Case Study 26.1 — Hernandez Runs the R01

A composite, illustrative case following Hernandez into the funded life of her grant. Dr. Hernandez is a composite; the post-award structures (notice of award, IRB, RPPR, prior approval, no-cost extension) are real. Verify current rules with your funder and grants office.

The award arrives

Dr. Hernandez's R01 — funded on the A1 after the recruitment-feasibility fix (Chapter 22) — is now hers. The exhilaration of winning quickly gives way to the reality of delivering: she has promised a multi-site randomized trial of her text-message diabetes-adherence intervention, and now she has to run it. This case follows her stewardship, and how it becomes the foundation for her next grant.

The notice of award — the proposal becomes a contract

Hernandez reads the notice of award carefully (Section 26.1). It specifies her funding, her period of performance, the terms and conditions, and her reporting obligations — and it makes concrete that her proposal is now a contract: every promise (the aims, the enrollment targets, the outcomes, the inclusion commitments) is an obligation she must deliver and report on. She's glad she wrote an honest, achievable proposal in the first place, because she now has to do exactly what it said.

The first ninety days — setup before science

Hernandez resists the temptation to think the work has begun; she knows the award date starts the setup (Section 26.2). Her first ninety days:

• Staffing: she hires her research coordinator and confirms the site investigators' effort.
• Subawards: she executes the subaward agreements with her clinical sites (Chapter 23) so funds can flow and the sites can work.
• IRB approval: she submits the protocol to each site's Institutional Review Board — and cannot enroll a single participant until each approves. These reviews run on the boards' schedules, so she submits immediately; a delay here delays the entire trial.
• Financial setup: she establishes budget tracking with her finance office.
• Kickoff: she aligns the whole team on roles, the timeline, and the promises to keep.

By starting setup the moment the award arrived, she preserves her period of performance; a slower start would have cost her weeks she'd need later.

Running the trial — delivering and reporting

The trial begins. Hernandez delivers what she promised — enrolling participants across sites, running the intervention, pursuing her aims and inclusion commitments. She files her RPPR (Research Performance Progress Report, Section 26.4) annually: on time, specific about enrollment and progress against her aims, and — when recruitment at one site lags — honest about the challenge and her plan to address it. Her program officer, reading a candid, well-managed report, trusts her more, not less, and offers useful guidance. She manages the money within the rules, tracking spending against categories.

A mid-project change — handled right

Partway through, Hernandez realizes she needs to shift significant funds between categories and extend her timeline slightly to complete enrollment. She knows these may require prior approval (Section 26.5), so she consults her program officer and grants office before acting, gets the needed approvals, and documents them. Near the end, with enrollment complete but analysis ongoing and funds remaining, she requests a no-cost extension before the period ends — a routine, granted request that gives her time to finish without more money. None of these changes is a failure; each is normal grant life, handled transparently and within the rules — which itself builds the funder's trust.

Closeout — and the next grant

At the end, Hernandez runs a clean closeout (Section 26.6): a strong final report documenting her outcomes, a reconciled budget, complete records. And here the threshold concept pays off. Her well-run grant has produced results — findings, data, demonstrated feasibility — that become the preliminary data for her next grant (Chapter 9), publications that build her track record, and a basis for a renewal or new study. Her clean compliance record and her program officer's trust make the next application start with credibility. By stewarding this grant well, Hernandez has written the most important part of her next proposal before she begins it.

What this case teaches

1. The proposal becomes a contract. The notice of award turned Hernandez's promises into obligations — honored because she promised honestly.
2. Setup before science. Starting the first-90-days setup immediately (especially IRB) preserved her timeline.
3. Honest reporting and proper change-handling build trust. Candid RPPRs and prior-approved changes made her a trusted partner.
4. Stewardship is the next application. Her results, track record, clean record, and relationship became the foundation of her next grant.

🔄 Retrieve: Without rereading, name (a) why Hernandez submitted her IRB protocols immediately, and (b) two things her well-run grant produced that anchor her next proposal. (Answers above.)