study by DOD, and is working with two military bases and a separate data center Grant 23 • pplied for DOD funding; awaiting reply but still collaborating A (Traumatic Brain with TBIMS and Spinal Cord Injury Model System (SCIMS) Injury Model centers on this study System [TBIMS]) Grant 24 • ormed the basis for the primary local research project being F (TBIMS) advanced in the current TBIMS cycle SOURCE: Generated by the committee based on data from the grantee questionnaire.
OCR for page 157
157 GRANT MANAGEMENT Types of Projects Basis for Application conference of output to New grant or new agenda Collaboration other projects Commercialization X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X* X X X