Department of Health and Human Services

Part 1. Overview Information

Participating Organization(s)

National Institutes of Health (NIH)

Components of Participating Organizations

Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)

National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD)

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS)

Funding Opportunity Title
Advancement and Innovation in Measurement of Language Development and Predictors (R21 Clinical Trial Not Allowed)
Activity Code

R21 Exploratory/Developmental Research Grant

Announcement Type
New
Related Notices
  • April 4, 2024 - Overview of Grant Application and Review Changes for Due Dates on or after January 25, 2025. See Notice NOT-OD-24-084.
  • August 31, 2022- Implementation Changes for Genomic Data Sharing Plans Included with Applications Due on or after January 25, 2023. See Notice NOT-OD-22-198.
  • August 5, 2022- Implementation Details for the NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy. See Notice NOT-OD-22-189.
Funding Opportunity Number (FON)
PAR-24-244
Companion Funding Opportunity
PAR-24-243 , R01 Research Project
Number of Applications

See Section III. 3. Additional Information on Eligibility.

Assistance Listing Number(s)
93.865, 93.173, 93.853
Funding Opportunity Purpose

The purpose of this notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) is to encourage community-engaged research that broadens the conceptualization of qualities of the environment that can support language development in children and that focuses on the development of novel measures of children’s language development. The overall goal is to build the number of strengths-focused, culturally and linguistically responsive, and generalizable tools to further our understanding of children’s language development and/or impairment, and predictors thereof.

This Notice of Fuding Opportunity (NOFO) requires a Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives (PEDP).

Key Dates

Posted Date
June 27, 2024
Open Date (Earliest Submission Date)
September 16, 2024
Letter of Intent Due Date(s)

Not Applicable

The following table includes NIH standard due dates marked with an asterisk.
Application Due Dates Review and Award Cycles
New Renewal / Resubmission / Revision (as allowed) AIDS - New/Renewal/Resubmission/Revision, as allowed Scientific Merit Review Advisory Council Review Earliest Start Date
October 16, 2024 * November 16, 2024 * Not Applicable March 2025 May 2025 July 2025
February 16, 2025 * March 16, 2025 * Not Applicable July 2025 October 2025 December 2025
June 16, 2025 * July 16, 2025 * Not Applicable November 2025 January 2026 April 2026
October 16, 2025 * November 16, 2025 * Not Applicable March 2026 May 2026 July 2026
February 16, 2026 * March 16, 2026 * Not Applicable July 2026 October 2026 December 2026
June 16, 2026 * July 16, 2026 * Not Applicable November 2026 January 2027 April 2027
October 16, 2026 * November 16, 2026 * Not Applicable March 2027 May 2027 July 2027
February 16, 2027 * March 16, 2027 * Not Applicable July 2027 October 2027 December 2027
June 16, 2027 * July 16, 2027 * Not Applicable November 2027 January 2028 April 2028

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.

Expiration Date
September 08, 2027
Due Dates for E.O. 12372

Not Applicable

Required Application Instructions

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 How to Apply - Application Guide and the NOFO) is required and strictly enforced. Applicants must read and follow all application instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide as well as any program-specific instructions noted in Section IV. When the program-specific instructions deviate from those in the How to Apply - 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.


  4. Table of Contents

Part 2. Full Text of Announcement

Section I. Notice of Funding Opportunity Description

Background

For the past three decades, a predominant paradigm in the field of language development research has been exploration and amelioration of the “30 million word gap”, the phenomenon that children from families with lower socioeconomic status (SES) are exposed to millions fewer words in the first few years of life as compared to their higher SES peers. This paradigm has led to a consistent focus on measuring the quantity of language input a child experiences (e.g., total number of words, total number of unique words, or total number of conversational turns). Quantity of input is a significant and consistent predictor of child language. However, the predominant focus on quantity of input has narrowed the scope of what is considered an optimal language environment and has shaped how both the language environment and children’s language development are measured and described. Further, research and dialogue around the “word gap” has potentially negative consequences for caregivers and children from lower SES backgrounds, framed as lacking compared to those from higher SES backgrounds, while ignoring the strengths and qualities unique to caregivers and children from different cultural and language backgrounds. An expanded repertoire of measures and methods that better capture the wide range of caregiver behavior and other environmental factors that can support language development will allow the field to pinpoint those factors that will be most malleable and most tractable.

