NASCIC Partnership Project Selection Guidelines
The purpose of the North American SCI Consortium (NASCIC) is to convene organizations in North American that advocate, represent, or communicate with people living with spinal cord injury (SCI).
NASCIC’s mission is to bring about unified achievements in research, care, cure, and policy by fostering collaborative efforts across the SCI community.
We do this by:
- bringing together like-minded organizations, individuals, and groups,
- advocating for research that more accurately reflects the needs of the SCI community, and
- partnering on projects that bring about positive change for persons living with SCI.
Project Partnership Requirements
Project submissions should be a brief overview providing details including the:
- project title, contact and brief description
- goals, objectives, outcomes, and timeline of the project,
- level of engagement and resources required of NASCIC and
- an estimated budget for the project, including compensation for individual advisors (budgeting guidance is available upon request)
Project Partnership Criteria
NASCIC evaluates project partnership opportunities based on their likelihood to:
- Form relationships between the individuals and organizations representing SCI;
- Exchange valid, trustworthy, and useful information, experience, and knowledge;
- Promote best practices in research, treatment, and care;
- Create and/or strengthen a unified voice for SCI in North America;
- Promote collaboration among experts in the fields of research and/or clinical care and/or advocacy;
- Impact the lives of people living with SCI;
- Meaningfully and actively engages persons with lived experience of SCI.
Project Partnership Scoring Process
Project submissions will be directed to the NASCIC Vice President (VP), who will share all project submissions with the NASCIC Project Review Committee (PRC). This committee, chaired by the VP, will evaluate projects based on alignment to the above criteria. The PRC will work iteratively with the submitting group to suggest revisions or clarifications to the proposal, if needed, to ensure alignment with the project partnership criteria. Following the PRC review, the submitter will provide a clean copy of the proposal in PDF format. The PRC will score the final submission from 1-5 on each of the above criteria, for a maximal score of 35. Those scoring above 23 will be approved for the NASCIC Executive Council (EC) to review.
The EC will review and vote on the submission. Approval by a simple majority. If the submission is not approved by the EC, it can be returned to the PRC for further modification if warranted.
Upon project approval, the consortium expects to be a fully involved and equal partner in all project activities and decisions.
NASCIC Project Partnership Oversight
Following approval as a NASCIC Project Partnership, the VP will either query the database of members interested in participating in projects or make an open call to the AoD to fulfill the specific needs of that project. A project lead will be identified and responsible for communicating and interacting with the VP. The VP will interact with and assist all project leads.
NASCIC must be acknowledged for its role in a given project in any publications, promotional or communication material, etc.
Project Review Committee Members
Led by: Jen French, Vice-PresidentMembers: Anita Kaiser, Jane Wierbicky, Ian Burkhart, Jeff Welden, Jerrod Kerr, Jon Adams, Marita Niquette, Claudia Garofalo, Rob Wudlick, Noreen Fertig
“Several colleagues and I recently decided to investigate how people living with SCI access and assess information about novel therapies and clinical trials. We approached NASCIC, and asked them to help us identify consumer advisors who would be willing to involve themselves in the work. NASCIC and those involved who have SCI lived experience helped us develop a survey that was approachable, consumer-friendly, and asked “the right” questions. They then helped us to distribute the survey via platforms to which we, as researchers, would ordinarily not have access. Finally, one of the consumer advisors, in particular, reviewed our findings with us and helped us to interpret and contextualize them and to understand their importance. This was critical to our ability to write impactful discussion sections. Overall, working with NASCIC was a huge “win.” Our project was far better for the collaboration.” – Michael Stillman, MD- Thomas Jefferson University