Part 1. Overview Information

Key Dates

All applications are due by 5:00 PM local time of applicant organization.

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.

It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in the Research (R) Instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide, except where instructed to do otherwise (in this NOFO or in a Notice from NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts).

Conformance to all requirements (both in the Application Guide and the NOFO) 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.

There are several options available to submit your application through Grants.gov to NIH and Department of Health and Human Services partners. You must use one of these submission options to access the application forms for this opportunity.

1. Use the NIH ASSIST system to prepare, submit and track your application online.
2. Use an institutional system-to-system (S2S) solution to prepare and submit your application to Grants.gov and eRA Commons to track your application. Check with your institutional officials regarding availability.
   
   
3. Use Grants.gov Workspace to prepare and submit your application and eRA Commons to track your application.



Table of Contents
Part 1. Overview Information
Key Dates
Part 2. Full Text of Announcement
Section I. Notice of Funding Opportunity Description
Section II. Award Information
Section III. Eligibility Information
Section IV. Application and Submission Information
Section V. Application Review Information
Section VI. Award Administration Information
Section VII. Agency Contacts
Section VIII. Other Information

Part 2. Full Text of Announcement

Section I. Notice of Funding Opportunity Description

Purpose

The objective of this Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) is to solicit applications to conduct institutional climate assessments using validated instruments and to develop action plans to create an inclusive and equitable environment in the recruitment, hiring, and advancement of faculty, including those from groups underrepresented in biomedical and behavioral research (see the NIH Notice of Interest in Diversity).

These plans for self-studies should lead to institutional culture change by identifying perceptions, attitudes, and concerns, for example, inequities, micro-aggressions, institutional racism, and bias, and provide a foundation for the development of an action plan to enhance diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) in the hiring and advancement of faculty.

Background

Scope of the Problem

Every facet of the United States scientific research enterprise from basic laboratory research to clinical and translational research to policy formation requires creativity and a wide range of skill sets and viewpoints. NIH’s ability to help ensure that the nation remains a global leader in scientific discovery and innovation is dependent upon a pool of highly talented scientists from diverse backgrounds with a breadth of experiences, interests, life experiences who will help to further NIH's mission. These scientists bring different perspectives, creativity, and individual enterprise to address complex scientific problems.

Research shows that diverse teams working together and capitalizing on innovative ideas and distinct perspectives outperform homogenous teams. There are many benefits that flow from a diverse NIH-supported scientific workforce, including: fostering scientific innovation, enhancing global competitiveness, contributing to robust learning environments, improving the quality of the research, advancing the likelihood that underserved or health disparity populations participate in, and benefit from health research, and enhancing public trust.

Despite tremendous advancements in scientific research, information exchange, educational and research opportunities are not equally available to all. NIH encourages institutions to diversify their student and faculty populations to enhance the participation of individuals from groups that are underrepresented in the biomedical, clinical, behavioral and social sciences, as described in the NIH Notice of Interest in Diversity.

As an example, people from underrepresented racial/ethnic groups (URGs) comprise 38% of the U.S. population but only 16% of the PhD recipient pool (NCSES, 2023), and 13% of medical school graduates (AAMC Data and Reports, 2022). Recent data from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System shows that URG professors make up 30% of the overall faculty, but only 10% of tenured professors. Of that 10%, 3.7% are Black, and 4.8% are Hispanic. In addition, people with disabilities represent approximately 9% of the scientific workforce and less than 2% of NIH-funded principal investigators, despite being more than 27% of the U.S. adult population (NCSES, 2023; Swenor et al, 2020; Varadaraj et al, 2019).

The low diversity of faculty compared to the available talent pool is attributed in part to the disproportionately high attrition of academic researchers from underrepresented groups during the transition from training status into faculty-level research careers (Gibbs et al., 2016; Valantine, Lund, and Gammie, 2016). A report from the U.S. Department of Education Advancing Diversity and Inclusion in Higher Education: Key Data Highlights Focusing on Race and Ethnicity and Promising Practices (U.S. Department of Education; 2016) found that an inclusive campus climate can play a role in increasing graduation rates for Black and Hispanic students but also the percentage of non-White faculty compared to White faculty.