In addition to better understanding the language environment, it is imperative to understand the diverse range of trajectories of language development in order to most accurately determine who might benefit from intervention to support optimal language development and when intervention might be most effective. Current consensus on normative milestones has largely been gleaned from data collected from convenience and homogenous populations, thus lacking generalizability and limiting predictive value. Indeed, despite the growing diversity of languages and dialects, including signed languages, in the United States, current assessment tools lack adequate sensitivity and specificity to identify children within and outside of the normative range. This is particularly true for children from groups that are under-represented in research as they are more likely to be both over- and under-diagnosed with speech and language delays. Further, existing measures of language skill are not uniformly predictive of later language development or academic success across different populations of children. As with the language environment, an expanded catalog of features of children’s language skills and associated objective measurement tools will support the ability to more accurately identify those children, across culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, who truly need support, as well the types of culturally responsive supports that would be most impactful.

Community-engaged research (CEr) is a standard research practice that can support culturally responsive, generalizable research by incorporating input from the people and communities that the research outcomes will impact and involving them as equal partners in the research process. Community-engaged research requires community engagement (CE), defined as the “process of working collaboratively with and through groups of people affiliated by geographic proximity, special interest, or similar situations to address issues affecting the well-being of those people” (CDC Principles of Community Engagement). Community-engaged research can take myriad forms but essentially involves the bidirectional, meaningful relationship between community partners and the research team in guiding the research project, such as by co-developing research questions, designing studies, supporting recruitment and retention, collecting data, interpreting results, and/or disseminating findings (see the National Academy of Medicine’s Advancing Health Equity and Systems Transformation through Community Engagement strategy for assessing meaningful engagement which outlines core principles of community engagement). Community-engaged research approaches have the potential to make research more relevant to the partners who will use the research and provide an opportunity to enhance the participation of communities typically under-represented in research but at high risk for health disparities.

Effective CEr will include plans to engage community partners and incorporate their input throughout the research process. CEr contributes to equitable study design that integrates community partner beliefs and perspectives across and within all parts of the research continuum and ensures culturally and linguistically appropriate research approaches, tools, and communication strategies are employed in a respectful and impactful way.

Objective

New ways of describing both the language environment and language development are needed for new paradigms and perspectives to take hold in the field today. The objective of this NOFO is to encourage research that broadens the conceptualization of qualities of the environment that can support language development in children and that focuses on the development of novel measures of children’s language development. The overall goal is to build the number of strengths-focused, culturally and linguistically responsive, and generalizable tools to further our understanding of children’s language development and/or impairment, and predictors thereof. A secondary intent of this funding opportunity is to develop the tools to more accurately identity children who may benefit from intervention, and malleable factors in the environment that may serve as effective intervention targets. 

This funding opportunity is aligned with the NIH TALK Initiative, which seeks to support activities to better understand early language learning and delay, but applications need not focus specifically on late talkers and language delay.

The R21 activity code supports projects that are exploratory, developmental, or generate pilot data in preparation for a larger study. Long-term projects or projects that have sufficient preliminary data, evidence base, or theory to justify a large, multi-year project are well-suited for the companion R01 Research Project Grant, PAR-24-243.

Scope

The goals of this initiative are to broaden the conceptualization of qualities of the environment that can support language development in children and to prioritize the development of novel measures of children’s language development, and to build the number of strengths-focused, culturally and linguistically responsive, and generalizable tools to further our understanding of children’s language development and predictors thereof.

For the purpose of this NOFO, the use and definition of the terms ‘language environment’ and ‘language development’ should be construed broadly and inclusive of the whole communicative context and all communicative behaviors, not limited to spoken language. Applications at both the conceptual level (e.g., contributing to or expanding theoretical frameworks) and practical level (e.g., tool development) are within scope of this announcement. Activities that could be supported include, but are not limited to:

