Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program

Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program is sponsored by Various Federal Agencies (e.g., DoD, NASA, NSF, DOE, NIH). The SBIR program funds a portfolio of startups and small businesses across technology areas and markets to stimulate technological innovation, meet Federal research and development (R&D) needs, and increase commercialization to transition R&D into impact.

Introduction - SBIR/STTR at the National Institutes of Health - NCBI Bookshelf Federal government websites often end in . gov or . mil.

Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal Search database Books All Databases Assembly Biocollections BioProject BioSample Books ClinVar Conserved Domains dbGaP dbVar Gene Genome GEO DataSets GEO Profiles GTR Identical Protein Groups MedGen MeSH NLM Catalog Nucleotide OMIM PMC Protein Protein Clusters Protein Family Models PubChem BioAssay PubChem Compound PubChem Substance PubMed SNP SRA Structure Taxonomy ToolKit ToolKitAll ToolKitBookgh Search term NCBI Bookshelf.

A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health. Committee on Capitalizing on Science, Technology, and Innovation: An Assessment of the Small Business Innovation Research Program—Phase II; Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy; Policy and Global Affairs; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. SBIR/STTR at the National Institutes of Health.

Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2015 Nov 12. SBIR/STTR at the National Institutes of Health. Show details Committee on Capitalizing on Science, Technology, and Innovation: An Assessment of the Small Business Innovation Research Program—Phase II; Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy; Policy and Global Affairs; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US) ; 2015 Nov 12. Hardcopy Version at National Academies Press Small businesses are an important driver of innovation and economic growth in the United States.

1 Despite the challenges of changing global environments and the impacts of the 2008 financial crisis and subsequent recession, innovative small businesses continue to develop and commercialize new products for the market, improving the health and welfare of Americans while strengthening the nation's security and Created in 1982 through the Small Business Innovation Development Act, 3 the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program remains the nation's largest innovation program for small businesses.

The SBIR program offers competitive awards to support the development and commercialization of innovative technologies by small private-sector businesses.

4 At the same time, the program provides government agencies with technical and scientific solutions that address their Seeking to bridge the gap between basic science and commercialization of resulting innovations, the Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) program, created in 1992 by the Small Business Research and Development Enhancement Act of 1992, 5 seeks to expand joint venture opportunities for small businesses and nonprofit research institutions.

Under the STTR program, a small business receiving an award must collaborate formally with a research institution.

The SBIR/STTR programs consist of three phases: Phase I provides limited funding (up to $100,000 prior to the 2011 reauthorization and up to $150,000 thereafter) for feasibility Phase II provides more substantial funding for further research and development (typically up to $750,000 prior to 2012 and $1 million after the 2011 reauthorization).

6 Phase III involves commercialization without providing access to any additional SBIR/STTR funding, although funding from other federal government accounts is permitted.

The SBIR program has four congressionally mandated goals: (1) stimulate technological innovation, (2) use small business to meet federal research and development (R&D) needs, (3) foster and encourage participation by minority and disadvantaged persons in technological innovation, and (4) increase private-sector commercialization derived from federal research and goals for the STTR program are to (1) stimulate technological innovation, (2) foster technology transfer through cooperative R&D between small businesses and research institutions, and (3) increase private-sector commercialization of innovations derived from federal R&D.

8 Each of the research agencies has sought to pursue these goals in administering its SBIR/STTR programs, utilizing the administrative flexibility built into the SBIR program to address its unique mission needs.

9 Although the SBIR and STTR programs have similar objectives, they differ, according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), “in two major ways related to the Program Director (PD)/Principal Investigator (PI) and non-profit research partner. Under SBIR, the PD/PI must be primarily employed with the small business concern at the time of award and for the duration of the project period, unless a waiver is granted by the NIH.

Under the STTR Program, primary employment is not stipulated, so the PD/PI may be primarily employed by either the small business concern or the collaborating non-profit research institution at the time of award and for the duration of the project The STTR program also differs from the SBIR program in that it requires that the small business concern formally collaborate with a nonprofit research institution.

Research partnerships are permitted under the SBIR program, but the partnering research institution can complete no more than one-third of the Phase I work and no more than one-half of the Phase II work. In contrast, “Under STTR, the small business must perform at least 40 percent of the work and the research institution must perform at least 30 percent. The remaining 30 percent may be .