Factors That Comprise Institutional Climate

Evidence shows that diversity and inclusion are vital in advancing scientific research and health at the national level (Valantine, Lund, and Gammie, 2016; Simonsen and Shim, 2019; Valantine, 2020; Campbell et al., 2013). Institutions of higher learning have long sought to diversify their faculty. However, substantive progress in advancing this goal, including greater representation of underrepresented groups, remains challenging. System-wide investment is needed to identify structural barriers that often lead to biases in the policies and practices within institutional culture and climate.

An institution's climate is a multifactorial construct shaped by its structures, perceptions, behaviors, policies, and practices, the makeup of its personnel, and the values they hold (Chang, 2002; Hurtado et al., 1999). Biases can have adverse effects on an institution's climate, potentially impacting, for example, hiring, salary, start-up packages, size of labs, institutional seed funds, committee assignments, tenure, and promotion of underrepresented faculty, that lead to short- and long-term decreased productivity and career advancement of underrepresented faculty. In addition, biases can also lead to a diminished sense of belonging and being valued, contributing to a paradoxical loop that further perpetuates the lack of diversity among faculty.

Addressing these multifactorial elements through climate assessments and the development of data-driven action plans has the potential to have real-world effects on educational, research, and professional outcomes. Thus, to foster improved recruitment, retention, and productivity, an institution's climate should enhance the quality of relationships among faculty, for example through mentoring and professional development activities (formal or informal).

Program Objective

This NOFO will support the following activities to:

• Conduct surveys to assess the extent to which institutional climate impacts the recruitment, retention, and advancement of faculty, including those underrepresented in biomedical and behavioral research, using existing validated instruments
• Using the survey data, analyze institutional climate and structure change needs; and
• Develop action plans for institutional climate and structure change to enhance DEIA in recruiting faculty and advancing their careers.

Program Considerations

Applications should provide baseline data about the institutional characteristics in terms of faculty as well as leadership composition (by gender, race and ethnicity, disability, faculty rank, etc.). Applicants should discuss prior efforts, including institutional climate surveys they may have already conducted. They should highlight any plans and outcomes that have arisen from these assessments, and state how earlier data complement the goals of the current application. It is critical to explain how this new proposal will either build upon or be differentiated from prior work.

This NOFO will accept applications from eligible Highly Resourced Institutions (HRIs) and Limited-Resourced Institutions (LRIs).

Please note that LRIs are eligible for an additional year of funding (for a maximum of four years). For this funding announcement, to qualify as an LRI, institutions must:

• have received less than $50 million average in annual NIH funds within the three years before the time of application, and
• offer doctorate degrees in biomedical sciences, the health professions, or a health-related science, and
• have a documented historical commitment to educating underrepresented students, and,
• if institutions provide clinical health care services, those services must be provided to medically underserved communities.

These criteria are similar to the Research Centers in Minority Institutions criteria, the NIH Common Fund’s FIRST program, and other independent programs. HRIs are institutions that do not meet the LRI criteria.

Use of an Existing Validated Survey Instrument

This existing validated survey can evaluate the overall university, or individual schools or colleges within the university.

Results of this survey are expected to provide insights into current environment and practices, and lead to the development of data-driven action plans to better support a diverse faculty by mitigating challenges and reinforcing strengths.

The application will provide evidence of the validated nature of the survey instrument from the published literature, including, but not limited to, peer-reviewed literature. In addition, applicants should explain how the proposed validated survey instrument is appropriate for faculty assessment at the institution, as described above.

Each grantee institution will be responsible for data collection (qualitative and quantitative) that allow for scientifically accurate inferences on institutional climate using a validated survey instrument. The data analysis of the survey results should result in the development of an action plan as described in the Program Objective.

Action Plan Outcomes

The funding of these proposals should lead to the development of institutional action plans. The action plans could include interventions that address institutional systemic cultural and structural barriers rather than quick-fix solutions.

