Health disparity populations include racial and ethnic minorities, socioeconomically disadvantaged populations, underserved rural populations, and sexual and gender minorities.

The COVID-19 pandemic is both health as well as a human, economic, and social crisis. While there are promising signs of economic recovery, many households are yet to recover from job losses or cuts.

The long-term effects on the health and well-being of the nation, beyond the enormous morbidity and mortality, are just beginning to be realized. Of particular concern is the impact of the pandemic on populations who experience health disparities.

The pandemic vividly highlighted ongoing social problems that influenced health and health equity before the onset of the pandemic and then exacerbated many of these problems.

Two major factors impacted by the pandemic are food/nutrition security and housing security.

Food and nutrition insecurity are well-known social determinants of health for both adults and children. For example, adults in households with more severe food insecurity are more likely to have chronic health conditions such as diabetes mellitus, hypertension, coronary heart disease, depression, and increased risk of mortality.

Children who are food insecure are twice as likely to report fair or poor health compared to those who are food secure. Among children, food insecurity is also associated with adverse behavioral and academic outcomes.

COVID-19 has disrupted food access and negatively impacted food security, which is associated with numerous adverse health outcomes.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the overall prevalence of food insecurity rose sharply from an estimated 11% of U.S. households to an estimated 18-35% of U.S. households.
Housing is another important social determinant of health that influences health from birth across the lifespan.

The COVID-19 pandemic has heightened the many ways in which various aspects of housing impact health. More specifically, COVID-19 has increased the risk of housing insecurity for a significant percentage of the population.
Housing insecurity has also been key in the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Transmission has been associated with living in congregate settings and crowded conditions that make it difficult for people to distance themselves when they are sick.

People from racial and ethnic minority groups are more likely than Whites to live in crowded conditions (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2021)6.

The risk of outbreaks has also been high in homeless shelters and long-term care facilities; and racial and ethnic minorities are disproportionately represented in these settings (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2020).

Additionally, stable housing is a critical part of the response to the pandemic, as it allows individuals who become ill or who are at risk of transmitting SARS-CoV-2 to self-isolate, a major rationale for the national eviction moratorium and other moratoriums at the local and state levels.

Local, state, tribal, and federal policies and programs have attempted to blunt the pandemic’s effects by addressing key social determinants of health, including food/nutrition insecurity and unstable housing and housing displacements.

Early in the pandemic, for example, Congress and the USDA strengthened the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to expand its caseload to 6.2 million more participants.

The creation of the Pandemic Electronic Benefits Transfer program enabled households with children who relied on free or reduced-priced school meals to access extra monetary benefits while schools were in distance learning.

Other food/nutrition policies and programs include the following: a) changes in subsidized/free meal programs (e.g., schools); b) parents picking up school meals for children to eat at home; c) additional funding for Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); and d) systems that allow people to enroll in food programs remotely.

Unstable housing and housing displacement interventions include the following: a) moratorium on evictions; b) emergency rental assistance and housing; c) elimination of single-family zoning; and d) mortgage relief.

These and other local, state, tribal, and federal COVID-19-related food and housing policies and programs, as well as future policies and programs, can be evaluated using a “natural experiment” approach to examine their influence on health, health disparities, and health equity.

While there have been some cross-sectional studies using modeling and simulation to assess the impact of government strategies aimed at lessening the effects of the pandemic, longitudinal studies treating policies and programs as natural experiments can help identify specific causal pathways connecting policies and health.

A better understanding of these causal pathways can help elucidate where and when policies and programs will be effective and how they might influence health. Studies could also identify possible unintended consequences of these policies and programs.

Studies explicitly addressing how context modifies policy effects and how policies and programs influence health disparities are encouraged. Such research will contribute both to lessons for dealing with future pandemics and for addressing persistent structural factors influencing health equity.

Scope and Objectives

The research objective is to use a natural experiment approach to examine how food and housing policies and programs (such as those federal actions described at and that aimed to lessen the impact of the pandemic affected the health and health equity, to understand the pathways of these effects, and to describe the long-term consequences.

This FOA is intended to fund the study of natural experiments where exposure or change is not directly manipulated by the researcher, and where comparable control data are available and confounding variables can be limited through study design, sample selection, and statistical analysis.