. .

[completed by] the small business concern, the collaborating non-profit research institution, or an additional third Over time, through a series of reauthorizations, SBIR/STTR legislation has required federal agencies with extramural R&D budgets in excess of $100 million to set aside a growing share of their budgets for the SBIR program and those with extramural R&D budgets in excess of $1 billion to set aside a growing share of their budgets for the STTR program (see Table 1-2 ).

By FY2012, the 11 federal agencies, listed in Table 1-1 , that administer SBIR/STTR programs were disbursing $2. 4 billion dollars a year.

12 As shown in Figure 1-1 , five agencies administer more than 96 percent of SBIR/STTR funds: Department of Defense (DoD), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS; including particularly NIH), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), National Science Foundation (NSF), and Department of Energy (DoE).

Aggregate award amounts for the five largest agencies for FY2015 are provided in Table SBIR/STTR Funding by the Five Principal Funding Agencies, FY Agencies Currently Participating in the SBIR and STTR Percentage of total SBIR/STTR funding by agency, FY2012. SOURCE: SBA, SBIR/STTR annual report, http://www. sbir.

gov, In December 2011, Congress reauthorized the SBIR/STTR programs for an additional 6 years, 13 with a number of important modifications.

Many of these modifications—for example, changes in standard award size—were consistent with or followed recommendations made in a 2008 National Research Council (NRC) 14 report on the SBIR program, a study mandated as a part of the program's 2000 The 2011 reauthorization also called for further studies by the The first-round assessment resulted in 11 reports including the 2008 report cited above (see Box 1-1 for the list of reports).

In a follow-up to the first round, NIH requested from the Academies an assessment focused on operational questions in order to identify further improvements to the program. The Academies' First-Round Assessment of the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program. Mandated by Congress in the 2000 reauthorization of the SBIR program, the National Research Council's first-round SBIR assessment reviewed the SBIR programs (more...)

This introduction provides general context for the analysis of the program developments and transitions described in the remainder of the report. The first section provides an overview of the history of the SBIR/STTR programs across the federal government.

This is followed by a summary of the major changes mandated through the 2011 reauthorization and the subsequent Small Business Administration (SBA) Policy Directive; a review of the programs' advantages and limitations, in particular the challenges faced by entrepreneurs using (and seeking to use) the program and by agency officials running it; and a summary of the technical challenges facing this assessment and recommended solutions to those challenges.

PROGRAM HISTORY AND STRUCTURE 17 During the 1980s, the perceived decline in U.S. competitiveness due to Japanese industrial growth in sectors traditionally dominated by U.S. firms—autos, steel, and semiconductors—led to concerns about future economic growth in the United States. 18 A key concern was the perceived failure of American industry “to translate its research prowess into commercial advantage.

” 19 Although the United States enjoyed dominance in basic research—much of which was federally funded—applying this research to the development of innovative products and technologies remained a challenge. As the great corporate laboratories of the post-war period were buffeted by change, new models such as the cooperative model utilized by some Japanese keiretsu seemed to offer greater sources of dynamism and more competitive firms.

At the same time, new evidence emerged to indicate that small businesses were an increasingly important source of both innovation and job This evidence reinforced recommendations from federal commissions dating back to the 1960s, that federal R&D funding should provide more support for innovative small businesses (which was opposed by traditional recipients of government R&D funding).

21 Early-stage financial support to innovative technology-based small businesses for developing high-risk technologies with commercial promise was first advanced by Roland Tibbetts at NSF. In 1976, Mr. Tibbetts advocated shifting some NSF funding for this purpose.

NSF adopted this initiative first, and after a period of analysis and discussion, the Reagan administration supported an expansion of this initiative across the federal government. Congress then passed the Small Business Innovation Research Development Act of 1982, which established the SBIR program. Initially, the SBIR program required agencies with extramural R&D budgets in excess of $100 million 22 to set aside 0.

2 percent of their funds for SBIR. Program funding totaled $45 million in the program's first year of operation (1983). Over the next 6 years, the set-aside grew to 1.

25 SBIR Reauthorizations of 1992 and 2000 The SBIR program approached reauthorization in 1992 amidst continued worries about the ability of U.S. firms to commercialize inventions.

that “U.S. technological performance is challenged less in the creation of new technologies than in their commercialization and adoption,” the Academies recommended an increase in SBIR funding as a means to improve the economy's ability to adopt and commercialize new technologies. 24 Commercialization Language from 1992 SBIR Reauthorization.