  • Validating adaptations of existing or newly created measures of language development that are linguistically and culturally responsive for different populations;
  • Developing dynamic assessment for the capacity to develop language skills, as a complement to static measures of language ability;
  • Comparing the predictive value of specific metrics of the communicative environment within and across different populations;
  • Developing tools to objectively measure communicative input beyond direct communication between the caregiver–child dyad (e.g., peer interactions, overheard speech) and its impact on child language development;
  • Creating or refining assessments of narrative skills or other metrics of language development not constrained to academic language;
  • Improving feasibility of time-consuming measures of language development and/or the environment through automation techniques (e.g., artificial intelligence, natural language processing, adaptive testing);
  • Developing measures to capture multiple and varied forms of communication that may support or replace spoken language (e.g., gesture, augmentative and alternative communication, prelinguistic communication, American Sign Language);
  • Developing and evaluating approaches to integrating multiple aspects of the communicative environment and interactions (e.g., physical proximity, eye gaze, etc., in combination with linguistic input) to better understand the full communicative context;
  • Developing language measures that are sensitive to change over time and avoid floor or ceiling effects to better measure naturalistic growth as well as meaningful changes resulting from support programs;
  • Validating adaptations of existing measures or newly created measures of person-centered language outcomes to reflect what aspects of language and communication are valued by invested parties (e.g., the individual, a teacher, a caregiver);
  • Evaluating the relationship between traditional measures of language and person-centered measures of language

Specific features of this funding opportunity

To support the goal of expanding the generalizability and acceptability of the repertoire of measures available to describe language development and/or development, and predictors thereof, and the goal to support strengths-focused, culturally and linguistically responsive tools, specific research features are needed to be responsive to this funding opportunity, namely community engagement and enhancing diverse perspectives.

Community Engagement: Community-engaged research involves community members in the research process and enhances the relevance of the research to the community as they are helping guide it. Applications to this funding opportunity must provide a community engagement plan that outlines how communities will be engaged throughout the research process. The plan should identify relevant invested parties as collaborators at a level of involvement that is meaningful and feasible for the community partner(s) and appropriate for the project to enhance the impact of the research. No specific community engaged research approach is required but please see the National Academy of Medicine’s Advancing Health Equity and Systems Transformation through Community Engagement strategy for assessing meaningful community engagement as a reference and to identify core principles to follow.  Applications are required to include a Community Engagement (CE) plan submitted as Other Project Information as an attachment (see Section IV). The CE plan will be assessed as part of the scientific and technical peer review evaluation, as well as considered among programmatic matters with respect to funding decisions.    

Scientific Rigor

This NOFO explicitly emphasizes the NIH application instructions related to rigor and transparency (https://grants.nih.gov/policy/reproducibility/guidance.htm). For example, the rationale for the proposed experiments must be based on rigorous and robust supporting data, which means that data should be collected via methods that minimize the risk of bias and be reported in a transparent manner. If previously published or preliminary studies do not meet these standards, applicants should address how the current study design addresses the deficiencies in rigor and transparency. Proposed experiments should likewise be designed in a manner that minimizes the risk of bias and ensures validity of experimental results.


Expectations and Requirements for Resource and Data Sharing

The NIH Policy for Data Management and Sharing (Policy) expects researchers to maximize the sharing of scientific data and data be accessible as soon as possible and no later than the time of an associated publication or the end of the award period, whichever comes first. NIH requires all applications submitted in response to this NOFO to include a Data Management and Sharing Plan (DMS Plan). The DMS Plan is expected to address the Elements as described in Supplemental Information to the NIH Policy for Data Management and Sharing: Elements of an NIH Data Management and Sharing Plan (NOT-OD-21-014). The DMS Plan will be reviewed and approved by NIH Program Staff prior to award. Awardees will be required to comply with their approved Plan and any approved updates.

Awardees are expected to share data and/or biospecimens through broad-sharing data and/or biospecimen repositories. For applications that aim to analyze existing data, DMS plans should describe where and how other researchers can access that data to enable reproducibility and reuse. 

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

The following types of applications will not be considered responsive to this NOFO and will be withdrawn prior to review:

  • Development or implementation of interventions;
  • Development of measures of concepts with no theoretical or evidential link with children’s language development;
  • Applications that do not include a CE plan;
  • Applications that do not include a PEDP

Institute/Center-Specific Interests

NINDS is particularly interested in applications that focus on the assessment of language acquisition or communication difficulties in the context of neurological conditions, including (but not limited to) pediatric stroke, epilepsy, perinatal or other early brain injury, neurodevelopmental disorders, and genetic conditions that may impact neurodevelopment. Therefore, proposals that include activities described above and are focused on these populations are welcomed. Research activities outside of the NINDS mission, or traditionally supported by another NIH Institute or Center, will not be considered through this program.

Applicants are highly encouraged to reach out to the Scientific Contact(s) to discuss fit to the Institute and responsiveness to this NOFO prior to submission of an application.