Other experimental designs are allowable if the study fits within the scope of the FOA. Rigorous efforts to address potential sources of bias related to causal inference are encouraged and, where appropriate, attention should be paid to advances in the analysis of natural experiments arising in diverse disciplines.

Applicants should also account for unintended consequences of policies and programs on health, where applicable.
Applicants can propose research that studies one or more policies and programs and their combined impacts on child and/or adult health.
Examples of topics of interest include, but are not limited to:
In addition to the above areas of interest, the interests of selected participating Institutes and Centers (ICs) are summarized below.

Applicants are encouraged to contact the Scientific/Research Contact at the intended IC to ensure that the proposed aims of the project are consistent with IC’s mission and priorities.

Role of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) is interested in applications relevant to priorities described in this RFA and that support the NIMH Strategic Plan for Research.

This could include (but not be limited to) examinations of the downstream impact of policies and programs designed to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 on food and nutrition security (e.g., free school meal programs) and/or housing security/stability strategies (e.g., FEMA’s Public Assistance Program for reimbursement of costs associated with housing, eviction moratoriums) on preventive care, engagement with and adherence to mental health treatment, other self-management behaviors, quality of mental health care received, and mental health outcomes (e.g., suicidal behavior, depression, anxiety).

NIMH does not support clinical trials in this announcement. To learn more about how NIMH defines clinical trials, please see Investigators interested in pursuing clinical trials may wish to consider alternative funding mechanisms such as PAR-21-129, PAR-21-130, or PAR-21-131.
NIMH encourages research on potentially scalable preventive, therapeutic, and service interventions that focuses on practice-relevant questions. Accordingly, collaborations between academic researchers and clinical or community practice partners or networks are encouraged. When possible, studies should capitalize on existing infrastructure (e.g., practice-based research networks such as the NIMH-sponsored Mental Health Research Network (MHRN), electronic medical records, administrative databases, patient registries, institutions with Clinical and Translational Science Awards) to increase the efficiency of participant recruitment (i.e., more rapid identification and enrollment) and to facilitate the collection of moderator data (e.g., clinical characteristics, biomarkers), longer-term follow-up data, and broader, stakeholder-relevant outcomes (e.g., mental health and general health care utilization, value and efficiency of intervention approaches).

Office of Disease Prevention (ODP)
The ODP is the lead office at the NIH responsible for assessing, facilitating, and stimulating research in disease prevention. In partnership with the 27 NIH Institutes and Centers, the ODP strives to increase the scope, quality, dissemination, and impact of NIH-supported prevention research.

The Role of The Office of Disease Prevention (ODP) And NIH

The ODP is interested in providing co-funding support for research that has strong implications for disease prevention and health equity and that includes innovative and appropriate design, measurement, and analysis methods. ODP has a specific interest in projects that propose an evaluation of policy and programmatic actions to address food/nutrition and housing security and the effects on reducing health disparities.

The ODP also is interested in applications that propose to study the impact of COVID-19-related food and housing mitigation strategies on long-term health effects of COVID-19 (e.g., on risk and severity of chronic conditions, such as hypertension, coronary heart disease, diabetes, and behavioral health outcomes, including depression, anxiety, substance use).
Non-responsiveness criteria to put into consideration:
Applications will be considered non-responsive to this FOA if the proposed study:
Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives
Applications must include a Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives (PEDP) submitted as Other Project Information as an attachment.

The PEDP will be assessed as part of the scientific and technical peer review evaluation, as well as at the programmatic level concerning funding decisions.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021, April 19). Health Equity Considerations & Racial & Ethnic Minority Groups. Retrieved from
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020, December 10). Increased Risk Factors for Exposure: Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities. Retrieved September 29, 2021, from Risk of Exposure to COVID-19 | CDC

See Section VIII. Other Information for award authorities and regulations.
Grant: A support mechanism providing money, property, or both to an eligible entity to carry out an approved project or activity.

The OER Glossary and the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide provide details on these application types. Only those application types listed here are allowed for this FOA.
Optional: Accepting applications that either propose or do not propose clinical trial(s).

Need help determining whether you are doing a clinical trial?

The number of awards is contingent upon NIH appropriations and the submission of a sufficient number of applications which are determined by merit.