Phase II “awards shall be made based on the scientific and technical merit and feasibility of the proposals, as evidenced by the first phase, considering, among other things, the The Small Business Research and Development Enhancement Act (P. L. 102-564) reauthorized the SBIR program until September 30, 2000, and doubled the set-aside rate to 2.

5 percent. The legislation also more strongly emphasized the need for commercialization of SBIR-funded technologies.

25 Legislative language explicitly highlighted commercial potential as a criterion for awarding SBIR contracts and At the same time, Congress expanded the SBIR program's purposes to “emphasize the program's goal of increasing private sector commercialization developed through federal research and development and to improve the federal government's dissemination of information concerning the small business innovation, particularly with regard to woman-owned business concerns and by socially and economically disadvantaged small business concerns.

” 26 The Small Business Reauthorization Act of 2000 (P. L. 106-554) extended the SBIR program until September 30, 2008.

It also called for an NRC assessment of the program's broader impacts, including those on employment, health, national security, and national Established by the Small Business Technology Transfer Act of 1992 (P. L. 102-564, Title II), the STTR program was reauthorized until the year 2001 by the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 1997 (P.

L. 105-135) and reauthorized again until September 30, 2009, by the Small Business Technology Transfer Program Reauthorization Act of 2001 (P. L.

As explained below, the SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2011 included a number of changes to the SBIR/STTR programs, including increases in the set-asides over the next 6 years and expanded eligibility for STTR awardees to take part in technical assistance programs.

The 2011 SBIR/STTR Reauthorization The anticipated 2008 reauthorization was delayed in large part by a disagreement between long-time program participants and their advocates in the small business community and proponents of expanded access for venture-backed firms, particularly in biotechnology where proponents argued that the standard path to commercial success includes venture funding at some point.

28 Other issues were also difficult to resolve, but the conflict over participation of venture-backed companies dominated following an administrative decision to exclude these firms more After a much extended discussion, passage of the National Defense Act of December 2011 reauthorized the SBIR/STTR programs through The new law maintained much of the core structure of both programs but made some important changes, which were to be implemented via the SBA's subsequent Policy Guidance.

32 The eventual compromise on the venture funding issue allowed (but did not require) agencies to award up to 25 percent of their SBIR grants or contracts (at NIH, DoE, and NSF) or 15 percent (at the other awarding agencies) to firms that benefit from private, venture capital investment.

It is too early in the implementation process to gauge the The reauthorization made changes to the SBIR program that were recommended in prior Academies reports.

33 These included the Increased award size limits Enhanced agency flexibility—for example, for Phase I awardees from other agencies to be eligible for Phase II awards or to provide an additional Phase II award Improved incentives for the utilization of SBIR technologies in agency acquisition programs Explicit requirements for better connecting prime contractors Substantial emphasis on developing a more data-driven culture, which has led to several major reforms, including the adding numerous areas of expanded reporting extending the Academies' evaluation adding further evaluation, such as by the Government Accountability Office and Comptroller General tasking the SBA with creating a unified platform for the collection of data from agencies with SBIR/STTR Expanded management resources (through provisions permitting use of up to 3 percent of program funds for [defined] management Expanded commercialization support (through provisions providing companies with direct access to commercialization support funding and through approval of the approaches piloted in Commercialization Pilot Programs) Options for agencies to add flexibility by developing other pilot programs—for example, to allow awardees to skip Phase I and apply for a Phase II award directly or for NIH to support a new Phase 0 pilot program The reauthorization also made changes that were not mentioned in previous reports of the Academies.

These included the following: Expansion of the STTR program Limitations on agency flexibility—particularly in the provision of larger awards Introduction of commercialization benchmarks for companies, which must be met if companies are to remain in the program. These benchmarks are to be established by each agency.

Other clauses of the legislation affect operational issues, such as the definition of specific terms (such as “Phase III”), continued and expanded evaluation by the Academies, mandated reports from the Comptroller General on combating fraud and abuse within the SBIR program, and protection of small firms' intellectual property within the program.

