National Institutes of Health
Employment and Other Impacts Reported by NIH Recovery Act Grantees Gao ID: GAO-12-32 November 10, 2011The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) included $8.2 billion in funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to be used to support additional scientific research-including extramural grants at universities and other research institutions. In 2009, the Acting Director of NIH testified that each extramural grant awarded with Recovery Act funding had the potential of supporting employment--full- or part-time scientific jobs--in addition to other impacts, such as contributing to advances in improving public health. GAO was asked to examine the use of Recovery Act funds by NIH grantees. Specifically, GAO addresses the information available from NIH and its grantees about the extent to which NIH Recovery Act funding (1) supported jobs, and (2) had other impacts. To obtain information on job impacts, GAO reviewed a database containing information NIH Recovery Act grantees reported to the national data collection system and interviewed NIH officials. To obtain more specific jobs information about individual grants, GAO administered a Web-based data collection instrument to 50 selected principal investigators who direct research at grantee institutions--10 principal investigators at each of five selected grantee institutions. The selected principal investigators had generally received awards of $500,000 or more. To obtain information on other Recovery Act impacts, GAO used information from the data collection instrument and interviewed NIH officials.
Data reported by all of NIH's Recovery Act grantee institutions to the national data collection system at www.federalreporting.gov and available to NIH indicate that the number of full-time equivalent (FTEs) jobs supported by NIH Recovery Act funds increased from December 2009 through September 2010, and then remained steady from December 2010 through June 2011--the most recent quarter for which data are available. The number of FTEs supported by NIH Recovery Act funds increased from about 12,000 in the reporting quarter ending December 2009 to about 21,000 in the quarter ending in June 2011. The 50 selected principal investigators who direct research at the grantee institutions in GAO's review provided additional information explaining how the Recovery Act funding supported FTEs. Nearly one-third of the selected principal investigators reported that the NIH Recovery Act funding they received supported new positions, and about half of the principal investigators reported that the funding they received allowed them to avoid reductions in jobs or avoid a reduction in the number of hours worked by current employees. The selected principal investigators also reported that the Recovery Act funding they received primarily supported scientists and other faculty. NIH officials we interviewed reported that they receive some information from principal investigators about the other impacts of NIH-funded research, such as preliminary research results included in annual progress reports. NIH is also participating in the Star Metrics program--a multiagency venture to monitor the scientific, social, and economic impacts of federally funded science--which NIH officials expect could provide more information about these impacts. While Star Metrics is currently developing an approach to capture information about the other impacts of NIH grant funding, there is no expected completion date for reporting this information. In response to GAO's data collection instrument, selected principal investigators who direct research at the grantee institutions in GAO's review reported that the use of Recovery Act funds resulted in purchases of research supplies, equipment, laboratory testing services, and scientific training of health care professionals. The majority of the 50 selected principal investigators in GAO's review also reported preliminary results from their Recovery Act-funded research that could contribute to future scientific developments in prevention and early detection of disease, improvements in medical therapies, and improved research capabilities. The principal investigators in GAO's review and NIH officials GAO interviewed reported that they track the scientific impact of NIH research--including the impact of research funded through the Recovery Act--primarily through peer-reviewed publications, but also through other metrics such as the filing and approval of patent applications. According to NIH officials, when a sufficiently large body of research results has accumulated, NIH plans to prepare reports--similar to its existing publicly available Investment Reports--that will highlight the impact of its Recovery Act-funded research. The Department of Health and Human Services provided technical comments on a draft of this report, which GAO incorporated as appropriate.
GAO-12-32, National Institutes of Health: Employment and Other Impacts Reported by NIH Recovery Act Grantees
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-12-32
entitled 'National Institutes of Health: Employment and Other Impacts
Reported by NIH Recovery Act Grantees' which was released on December
12, 2011.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Report to Congressional Requesters:
November 2011:
National Institutes of Health:
Employment and Other Impacts Reported by NIH Recovery Act Grantees:
GAO-12-32:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-32], a
report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act)
included $8.2 billion in funding for the National Institutes of Health
(NIH) to be used to support additional scientific research–including
extramural grants at universities and other research institutions. In
2009, the Acting Director of NIH testified that each extramural grant
awarded with Recovery Act funding had the potential of supporting
employment”full-or part-time scientific jobs”in addition to other
impacts, such as contributing to advances in improving public health.
GAO was asked to examine the use of Recovery Act funds by NIH grantees.
Specifically, GAO addresses the information available from NIH and its
grantees about the extent to which NIH Recovery Act funding (1)
supported jobs, and (2) had other impacts. To obtain information on job
impacts, GAO reviewed a database containing information NIH Recovery
Act grantees reported to the national data collection system and
interviewed NIH officials. To obtain more specific jobs information
about individual grants, GAO administered a Web-based data collection
instrument to 50 selected principal investigators who direct research
at grantee institutions”10 principal investigators at each of five
selected grantee institutions. The selected principal investigators had
generally received awards of $500,000 or more. To obtain information on
other Recovery Act impacts, GAO used information from the data
collection instrument and interviewed NIH officials.
What GAO Found:
Data reported by all of NIH‘s Recovery Act grantee institutions to the
national data collection system at [hyperlink,
http://www.federalreporting.gov] and available to NIH indicate that the
number of full-time equivalent (FTEs) jobs supported by NIH Recovery
Act funds increased from December 2009 through September 2010, and then
remained steady from December 2010 through June 2011”the most recent
quarter for which data are available. The number of FTEs supported by
NIH Recovery Act funds increased from about 12,000 in the reporting
quarter ending December 2009 to about 21,000 in the quarter ending in
June 2011. The 50 selected principal investigators who direct research
at the grantee institutions in GAO‘s review provided additional
information explaining how the Recovery Act funding supported FTEs.
Nearly one-third of the selected principal investigators reported that
the NIH Recovery Act funding they received supported new positions, and
about half of the principal investigators reported that the funding
they received allowed them to avoid reductions in jobs or avoid a
reduction in the number of hours worked by current employees. The
selected principal investigators also reported that the Recovery Act
funding they received primarily supported scientists and other faculty.
NIH officials we interviewed reported that they receive some
information from principal investigators about the other impacts of NIH-
funded research, such as preliminary research results included in
annual progress reports. NIH is also participating in the Star Metrics
program”a multiagency venture to monitor the scientific, social, and
economic impacts of federally funded science”which NIH officials expect
could provide more information about these impacts. While Star Metrics
is currently developing an approach to capture information about the
other impacts of NIH grant funding, there is no expected completion
date for reporting this information. In response to GAO‘s data
collection instrument, selected principal investigators who direct
research at the grantee institutions in GAO‘s review reported that the
use of Recovery Act funds resulted in purchases of research supplies,
equipment, laboratory testing services, and scientific training of
health care professionals. The majority of the 50 selected principal
investigators in GAO‘s review also reported preliminary results from
their Recovery Act-funded research that could contribute to future
scientific developments in prevention and early detection of disease,
improvements in medical therapies, and improved research capabilities.
The principal investigators in GAO‘s review and NIH officials GAO
interviewed reported that they track the scientific impact of NIH
research”including the impact of research funded through the Recovery
Act”primarily through peer-reviewed publications, but also through
other metrics such as the filing and approval of patent applications.