According to a report by NIH, its Organization intends to fund an estimate of 6-8 awards, corresponding to a total of $6 million, for the fiscal year 2022. Future year amounts will depend on annual appropriations.

Application budgets are not limited but need to reflect the actual needs of the proposed project.
Although application budgets are not limited, applicants proposing budgets of $500,000 or more in direct costs in any one year (excluding consortium F&A) are strongly encouraged to discuss the research project application with the listed NINR Scientific/Research Contact before applying.
The scope of the proposed project should determine the project period.

The maximum project period is 5 years.
NIH grants policies as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement will apply to the applications submitted and awards made from this FOA.

Who Are Eligible To Apply

Higher Education Institutions
The following types of Higher Education Institutions are always encouraged to apply for NIH support as Public or Private Institutions of Higher Education:

Nonprofits Other Than Institutions of Higher Education
For-Profit Organizations
Local Governments
Federal Government
Non-domestic (non-U.S.) Entities (Foreign Institutions) are not eligible to apply.
Non-domestic (non-U.S.) components of U.S. Organizations are not eligible to apply.
Foreign components, such as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement, are relatively allowed.

Applicant organizations

Applicant organizations must complete and maintain the following registrations as described in the SF 424 (R&R) Application Guide to be eligible to apply for or receive an award.

All registrations must be completed before the application is submitted. Registration can take 6 weeks or more, so applicants should begin the registration process as soon as possible. The NIH Policy on Late Submission of Grant Applications states that failure to complete registrations in advance of a due date is not a valid reason for a late submission.

Program Directors/Principal Investigators (PD(s)/PI(s))

All PD(s)/PI(s) must have an eRA Commons account. PD(s)/PI(s) should work with their organizational officials to either create a new account or affiliate their existing account with the applicant organization in eRA Commons.

If the PD/PI is also the organizational Signing Official, they must have two distinct eRA Commons accounts, one for each role. Obtaining an eRA Commons account can take up to 2 weeks.

Any individual(s) with the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to carry out the proposed research as the Program Director(s)/Principal Investigator(s) (PD(s)/PI(s)) is invited to work with his/her organization to develop an application for support.

NOTE: Individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups as well as individuals with disabilities are always encouraged to apply for NIH support.
For institutions/organizations proposing multiple PDs/PIs, visit the Multiple Program Director/Principal Investigator Policy and submission details in the Senior/Key Person Profile (Expanded) Component of the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

Cost Sharing

This FOA does not require cost sharing as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.

Additional Information on Eligibility

Number of Applications
NOTE: Applicant organizations may submit more than one application, provided that each application is scientifically distinct.
The NIH will not accept duplicate or highly overlapping applications under review at the same time, per Submission of Resubmission Application. This means that the NIH will not accept:

Requesting an Application Package

The application forms package specific to this opportunity must be accessed through ASSIST, Workspace, or an institutional system-to-system solution. Links to apply using ASSIST or Workspace

Content and Form of Application Submission

Letter of Intent

Although a letter of intent is not required, is not binding, and does not enter into the review of a subsequent application, the information that it contains allows IC staff to estimate the potential review workload and plan the review.
By the date listed in Part 1. Overview Information, prospective applicants are asked to submit a letter of intent that includes the following information:
The letter of intent should be sent to:
NOTE: All page limitations described in the SF424 Application Guide and the Table of Page Limits must be followed.

The following section supplements the instructions found in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide and should be used for preparing an application to this FOA.

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
Proposal for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives (PEDP)
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.

R&R or Modular Budget

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed, with the following additional instructions:

Resource Sharing Plan:

Individuals are required to comply with the instructions for the Resource Sharing Plans as provided in the SF424 (R&R)Application Guide.