Studies pre-dating the Academies' first-round assessment in 2002–2009, most notably by the Government Accountability Office and the SBA, focused only on specific aspects or components of the SBIR/STTR addition, prior to the first-round assessment, there had been few internal assessments of agency SBIR/STTR programs.

The academic literature on SBIR except for an assessment in the 1990s by Joshua Lerner of the Harvard Business School who found “that SBIR awardees grew significantly faster than a matched set of firms over a ten-year period.

” 37 To help fill this assessment gap, the NRC's Committee for Government-Industry Partnerships for the Development of New Technologies (GIP, which preceded the NRC's first-round congressionally mandated study of the SBIR program) convened a workshop in 1998 to discuss the SBIR program's history and rationale, review existing research, and identify areas for further research and program improvements.

38 In addition, in its report on the SBIR Fast Track Initiative at the Department of Defense, the GIP committee found that the SBIR program contributed to mission goals by funding “valuable innovative projects. ” 39 It concluded that a significant number of these projects would not have been undertaken absent that DoD's Fast Track Initiative encouraged the commercialization of the entry of new firms into the program.

42 The GIP committee also found that the SBIR program improved both the development and utilization of human capital and the diffusion of technological knowledge. 43 Case studies provided some evidence that the knowledge and human capital generated by the SBIR program have positive economic value, which spills over into other firms through the movement of people and ideas.

44 Furthermore, by validating promising new technologies, SBIR awards encourage further private-sector investment in an award-winning firm's technology. 45 The 2000 SBIR reauthorization mandated that the NRC complete a comprehensive assessment of the SBIR program. 46 The assessment of the SBIR programs at DoD, NIH, NASA, NSF, and DoE began in 2002 and was conducted in three steps.

As a first step, the committee authoring this study developed a research and gathered information about the program by convening workshops where officials at the relevant federal agencies described their program operations, challenges, and accomplishments. These meetings highlighted the important differences in agency goals, practices, and evaluations.

They also served to describe the evaluation challenges that arise from the diversity in program objectives and practices. 48 The committee implemented the research methodology during the second step. As set out in the methodology, multiple data collection modalities were deployed.

This included the first large-scale survey of SBIR award recipients. Case studies were also developed on a wide variety of SBIR firms.

The committee then evaluated the results and developed the findings and recommendations presented for improving the effectiveness of the SBIR During the third step, the committee reported on the program through a series of publications in 2008-2010: five individual volumes on the major funding agencies and an additional overview volume titled An Assessment of the SBIR Program .

49 Together, these reports provided the first detailed and comprehensive review of the SBIR program and, as noted above, served as an important input into SBIR reauthorization prior to December 2011 (see CURRENT, ROUND TWO STUDY: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES The first-round study of the SBIR program found that the program was, overall, “sound in concept and effective in practice.

” 50 Furthermore, in its review of the NIH SBIR program, the committee concluded: “ The NIH SBIR program is making significant progress in achieving the congressional goals for the program ” 51 [emphasis in original]. The current study, described in the Statement of Task in Box 1-3 , provides a second snapshot to measure the program's progress against its legislative goals. Statement of Task.

In accordance with H. R. 5667, Sec.

108, enacted in Public Law 106-554, as amended by H. R. 1540, Sec.

5137, enacted in Public Law 112-81, the National Research Council is to review the Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business (more...) This volume partially addresses this Statement of Task. It is supplemented by a number of workshops and other publications from the Committee on Capitalizing on Science, Technology, and Innovation: An Assessment of the Small Business Innovation Research Program—Phase II.

For example, workshops were convened on the participation of women and minorities in the SBIR/STTR programs (February 2013), the evolving role of university participation in the programs (February 2014), the relationship between state innovation programs and the SBIR program (October 2014), the STTR program (May 2015), and the economics of entrepreneurship in relation to the SBIR program (June 2015).

The committee published a report on Innovation, Diversity, and Success in the SBIR/STTR Programs (2015), based on the 2013 workshop. The current volume updates the Academies' 2009 assessment of the NIH SBIR program, by refreshing the data, providing new descriptions of recent programs and developments, and providing fresh company case studies.

Guided by this Statement of Task, the committee has sought answers to questions Are there initiatives and programs within NIH that have made a significant difference to outcomes and in particular to agency take-up of SBIR-funded technologies? Can they be replicated and expanded? What are the main barriers to meeting Congressional objectives more What program adjustments would better support commercialization?