According to NIH officials, when a sufficiently large body of research
results has accumulated, NIH plans to prepare reports”similar to its
existing publicly available Investment Reports”that will highlight the
impact of its Recovery Act-funded research.
The Department of Health and Human Services provided technical comments
on a draft of this report, which GAO incorporated as appropriate.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-32] or key
components. For more information, contact Linda T. Kohn at (202) 512-
7114 or kohnl@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
NIH and Its Grantees Reported That Recovery Act Funding Generally
Increased FTEs at Grantee Institutions and Primarily Supported
Scientists and Other Faculty:
NIH and Its Grantees Reported Other Impacts of NIH Recovery Act
Funding:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Scope and Methods:
Appendix II: Analysis of Information Reported by Selected Principal
Investigators on Jobs Supported by Recovery Act Funding:
Appendix III: Analysis of Information Reported by Selected Principal
Investigators on Other Impacts of Recovery Act Funding:
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Characteristics of Five NIH Recovery Act Grantee Institutions
Selected for Review:
Table 2: Range of 50 Selected Grant Award Amounts at Five NIH Recovery
Act Grantee Institutions, Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010:
Table 3: Percent of NIH Recovery Act-Supported Jobs That Did Not Exist
Prior to Receiving NIH Recovery Act Funding, as Reported by Selected
Principal Investigators, through March 2011:
Table 4: Number of Selected Principal Investigators Reporting a Loss of
Funding from Sources Other than NIH, during Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010:
Table 5: Percent of Selected Principal Investigators Who Reported
Avoiding Certain Actions as a Result of Receiving NIH Recovery Act
funds, during Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010:
Table 6: Mean Number of Hours Funded by the Recovery Act Each Week by
Job Category, as Reported by Selected Principal Investigators through
March 2011:
Table 7: Number of Selected Principal Investigators That Reported Other
Impacts (Not Including Scientific Impacts), during Fiscal Years 2009
and 2010:
Table 8: Health Issues Addressed by Selected NIH Recovery Act Grants,
during Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010:
Table 9: Number of Selected Principal Investigators Who Reported Using
Various Metrics for Tracking and Measuring Scientific Research:
Table 10: Number of Selected Principal Investigators Who Reported Peer-
Reviewed Publications and Patent Applications Resulting from Their
Scientific Research, during Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010:
Figures:
Figure 1: Quarterly Number of FTEs Supported by Recovery Act Grants
Awarded by NIH, for Quarters Ending December 2009 through June 2011:
Figure 2: Quarterly Number of FTEs Reported by Five Selected Grantee
Institutions, for Quarters Ending December 2009 through June 2011:
Figure 3: Types of Jobs Supported by Recovery Act Funds, as Reported by
50 Selected Principal Investigators during Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010:
Abbreviations:
CER: comparative effectiveness research:
DCI: data collection instrument:
FTE: full-time equivalent:
GO: Grand Opportunity:
HHS: Department of Health and Human Services:
IC: Institutes and Centers:
NIH: National Institutes of Health:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
Recovery Act: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009:
Recovery Board: Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board:
[End of section]
November 10, 2011:
The Honorable Fred Upton:
Chairman:
Committee on Energy and Commerce:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Joe Barton:
House of Representatives:
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery
Act)[Footnote 1] was enacted to, among other things, support job
creation and preservation, infrastructure investment, energy
efficiency, and scientific research. The act included $8.2 billion in
funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to be used to
support additional scientific research, including extramural grants at
universities, medical schools, and other research
institutions.[Footnote 2] The act required that Recovery Act funds be
obligated by NIH in fiscal years 2009 and 2010.
In March 2009, the Acting Director of NIH testified on the potential
employment, economic, as well as scientific benefits of the Recovery
Act funding NIH received.[Footnote 3] Specifically the Acting Director
testified that each research grant awarded with Recovery Act funding
has the potential of supporting several full-or part-time scientific
jobs. During testimony, the Acting Director also pointed out that the
extramural grants made with Recovery Act funding could have other
impacts, such as contributing to advances in improving public health.
Universities or other research institutions that receive grant funding
from NIH could directly support employment in a number of ways,
including increasing the number of hours worked by existing part-time
employees or hiring new full-or part-time employees who may work on
research projects supported by one or more NIH grant awards. Recovery
Act funding--including NIH Recovery Act funding--could also indirectly
support jobs, such as if vendors that supply research equipment and
services increased their employees due to increased business from
research institutions. Any direct or indirect support of jobs could
also lead to induced effects on other jobs, such as when employees make
purchases at local businesses. However, past GAO reports have found
that it is difficult to measure the indirect and induced impacts of
Recovery Act funding, in part because the information needed to measure
these impacts is often not available.[Footnote 4] Recipients of
Recovery Act funding are only required to report on jobs directly
supported by Recovery Act funds. These reports do not include the
employment impact on materials suppliers (indirect jobs) or on the
local community (induced jobs).
To measure direct support of jobs, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) requires recipients of Recovery Act funds--including NIH Recovery
Act grantees--to report on the number of jobs supported using these
funds to a nationwide data collection system at
www.federalreporting.gov.[Footnote 5] Guidance provided by OMB provides
more detail on this requirement, including that recipients report on
the number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) jobs that were directly funded
by the Recovery Act during each quarter.[Footnote 6] OMB's guidance
also directs recipients of Recovery Act funding to report on the
results of funded projects as well as provide narrative descriptions of
the types of jobs funded by the Recovery Act, which provide information
that the number of FTEs does not capture.[Footnote 7] Federal agencies,
such as NIH, and recipients, such as NIH Recovery Act grantees, may
also have additional information on the other impacts of Recovery Act
funding--that may include scientific impacts, impacts in the local
community, and impacts on NIH Recovery Act grantees. Grant awards for
scientific research supported by NIH Recovery Act funds were generally
made to grantee institutions, such as universities, for research
activities that are directed by a principal investigator[Footnote 8]
employed by the grantee institution. When we use the term "grantee" in
this report, we are referring to the grantee institution, including the
principal investigator who is designated by the grantee institution to
direct the NIH Recovery Act-funded research.
You requested that we examine the use of Recovery Act funds by NIH and
its grantees. In August 2010, we reported on the process and criteria
NIH used to award grants with funding made available by the Recovery
Act, the characteristics of the grants, and information NIH has made
publicly available about the grants.[Footnote 9] This report addresses
the information available from NIH and its grantees about the extent to
which (1) NIH Recovery Act funding supported jobs, and (2) NIH Recovery
Act funding had other impacts.
To obtain the information NIH and selected NIH Recovery Act grantees
have on the jobs supported with NIH Recovery Act funding, we
interviewed NIH officials about the information they have on the FTEs
supported by the Recovery Act, and reviewed (1) NIH data containing
information reported to the nationwide data collection system on the
FTEs supported by NIH Recovery Act funding, (2) annual progress
reports[Footnote 10] for fiscal year 2010 that NIH Recovery Act
grantees are required to submit to NIH, and (3) other jobs information
that NIH gathers from other sources. In addition, we selected five
grantee institutions,[Footnote 11] which are universities that employ
principal investigators who received NIH Recovery Act funding. We
obtained from NIH, information on the FTEs supported by NIH Recovery
Act funding at each of these five grantee institutions as reported to
the nationwide data collection system at [hyperlink,
http://www.federalreporting.gov].