The following modifications also apply:

When involving human subjects research, clinical research, and/or NIH-defined clinical trials (and when applicable, clinical trials research experience) follow all instructions for the PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information form in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide, with the following additional instructions:
If you answered “Yes” to the question “Are Human Subjects Involved?” on the R&R Other Project Information form, you must include at least one human subjects study record using the Study Record:

PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information form or Delayed Onset Study record.
Study Record: PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Applications for Guide must be followed.
Delayed Onset Study
Note: Any Delayed onset does NOT apply to a study that can be described but will not start immediately (i.e., delayed start). All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
Several Entity Identifiers and System for Award Management (SAM)
See Part 1. Section III.1 for information regarding the requirement for obtaining a unique entity identifier and for completing and maintaining active registrations in System for Award Management (SAM), NATO Commercial and Government Entity (NCAGE) Code (if applicable), eRA Commons, and
Part I. Overview Information contains information about Key Dates and times. Applicants are encouraged to submit applications before the due date to ensure they have time to make any application corrections that might be necessary for successful submission. When a submission date falls on a weekend or Federal holiday, the application deadline is automatically extended to the next business day.
Organizations must submit applications to (the online portal to find and apply for grants across all Federal agencies). Applicants must then complete the submission process by tracking the status of the application in the eRA Commons, NIH’s electronic system for grants administration. NIH and systems check the application against many of the application instructions upon submission. Errors must be corrected and a changed/corrected application must be submitted to on or before the application due date and time.  If a Changed/Corrected application is submitted after the deadline, the application will be considered late. Applications that miss the due date and time are subjected to the NIH Policy on Late Application Submission.
Applicants are responsible for viewing their application before the due date in the eRA Commons to ensure an accurate and successful submission.
Information on the submission process and a definition of on-time submission are provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
5. Intergovernmental Review (E.O. 12372)
This initiative is not subject to intergovernmental review.
All NIH awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Pre-award costs are allowable only as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Applications must be submitted electronically following the instructions described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.  Paper applications will not be accepted.
Applicants must complete all required registrations before the application due date. Section III. Eligibility Information contains registration information.
For assistance with your electronic application or for more information on the electronic submission process, visit the How to Apply – Application Guide. If you encounter a system issue beyond your control that threatens your ability to complete the submission process on time, you must follow the Dealing with System Issues guidance. For assistance with application submission, contact the Application Submission Contacts in Section VII.
Important reminders:
All PD(s)/PI(s) must include their eRA Commons ID in the Credential field of the Senior/Key Person Profile form. Failure to register in the Commons and to include a valid PD/PI Commons ID in the credential field will prevent the successful submission of an electronic application to NIH. See Section III of this FOA for information on registration requirements.
The applicant organization must ensure that the unique entity identifier (DUNS number or UEI as required) provided on the application is the same number used in the organization’s profile in the eRA Commons and for the System for Award Management. Additional information may be found in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
See more tips for avoiding common errors.
Upon receipt, applications will be evaluated for completeness and compliance with application instructions by the Center for Scientific Review and responsiveness by components of participating organizations, NIH. Applications that are incomplete, non-compliant, and/or nonresponsive will not be reviewed.

Applicants are required to follow the instructions for post-submission materials, as described in the policy. Any instructions provided here are in addition to the instructions in the policy.
1. Criteria
Only the review criteria described below will be considered in the review process.  Applications submitted to the NIH in support of the NIH mission are evaluated for scientific and technical merit through the NIH peer review system.
A proposed Clinical Trial application may include study design, methods, and interventions that are not by themselves innovative but address important questions or unmet needs. Additionally, the results of the clinical trial may indicate that further clinical development of the intervention is unwarranted or lead to new avenues of scientific investigation.
Reviewers will provide an overall impact score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, in consideration of the following review criteria and additional review criteria (as applicable for the project proposed).
Scored Review Criteria
Reviewers will consider each of the review criteria below in the determination of scientific merit, and give a separate score for each. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have a major scientific impact. For example, a project that by its nature is not innovative may be essential to advance a field.
Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? Is the prior research that serves as the key support for the proposed project rigorous? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?
To what extent do the efforts described in the Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives further the significance of the project?
In addition, for applications involving clinical trials
Are the scientific rationale and need for a clinical trial to test the proposed hypothesis or intervention well supported by preliminary data, clinical and/or preclinical studies, or information in the literature or knowledge of biological mechanisms? For trials focusing on clinical or public health endpoints, is this clinical trial necessary for testing the safety, efficacy, or effectiveness of an intervention that could lead to a change in clinical practice, community behaviors, or health care policy? For trials focusing on mechanistic, behavioral, physiological, biochemical, or other biomedical endpoints, is this trial needed to advance scientific understanding?
Are the PD(s)/PI(s), collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If Early Stage Investigators or those in the early stages of independent careers do they have appropriate experience and training? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-PD/PI, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance, and organizational structure appropriate for the project?