Structural inequities may exist in an institution's practices and policies that can lead to differential treatment of faculty and potentially impacting promotion and tenure decisions. Without evaluating these practices and policies and addressing potential issues of implicit bias, institutions may perpetuate a climate that is not inclusive. Action plans can be a catalyst for institutions to enhance their climate and promote an atmosphere that fosters inclusivity in the recruitment, retention, and advancement for all faculty by developing a plan that incorporates a systemic approach that identifies, adapts, and implements the practices and policies that best support an inclusive institutional climate.

Thus, elements of action plans could include but are not limited to:

• Establishing accountability practices to hold institutional leaders responsible for creating and sustaining inclusive faculty environments
• Ensuring funding for institution-based DEIA initiatives
• Evaluating allocation of resources and services to ensure inclusion and equality
• Availing opportunities for leadership positions within the institution for all faculty, including those from underrepresented groups
• Developing of training programs to enhance the sustainability of the action plan
• Providing resources to remove barriers and challenges confronting people with disabilities (for example, ableism frameworks, ableist language, attitudinal and discriminatory practices etc.) that prevent or impede faculty with disabilities from succeeding
• Developing approaches to enhance adaptive technology to increase accessibility and assist faculty with temporary or permanent disabilities
• Identifying strategies to reduce discrimination
• Mitigating implicit bias

Non-Responsive Applications

Applications with the characteristics listed below will be considered non-responsive and will not be reviewed:

• Applications that do not include an existing validated survey instrument
• Applications that do not include multiple principal investigators

See Section VIII. Other Information for award authorities and regulations.

Section II. Award Information

NIH grants policies as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement will apply to the applications submitted and awards made from this NOFO.

Section III. Eligibility Information

1. Eligible Applicants

All organizations administering an eligible parent award may apply for a supplement under this NOFO.

Nonprofits Other Than Institutions of Higher Education

• Nonprofits with 501(c)(3) IRS Status (Other than Institutions of Higher Education)
• Nonprofits without 501(c)(3) IRS Status (Other than Institutions of Higher Education)

Higher Education Institutions

• Public/State Controlled Institutions of Higher Education
• Private Institutions of Higher Education

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

• Hispanic-serving Institutions
• Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs)
• Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCUs)
• Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions
• Asian American Native American Pacific Islander Serving Institutions (AANAPISIs)

Please note that only one application per institution (identified by having a unique NIH IPF number) is allowed.

This NOFO will accept applications from eligible Highly Resourced Institutions (HRIs) and Limited-Resourced Institutions (LRIs). All eligible institutions are categorized into these two types to encourage inclusion .

Please note that LRIs are eligible for an additional year of funding (for a maximum of four years). For this funding announcement, to qualify as an LRI, institutions must:

• have received less than $50 million average in annual NIH funds within the three years before the time of application, and
• offer doctorate degrees in biomedical sciences, the health professions, or a health-related science, and
• have a documented historical commitment to educating underrepresented students, and,
• if institutions provide clinical health care services, those services must be provided to medically underserved communities

These criteria are similar to the Research Centers in Minority Institutions criteria, the NIH Common Fund’s FIRST program, and other independent programs. HRIs are institutions that do not meet the LRI criteria.

Non-domestic (non-U.S.) Entities (Foreign Organizations) are not eligible to apply.

Non-domestic (non-U.S.) components of U.S. Organizations are not eligible to apply.

Foreign components, as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement, are not 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 prior to the application being submitted. Registration can take 6 weeks or more, so applicants should begin the registration process as soon as possible. Failure to complete registrations in advance of a due date is not a valid reason for a late submission, please reference NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 2.3.9.2 Electronically Submitted Applications for additional information.