To gather more specific information about individual grants, we
disseminated a Web-based data collection instrument (DCI) to 50
selected principal investigators--10 principal investigators at each of
the same five grantee institutions.[Footnote 12] (See app. I for the
selection criteria for grantee institutions and principal
investigators). The Web-based DCI contained questions about the types
and number of jobs supported by the Recovery Act funding received from
NIH.[Footnote 13] The selected principal investigators and their
grantee institutions are not representative of all grantee institutions
and principal investigators who received NIH Recovery Act funding.
The information on the number of FTEs supported by NIH Recovery Act
funding reported to the nationwide data collection system by recipients
of Recovery Act funding has certain limitations. First, OMB guidance
requires FTE numbers to be reported quarterly, and FTEs should not be
added across quarters to obtain a cumulative number of FTEs. In
addition, the calculation of FTEs may reflect full-time and/or multiple
part-time jobs, therefore FTEs cannot be used to determine the total
number of individual jobs. Moreover, because of a change in OMB's
reporting requirements FTE data for the first reporting quarter may not
be comparable to the data reported for subsequent reporting quarters.
Finally, the number of FTEs represents only the jobs directly supported
by the Recovery Act but does not capture other jobs, such as those
indirectly supported by the act, or other impacts of the spending.
To obtain information NIH and selected NIH grantees have on the other
impacts--such as impacts in the local community, scientific impacts,
and impacts on grantee institutions and principal investigators of the
NIH Recovery Act funding, we disseminated the Web-based DCI to the 50
principal investigators at the five selected grantee institutions and
interviewed NIH officials. We also asked NIH and NIH grantees to
identify the metrics they use to measure and track other impacts such
as impacts on science, the local community, and on the grantee
institutions and principal investigators. Finally, we reviewed relevant
NIH Recovery Act grant guidance as well as OMB's Recovery Act guidance
to identify Recovery Act grantee requirements for reporting information
on FTEs and on the impacts of the Recovery Act grants to the nationwide
data collection system. See appendix I for more details about our scope
and methodology.
To assess the reliability of the data provided by NIH, we obtained
information from agency officials knowledgeable about (1) NIH grant
award data, (2) NIH Recovery Act grantee recipient reports,[Footnote
14] and (3) job information that NIH gathers from other sources. We
obtained information from administrators at the selected grantee
institutions about the quality of their recipient reports[Footnote 15]
and performed data quality checks to assess the reliability of the
Recovery Act grants data file received from NIH. These data quality
checks involved an assessment to identify incorrect and erroneous
entries or outliers. Based on the information we obtained and analyses
we conducted, we determined that the data were sufficiently reliable
for the purposes of this report.
We conducted this performance audit from October 2010 to November 2011,
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Background:
As of September 30, 2010--the end of the 2 fiscal years during which
Recovery Act awards were made--NIH made more than 21,500 grant awards
using Recovery Act funds. In August 2010, we reported that NIH used
standard review processes--peer review or administrative review--and
standard criteria to award extramural scientific research grants with
Recovery Act funding.[Footnote 16] These NIH Recovery Act grant awards
were made to three grant categories.[Footnote 17] The grants varied in
award size, geographic distribution, award duration, and research
methods, consistent with scientific research grants funded with annual
appropriations. The act required that these funds be obligated by NIH
within a 2-year window--specifically, in fiscal years 2009 and 2010,
though the activities funded by the grant may occur after fiscal year
2010.
Recovery Act Reporting Requirements:
OMB guidance requires recipients of Recovery Act funding--including NIH
Recovery Act grantees--to report on the number of jobs supported by the
Recovery Act on a quarterly basis to the nationwide data collection
system. OMB developed recipient reporting guidance and deployed a
nationwide data collection system at [hyperlink,
http://www.federalreporting.gov]. According to OMB guidance, a
grantee's estimate of the number of jobs supported by the Recovery Act
each quarter must be expressed in terms of FTEs, which are calculated
as the total number of hours worked and funded by the Recovery Act
within a reporting quarter divided by the quarterly hours in a full-
time schedule, as defined by the recipient.[Footnote 18]
According to the OMB guidance, federal agencies that award Recovery Act
funds should establish internal controls to ensure data quality,
completeness, accuracy, and timely reports to the [hyperlink,
http://www.federalreporting.gov] Web site. In reviewing a selection of
the reports submitted to [hyperlink, http://www.federalreporting.gov]
by grantees of agencies across the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS), the HHS Office of Inspector General found that HHS had
processes in place for reporting the use of Recovery Act funds. NIH
officials also reported that HHS assesses the quality of reports filed
by NIH Recovery Act grantees. For example, using data assessments
performed by NIH, HHS assesses the quality of the data reported by
Recovery Act grantees.
Sources of Information on Jobs and Other Impacts of Recovery Act
Grants:
NIH and NIH Recovery Act grantees collect information about the FTEs
supported by NIH Recovery Act funding as well as information on the
other impacts of this funding from a variety of sources. Specifically,
NIH collects information about FTEs supported by the Recovery Act from
the [hyperlink, http://www.federalreporting.gov] Web site.[Footnote 19]
NIH grantees, including NIH Recovery Act grantees, also submit annual
progress reports to NIH that include information such as the goals and
progress of their research. NIH is also participating in the
development of a multiagency collaboration (called Star
Metrics)[Footnote 20] to track the employment, scientific, and economic
impacts of its funded research projects--including Recovery Act grants.
In addition, NIH gathers information from principal investigators
working on priority research areas and prepares publicly available
reports (known as Investment Reports) about the potential scientific
impacts of NIH-funded research. NIH Institutes and Centers (IC) select
the topics featured in these reports based on (1) the importance of the
topic area within the body of research funded by the IC, (2) the level
of funding provided by the IC to the topic area, and (3) the level of
public interest in the topic area. NIH grantees also collect
information about the jobs as well as other impacts of NIH grants,
including those funded by the Recovery Act, using payroll records, and
effort reporting systems--such as time cards, other internal accounting
records, and publications.
NIH and Its Grantees Reported That Recovery Act Funding Generally
Increased FTEs at Grantee Institutions and Primarily Supported
Scientists and Other Faculty:
Data reported by all NIH Recovery Act grantee institutions to the
nationwide data collection system and available to NIH indicate that
the number of FTEs supported by NIH Recovery Act funds generally
increased from December 2009 through September 2010, then generally
remained steady from December 2010 through June 2011--the most recent
quarters for which data are available. As shown in figure 1, the number
of FTEs supported by NIH Recovery Act funding ranged from about 12,000
in the reporting quarter ending December 2009 to about 21,000 in the
quarter ending in June 2011.
Figure 1: Quarterly Number of FTEs Supported by Recovery Act Grants
Awarded by NIH, for Quarters Ending December 2009 through June 2011:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Reporting quarter end date: December 2009;
Total FTEs: 11,925.
Reporting quarter end date: March 2010;
Total FTEs: 16,908.
Reporting quarter end date: June 2010;
Total FTEs: 20,485.