To what extent will the efforts described in the Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives strengthen and enhance the expertise required for the project?
In addition, for applications involving clinical trials
About the proposed leadership for the project, do the PD/PI(s) and key personnel has the expertise, experience, and ability to organize, manage and implement the proposed clinical trial and meet milestones and timelines? Do they have appropriate expertise in study coordination, data management, and statistics? For a multicenter trial, is the organizational structure appropriate and does the application identify a core of potential center investigators and staffing for a coordinating center?
Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?

To what extent will the efforts described in the Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives meaningfully contribute to innovation?
In addition, for applications involving clinical trials
Does the design/research plan include innovative elements, as appropriate, that enhance its sensitivity, potential for information, or potential to advance scientific knowledge or clinical practice?
Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? Have the investigators included plans to address weaknesses in the rigor of prior research that serves as the key support for the proposed project? Have the investigator’s presented strategies to ensure a robust and unbiased approach, as appropriate for the work proposed? Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented? If the project is in the early stages of development, will the strategy establish feasibility, and will particularly risky aspects be managed? Have the investigators presented adequate plans to address relevant biological variables, such as sex, for studies in vertebrate animals or human subjects?
If the project involves human subjects and/or NIH-defined clinical research, are the plans to address 1) the protection of human subjects from research risks, and 2) inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals based on sex/gender, race, and ethnicity, as well as the inclusion or exclusion of individuals of all ages (including children and older adults), justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?

Are the timeline and milestones associated with the Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives well-developed and feasible?
In addition, for applications involving clinical trials
Does the application adequately address the following, if applicable
Study Design
Is the study design justified and appropriate to address primary and secondary outcome variable(s)/endpoints that will be clear, informative, and relevant to the hypothesis being tested? Is the scientific rationale/premise of the study based on previously well-designed preclinical and/or clinical research? Given the methods used to assign participants and deliver interventions, is the study design adequately powered to answer the research question(s), test the proposed hypothesis/hypotheses, and provide interpretable results? Is the trial appropriately designed to conduct the research efficiently? Are the study populations (size, gender, age, demographic group), proposed intervention arms/dose, and duration of the trial, appropriate and well justified?
Are potential ethical issues adequately addressed? Is the process for obtaining informed consent or assent appropriate? Is the eligible population available? Are the plans for recruitment outreach, enrollment, retention, handling dropouts, missed visits, and losses to follow-up appropriate to ensure robust data collection? Are the planned recruitment timelines feasible and is the plan to monitor accrual adequate? Needs randomization (or not), masking (if appropriate), controls, and inclusion/exclusion criteria been addressed? Are differences addressed, if applicable, in the intervention effect due to sex/gender and race/ethnicity?
Are the plans to standardize, assure the quality of, and monitor adherence to, the trial protocol and data collection or distribution guidelines appropriate? Is there a plan to obtain the required study agent(s)? Does the application propose to use existing available resources, as applicable?
Data Management and Statistical Analysis
Are planned analyses and statistical approaches appropriate for the proposed study design and methods used to assign participants and deliver interventions? Are the procedures for data management and quality control of data adequate at clinical site(s) or center laboratories, as applicable? Have the methods for standardization of procedures for data management to assess the effect of the intervention and quality control been addressed? Is there a plan to complete data analysis within the proposed period of the award?
Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment, and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements?
To what extent will features of the environment described in the Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives (e.g., collaborative arrangements, geographic diversity, institutional support) contribute to the success of the project?