• System for Award Management (SAM) Applicants must complete and maintain an active registration, which requires renewal at least annually. The renewal process may require as much time as the initial registration. SAM registration includes the assignment of a Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code for domestic organizations which have not already been assigned a CAGE Code.
  • NATO Commercial and Government Entity (NCAGE) Code Foreign organizations must obtain an NCAGE code (in lieu of a CAGE code) in order to register in SAM.
  • Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) - A UEI is issued as part of the SAM.gov registration process. The same UEI must be used for all registrations, as well as on the grant application.
• eRA Commons - Once the unique organization identifier is established, organizations can register with eRA Commons in tandem with completing their Grants.gov registration; all registrations must be in place by time of submission. eRA Commons requires organizations to identify at least one Signing Official (SO) and at least one Program Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI) account in order to submit an application.
• Grants.gov Applicants must have an active SAM registration in order to complete the Grants.gov registration.

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.

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 their organization to develop an application for support. Individuals from diverse backgrounds, including underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, individuals with disabilities, and women are always encouraged to apply for NIH support. See, Reminder: Notice of NIH's Encouragement of Applications Supporting Individuals from Underrepresented Ethnic and Racial Groups as well as Individuals with Disabilities, NOT-OD-22-019.

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.

For this NOFO: Applications are required to establish multiple principal investigators allowing multidisciplinary expertise within the leadership team, for example, a social or behavioral scientist for survey methodology expertise. The institutions/organizations should 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.

One of the principal investigators must be a Senior Institutional Official (SIO) who provides leadership for planning, developing, and evaluating outcomes. The SIO is envisioned as a senior-level administrator such as a Dean, Provost, Vice-President, or President who is expected to work with the Faculty Senate seeking its support for implementing the plan and also will serve as an effective advocate for faculty research and research training and is likely to have direct knowledge of financial and personnel resources and the institution’s research and professional integrity. These are conditions that are critical for the success of an institutional climate assessment and action plan.

2. Cost Sharing

This NOFO does not require cost sharing as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 1.2 Definition of Terms.

3. Additional Information on Eligibility

Number of Applications

Only one application per institution (normally identified by having a unique UEI or NIH IPF number) is allowed.

The NIH will not accept duplicate or highly overlapping applications under review at the same time, per NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 2.3.7.4 Submission of Resubmission Application. This means that the NIH will not accept:

• A new (A0) application that is submitted before issuance of the summary statement from the review of an overlapping new (A0) or resubmission (A1) application.
• A resubmission (A1) application that is submitted before issuance of the summary statement from the review of the previous new (A0) application.
• An application that has substantial overlap with another application pending appeal of initial peer review (see NIH Grants Policy Statement 2.3.9.4 Similar, Essentially Identical, or Identical Applications).

Section IV. Application and Submission Information

1. Requesting an Application Package

The application forms package specific to this opportunity must be accessed through ASSIST, Grants.gov Workspace or an institutional system-to-system solution. Links to apply using ASSIST or Grants.gov Workspace are available in Part 1 of this NOFO. See your administrative office for instructions if you plan to use an institutional system-to-system solution.

2. Content and Form of Application Submission

It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in the Research (R) Instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide except where instructed in this notice of funding opportunity to do otherwise. Conformance to the requirements in the Application Guide is required and strictly enforced. Applications that are out of compliance with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.

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:

• Descriptive title of proposed activity
• Name(s), address(es), and telephone number(s) of the PD(s)/PI(s)
• Names of other key personnel
• Participating institution(s)
• Number and title of this funding opportunity

The letter of intent should be sent to:

Lynn King, Ph.D.
Telephone: 301-767-5538
Email: [email protected]

All page limitations described in the How to Apply Application Guide and the Table of Page Limits must be followed.

The following section supplements the instructions found in the How to Apply Application Guide and should be used for preparing an application to this NOFO.

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.

Other Attachments: The following attachment(s) must be included, or the application will not be reviewed:

Existing Validated Survey Instrument

As an "Other Attachment" titled Existing_Validated_Survey_Instrument.pdf applicants must include an existing validated survey instrument to assess their faculty in several areas, including, but not limited to, recruitment, transition, and retention.