Are there tools that would expand utilization by woman and minorityowned firms and participation by female and minority Can links with universities be improved? Are there aspects of the program that make it less attractive to small firms? Could they be addressed?

What can be done to expand access in underserved states while maintaining the competitive character of the program? Can the program generate better data on both process and outcomes and use those data to fine-tune program management? The SBIR/STTR programs are unique in terms of scale and mission focus.

In addition, the evidence suggests that there are no truly comparable programs in the United States, and those in other countries operate in such different ways that their relevance is limited. 52 Thus, it is difficult to identify programs comparable to SBIR/STTR against which to benchmark their Assessing the SBIR/STTR programs at NIH is challenging for other reasons as well.

Unlike DoD and NASA, SBIR/STTR awards at NIH are not primarily designed to generate tools and capabilities for agency use. They are instead explicitly designed to generate technologies that will be adopted outside the agency, primarily in the private sector. Thus success cannot be measured internally by commercialization of projects sold to the agency.

The NIH SBIR/STTR programs are also highly decentralized. Although the SBIR/STTR program office within the Office of Extramural Programs sets policy and provides critical cross-agency communication flows, as well as links the program to outside stakeholders, award funding is determined by each Institute or Center (IC) separately. ICs take different views of the program and use different approaches to program management.

Therefore, generalizations about the NIH SBIR/STTR programs must be made with care. Indeed, approximately 24 separate programs are run by the various NIH Focus on Legislative Objectives This volume—and this study—do not seek to provide a comprehensive review of the value of the SBIR/STTR programs, in particular measured against other possible uses of federal funding. Such a review is beyond the study's scope.

Rather, the work is focused on assessing the extent to which the NIH SBIR/STTR programs have met their congressionally mandated objectives, determining in particular whether recent initiatives have improved program outcomes, and providing recommendations for further program improvements.

53 Thus, as in the first-round study, this second-round study will “ not consider whether or not SBIR should exist”—Congress and the President have already decided affirmatively on this question, most recently in the 2011 reauthorization of the program. 54 Rather, this study is charged with “providing assessment-based findings of the benefits and costs of SBIR . .

. to improve public understanding of the program, as well as recommendations to improve the program's effectiveness. ” Also as in the first-round study, this study will “ not seek to compare the value of one area with other areas; this task is the prerogative of the Congress and the Administration acting through the agencies.

Instead, the study is concerned with the effective review of each area. ” 55 Defining Commercialization Commercialization offers practical and definitional challenges. As several different definitions of commercialization can be used when discussing the SBIR/STTR programs.

In fact, it is important to use more than one simple definition. For example, the percentage of funded projects that reach the marketplace is not the only measure of In the private sector, commercial success over the long term requires profitability.

However, in the short term, the path to successful commercialization can involve many different aspects of commercial activity, from product rollout to licensing to patenting to acquisition. Even during new product rollout, companies often do not generate immediate profits. This report uses multiple metrics to address the question of commercialization (see Chapter 5 ).

Quantitative Assessment Methods More practically, several issues relate to the application of quantitative assessment methods, including decisions about which kinds of program participants should be targeted for survey deployment, the number of responses that are appropriate, selection bias, nonresponse bias, the design and implementation of survey questionnaires, and the level of statistical evidence required for drawing conclusions in this case.

These and other issues were discussed at a workshop and summarized in a 2004 report. 56 Also, as noted above, a peer-reviewed report on the study methodology completed by the first-round committee provided the baseline for the initial study and for follow-on studies—including this one.

57 For the current study, a survey of SBIR and STTR award recipients was developed and deployed, a necessity given the absence of quantitative outcomes data at NIH. The survey was based closely on previous surveys, particularly the 2005 Survey that focused exclusively on SBIR, but nonetheless included significant improvements.

58 The description of the survey and improvements in methodology, including a discussion of the survey outreach and response, are documented in Appendix A .

Most notably, the survey development made an ambitious but ultimately unsuccessful effort to develop a comparison group to provide context and a benchmark for analyzing the results (this effort is also discussed in Appendix The survey delved more deeply into the demographics of the program.

It also included questions about the role of agency liaisons who deal with contract operations and thereby provide a link between individual projects and NIH. Furthermore, it provided unique opportunities to collect qualitative opinions on the program and recommendations for improvement from award recipients.