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

Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives (PEDP)

The NIH recognizes that teams comprised of investigators with diverse perspectives working together and capitalizing on innovative ideas and distinct viewpoints outperform homogeneous teams. There are many benefits that flow from a scientific workforce rich with diverse perspectives, including: fostering scientific innovation, enhancing global competitiveness, contributing to robust learning environments, improving the quality of the research, advancing the likelihood that underserved populations participate in, and benefit from research, and enhancing public trust.

To support the best science, the NIH encourages inclusivity in research guided by the consideration of diverse perspectives. Broadly, diverse perspectives can include but are not limited to the educational background and scientific expertise of the people who perform the research; the populations who participate as human subjects in research studies; and the places where research is done.

This NOFO requires a Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives (PEDP), which will be assessed as part of the scientific and technical peer review evaluation.  Assessment of applications containing a PEDP are based on the scientific and technical merit of the proposed project. Consistent with federal law, the race, ethnicity, or sex of a researcher, award participant, or trainee will not be considered during the application review process or when making funding decisions.  Applications that fail to include a PEDP will be considered incomplete and will be administratively withdrawn before review.

The PEDP will be submitted as Other Project Information as an attachment (see Section IV).  Applicants are strongly encouraged to read the NOFO instructions carefully and view the available PEDP guidance materials.

Section II. Award Information

Funding Instrument

Grant: A financial assistance mechanism providing money, property, or both to an eligible entity to carry out an approved project or activity.

Application Types Allowed
New
Resubmission
Revision

The OER Glossary and the How to Apply - Application Guide provide details on these application types. Only those application types listed here are allowed for this NOFO.

Clinical Trial?

Not Allowed: Only accepting applications that do not propose clinical trials.

Funds Available and Anticipated Number of Awards

The number of awards is contingent upon NIH appropriations and the submission of a sufficient number of meritorious applications.

Award Budget

The combined budget for direct costs for the two-year project period may not exceed $275,000. No more than $200,000 may be requested in any single year. These direct cost caps are exclusive of facilities and administrative costs of consortia, when applicable.

Award Project Period

The total project period may not exceed 2 years.

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

Eligible Organizations

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)

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)

For-Profit Organizations

  • Small Businesses
  • For-Profit Organizations (Other than Small Businesses)

Local Governments

  • State Governments
  • County Governments
  • City or Township Governments
  • Special District Governments
  • Indian/Native American Tribal Governments (Federally Recognized)
  • Indian/Native American Tribal Governments (Other than Federally Recognized)

Federal Governments

  • Eligible Agencies of the Federal Government
  • U.S. Territory or Possession

Other

  • Independent School Districts
  • Public Housing Authorities/Indian Housing Authorities
  • Native American Tribal Organizations (other than Federally recognized tribal governments)
  • Faith-based or Community-based Organizations
  • Regional Organizations
  • Non-domestic (non-U.S.) Entities (Foreign Organizations)
Foreign Organizations

Non-domestic (non-U.S.) Entities (Foreign Organizations) are eligible to apply.

Non-domestic (non-U.S.) components of U.S. Organizations are eligible to apply.

Foreign components, as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement, are allowed. 

Required Registrations

Applicant Organizations

Applicant organizations must complete and maintain the following registrations as described in the How to Apply - 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 registrations; 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.

Eligible Individuals (Program Director/Principal Investigator)

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 How to Apply - Application Guide.

2. Cost Sharing

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

3. Additional Information on Eligibility

Number of Applications

Applicant organizations may submit more than one application, provided that each application is scientifically distinct.

The NIH will not accept duplicate or highly overlapping applications under review at the same time, per 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 How to Apply - Application Guide is required and strictly enforced. Applications that are out of compliance with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.

Page Limitations

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

Instructions for Application Submission

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.

SF424(R&R) Cover

All instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide must be followed.

SF424(R&R) Project/Performance Site Locations

All instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide must be followed.

SF424(R&R) Other Project Information

All instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide must be followed.

Other Attachments: The following attachments are required and must be provided or the application will be incomplete and will not be reviewed.