In addition, for applications involving clinical trials
If proposed, are the administrative, data coordinating, enrollment, and laboratory/testing centers, appropriate for the trial proposed?
Does the application adequately address the capability and ability to conduct the trial at the proposed site(s) or centers? Are the plans to add or drop enrollment centers, as needed, appropriate?
If international site(s)/are proposed, does the application adequately address the complexity of executing the clinical trial?
If multi-sites/centers, is their evidence of the ability of the individual site or center to (1) enroll the proposed numbers; (2) adhere to the protocol; (3) collect and transmit data in an accurate and timely fashion; and, (4) operate within the proposed organizational structure?
Additional Review Criteria
As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will evaluate the following additional items while determining scientific and technical merit, and providing an overall impact score, but will not give separate scores for these items.
Study Timeline
Specific to applications involving clinical trials
Is the study timeline described in detail, taking into account start-up activities, the anticipated rate of enrollment, and planned follow-up assessment? Is the projected timeline feasible and well justified? Does the project incorporate efficiencies and utilize existing resources (e.g., CTSAs, practice-based research networks, electronic medical records, administrative databases, or patient registries) to increase the efficiency of participant enrollment and data collection, as appropriate?
Are potential challenges and corresponding solutions discussed (e.g., strategies that can be implemented in the event of enrollment shortfalls)?
Protections for Human Subjects
For research that involves human subjects but does not involve one of the categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate the justification for the involvement of human subjects and the proposed protections from research risk relating to their participation according to the following five review criteria: 1) risk to subjects, 2) adequacy of protection against risks, 3) potential benefits to the subjects and others, 4) importance of the knowledge to be gained, and 5) data and safety monitoring for clinical trials.
For research that involves human subjects and meets the criteria for one or more of the categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate: 1) the justification for the exemption, 2) human subjects’ involvement and characteristics, and 3) sources of materials. For additional information on the review of the Human Subjects section, please refer to the Guidelines for the Review of Human Subjects.
Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Individuals Across the Lifespan
When the proposed project involves human subjects and/or NIH-defined clinical research, the committee will evaluate the proposed plans for the inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals based on sex/gender, race, and ethnicity, as well as the inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals of all ages (including children and older adults)
Vertebrate Animals
The committee will evaluate the involvement of live vertebrate animals as part of the scientific assessment according to the following criteria: (1) description of proposed procedures involving animals, including species, strains, ages, sex, and total number to be used; (2) justifications for the use of animals versus alternative models and the appropriateness of the species proposed; (3) interventions to minimize discomfort, distress, pain, and injury; and (4) justification for euthanasia method if NOT consistent with the AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals. Reviewers will assess the use of chimpanzees as they would any other application proposing the use of vertebrate animals. For additional information on the review of the Vertebrate Animals section, please refer to the Worksheet for Review of the Vertebrate Animal Section.
Reviewers will assess whether materials or procedures proposed are potentially hazardous to research personnel and/or the environment, and if needed, determine whether adequate protection is proposed.
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will consider each of the following items, but will not give scores for these items, and should not consider them in providing an overall impact score.
Applications from Foreign Organizations
Not Applicable.
Select Agent Research
Reviewers will assess the information provided in this section of the application, including 1) the Select Agent(s) to be used in the proposed research, 2) the registration status of all entities where Select Agent(s) will be used, 3) the procedures that will be used to monitor possession use and transfer of Select Agent(s), and 4) plans for appropriate biosafety, biocontainment, and security of the Select Agent(s).
Resource Sharing Plans
Reviewers will comment on whether the following Resource Sharing Plans or the rationale for not sharing the following types of resources are reasonable: (1) Data Sharing Plan; (2) Sharing Model Organisms; and (3)  Genomic Data Sharing Plan (GDS).
Authentication of Key Biological and/or Chemical Resources:
For projects involving key biological and/or chemical resources, reviewers will comment on the brief plans proposed for identifying and ensuring the validity of those resources.
Budget and Period of Support
Reviewers will consider whether the budget and the requested period of support are fully justified and reasonable for the proposed research.
2. Review and Selection Process
Applications will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by (an) appropriate Scientific Review Group(s) convened by the Center for Scientific Review, by NIH peer review policy and procedures, using the stated review criteria. Assignment to a Scientific Review Group will be shown in the eRA Commons.
As part of the scientific peer review, all applications will receive a written critique.