It was the intention of the 2014 Survey to send a questionnaire to every principal investigator (PI) who received a Phase II award from NIH during fiscal years 2001-2010. The preliminary population prior to contact was 3,375. Of these, 1,723 were determined to be not contactable at the SBIR/STTR company listed in the NIH awards database.

59 The remaining 1,652 awards constitute the effective population for this study. From this group, 726 responses were received, for a preliminary population response rate of 21. 5 percent and an effective population response rate of 43.

9 percent. PIs of more than one awarded project were asked to complete a maximum of two questionnaires. Appendix A provides a detailed discussion of the issues related to quantitative methodologies, as well as a review of potential biases.

As a result of the relatively small response rate, there are significant limitations on the conclusions that can be drawn from this quantitative assessment, which is reflected in the wording of findings and recommendations ( Chapter 8 ).

At the same time, drawing on quantitative analysis is a crucial component of the overall study, reflective of the need to identify and assess outcomes that are found only by querying individual projects and participating companies. A Complement of Approaches Partly because of these limitations, the 2004 methodology report stressed the importance of utilizing a complement of research modalities, an approach that has been adopted here.

60 Although quantitative assessment represents the bedrock of our research and provides insights and evidence that could not be generated through any other modality, it is, in and of itself, insufficient to address the multiple questions posed in this analysis. Consequently, we undertook a series of additional Case studies. We conducted in-depth case studies of 20 NIH SBIR recipients.

These companies were geographically and demographically diverse (by sex and race), funded by different NIH ICs, focused on different kinds of technologies, and at different stages of the company lifecycle. Lessons from the case studies are described in Chapter 7 , and the case studies themselves are Workshops.

We conducted workshops, including workshops to discuss the participation of women and minorities and the role of universities in the SBIR/STTR programs, 61 to allow stakeholders, agency staff, and academic experts to provide insights into program operations, as well as to identify issues that need to be Analysis of agency data.

As appropriate, we analyzed and included data from NIH that cover various aspects of Open-ended responses from SBIR/STTR recipients. For the first time, we collected textual responses in the survey. More than 450 recipients provided narrative comments.

These comments are addressed in Chapter 7 . Agency consultations. We engaged in discussions with agency staff at several of the Centers about the operation of their programs and the challenges they face.

Literature review. Since the start of our research in this area, a number of academic and policy papers have been published that address various aspects of the SBIR/STTR programs, many drawing from the survey and other data made available by our reviews. In addition, other organizations—such as the Government Accountability Office—have reviewed specific parts of the SBIR/STTR programs.

The committee has incorporated references to this work, where useful, into its analysis. Data Sources and Limitations Multiple research modalities are especially important because limitations still exist in the data collected for the SBIR/STTR programs. As described in Chapter 5 , the survey deployed in the past by NIH to identify SBIR outcomes is no longer current.

Furthermore, NIH thus does not maintain a comprehensive dataset on award outcomes and cannot provide data about the take-up of technologies funded by the SBIR/STTR programs. NIH is however making efforts to address this issue (see Chapter 5 ).

The lack of current outcomes data from NIH means that the current survey provides the only available quantitative data on SBIR/STTR outcomes and In general, we received substantial cooperation from NIH and its ICs.

Agency staff and researchers deployed by the committee engaged in numerous discussions, and NIH provided data, papers, and In short, within the limitations described, the study utilizes a complement of tools to ensure that a wide spectrum of perspectives and expertise is reflected in the findings and recommendations.

Appendix A provides an overview of the methodological approaches, data sources, and survey tools used in The analysis and conclusions are organized as follows. Chapter 2 provides a review of program operations, describing the program in some detail and addressing a range of issues related to program management.

Chapter 3 describes and analyzes agency initiatives that have been developed and implemented over the past 8 to 10 years, including the role of awards larger than SBA guidelines (approved with an SBA waiver). Chapter 4 reviews NIH data concerning applications and awards, drawing out demographic and geographic differences as well as previous experience with the program.

quantitative assessment of the program, based primarily on the 2014 Survey in the absence of data from NIH or other sources. Chapter 6 addresses the congressional mandate to foster the participation of women and minorities, utilizing data from NIH and from the 2014 Survey. Chapter 7 draws on company case studies and on the textual responses from survey