Reporting quarter end date: September 2010;
Total FTEs: 22,878.
Reporting quarter end date: December 2010;
Total FTEs: 21,704.
Reporting quarter end date: March 2011;
Total FTEs: 21,712.
Reporting quarter end date: June 2011;
Total FTEs: 20,797.
Source: GAO analysis of data extracted by NIH from [hyperlink,
http://www.federalreporting.gov].
Notes: Recovery Act recipients report the number of FTEs supported by
the Recovery Act quarterly, and therefore these FTE numbers are
reported out by quarter. FTEs supported by awards under $25,000 may not
be included in the figure because these awards are exempt from
reporting requirements. About 6 percent of all NIH Recovery Act awards
were for less than $25,000. We did not include data from the first
reporting quarter in 2009 due to concerns about comparability.
[End of figure]
According to NIH officials, Recovery Act funds could eventually support
a total of approximately 54,000 FTEs. This figure represents NIH's
estimated total of FTEs that could be supported throughout the Recovery
Act.[Footnote 21] According to NIH officials, this estimate is
projected based on the quarterly expenditure of funds reported by
grantee institutions and the projected number of FTEs that NIH expects
that these funds could support over the life of the Recovery Act. NIH
expects that the Star Metrics program will provide additional
information about the number and types of jobs funded by the Recovery
Act. NIH officials reported that the Star Metrics program is an ongoing
initiative and that the program is expected to release preliminary
results regarding jobs in 2012.
Like other NIH Recovery Act grantee institutions, data reported by our
five grantee institutions also showed a general increase in FTEs.
Specifically, the five institutions combined reported almost 1,000 FTEs
in the quarter ending in December 2009, increasing to almost 2,000
supported FTEs in the most recent quarter for which data are available
that ended in June 2011. (See figure 2).[Footnote 22]
Figure 2: Quarterly Number of FTEs Reported by Five Selected Grantee
Institutions, for Quarters Ending December 2009 through June 2011:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Reporting quarter end date: December 2009;
Total FTEs: 946.
Reporting quarter end date: March 2010;
Total FTEs: 1,593.
Reporting quarter end date: June 2010;
Total FTEs: 1,988.
Reporting quarter end date: September 2010;
Total FTEs: 2,365.
Reporting quarter end date: December 2010;
Total FTEs: 2,280.
Reporting quarter end date: March 2011;
Total FTEs: 2,181.
Reporting quarter end date: June 2011;
Total FTEs: 1,950.
Source: GAO analysis of data extracted by NIH from [hyperlink,
http://www.federalreporting.gov].
Note: Recovery Act recipients report the number of FTEs supported by
the Recovery Act quarterly, and therefore these FTE numbers are
reported out by quarter. FTEs supported by awards under $25,000 may not
be included in the figure because these awards are exempt from
reporting requirements. About 6 percent of all NIH Recovery Act awards
were for less than $25,000. We did not include data from the first
reporting quarter in 2009 due to concerns about comparability.
[End of figure]
Through responses to our data collection instrument 50 selected
principal investigators at five grantee institutions provided
additional information explaining how the Recovery Act funding
supported FTEs. Nearly 30 percent of the 50 selected principal
investigators reported that the NIH funding they received supported new
positions, and about half of the principal investigators reported that
the funding they received allowed them to avoid reductions in the
number of employees at their institution or avoid a reduction in the
number of hours worked by current employees. For example, according to
the selected principal investigators, 29 percent of the jobs supported
by NIH Recovery Act funding at the five grantee institutions were new
employees hired by the institution using Recovery Act funding, and 54
percent were current employees.[Footnote 23] One principal investigator
reported using NIH Recovery Act funding to hire more than 10 employees,
many of whom had recently been laid off or had been out of work for
several months. According to selected principal investigators, a
majority (54 percent) of the job positions supported by NIH Recovery
Act funds were parttime[Footnote 24] and the mean number of hours
worked per week for all supported positions was about 20, including for
example, a mean of 9 hours per week for professors and 35 hours per
week for students pursuing postgraduate degrees. (See app. II for more
descriptive information about the FTEs supported by NIH Recovery Act
funding.)
The 50 selected principal investigators also reported that the Recovery
Act funding they received primarily supported research scientists,
other faculty, and information technology jobs.[Footnote 25] (See figure
3 for a summary of the information the selected principal investigators
reported to us on the types of jobs supported by NIH Recovery Act
funding.)
Figure 3: Types of Jobs Supported by Recovery Act Funds, as Reported by
50 Selected Principal Investigators during Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie graph]
Research scientist and other faculty: 58%;
IT/data information: 10%;
Pre- and postdoctoral/student: 8%;
Temporary/part-time worker: 9%;
Other: 15%.
Source: GAO analysis of information reported by selected principal
investigators.
[End of figure]
NIH and Its Grantees Reported Other Impacts of NIH Recovery Act
Funding:
NIH officials currently receive some information reported by NIH
grantees about other impacts of NIH's Recovery Act funding, and NIH is
participating in a program that NIH officials expect could help track
these other impacts. In response to our data collection instrument, two-
thirds of our 50 selected principal investigators--who direct research
at the grantee institutions--reported that the Recovery Act funding
received in fiscal years 2009 and 2010 was used to purchase research
supplies and equipment and lab testing services. In addition, the
majority of our 50 selected principal investigators and NIH also
reported preliminary results from research projects funded by the
Recovery Act.
NIH Is Participating in a Program to Track Other Impacts, and Selected
NIH Grantees Reported Other Impacts such as Purchases of Supplies and
Equipment:
NIH officials we interviewed said that principal investigators--who
direct research at the grantee institutions--including those which
received Recovery Act funding--currently report some information to NIH
about the other impacts of NIH-funded research. This information
generally includes purchases made by the principal investigators, as
well as preliminary research results submitted to NIH in their annual
progress reports.[Footnote 26] NIH is participating in the Star Metrics
program--a multiagency collaboration currently involving about 77
grantee institutions--to track, among other things, the scientific and
nonscientific impacts of its funded research grants, including social
and workforce outcomes and economic growth. NIH officials expect that
the Star Metrics program could provide more information about these
other impacts. Officials told us that Star Metrics is currently
developing an approach to capture this information, and that they
expect to pilot the approach in 2012. However, at this time there is no
expected completion date for reporting this information.
In their responses to our data collection instrument, many of our 50
selected principal investigators reported that they used the Recovery
Act funding they received from fiscal years 2009 through 2010 to
purchase supplies, equipment, and testing services used in research.
Some of the principal investigators also reported that in the course of
conducting some of their Recovery Act-funded research, they were able
to provide scientific training to health care professionals. The
selected principal investigators provided anecdotal information about
the other impacts of the selected grants. Recipients of Recovery Act
funding, such as grantee institutions, do not systematically track
these other impacts; however, they are not required by the Recovery Act
to do so. In previous work on the Recovery Act, GAO identified
difficulties in assessing other impacts, particularly in instances when
data on the other impacts are not readily available.[Footnote 27] (See
app. III for more details of the other impacts of NIH Recovery Act
funding as reported by selected principal investigators.)