Community Engagement (CE) plan (required):

In an Other Attachment entitled “Community Engagement Plan.pdf”, all applicants must include a summary that describes how community engagement strategies, community input, and community-engaged research will be incorporated throughout the study (from conceptualization of the study idea to dissemination of results). The attachment should describe the community partners (e.g, who they consist of – community advisory boards, community organization, families from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds), their role, and how they will be collaboratively engaged in the research project (e.g., activities, frequency and duration of involvement). Serving as a research participant is not considered a collaboration, nor is solely informing recruitment and retention strategies. The community engagement plan should justify how the planned partners and level of involvement will enhance the research project and relevance of the project to the communities the research is meant to impact. The plan also should demonstrate the feasibility of engaging the community partners in the research at the planned level of involvement. Demonstration of feasibility should include (but is not limited to) letters of support and/or formal roles on the application (e.g., co-investigator, consultant).

The CE plan may be no more than 2 pages in length and should include a timeline and milestones for relevant components that will be considered as part of the review.

Examples of meaningful community-engaged research elements to detail as part of the CE plan include but are not limited to:

  • Ensuring that the community partners represent interests relevant to community of interest described within the study (e.g., cultural and linguistic expertise).
  • Defined expectations of academic partners and community partners, including the composition and expertise of the community partners and invested parties, the phase(s) (i.e., design, conduction, analysis, interpretation, and/or dissemination) of research the community partner will be engaged in, the program infrastructure and management of partnerships (e.g., memorandum of understanding) co-created with or approved by the community partner, if applicable.
  • Obtaining and incorporating community partner input regarding utilization of appropriate linguistic and cultural competence strategies within the study design and ensuring representation of participants who have significant social, economic and/or linguistic disadvantage anticipated to participate in study.
  • Describing how community partners will be engaged at specific phases of the research study and a plan for how their input and feedback will be incorporated.
  • Ensuring appropriate and equitable resources are provided to community partners based on their time and effort spent contributing to the study, as well as mutual benefit and recognition (i.e., publication authorship, conference presentation, work group representation, etc.).
  • Outlining methods and metrics to monitor community engagement efforts, including a description of how data will be collected within the framework of the grant activities.
  • The anticipated or planned personal benefits including dissemination of information during and following the study, knowledge and empowerment of community partners.

Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives (PEDP)

  • In an "Other Attachment" entitled "Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives," all applicants must include a summary of actionable strategies to advance the scientific and technical merit of the proposed project through expanded inclusivity.
  • Applicants should align their proposed strategies for PEDP with the research strategy section, providing a holistic and integrated view of how enhancing diverse perspectives and inclusivity are buoyed throughout the application.
  • The PEDP will vary depending on the scientific aims, expertise required, the environment and performance site(s), as well as how the project aims are structured.
  • The PEDP may be no more than 2 pages in length and should include:
    • Actionable strategies using defined approaches for the inclusion of diverse perspectives in the project;
    • Description of how the PEDP will advance the scientific and technical merit of the proposed project;
    • Anticipated timeline of proposed PEDP activities;
    • Evaluation methods for assessing the progress and success of PEDP activities.

Examples of items that advance inclusivity in research and may be appropriate for a PEDP can include, but are not limited to:

  • Partnerships with different types of institutions and organizations (e.g., research-intensive; undergraduate-focused; HBCUs; emerging research institutions; community-based organizations).
  • Project frameworks that enable communities and researchers to work collaboratively as equal partners in all phases of the research process.
  • Outreach and planned engagement activities to enhance recruitment of individuals from diverse groups as human subjects in clinical trials, including those from underrepresented backgrounds.
  • Description of planned partnerships that may enhance geographic and regional diversity.
  • Outreach and recruiting activities intended to diversify the pool of applicants for research training programs, such as outreach to prospective applicants from groups underrepresented in the biomedical sciences, for example, individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, those with disabilities, those from disadvantaged backgrounds, and women.
  • Plans to utilize the project infrastructure (i.e., research and structure) to enhance the research environment and support career-advancing opportunities for junior, early- and mid-career researchers.
  • Transdisciplinary research projects and collaborations among researchers from fields beyond the biological sciences, such as physics, engineering, mathematics, computational biology, computer and data sciences, as well as bioethics.

Examples of items that are not appropriate in a PEDP include, but are not limited to:

  • Selection or hiring of personnel for a research team based on their race, ethnicity, or sex.
  • A training or mentorship program limited to certain researchers based on their race, ethnicity, or sex.

For further information on the Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives (PEDP), please see PEDP guidance materials.

SF424(R&R) Senior/Key Person Profile

All instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide must be followed.

R&R or Modular Budget

All instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide must be followed.

