See Notices of Special Interest associated with this funding opportunity
PA-19-094, R01 Research Grant
This Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) encourages applications for mechanistic research on age-related changes in emotion regulation and how they may contribute to mental disorders in middle-aged and older adults. In particular, research is sought that will advance understanding of irregularities in the integrative neural-behavioral mechanisms of emotion regulation in adult mood and anxiety disorders, and that will examine whether the irregularities are associated with typical or atypical maturational trajectories of emotion processing. Currently it is not known whether older adults who suffer episodes of affective dysregulation share the same patterns of improved emotional function with age as have been found to be typical of the older adult population in general. Research that helps to clarify whether they do or do not manifest typical emotion processing trajectories may lead to very different understandings of the irregularities involved in their dysregulation. It is anticipated that such studies may identify novel targets for mental health interventions or prevention efforts, or provide clues as to which available intervention strategies might be optimally applied to normalize emotion dysregulation or to strengthen emotional resilience at particular stages of the adult life cycle.
PA-19-095 uses the R21 grant mechanism while PA-19-094 uses the R01 mechanism. Investigators proposing high risk/high reward projects, projects that lack preliminary data, or studies utilizing existing data may wish to apply using the R21 mechanism, while applicants with preliminary data may wish to apply using the R01 mechanism.
November 29, 2018
Applicants are encouraged to apply early to allow adequate time to make any corrections to errors found in the application during the submission process by the due date.
Conformance to all requirements (both in the Application Guide and the FOA) is required and strictly enforced. Applicants must read and follow all application instructions in the Application Guide as well as any program-specific instructions noted in Section IV. When the program-specific instructions deviate from those in the Application Guide, follow the program-specific instructions.
Applications that do not comply with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.
This Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) invites applications for mechanistic research on age-related changes in emotion regulation and how such changes contribute to mental disorders in middle-aged and older adults. It will support studies directed at better characterizing and understanding irregularities in the integrative neural-behavioral mechanisms of affect regulation in those who experience mood and anxiety disorders, and at examining whether the irregularities are associated with typical or atypical emotion processing trajectories. It will also support investigations of emotion regulation in those who experience neuropsychiatric symptoms and behavioral disturbances as complications of Alzheimer’s disease or other Alzheimer’s disease-related dementias (AD/ADRD). Research is sought that will leverage already established findings about generally improved emotion regulation with aging in order to clarify how maturational shifts (or lack thereof) may relate to affective dysregulation in middle-aged and older adults who experience affective mental disorders. Such studies may identify novel mental health intervention/prevention targets or provide clues as to which available intervention strategies might be optimally applied to normalize emotion dysregulation or to strengthen emotional resilience at different stages of the adult life cycle.
This FOA is aligned with Strategy 2.1 of the NIMH Strategic Plan (http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/strategic-planning-reports/index.shtml), which calls for research to “characterize the developmental trajectories of brain maturation and dimensions of behavior to understand the roots of mental illnesses across diverse populations.” In the context of research on emotional processes and their relation to mental illness, the developmental dimension of age-related differences occurring across the lifespan is to be understood as a major aspect of population diversity.
This FOA involving the R21 grant mechanism is particularly appropriate for the use by investigators proposing high risk/high reward projects, projects that lack preliminary data, or studies utilizing existing data. A pplicants who wish to propose more definitive, hypothesis-testing studies supported by preliminary data and involving new data collection efforts are referred to the companion announcement using the R01 mechanism ( PA-19-094 )
Although mood and anxiety disorders are considered examples of affect dysregulation, knowledge tends to be limited about the specific emotion processing deficits involved. To date, there have been few mechanistic studies employing affective neuroscience methods that have examined how adult maturational changes in emotion regulation may relate to mental disorder in later life. There has been little scientific investigation of the extent to which adults with affective disorders manifest or fail to show the normative maturational shifts, or at what point(s) during the adult lifespan they may begin to show divergent trajectories with respect to their emotion regulation.