Purchasing Supplies and Equipment. In their responses to our data
collection instrument, two-thirds of our 50 selected principal
investigators reported that they used the Recovery Act funding they
received from NIH to purchase or lease laboratory equipment and
supplies needed to conduct research. These transactions, which we
corroborated by conducting a selected review of NIH Annual Progress
Reports and Recovery Act recipient reports, could translate into
additional sales and revenues for the vendors. According to the
principal investigators, their transactions included biomedical
equipment and supplies, office supplies, computer equipment, and
software licenses. For example, one principal investigator reported
purchasing highly specialized imaging equipment[Footnote 28] for
$27,000, as well as other medical, laboratory, and office supplies.
Purchasing Specialized Services. Over a quarter of our 50 selected
principal investigators reported that they used NIH's Recovery Act
funding to purchase certain laboratory testing services--such as
genetic sequencing--from other research facilities that were better
equipped to perform the testing and analyses. For example, one
principal investigator reported contracting with a small local research
company to perform specialized DNA analysis needed to determine the
causes of immune deficiency disorders. In addition, a couple of
principal investigators reported that they used NIH's Recovery Act
funding to contract for consultations services, such as statistical
analyses and the design of models needed for their research. Some
principal investigators also purchased ancillary services that they
said were needed to support clinical trials, such as services providing
patient transportation, recruitment, and care.
Scientific Training for Health Care Professionals. Nine of our 50
selected principal investigators also reported in our data collection
instrument that in the course of conducting their Recovery Act-funded
research they were able to provide scientific training to health care
professionals. Some of these principal investigators cited the
importance of exposing current and future physicians to research-based
approaches for diagnosing and treating patients. For example, one
principal investigator reported that while researching how to select
treatments for cancer patients, new oncology researchers--fellows and
junior faculty--were trained about the effects of human genetics on
care delivery for cancer patients. According to this principal
investigator, understanding the effects of genetics on cancer allows
physicians to personalize the treatment options they offer to patients.
The principal investigator also noted that the next generation of
physicians needs to be knowledgeable about genomic approaches to cancer
care, while developing the foundation for their research careers.
According to another principal investigator, as part of research to
determine why certain genes contribute to Alzheimer's disease, health
care professionals were trained to analyze complex genetic datasets and
to develop software packages needed to efficiently perform the
analysis.
Most NIH Grantees and NIH Reported Preliminary Research Illustrating
Potential Scientific Impacts from Projects Funded by the Recovery Act:
In responses to our data collection instrument, a majority of our 50
selected principal investigators who direct research at the grantee
institutions reported on the preliminary results from their research
projects supported with Recovery Act funds. According to the majority
of our selected principal investigators these preliminary results could
contribute to future scientific developments in preventive medicine,
the early detection of diseases, and medical therapies. Additionally,
one principal investigator reported that some of the results of their
research could lead to the development of research capabilities to be
used by other researchers. A few principal investigators, however,
stated that it was premature to report any preliminary results from
their NIH Recovery Act-funded research, because they were still
conducting clinical trials and analyzing data. In general, scientific
research--including NIH-funded projects--can be lengthy and complex,
and take years to obtain results.
Grantee institutions and principal investigators in our review and NIH
officials we interviewed reported that they track the scientific impact
of NIH research--including preliminary results from research funded
through the Recovery Act--primarily through peer-reviewed publications.
NIH officials also reported that they track certain priority research
areas and communicate potential scientific impacts through its
Investment Reports.[Footnote 29] According to NIH, when a sufficiently
large body of research results have accumulated the agency plans to
prepare reports (similar to its Investment Reports) that highlight the
impact of its Recovery Act-funded research. Other metrics used to track
scientific impacts--including for Recovery Act-funded research--as
reported by principal investigators in our review include the filing
and approval of patent applications, the ability to secure future grant
funding, presentations at professional meetings, utilization of
products produced from their research, and changes to health care
policies and clinical practices implemented as a result of their
research.
As noted earlier, the majority of our selected principal investigators
provided preliminary results from their research projects supported
with Recovery Act funds. The following are examples of these
preliminary results:
* Prevention of Diseases. One principal investigator reported that
their Recovery Act-supported research on coronary heart disease
indicated that high levels of calcified and noncalcified plaque, which
can clog arteries and contribute to heart disease, is present in young
healthy people who have a family history of premature coronary disease.
According to this principal investigator, the results of this research
could be used to identify persons who would benefit from heart imaging
tests and preventative therapy for coronary heart disease.
* Early Detection of Diseases. One principal investigator reported that
their Recovery Act-supported research resulted in the identification of
several hundred proteins that are associated with chronic pancreatitis.
According to this principal investigator, this research could
contribute towards creating new blood tests for detecting chronic
pancreatitis. Another principal investigator reported identifying the
symptoms that are the most important and efficient for making a
diagnosis of autism in young children.
* Improvements in Medical Therapies. One principal investigator
reported that data collected for their Recovery Act grant has yielded
results in developing personalized therapeutic approaches for patients
with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, a fatal disorder.[Footnote 30] This
principal investigator noted that these results could help to simplify
decision making regarding therapeutic interventions, such as for
patients undergoing an organ transplant. Another principal investigator
cited progress toward overcoming the resistance of colon cancer to
existing treatment therapies, and another assessed two alternative
therapies for coronary heart disease. A principal investigator also
reported that their Recovery Act-supported research contributed to the
development of a kidney dialysis monitoring device that could be less
invasive and more cost-effective than the current surgically implanted
monitoring systems.
* Improved Research Capabilities. One principal investigator reported
that their Recovery Act-supported research contributed to the
development of a new approach that is being utilized by other
researchers studying the connections between different genes and
traits, such as those that may lead to heart disease.
Agency Comments:
A draft of this report was provided to HHS for review and comment. HHS
provided technical comments that were incorporated as appropriate.
As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its
contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until
30 days after its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this
report to other interested congressional committees, the Secretary of
Health and Human Services, and the Director of the National Institutes
of Health. This report will also be available on the GAO Web site at
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please
contact Linda T. Kohn at (202) 512-7114 or kohnl@gao.gov. Contact
points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs
may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this
report are listed in appendix IV.
Signed by:
Linda T. Kohn Director, Health Care:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methods:
To obtain the information National Institutes of Health (NIH) and
selected NIH Recovery Act grantees[Footnote 31] have on the jobs
supported with NIH Recovery Act funding, we interviewed NIH officials
about the information they have on the full-time-equivalents (FTE)
supported by the Recovery Act, and reviewed (1) NIH data containing
information reported by grantee institutions to a nationwide data
collection system at [hyperlink, http://www.federalreporting.gov] on
the FTEs supported by NIH Recovery Act funding, (2) annual progress
reports[Footnote 32] for fiscal year 2010 that NIH Recovery Act
grantees are required to submit to NIH, and (3) other jobs information
that NIH gathers from other sources.
To assess the reliability of the data provided by NIH, we obtained
information from agency officials knowledgeable about (1) NIH grant
award data, (2) NIH Recovery Act grantee recipient reports, and (3) the
jobs information that NIH gathers from other sources. We also performed
data quality checks to assess the reliability of the Recovery Act
grants data file received from NIH. These data quality checks involved
an assessment to identify incorrect and erroneous entries or outliers.
