National Network of Libraries of Medicine nnlm.gov	Archives	Search nnlm.gov: nnlm home | About the archives
This page was archived on: May 02, 2008 | View page metadata		Document content is not current. Links may be broken.

Dragonfly Winter 2003 -- Volume 34, Number 1

Review of Outreach Funding Projects

by Linda Milgrom, Outreach Coordinator
NN/LM PNR

The RML has offered network members various types of grants and funding support for outreach projects since the mid 1990's. National Library of Medicine grants have been available even longer. Some solicitations were very limited in scope, small amounts of money to do short-term activities, while other awards for multi-year projects were in the $30,00-$40,000 range. Project managers submitted reports of their progress and were encouraged to share their discoveries with colleagues. However, no systematic follow-up was conducted, leaving RML staff wondering if relationships fostered by outreach projects were sustained, how librarians and project managers reflected on their experiences, and reconsidering procedures and parameters for regionally-sponsored funding opportunities.

To begin to assess past outreach, we contacted the project directors of recently completed RML-funded projects. Since there was so much variation in network programs over the years, we decided to interview (by e-mail or by phone) managers of projects completed in 2001* (the most recently completed activities) and those completed in 1998**(the first year of general outreach funding from the RML). We reached contact staff for most of the projects (12 of 15) and talked generally of impressions of their outreach experiences, using the following questions as a guide:

1. Since your project ended have you been in touch with the individuals or groups involved in your outreach? Have you continued collaborating with them?
2. Did your experience lead you to other outreach activities?
3. Can you identify any lasting benefits of your outreach project (to you, your institution, or your outreach partners/recipients)?
4. What effect did RML funding have on your project? Would you have liked the RML to be more (or less) involved in your activities?
5. Are you interested in doing additional outreach?
6. What advice would you offer others tackling outreach projects?
7. Do you have suggestions for modifying the RML's approach to outreach? (e.g., Should projects be funded for longer periods, should partner agencies be required to contribute more substantially?)

The majority of outreach project managers had very positive comments about their experiences. Ten of the twelve respondents reported continuing interaction with outreach partners (or participants). Not surprisingly, the same ten stated (in response to Question 2) that the RML funded project led to other outreach activities. Lasting benefits mentioned included greater community recognition of the library, improved relationships between participant organizations, increased visibility and appreciation of the library professional ("the contribution a librarian can make in working with communities"), and better understanding of the needs of rural providers.

The impact of RML funding (Question 4) was crucial. Several awardees reported they would not have considered, or been able to accomplish, their projects without funding. There was great variation in the type and amount of support (financial and emotional) provided by the RML. Several project managers, with existing relationships in outreach target communities and a clear sense of their needs and interests, completed projects quite independently. Others were in more continuous contact with RML staff. All reported that RML involvement was "just about right." Project managers also uniformly responded that they are interested in doing more outreach, though one mentioned institutional procedural obstacles. Their advice and suggestions reflect "real-life" outreach experience, including:

• Work with the community from the very beginning, including when outcomes are defined.
• Offer noontime trainings, offer lunch, make it fun!
• Equipment purchased for outreach has had lasting utility throughout the institution.
• Short duration of outreach projects is beneficial because activities remain focused (quarterly reports also help).
• (conversely) For community based work, long time frames are required because active members of the community are often over-committed and group dynamics slow down any project.
• Plan evaluation to measure progress "as you go," rather than trying to wrap it all up at the end.
• Find a good contact person/collaborator, someone with power in partner agency.
• Need more money.
• Don't bite off too much.

As we've learned from these and other outreach activities, the RML has made modifications in our funding opportunities. Most notably, outreach project awards were increased to $15,000; mini-awards with simple application templates were initiated; and we offered planning and evaluation workshops. Despite these changes, the number of proposals has not increased (except for mini-awards), and most are submitted by network members who have previously conducted funded projects. Therefore, for the next cycle of funding we will propose many new initiatives, suggested in large part by previous participants. Possible enhancements include a continuum of varied outreach support (from needs assessment prior to a full-fledged project through impact grants to encourage follow-up) as well as funding for new directions (hardware/software for electronic document delivery and professional development). Stay tuned!

For descriptions of current funding opportunities and summaries of recent projects, see http://nnlm.gov/pnr/funding/.

*Projects completed in 2001:

• Web-based sources of health information for nurses, ICNE, Spokane, WA, Bob Pringle
• Promotion of web-based geriatric care topic, Oregon Pacific AHEC, Corvallis, OR, Karen Bondley
• Southwest Oregon diabetes outreach, Southwest Oregon AHEC, Roseburg, OR, John Irwin
• Online training for patients and healthcare professionals in Butte and Dillon, St. James Hospital Library, Butte, MT, Laurel Egan
• Access to Electronic Health Information for the Public, Idaho Health Sciences Library, Pocatello, ID, Nancy Griffin
• Improving Access to Electronic Health Information for Consumers in Northern Idaho, Kootenai Medical Center, Coeur d'Alene, ID, Marcia Horner
• School Health Nurses: A Link to the Consumer, OHSU, Portland, OR, Dolores Judkins
• Access to electronic health information for lesbians; gay men; and providers, researchers, and program developers serving lesbians and gay men, Public Health - Seattle & King County, Seattle, WA, Mark Alstead
• Yakima Health Network, Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital Foundation, Yakima, WA, Rhonda Stone
• Outreach to Alaska's Public Health Professionals, University of Alaska Anchorage Health Sciences Information Service, Anchorage, AK, Kathy Murray
• EthnoMed Community Outreach Project, University of Washington Health Sciences Library, K.K. Sherwood Branch, Seattle, WA, Ellen Howard

**Projects completed in 1998:

• Outreach to McKenzie River Clinic, McKenzie-Willamette Hospital, Community Health Resource Center, Springfield, Lynn Barton (Tamara Gryte)
• Outreach to Barrett Memorial Hospital, St, James Hospital Library, Laurel Egan
• Information Access Training for Practicing Veterinarians, WSU Veterinary Medical/Pharmacy Library (now Health Sciences Library), Pullman, Vicki Croft
• Outreach to the Fort Hall Reservation, Idaho Health Sciences Library, Pocatello, Terry Wiggins (Nancy Griffin)

Dragonfly, Winter 2003- Volume 34 Number 1
(posted on PNRNews on March 31, 2003)

This publication is funded in whole with Federal funds from the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, under Contract No. N01-LM-1-3516.

NLM | MedlinePlus | PubMed | NLM Gateway | TOXNET | LOCATORplus

NN/LM | UW HSL | NN/LM PNR | Contact us: nnlm@u.washington.edu | Revised: May 23, 2003

URL: http://nnlm.gov/pnr/news/200301/fundingreview.html