In addition, significant gaps remain in our understanding of how age-related cognitive changes may impinge on emotion regulation in adults who experience mental disorders in later life. In the general older adult population, it is considered paradoxical that many aspects of emotional function improve with age even though the cognitive control capacities on which these functions are thought to depend normatively decline with age. Numerous questions remain regarding the role of changes in cognitive control or executive functioning in emotional processes with age, the capacity of older adults to employ alternative strategies to regulate emotion, and the degree to which cognitive changes influence affective dysregulation in those who experience mental disorders with age.
This FOA is intended to support research designed to clarify the patterns of emotion processing, at neurobiological as well as behavioral levels of analysis, characteristic of middle-aged and older adults who experience affective disorders or manifest other forms of obvious and persistent emotional dysregulation, and to deepen our understanding of the mechanisms and contextual factors involved in their emotion dysregulation. Studies leveraging the concepts, methods, and findings emerging from research on normative adult emotional development, including environmental and life course factors, are of particular interest, so as to investigate variation in emotion processing across a spectrum of older adults, ranging from those with mood and anxiety disorders to adults without such psychopathology. Research is encouraged that assesses emotional processes dimensionally, integrating across multiple levels of analysis, including brain-level measurements, and employing cutting-edge methodology from such fields as cognitive and affective neuroscience, neuroimaging, neurophysiology, neuroendocrinology, and lifespan developmental psychology. Research is sought that uses psychometrically sound assessment approaches and directly observes emotion processes, such as in response to emotion-evoking stimuli, situations, scenarios or the like. Ideally, the studies proposed will examine multiple domains of emotion processing so as to address, in aging adults, the key developmental concept of dynamic interactions among differentially maturing brain systems that support successful (or less successful) emotion regulation.
Varied research paradigms may be useful for pursuing the goals outlined above. Use of constructs from NIMH's Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) initiative (http://www.nimh.nih.gov/research-priorities/rdoc/index.shtml), or of RDoC-compatible approaches, in assessing emotion processing, other component aspects of mental disorder, and/or related domains of brain function dimensionally is encouraged. The RDoC initiative has defined a set of constructs that may be useful in this research. These constructs are organized according to five domains of brain functioning (negative valence systems, positive valence systems, cognitive systems, arousal/regulatory systems, and systems for social processes). Research on RDoC constructs should employ assessment methods appropriate for each construct of interest and the assessment methods are expected to converge on the construct from at least two levels of analysis. RDoC units of analysis (potential levels of measurement) include genes, molecules, cells, circuits, physiology, behavior, and self-report. Details about RDoC constructs and units of analysis can be found here. Although the structure of the RDoC matrix suggests boundaries among constructs, given the densely integrated and interconnected nature of the brain's circuits, it is understood that the constructs function interactively and that promising empirical approaches to an RDoC-based analysis of emotional functioning and its relationship to psychopathology may involve examining intersections among constructs.
Applicants may propose to examine dimensional constructs that do not appear in the NIMH RDoC matrices as long as there is strong theoretical support for their relevance to a mechanistic understanding of emotional processing. Applicants should be able to cite substantial evidence for the validity of such constructs, and to indicate strong theoretical support that the construct maps onto a specific biological system, such as a brain circuit or physiological pathway, thought to be involved in emotion processing or regulation.
With respect to assessing psychopathology or mental disorder, likewise, an RDoC approach encourages taking a dimensional perspective, and concentrating on aspects of behavior and brain function that span a range from intact to gradations of impairment, independent of diagnosis. Thus, in such an approach, recruitment and eligibility of study participants need not be determined on the basis of traditional diagnostic categories, but should instead be based on criteria that result in a sample that is optimized to study the clinical phenomena of interest over their full range of variability. Such an emphasis on understanding the full dimensionality of neurobehavioral functioning generally precludes simple, dichotomous designs comparing patients versus controls. Under this FOA, if an RDoC or other dimensional construct is proposed to serve as the primary variable representing psychopathology (as opposed to using a diagnostic characterization), the study design and sampling plan should be such as to assure that an adequate number of individuals assessed as falling within the more severely impaired ranges of that dimension will be included in the study.