Based on the information we obtained and analyses we conducted, we
determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of
this report.
In addition, we selected five grantee institutions, which were
universities that employ principal investigators who received NIH
Recovery Act funding. The five selected grantee institutions met the
following criteria: (1) received the largest portion of Recovery Act
funds from NIH, (2) received the largest number of grants, and (3)
reported the highest number of FTEs supported by NIH Recovery Act
funds. The selected institutions were Johns Hopkins University,
University of Michigan, University of Washington, University of
Pennsylvania, and Duke University. The selected grantee institutions
are not representative of all institutions that received Recovery Act
funding. (See table 1 for more information about the five selected
grantee institutions.)
Table 1: Characteristics of Five NIH Recovery Act Grantee Institutions
Selected for Review:
Duke University;
Number of NIH Recovery Act grants received[A]: 339;
Amount of NIH Recovery Act funds received[A] (in millions): $169;
Number of full-time-equivalents reported for the quarter ending
September 2010: 413.
Johns Hopkins University;
Number of NIH Recovery Act grants received[A]: 435;
Amount of NIH Recovery Act funds received[A] (in millions): $163;
Number of full-time-equivalents reported for the quarter ending
September 2010: 401.
University of Michigan;
Number of NIH Recovery Act grants received[A]: 462;
Amount of NIH Recovery Act funds received[A] (in millions): $194;
Number of full-time-equivalents reported for the quarter ending
September 2010: 544.
University of Pennsylvania;
Number of NIH Recovery Act grants received[A]: 428;
Amount of NIH Recovery Act funds received[A] (in millions): $189;
Number of full-time-equivalents reported for the quarter ending
September 2010: 543.
University of Washington;
Number of NIH Recovery Act grants received[A]: 414;
Amount of NIH Recovery Act funds received[A] (in millions): $196;
Number of full-time-equivalents reported for the quarter ending
September 2010: 464.
Total;
Number of NIH Recovery Act grants received[A]: 2,078;
Amount of NIH Recovery Act funds received[A] (in millions): $911;
Number of full-time-equivalents reported for the quarter ending
September 2010: 2,365.
Source: GAO analysis of NIH Grant Award data and NIH Recovery Act
Recipient Reports.
[A] The numbers of grants and funding received were as of September 30,
2010.
[End of table]
To gather more specific information about individual grants, we created
a Web-based data collection instrument (DCI) and disseminated it to 50
selected principal investigators--10 principal investigators at each of
the same five grantee institutions.[Footnote 33] The Web-based DCI
contained questions about the types and number of jobs supported by the
Recovery Act funding received from NIH. The selected principal
investigators received grant awards that met the following criteria:
(1) the grant was a new grant award and not a supplement to an existing
grant, (2) the grant award was for $500,000 or greater (see table 2 for
more details), and (3) the grant award was made on or before December
1, 2009. We reviewed the abstracts for all the grants that met the
above criteria and made a judgmental selection of the final 50 grants-
-making sure to include a variety of grant types such as Challenge
grants and Grand Opportunity (GO) grants that were developed for the
Recovery Act.[Footnote 34] The 50 selected grant awards ranged in size
from $500,000 to about $11,000,000. The principal investigators for
these selected grants are not representative of all principal
investigators who received NIH Recovery Act funding. To gather
information about the grants from an institutional perspective, we also
created a second Web-based DCI and disseminated it to an official
involved in coordinating Recovery Act reporting at each of the five
selected grantee institutions.
Table 2: Range of 50 Selected Grant Award Amounts at Five NIH Recovery
Act Grantee Institutions, Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010:
Grantee institutions (Universities): Duke University;
Range of individual grant award amounts (in millions): $0.5-$5.6.
Grantee institutions (Universities): Johns Hopkins University;
Range of individual grant award amounts (in millions): $0.5-$3.3.
Grantee institutions (Universities): University of Michigan;
Range of individual grant award amounts (in millions): $0.5-$9.0.
Grantee institutions (Universities): University of Pennsylvania;
Range of individual grant award amounts (in millions): $0.5-$5.1.
Grantee institutions (Universities): University of Washington;
Range of individual grant award amounts (in millions): $0.8-$11.
Grantee institutions (Universities): Range for five selected grantee
institutions;
Range of individual grant award amounts (in millions): $0.5-$11.
Source: GAO analysis of NIH grant award data.
[End of table]
We performed follow-up information gathering from selected principal
investigators and administrators at grantee institutions that completed
the DCI to supplement the information provided in the DCI. We also
obtained and reviewed information reported by grantee institutions to
the nationwide data collection system at [hyperlink,
http://www.federalreporting.gov] about the number of jobs supported by
the Recovery Act.
The information on the number of FTEs supported by NIH Recovery Act
funding reported to the nationwide data collection system by recipients
of Recovery Act funding has certain limitations. First, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) guidance requires FTE numbers to be
reported quarterly and FTEs should not be added across quarters to
obtain a cumulative number of FTEs. In addition, the calculation of
FTEs may reflect full-time and/or multiple part-time jobs, therefore
FTEs cannot be used to determine the total number of individual jobs.
Moreover, because of a change in OMB's reporting guidelines, FTE data
for the first reporting quarter may not be comparable to the data
reported for subsequent reporting quarters. The number of FTEs
represents only the jobs directly supported by the Recovery Act but
does not capture the jobs indirectly supported by the act or other
impacts of the spending.
To identify the information NIH and selected grantee institutions and
principal investigators have on the other impacts of the NIH Recovery
Act funding they received, we utilized the Web-based DCI disseminated
to the same 50 principal investigators--10 principal investigators at
each of the five selected grantee institutions--noted earlier, and
interviewed NIH officials. We asked the grantee institution and
principal investigators to identify other impacts such as scientific
impacts, impacts in the local community, and impacts on the grantee
institution and principal investigators. We also asked NIH and
principal investigators to identify the metrics they use to measure and
track these other impacts. We contacted the State Recovery Act
representative in two of the states in which our selected universities
are located (North Carolina and Pennsylvania) to identify information
on the other impacts of NIH Recovery Act funding in their
jurisdictions. Finally, we reviewed relevant NIH Recovery Act grant
guidance as well as OMB's Recovery Act guidance to identify Recovery
Act grantee requirements for reporting information on FTEs and on the
impacts of the Recovery Act grants to NIH and the nationwide data
collection system at [hyperlink, http://www.federalreporting.gov].
[End of section]
Appendix II: Analysis of Information Reported by Selected Principal
Investigators on Jobs Supported by Recovery Act Funding:
We disseminated a Web-based data collection instrument (DCI) to a total
of 50 selected principal investigators (10 principal investigators at
each of five selected grantee institutions).[Footnote 35] The data
collection instrument included questions about the jobs supported by
NIH Recovery Act funding. Detailed results from selected questions in
our data collection instrument related to the jobs supported by
Recovery Act funding cited in this report are listed below in tables 3-
6. For example, information about (1) the number of supported positions
that existed before the Recovery Act and (2) the average number of
hours worked by each supported job category. Not all totals add to 100
percent because respondents were given multiple answers and asked to
check all that apply.
