Strategic Plan Objective Detail
Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) logo
Office of Autism Research Coordination (OARC) logo

Question 5: Long-term Objective B  

$103,721.70
Fiscal Year: 2009

Yellow dot: Objective has some degree of funding, but less than the recommended amount.5LB. Test the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of at least four evidence-based services and supports for people with ASD across the spectrum and of all ages living in community settings by 2015. IACC Recommended Budget: $16,700,000 over 5 years.

Download 2009 Question 5: Long-term Objective B projects (EXCEL)
Note: Initial Sort is by Principal Investigator. Sorting by other columns is available by clicking on the desired column header.
Project Title Principal Investigator Institution
A comprehensive orientation, integration and socialization program for college students with ASD Solomon, Marjorie University of California, Davis Health System
Safe Signals: Teaching high functioning young adults with autism spectrum disorders about community safety behaviors Murray-Johnson, Lisa The Ohio State University Medical Center
The NSSA Green Team Grassle, Constance Nassau Suffolk Services for Autism
Day program transformation to foster employment for people with autism spectrum disorders Vining, Vickie Jay Nolan Community Services
Improving quality of life through person-centered planning: A university-based transition program for young adults with ASDs Huang, Ann Duquesne University

Objective Cumulative Funding Table

IACC Strategic Plan Objective 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total
Test the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of at least four evidence-based services and supports for people with ASD across the spectrum and of all ages living in community settings by 2015.

IACC Recommended Budget: $16,700,000 over 5 years
5.3
$0
0 projects

5.L.B
$103,722
5 projects

5.L.B
$0
0 projects

5.L.B
$0
0 projects

5.L.B
$499,995
1 project

$603,717
5.L.B. Funding: The recommended budget was not met; the funding allocated to projects specific to this objective falls far short of the recommendation.

Progress: There are ongoing projects under this objective with regard to efficacy but not cost-effectiveness. More work is needed and in general, the intention of this objective has not been achieved.

Remaining gaps, needs and opportunities: Cost-effectiveness evaluations have to be paired with randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Efforts should be made to build onto existing efforts by adding cost-effectiveness evaluation to existing RCTs. Administrative supplements may help to achieve those additions. There are not well established autism-specific measures of cost-effectiveness. Some barriers to achieving this objective include the need for a long follow up period, which often is not possible due to the cost of running longer term trials. Also, these projects often do not receive favorable scores during grant review because review favors tightly controlled experimental designs rather than experimentation in real-world conditions.