• This existing validated survey can evaluate the overall university, or individual schools or colleges within the university. Results of this survey are expected to provide insights into current environment and practices, and lead to the development of data-driven action plans to better support a diverse faculty by mitigating challenges and reinforcing strengths.
• The application will provide evidence of the validated nature of the survey instrument from the published literature, including, but not limited to, peer-reviewed literature. In addition, applicants should explain how the proposed validated survey instrument is appropriate for faculty assessment at the institution, as described above.
• The application should describe the survey methodological approach, including sample size, power analysis, and analyses approaches.
• Each grantee institution will be responsible for collecting data (qualitative and quantitative) on institutional climate using this validated survey instrument, and for their analyses of the survey results that will result in the development of an action plan as described in the Program Objective.

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.

R&R Budget

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.

R&R Subaward 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.

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

Research Strategy

Significance

• Describe how the proposed survey and activities provide a strong foundation to understand institutional climate.
• Describe how the implementation of the evidence-based approaches will lead to institutional culture change.

Investigators

• Describe the complementary qualifications and experiences of the multiple PI team to conduct the proposed activities, analyze the data, and develop actions plans to address institutional systemic issues. For this NOFO, applications are required to establish multiple principal investigators allowing multidisciplinary expertise within the leadership team, for example, a social or behavioral scientist for survey methodology expertise. One of the principal investigators must be a Senior Institutional Official (SIO) who provides leadership for planning, developing, and evaluating outcomes (see Section III under Eligible Individuals").
• Describe the abilities of the leadership team to implement actionable items based on survey outcomes.

Innovation

• For this program, innovation is considered the use of existing tools and data in developing a creative action plan to fit the needs and goals of the institution.

Approach

• Describe how the proposed validated survey advances knowledge and understanding of institutional climate, using the requirements described in Other Attachments for the Existing Validated Survey Instrument.
• Propose a timeline of activities that includes appropriate milestones and goals that demonstrate an understanding of the quantitative and qualitative indicators to ensure implementation of the action plan.
• Provide baseline data about the institutional characteristics in terms of faculty as well as leadership composition (by gender, race and ethnicity, disability, faculty rank, etc.). Institutions may also provide information and aggregated data on elements of the faculty experience such as, but not limited to:
  • Salary and benefits equity
  • Equity in start-up packages
  • Release time for research
  • Teaching load
  • Administrative load
  • Expectations for student advising activities
  • Access to faculty mentors
  • Laboratory space and facilities
  • Personnel budgets
  • Professional development funds
  • Affiliated and adjunct appointments
  • Other resources

Additionally, institutions may include information on the following:

• Training needs, mentoring/sponsorship, faculty development
• Research staff recruitment and benefits packages, retention bonuses
• Faculty teaching workloads that allow time for research pursuits, and department/college-based research staff and administrative support
• Institutional policies for assessment of teaching versus research assignments and support
• Tenure evaluations of faculty services for research, committee, community engagement, etc., protected time for research program development

Environment

• Letters of Commitment
  • A Senior Institutional Official (SIO) provides leadership for planning, developing, and evaluating outcomes. The SIO is envisioned as a senior-level administrator such as a Dean, Provost, Vice-President, or President who is expected to serve as an effective advocate for faculty research and research training and is likely to have direct knowledge of financial and personnel resources and the institution’s research and professional integrity. These are conditions that are critical for the success of an institutional climate assessment and action plan.
  • A Senior Institutional Official (SIO) must describe their strong commitment to ensure the overall success of this project, such as supporting the dedicated staff time to participate as proposed, the execution of the proposed survey, the feasibility of implementing the survey results, and the resources that will allow sustainability throughout the award period. Is there strong commitment from institutional leadership to ensure the success of this project including supporting dedicated staff time and providing resources that will allow sustainability throughout the award period.
  • If there are changes of the Institutional leadership, a new letter of institutional commitment must be sent to NIH within 30 days.

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.

Other Plan(s):

Note: Effective for due dates on or after January 25, 2023, the Data Management and Sharing Plan will be attached in the Other Plan(s) attachment in FORMS-H application forms packages.

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

• All applicants planning research (funded or conducted in whole or in part by NIH) that results in the generation of scientific data are required to comply with the instructions for the Data Management and Sharing Plan. All applications, regardless of the amount of direct costs requested for any one year, must address a Data Management and Sharing Plan.