Table 3: Percent of NIH Recovery Act-Supported Jobs That Did Not Exist
Prior to Receiving NIH Recovery Act Funding, as Reported by Selected
Principal Investigators, through March 2011:
Principal investigator's response: Supported jobs that did not exist
prior to receiving NIH funding;
Percent: 29.
Principal investigator's response: Supported jobs that existed prior to
receiving NIH funding;
Percent: 54.
Principal investigator's response: No answer;
Percent: 17.
Principal investigator's response: Total;
Percent: 100.
Source: GAO review of 50 selected principal investigators.
Note: These data are based on all of the jobs reported in our DCI by
our selected principal investigators.
[End of table]
Table 4: Number of Selected Principal Investigators Reporting a Loss of
Funding from Sources Other than NIH, during Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010:
The number of selected principal investigators who reported a decline
in grant funding from other granting sources;
Fiscal year 2009: Yes: 9;
Fiscal year 2009: No: 40;
Fiscal year 2009: No response: 1;
Fiscal year 2009: Total: 50;
Fiscal year 2010: Yes: 18;
Fiscal year 2010: No: 32;
Fiscal year 2010: No response: 0;
Fiscal year 2010: Total: 50.
The number of selected principal investigators who reported the NIH
Recovery Act funds made up for the loss of funding from other granting
sources;
Fiscal year 2009: Yes: 7;
Fiscal year 2009: No: 1;
Fiscal year 2009: No response: 1;
Fiscal year 2009: Total: 9;
Fiscal year 2010: Yes: 15;
Fiscal year 2010: No: 3;
Fiscal year 2010: No response: 0;
Fiscal year 2010: Total: 18.
Average percent of lost funding replaced by NIH Recovery Act funding,
as reported by our selected principal investigators;
Fiscal year 2009: Yes: 36 %;
Fiscal year 2010: Yes: 41 %.
Source: GAO review of 50 selected principal investigators.
[End of table]
Table 5: Percent of Selected Principal Investigators Who Reported
Avoiding Certain Actions as a Result of Receiving NIH Recovery Act
funds, during Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010:
Actions avoided: Avoided reducing employee hours;
Percent of principal investigators: 46.
Actions avoided: Avoided reducing the number of employees;
Percent of principal investigators: 50.
Actions avoided: Avoided seeking alternative grant funding sources;
Percent of principal investigators: 24.
Actions avoided: Avoided other cost-saving measures;
Percent of principal investigators: 22.
Actions avoided: No actions avoided beyond budgeting processes;
Percent of principal investigators: 32.
Source: GAO review of 50 selected principal investigators.
Note: The total does not add to 100 percent because respondents were
given multiple answers and asked to check all that apply.
[End of table]
Table 6: Mean Number of Hours Funded by the Recovery Act Each Week by
Job Category, as Reported by Selected Principal Investigators through
March 2011:
Job category: Research scientist and other faculty;
Mean number of hours/job category: 21.
Job category: IT/Data Information;
Mean number of hours/job category: 9.
Job category: Pre-Postdoctoral/Student;
Mean number of hours/job category: 35.
Job category: Temporary/Part-time Employee;
Mean number of hours/job category: 17.
Job category: Administration/Management/Executive;
Mean number of hours/job category: 29.
Job category: Medical Specialist;
Mean number of hours/job category: 15.
Job category: Sub-Contract/Sub-Awards;
Mean number of hours/job category: 10.
Job category: Other;
Mean number of hours/job category: 5.
Job category: Mean number of hours for all job categories;
Mean number of hours/job category: 20.
Source: GAO review of 50 selected principal investigators.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Analysis of Information Reported by Selected Principal
Investigators on Other Impacts of Recovery Act Funding:
We disseminated a Web-based data collection instrument to a total of 50
selected principal investigators (10 principal investigators at each of
five selected grantee institutions).[Footnote 36] The data collection
instrument included questions about the other impacts of NIH Recovery
Act funding. Detailed results from selected questions in our data
collection instrument related to the other impacts of Recovery Act
funding cited in this report are listed in tables 7-10. For example,
information about (1) the types of nonscientific impacts reported by
selected principal investigators, and (2) the metrics used to track and
measure scientific impacts.
Table 7: Number of Selected Principal Investigators That Reported Other
Impacts (Not Including Scientific Impacts), during Fiscal Years 2009
and 2010:
Other impacts: Purchases of equipment and supplies from vendors;
Number of principal investigators: 33.
Other impacts: Purchases of services from vendors;
Number of principal investigators: 14.
Other impacts: Support scientific training for health care
professionals;
Number of principal investigators: 9.
Source: GAO review of 50 selected principal investigators.
Note: Respondents could report more than one other impact.
[End of table]
Table 8: Health Issues Addressed by Selected NIH Recovery Act Grants,
during Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010:
Health area/conditions: Cardiovascular disorders;
Percent: 22.
Health area/conditions: Cancer;
Percent: 18.
Health area/conditions: Mental/Behavioral health;
Percent: 18.
Health area/conditions: Neurological disorders;
Percent: 16.
Health area/conditions: Other;
Percent: 16.
Health area/conditions: Lung disease and/or injury;
Percent: 8.
Health area/conditions: Autism;
Percent: 6.
Health area/conditions: Diabetes;
Percent: 6.
Health area/conditions: General public health;
Percent: 6.
Health area/conditions: Kidney disease;
Percent: 4.
Health area/conditions: Smoking;
Percent: 4.
Health area/conditions: Obesity;
Percent: 4.
Health area/conditions: Genetic disorders;
Percent: 2.
Source: GAO review of 50 selected principal investigators.
Note: The total exceeds 100 percent because some NIH Recovery Act
grants addressed more than one health issue.
[End of table]
Table 9: Number of Selected Principal Investigators Who Reported Using
Various Metrics for Tracking and Measuring Scientific Research:
Metric: Peer-reviewed publications;
Number of principal investigators: 49.
Metric: Patent filings;
Number of principal investigators: 9.
Metric: Presentations at professional meetings/conferences;
Number of principal investigators: 45.
Metric: Other metrics[A];
Number of principal investigators: 17.
Source: GAO review of 50 selected principal investigators.
[A] Other metrics reported by selected principal investigators
included: the ability to secure future grant funding, and changes to
health care policies and practices.
[End of table]
Table 10: Number of Selected Principal Investigators Who Reported Peer-
Reviewed Publications and Patent Applications Resulting from Their
Scientific Research, during Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010:
Metric: Peer-reviewed publication submitted;
Number of principal investigators: 24.
Metric: Peer-reviewed publication approved;
Number of principal investigators: 17.
Metric: Patent application filed;
Number of principal investigators: 1.
Metric: Patent application approved;
Number of principal investigators: 0.
Source: GAO review of 50 selected principal investigators.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Linda T. Kohn, (202) 512-7114 or kohnl@gao.gov:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Will Simerl, Assistant
Director; N. Rotimi Adebonojo; Leonard Brown; Carolyn Garvey; Krister
Friday; Daniel S. Ries; and Monica Perez-Nelson made key contributions
to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Pub. L. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115 (Feb. 17, 2009).
[2] The Recovery Act also provided an additional $2.2 billion in
Recovery Act funding to NIH to support comparative effectiveness
research, repairs, improvements, and construction, as well as
extramural scientific equipment.