Applications may undergo a selection process in which only those applications deemed to have the highest scientific and technical merit (generally the top half of applications under review) will be discussed and assigned an overall impact score.
Appeals of initial peer review will not be accepted for applications submitted in response to this FOA.
Applications will be assigned based on established PHS referral guidelines to the appropriate NIH Institute or Center. Applications will compete for available funds with all other recommended applications submitted in response to this FOA. Following initial peer review, recommended applications will receive a second level of review by the National Advisory Council for Nursing Research. The following will be considered in making funding decisions:
3. Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates
After the peer review of the application is completed, the PD/PI will be able to access his or her Summary Statement (written critique) via the eRA Commons. Refer to Part 1 for dates for peer review, advisory council review, and earliest start date.
Information regarding the disposition of applications is available in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
1. Award Notices
If the application is under consideration for funding, NIH will request “just-in-time” information from the applicant as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
A formal notification in the form of a Notice of Award (NoA) will be provided to the applicant organization for successful applications. The NoA signed by the grants management officer is the authorizing document and will be sent via email to the recipient’s business official.
Recipients must comply with any funding restrictions described in Section IV.5. Funding Restrictions. The selection of an application for award is not an authorization to begin performance. Any costs incurred before receipt of the NoA are at the recipient’s risk. These costs may be reimbursed only to the extent considered allowable pre-award costs.
Any application awarded in response to this FOA will be subject to terms and conditions found on the Award Conditions and Information for NIH Grants website. This includes any recent legislation and policy applicable to awards that are highlighted on this website.
Individual awards are based on the application submitted to, and as approved by, the NIH and are subject to the IC-specific terms and conditions identified in the NoA. If an award provides for one or more clinical trials. By law (Title VIII, Section 801 of Public Law 110-85), the “responsible party” must register and submit results information for certain “applicable clinical trials” on the Protocol Registration and Results System Information Website ( NIH expects registration and results reporting of all trials whether required under the law or not. For more information, see
Institutional Review Board or Independent Ethics Committee Approval: Recipient institutions must ensure that all protocols are reviewed by their IRB or IEC. To help ensure the safety of participants enrolled in NIH-funded studies, the recipient must provide NIH copies of documents related to all major changes in the status of ongoing protocols.
Data and Safety Monitoring Requirements: The NIH policy for data and safety monitoring requires oversight and monitoring of all NIH-conducted or -supported human biomedical and behavioral intervention studies (clinical trials) to ensure the safety of participants and the validity and integrity of the data. Further information concerning these requirements is found at and in the application instructions (SF424 (R&R) and PHS 398).
Investigational New Drug or Investigational Device Exemption Requirements: Consistent with federal regulations, clinical research projects involving the use of investigational therapeutics, vaccines, or other medical interventions (including licensed products and devices for a purpose other than that for which they were licensed) in humans under a research protocol must be performed under a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) investigational new drug (IND) or investigational device exemption (IDE).
2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements
All NIH grant and cooperative agreement awards include the NIH Grants Policy Statement as part of the NoA. For these terms of award, see the NIH Grants Policy Statement Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart A: General and Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart B: Terms and Conditions for Specific Types of Grants, Recipients, and Activities, including of note, but not limited to:
If a recipient is successful and receives a Notice of Award, in accepting the award, the recipient agrees that any activities under the award are subject to all provisions currently in effect or implemented during the period of the award, other Department regulations and policies in effect at the time of the award, and applicable statutory provisions.
Should the applicant organization successfully compete for an award, recipients of federal financial assistance (FFA) from HHS must administer their programs in compliance with federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, color, national origin, disability, age, and, in some circumstances, religion, conscience, and sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy). This includes ensuring programs are accessible to persons with limited English proficiency and persons with disabilities. The HHS Office for Civil Rights guides complying with civil rights laws enforced by HHS. Please see and
HHS recognizes that research projects are often limited in scope for many reasons that are nondiscriminatory, such as the principal investigator’s scientific interest, funding limitations, recruitment requirements, and other considerations. Thus, criteria in research protocols that target or exclude certain populations are warranted where nondiscriminatory justifications establish that such criteria are appropriate concerning the health or safety of the subjects, the scientific study design, or the purpose of the research. For additional guidance regarding how the provisions apply to NIH grant programs, please contact the Scientific/Research Contact that is identified in Section VII under Agency Contacts of this FOA.