Only limited Appendix materials are allowed. Follow all instructions for the Appendix as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

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) Application Guide must be followed.

Delayed Onset Study

Note: 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.

3. Unique Entity Identifier and System for Award Management (SAM)

See Part 2. 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. 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 Grants Policy Statement Section 2.3.9.2 Electronically Submitted Applications.

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 How to Apply 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 Section 7.9.1 Selected Items of Cost.

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 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 NOFO for information on registration requirements.

The applicant organization must ensure that the unique entity identifier provided on the application is the same identifier 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 NIDCR and participating NIH organizations. 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.

Section V. Application Review Information

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.

Overall Impact

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 major scientific impact. For example, a project that by its nature is not innovative may be essential to advance a field.

Significance

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?

Specific to this NOFO: To what extent do the proposed survey and activities provide a strong foundation to understand institutional climate? To what extent does the implementation of evidence-based approaches lead to institutional culture change?

Investigator(s)

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?

Specific to this NOFO: How appropriate are the complementary qualifications and experiences of the multiple PI team to conduct the proposed activities, analyze the data, and develop action plans to address institutional systemic issues? How appropriate are the abilities of the leadership team to implement actionable items based on the survey outcomes?

Innovation

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?

Specific to this NOFO: For this program, innovation is considered the use of existing tools and data in developing a creative action plan to fit the needs and goals of the institution; how well does the application address this?

Approach

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?

Specific to this NOFO: To what extent does the proposed validated survey advances knowledge and understanding of institutional climate? To what extent does the timeline of activities, milestones and goals demonstrate an understanding of the quantitative and qualitative indicators, to ensure implementation of the action plan? How adequate are baseline data about the institutional characteristics in terms of faculty as well as leadership composition?

Environment

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?

Specific to this NOFO: To what extent does the commitment by a Senior Institutional Official (SIO) ensure the overall success of this project, such as supporting the dedicated staff time to participate as proposed, the execution of the proposed survey, the feasibility of implementing the survey results, and the resources that will allow sustainability throughout the award period?

Additional Review Criteria

As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will evaluate the following additional items while determining scientific and technical merit, and in providing an overall impact score, but will not give separate scores for these items.

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 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.

Vertebrate Animals

The committee will evaluate the involvement of live vertebrate animals as part of the scientific assessment according to the following three points: (1) a complete description of all proposed procedures including the species, strains, ages, sex, and total numbers of animals to be used; (2) justifications that the species is appropriate for the proposed research and why the research goals cannot be accomplished using an alternative non-animal model; and (3) interventions including analgesia, anesthesia, sedation, palliative care, and humane endpoints that will be used to limit any unavoidable discomfort, distress, pain and injury in the conduct of scientifically valuable research. Methods of euthanasia and justification for selected methods, if NOT consistent with the AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals, is also required but is found in a separate section of the application. For additional information on review of the Vertebrate Animals Section, please refer to the Worksheet for Review of the Vertebrate Animals Section.

Biohazards

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.

Resubmissions

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.

Renewals

Not Applicable

Revisions

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 Resource Sharing Plan(s) (i.e., Sharing Model Organisms) or the rationale for not sharing the resources, is reasonable.

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 in relation to 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 NIDCR, in accordance with 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.

Applications will be assigned on the basis of established PHS referral guidelines to the NIDCR who will manage initial peer review on behalf of participating ICs. Applications will compete for available funds with all other recommended applications. Following initial peer review, recommended applications will receive a second level of review by the appropriate national Advisory Council or Board. The following will be considered in making funding decisions, consistent with applicable law:

• Scientific and technical merit of the proposed project as determined by scientific peer review.
• Availability of funds.
• Relevance of the proposed project to program priorities.
• Broadening the institutions that participate in NIH-funded research.
• Adequate support of both HRIs and LRIs.

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 Section 2.4.4 Disposition of Applications.

Section VI. Award Administration Information

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.6. 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 NOFO 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.