[3] See testimony by Dr. Raynard Kington, Acting Director of NIH before
the House Subcommittee on Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations regarding
the implementation of the Recovery Act, March 26, 2009. Dr. Kington
also cited a study suggesting that NIH spending in local communities
generates an average economic impact of three times the original
amount.
[4] See for example, GAO, Recovery Act: Recipient Reported Jobs Data
Provide Some Insights into Use of Recovery Act Funding, but Data
Quality and Reporting Issues Need Attention, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-223] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 19,
2009). Among other things, this report discusses the methodological
challenges in measuring the indirect and induced impacts of Recovery
Act funding.
[5] The information reported by Recovery Act recipients is available to
the public for viewing and downloading on [hyperlink,
http://www.recovery.gov] (Recovery.gov).
[6] See Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Memoranda M-10-08:
Updated Guidance on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act -Data
Quality, Non-Reporting Recipients, and Reporting of Job Estimates,
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 18, 2009). FTEs are calculated as the total
number of hours worked and funded by the Recovery Act in a reporting
quarter divided by the quarterly hours in a full-time schedule, as
defined by the recipient. For instance, if a full-time schedule is
2,080 hours/year, the number of hours in a full-time schedule for a
quarter is 520 (2,080 hours/4 quarters = 520).
[7] See OMB Memoranda M-09-21.
[8] NIH defines a principal investigator as the individual designated
by the grantee institution (or applicant organization) to have the
level of authority and responsibility to direct the project or program
to be supported by the grant award. We use the term "grantee
institution" to refer to the institution that employs the principal
investigators.
[9] See GAO, National Institutes of Health: Awarding Process, Awarding
Criteria, and Characteristics of Extramural Grants Made with Recovery
Act Funding, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-848]
(Washington, D.C.: August 2010).
[10] These annual progress reports are used by NIH to assess the
progress of funded projects, and include information such as the
research goals, updates on the progress of the research, publications
resulting from research findings, and personnel changes to the project
team.
[11] The five selected grantee institutions received the largest
amounts of NIH Recovery Act funding and reported the largest number of
supported FTEs.
[12] The principal investigators at these five grantee institutions
were selected based on the size and award date of the grants.
[13] To gather information about the grants from an institutional
perspective, we also disseminated a second Web-based DCI to an
administrator at each of the five selected grantee institutions.
[14] NIH officials said they conduct data quality reviews on the
numbers of FTEs reported by grantee institutions. The officials also
noted that at the end of each reporting period, they typically flag
less than 1 percent of all grantee reports as having potential errors.
[15] The administrators stated that they use OMB guidance to calculate
and report the number of FTEs supported by their Recovery Act grants
and to perform data quality reviews. They also noted that they have
centralized in-house processes for ensuring the quality of the reported
FTE data.
[16] The standard criteria were scientific merit, availability of
funding, and relevance to scientific priorities, and the three
additional criteria were geographic distribution, potential for job
creation, and the potential for making scientific progress.
[17] The award categories included: awards for applications that had
previously been reviewed but had not received funding, awards for new
grant applications, and awards for administrative supplements and
competitive revisions to current active grants.
[18] FTE data provide insight into the use and impact of the Recovery
Act funds, but recipient reports cover only direct jobs reported by
recipients of Recovery Act funds. These reports do not include the
employment impact on suppliers (indirect jobs) or on the local
community (induced jobs). Both data reported by recipients and other
macroeconomic data and methods are necessary to understand the overall
employment effects of the Recovery Act.
[19] See [hyperlink,
http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/RecipientReportedData].
Pages/Recipient Landing.aspx.
[20] The Science and Technology for America's Reinvestment: Measuring
the Effect of Research on Innovation, Competitiveness and Science (the
Star Metrics Program) is a multiagency venture to monitor the impact of
federal science investments on employment, knowledge generation, and
social outcomes. The White House Office of Science and Technology
Policy leads this venture. Participating agencies include: NIH, the
National Science Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency, and
the Department of Energy.
[21] This figure is a separate and more recent estimate (provided by
NIH officials in September 2011) than the information provided by the
Acting Director of NIH to the House Subcommittee on Labor-HHS-Education
Appropriations in March 2009, in which he noted that on average, each
research grant awarded with Recovery Act funding had the potential of
supporting six to seven full-or part-time scientific jobs.
[22] See scope and methodology for details on the selection criteria
for these grantee institutions.
[23] Seventeen percent of selected principal investigators did not
indicate whether the supported employees were new or existing
employees.
[24] Nine percent of selected principal investigators did not provide
information on whether the jobs supported by NIH Recovery Act funds
were part time or full time.
[25] Scientists are typically university faculty members supported by
NIH Recovery Act funds, and "other faculty" include professors and
instructors.
[26] NIH grantees, including NIH Recovery Act grantees, are required to
report annually on the progress of their funded research, as well as
provide other information that may vary depending on the specifications
of the grant.
[27] See [hyperlink, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-
610T] and [hyperlink, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-
379].
[28] This principal investigator purchased a dual-energy x-ray
absorptiometry scanner that is typically used for measuring bone
density.
[29] NIH Investment Reports are released periodically and typically
include a description of the potential scientific impacts of NIH-funded
research in relation to specific public health issues. See [hyperlink,
http://report.nih.gov/recovery/investmentreports]. for examples of
recent NIH Investment Reports.
[30] Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis is a disorder that results in
scarring of the lungs and breathing difficulty.
[31] When we use the term "grantee" in this report, we are referring to
the grantee institution, including the principal investigator who is
designated by the grantee institution to direct the NIH Recovery Act-
funded research.
[32] These annual progress reports are used by NIH to assess the
progress of funded projects, and include information such as the
research goals, updates on the progress of the research, publications
resulting from research findings, and personnel changes to the project
team.
[33] NIH defines a principal investigator as the individual designated
by the grantee institution (or applicant organization) to have the
appropriate level of authority and responsibility to direct the project
or program to be supported by the grant award. For this report all five
selected grantee institutions were universities.
[34] The Challenge Grant program focuses on health and science problems
such as cancer and autism. The GO grant program supports high-impact
ideas that require significant resources for a discrete period to lay
the foundation for new fields of investigation.
[35] The selected grantee institutions were Johns Hopkins University,
University of Michigan, University of Washington, University of
Pennsylvania, and Duke University. These grantee institutions received
the largest amounts of Recovery Act funding and reported the largest
number of supported full-time-equivalents (FTE). The 50 principal
investigators were selected based on the size and award date of the
grants.
[36] The selected grantee institutions were Johns Hopkins University,
University of Michigan, University of Washington, University of
Pennsylvania, and Duke University. These grantee institutions received
the largest amounts of Recovery Act funding and reported the largest
number of supported FTEs. The 50 principal investigators were selected
based on the size and award date of the grants.
[End of section]
GAO‘s Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the
performance and accountability of the federal government for the
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations,
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy,
and funding decisions. GAO‘s commitment to good government is
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and
reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO‘s website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports,
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e mail you a list of newly
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select ’E-
mail Updates.“
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
Connect with GAO:
Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm];
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov;
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470.
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, DC 20548.
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, DC 20548.