Please contact the HHS Office for Civil Rights for more information about obligations and prohibitions under federal civil rights laws at or call 1-800-368-1019 or TDD at 1-800-537-7697.
By the statutory provisions contained in Section 872 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), NIH awards will be subject to the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) requirements. FAPIIS requires Federal award-making officials to review and consider information about an applicant in the designated integrity and performance system (currently FAPIIS) before making an award. An applicant, at its option, may review information in the designated integrity and performance systems accessible through FAPIIS and comment on any information about itself that a Federal agency previously entered and is currently in FAPIIS. The Federal awarding agency will consider any comments by the applicant, in addition to other information in FAPIIS, in making a judgment about the applicant’s integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards when completing the review of risk posed by applicants as described in 45 CFR Part 75.205 and 2 CFR Part 200.206 “Federal awarding agency review of risk posed by applicants.” This provision will apply to all NIH grants and cooperative agreements except fellowships.
Not Applicable
3. Reporting
When multiple years are involved, recipients will be required to submit the Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR) annually and financial statements as required in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
A final RPPR, invention statement, and the expenditure data portion of the Federal Financial Report are required for the closeout of an award, as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement. NIH FOAs outline intended research goals and objectives. After post-award, NIH will review and measure performance based on the details and outcomes that are shared within the RPPR, as described in 45 CFR Part 75.301 and 2 CFR Part 200.301.
The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Transparency Act), includes a requirement for recipients of Federal grants to report information about first-tier subawards and executive compensation under Federal assistance awards issued in FY2011 or later.  All recipients of applicable NIH grants and cooperative agreements are required to report to the Federal Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) available at on all subawards over $25,000.  See the NIH Grants Policy Statement for additional information on this reporting requirement.
By the regulatory requirements provided in 45 CFR 75.113 and Appendix XII to 45 CFR Part 75, recipients that have currently active Federal grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from all Federal awarding agencies with a cumulative total value greater than $10,000,000 for any period during the period of performance of a Federal award, must report and maintain the currency of information reported in the System for Award Management (SAM) about civil, criminal, and administrative proceedings in connection with the award or performance of a Federal award that reached final disposition within the most recent five-year period.  The recipient must also make semiannual disclosures regarding such proceedings. Proceedings information will be made publicly available in the designated integrity and performance system (currently FAPIIS).  This is a statutory requirement under section 872 of Public Law 110-417, as amended (41 U.S.C. 2313).  As required by section 3010 of Public Law 111-212, all information posted in the designated integrity and performance system on or after April 15, 2011, except past performance reviews required for Federal procurement contracts, will be publicly available.  Full reporting requirements and procedures are found in Appendix XII to 45 CFR Part 75 – Award Term and Conditions for Recipient Integrity and Performance Matters.
We encourage inquiries concerning this funding opportunity and welcome the opportunity to answer questions from potential applicants.
eRA Service Desk (Questions regarding ASSIST, eRA Commons, application errors and warnings, documenting system problems that threaten submission by the due date
Finding Help Online: (preferred method of contact)
Telephone: 301-402-7469 or 866-504-9552 (Toll-Free)
General Grants Information (Questions regarding application instructions, application Customer Support (Questions regarding registration and Workspace)
Contact Center Telephone: 800-518-4726
Dionne Godette-Greer, PhD
National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR)
Jennifer Humensky, Ph.D.
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
Telephone: 301-480-1265

Bramaramba Jayanty Kowtha
Office of Disease Prevention (ODP)
Phone: 301-435-8052
Julia Beth Zur
National Institute On Drug Abuse (NIDA)
Phone: 301-443-2261
Crystal Barksdale
National Institute On Minority Health And Health Disparities (NIMHD)
Phone: 301-402-1366
Center for Scientific Review (CSR)
Kelli Oster
National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR)
Telephone: 301-594-2177
Tamara Kees
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
Telephone: 301-443-8811

Pamela G Fleming
National Institute On Drug Abuse (NIDA)
Phone: 301-480-1159
Priscilla Grant
National Institute On Minority Health And Health Disparities (NIMHD)
Phone: 301-594-8412
Recently issued trans-NIH policy notices may affect your application submission. A full list of policy notices published by NIH is provided in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts. All awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Awards are made under the authorization of Sections 301 and 405 of the Public Health Service Act as amended (42 USC 241 and 284) and under Federal Regulations 42 CFR Part 52 and 45 CFR Part 75.

Weekly TOC for this Announcement
NIH Funding Opportunities and Notices

Note: For help accessing PDF, RTF, MS Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Audio, or Video files, see Help Downloading Files.