Institutional Review Board or Independent Ethics Committee Approval: Recipient institutions must ensure that 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.

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:

• Federal-wide Standard Terms and Conditions for Research Grants
• Prohibition on Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment
• Acknowledgment of Federal Funding

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.

If a recipient receives an award, the recipient must follow all applicable nondiscrimination laws. The recipient agrees to this when registering in SAM.gov. The recipient must also submit an Assurance of Compliance (HHS-690). To learn more, see the HHS Office for Civil Rights website.

HHS recognizes that NIH 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. 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 NOFO.

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 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. Data Management and Sharing

Consistent with the 2023 NIH Policy for Data Management and Sharing, when data management and sharing is applicable to the award, recipients will be required to adhere to the Data Management and Sharing requirements as outlined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement. Upon the approval of a Data Management and Sharing Plan, it is required for recipients to implement the plan as described.

4. 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 closeout of an award, as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement. NIH NOFOs outline intended research goals and objectives. Post award, NIH will review and measure performance based on the details and outcomes that are shared within the RPPR, as described at 2 CFR Part 200.301.

The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 as amended (FFATA), 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 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 2 CFR Part 200.113 and Appendix XII to 2 CFR Part 200, 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 2 CFR Part 200 Award Term and Conditions for Recipient Integrity and Performance Matters.

Section VII. Agency Contacts

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, and post-submission issues)

Finding Help Online: https://www.era.nih.gov/need-help (preferred method of contact)
Telephone: 301-402-7469 or 866-504-9552 (Toll Free)

General Grants Information (Questions regarding application instructions, application processes, and NIH grant resources)
Email: [email protected] (preferred method of contact)
Telephone: 301-480-7075

Grants.gov Customer Support (Questions regarding Grants.gov registration and Workspace)
Contact Center Telephone: 800-518-4726
Email: [email protected]

H. Nelson Aguila, D.V.M.
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
Telephone: 240-276-6170
Email: [email protected]

Wayne Wang, Ph.D.
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)
Telephone:301-435-0535
Email: [email protected]

Mercedes Rubio, Ph.D.
National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS)
Telephone:301-827-7616
Email: [email protected]

Jean Shin, Ph.D.
Chief Officer for Scientific Workforce Diversity (COSWD) Office
Telephone:301-451-2666
Email: [email protected]

Lynn King, Ph.D.
National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR)
Telephone: (301) 594-5006
Email: [email protected]

Yohansa Fernandez
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)
E-mail: [email protected]

Rebecca Lenzi, Ph. D.
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ARTHRITIS AND MUSCULOSKELETAL AND SKIN DISEASES (NIAMS)
Phone: 301.480.7447
E-mail: [email protected]

Sylvia E. Long, PhD, CPH
National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR)
Telephone: 240-276-6136
Email: [email protected]

Brittany Haynes, Ph.D.
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
Telephone: 301-496-2767
Email: [email protected]

Gina P. Roussos, PhD
NIMHD - NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON MINORITY HEALTH AND HEALTH DISPARITIES
Phone: 301-8271322
E-mail: [email protected]

Yasaman Shirazi, PhD
National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR)
Telephone: (301) 594-5593
Email: [email protected]

Gabriel Hidalgo, MBA
National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR)
Telephone: 301-827-4630
Email: [email protected]

Crystal Wolfrey
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
Telephone: 240-276-6277
Email: [email protected]

Pamela G Fleming
NIDA - NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE
Phone: 301-480-1159
E-mail: [email protected]

Leslie Littlejohn
NIAMS - NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ARTHRITIS AND MUSCULOSKELETAL AND SKIN DISEASES
Phone: (301) 594-2545
E-mail: [email protected]

Ron Wertz
National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR)
Telephone: 301-594-2807
Email: [email protected]

Rita Sisco
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
Telephone: 301-443-2805
Email: [email protected]

Priscilla Grant, JD
NIMHD - NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON MINORITY HEALTH AND HEALTH DISPARITIES
Phone: 301-594-8412
E-mail: [email protected]

Section VIII. Other Information

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 2 CFR Part 200.