If the proposed research involves neuroimaging methods, applicants are encouraged to incorporate use of protocols from the Human Connectome Project, assuming that the research addresses constructs that have been previously examined in the Human Connectome Project and that such protocols are available to the investigator.
The particular adult age ranges over which differences in emotion processes (and in maturational changes in them) may be examined are not prespecified and should be determined to fit the specific research questions posed. Applicants are expected to provide compelling rationales for their selections in this regard, such as prior evidence that particular age ranges may represent periods in the life cycle especially critical for observing changes in emotion processing that may, in turn, be associated with the development or recurrence of mental disorder in middle or old age.
Regardless of other variations in sampling and experimental approach, it will be considered scientifically essential that the proposed research attend to sex differences as a central issue. As previously noted, age-related changes in cognitive functioning, particularly with respect to cognitive control or executive functioning, are likely to be an important contributory factor to changes in emotion regulation. Inasmuch as cognitive changes and comorbid medical conditions become increasingly common with advancing age, it will also be critical that the research plans adequately assess or control for differences in cognitive functioning and in medical comorbidity as potential confounding influences on emotional experience in middle-aged and older adults.
Applicants are also strongly encouraged to review the Notice on enhancing the reproducibility of NIH-supported research through rigor and transparency (NOT-OD-15-103), and to incorporate appropriate features into the proposed research plans. NIMH has published guidelines for reporting elements of rigor in experimental design in applications (NOT-MH-14-004), and examples of critical elements for a well-designed study are summarized on the NIMH website (http://www.nimh.nih.gov/research-priorities/policies/enhancing-the-reliability-of-nimh-supported-research-through-rigorous-study-design-and-reporting.shtml).
Areas of interest include, but are not limited to:
Examples of studies that will not be supported under this FOA include the following:
Investigators interested in proposing research involving a clinical trial are referred to the NIMH Clinical Trials website and to the FOAs indicated there for submitting applications containing clinical trial components.
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.
The number of awards is contingent upon NIH appropriations and the submission of a sufficient number of meritorious applications.
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
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 prior to the application being 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 to 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.
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.
This FOA does not require cost sharing as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
The NIH will not accept duplicate or highly overlapping applications under review at the same time. This means that the NIH will not accept:
Buttons to access the online ASSIST system or to download application forms are available in Part 1 of this FOA. See your administrative office for instructions if you plan to use an institutional system-to-system solution.
For information on Application Submission and Receipt, visit Frequently Asked Questions – Application Guide, Electronic Submission of Grant Applications.
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
The following modifications also apply:
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) Application Guide must be followed with the following additional instructions:
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
Foreign (non-U.S.) institutions must follow policies described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement, and procedures for foreign institutions described throughout the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
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 Grants.gov
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 Grants.gov (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 Grants.gov 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 Grants.gov 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 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.
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 information about registration.
For assistance with your electronic application or for more information on the electronic submission process, visit Applying Electronically. If you encounter a system issue beyond your control that threatens your ability to complete the submission process on-time, you must follow the Guidelines for Applicants Experiencing System Issues. For assistance with application submission, contact the Application Submission Contacts in Section VII.
All PD(s)/PI(s) must include their eRA Commons ID in the Credential field of the Senior/Key Person Profile Component of the SF424(R&R) Application Package. 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 DUNS number it provides 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.
Only the review criteria described below will be considered in the review process. As part of the NIH mission, all applications submitted to the NIH in support of biomedical and behavioral research are evaluated for scientific and technical merit through the NIH peer review system.
The R21 exploratory/developmental grant supports investigation of novel scientific ideas or new model systems, tools, or technologies that have the potential for significant impact on biomedical or biobehavioral research. An R21 grant application need not have extensive background material or preliminary information. Accordingly, reviewers will emphasize the conceptual framework, the level of innovation, and the potential to significantly advance our knowledge or understanding. Appropriate justification for the proposed work can be provided through literature citations, data from other sources, or, when available, from investigator-generated data. Preliminary data are not required for R21 applications; however, they may be included if available.
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?
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?
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?
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 investigators 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 on the basis of 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?
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?
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 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 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 on the basis of sex/gender, race, and ethnicity, as well as the inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals of all ages (including children and older adults) to determine if it is justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed. For additional information on review of the Inclusion section, please refer to the Guidelines for the Review of Inclusion in Clinical Research.
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 for 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 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.
For Resubmissions, the committee will evaluate the application as now presented, taking into consideration the responses to comments from the previous scientific review group and changes made to the project.
For Revisions, the committee will consider the appropriateness of the proposed expansion of the scope of the project. If the Revision application relates to a specific line of investigation presented in the original application that was not recommended for approval by the committee, then the committee will consider whether the responses to comments from the previous scientific review group are adequate and whether substantial changes are clearly evident.
Reviewers will assess whether the project presents special opportunities for furthering research programs through the use of unusual talent, resources, populations, or environmental conditions that exist in other countries and either are not readily available in the United States or augment existing U.S. resources.
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).
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).
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.
Reviewers will consider whether the budget and the requested period of support are fully justified and reasonable in relation to the proposed research.
Information regarding the disposition of applications is available 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 grantee’s business official.
Awardees must comply with any funding restrictions described in Section IV.5. Funding Restrictions. 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 is highlighted on this website.
Recipients of federal financial assistance (FFA) from HHS must administer their programs in compliance with federal civil rights law. This means that recipients of HHS funds must ensure equal access to their programs without regard to a person’s race, color, national origin, disability, age and, in some circumstances, sex and religion. This includes ensuring your programs are accessible to persons with limited English proficiency. 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 with respect to the health or safety of the subjects, the scientific study design, or the purpose of the research.
In accordance with 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) prior to 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 judgement 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 “Federal awarding agency review of risk posed by applicants.” This provision will apply to all NIH grants and cooperative agreements except fellowships.
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. HHS provides general guidance to recipients of FFA on meeting their legal obligation to take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to their programs by persons with limited English proficiency. Please see http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/resources/laws/revisedlep.html. The HHS Office for Civil Rights also provides guidance on complying with civil rights laws enforced by HHS. Please see http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/understanding/section1557/index.html; and http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/understanding/index.html. Recipients of FFA also have specific legal obligations for serving qualified individuals with disabilities. Please see http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/understanding/disability/index.html. Please contact the HHS Office for Civil Rights for more information about obligations and prohibitions under federal civil rights laws at http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/office/about/rgn-hqaddresses.html or call 1-800-368-1019 or TDD 1-800-537-7697. Also note it is an HHS Departmental goal to ensure access to quality, culturally competent care, including long-term services and supports, for vulnerable populations. For further guidance on providing culturally and linguistically appropriate services, recipients should review the National Standards for Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services in Health and Health Care at http://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/browse.aspx?lvl=2&lvlid=53.
The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Transparency Act), includes a requirement for awardees of Federal grants to report information about first-tier subawards and executive compensation under Federal assistance awards issued in FY2011 or later. All awardees of applicable NIH grants and cooperative agreements are required to report to the Federal Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) available at www.fsrs.gov on all subawards over $25,000. See the NIH Grants Policy Statement for additional information on this reporting requirement.
In accordance with the regulatory requirements provided at 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 of time 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.
Finding Help Online: http://grants.nih.gov/support/ (preferred method of contact)
Telephone: 301-402-7469 or 866-504-9552 (Toll Free)
General Grants Information (Questions regarding application processes and NIH grant resources)
Email: GrantsInfo@nih.gov (preferred method of contact)
Grants.gov Customer Support (Questions regarding Grants.gov registration and Workspace)
Contact Center Telephone: 800-518-4726
Jovier Evans, PhD
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
Luci Roberts, Ph.D.
Division of Neuroscience
National Institute on Aging (NIA)
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
National Institute on Aging (NIA)
Note: For help accessing PDF, RTF, MS Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Audio or Video files, see Help Downloading Files.