CE plan implementation costs

Applicants may include allowable costs associated with CE plan implementation (as outlined in the Grants Policy Statement section 7:https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps/html5/section_7/7.1_general.htm).

PEDP implementation costs:

Applicants may include allowable costs associated with PEDP implementation (as outlined in the Grants Policy Statement section 7): https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps/html5/section_7/7.1_general.htm.

R&R Subaward Budget

All instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide must be followed.

PHS 398 Cover Page Supplement

All instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide must be followed.

PHS 398 Research Plan

All instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide must be followed, with the following additional instructions:

Investigators are urged to follow the NIH guidance for rigor and transparency in grant applications (https://grants.nih.gov/policy/reproducibility/guidance.htm) and  the research practices described at https://www.ninds.nih.gov/Funding/grant_policy. This will ensure that robust experiments are designed, potential experimenter biases are minimized, results and analyses are transparently reported, and results are interpreted carefully. These recommended research practices include, where applicable, expressing clear rationale for the chosen model(s) and primary/secondary endpoint(s), describing tools and parameters clearly, blinding, randomizing, ensuring adequate sample size, pre-specifying inclusion/exclusion criteria, appropriately handling missing data and outliers, implementing appropriate controls, pre-planning analyses, and using appropriate quantitative techniques. Investigators should indicate clearly the exploratory vs. confirmatory components of the study, consider study limitations, and plan for transparent reporting of all methods, analyses, and results so that other investigators can evaluate the quality of the work and potentially perform replications.

Investigators should indicate whether data presented or cited in the application as key support for the proposed work were collected, analyzed, and reported in a rigorous and transparent manner as indicated above. A plan to address any ambiguity, weaknesses, or limitations in the prior research should be included in the application. Proposed experiments should similarly adhere to these high standards of rigor and transparency.

Resource Sharing Plan: Individuals are required to comply with the instructions for the Resource Sharing Plans as provided in the How to Apply - Application Guide.

Other Plan(s): 

All instructions in the How to Apply - 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.

Appendix: Only limited Appendix materials are allowed. Follow all instructions for the Appendix as described in the How to Apply - Application Guide.

  • No publications or other material, with the exception of blank questionnaires or blank surveys, may be included in the Appendix.

PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information

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 How to Apply - 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 How to Apply - 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 How to Apply - Application Guide must be followed.

PHS Assignment Request Form

All instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide must be followed.

Foreign Organizations

Foreign (non-U.S.) organizations must follow policies described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement, and procedures for foreign organizations described throughout the How to Apply Application Guide.

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

4. Submission Dates and Times

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.

6. Funding Restrictions

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 How to Apply - 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 How to Apply - Application Guide.

See more tips for avoiding common errors.

Applications must include a PEDP submitted as Other Project Information as an attachment. Applications that fail to include a PEDP will be considered incomplete and will be administratively withdrawn before review.

Upon receipt, applications will be evaluated for completeness and compliance with application instructions by the Center for Scientific Review and responsiveness by components of participating organizations, NIH. Applications that are incomplete, non-compliant and/or nonresponsive will not be reviewed.

Mandatory Disclosure

Recipients or subrecipients must submit any information related to violations of federal criminal law involving fraud, bribery, or gratuity violations potentially affecting the federal award. See Mandatory Disclosures, 2 CFR 200.113 and NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 4.1.35.

Send written disclosures to the NIH Chief Grants Management Officer listed on the Notice of Award for the IC that funded the award and to the HHS Office of Inspector Grant Self Disclosure Program at grantdisclosures@oig.hhs.gov

Post Submission Materials

Applicants are required to follow the instructions for post-submission materials, as described 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.

For this particular NOFO, note the following:
 

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.

The objective of this NOFO is to encourage community-engaged research that broadens the conceptualization of qualities of the environment that can support language development in children and that focuses on the development of novel measures of children’s language development. 

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).

As part of the overall impact score, reviewers should consider and indicate how the Plan to Enhance Diverse Perspectives affects the scientific merit of the project.

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.

 

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:

  • How well does the Community Engagement plan include engagement of community partners throughout the research process?
  • How well do the community partners represent populations of interest relevant to the goal of the study (e.g., developing strengths-focused, culturally and linguistically responsive, and generalizable tools to better understand children’s language development).
  •  Does the application adequately describe ambiguity, weaknesses, or limitations in rigor of the prior research, if applicable?
 

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 well does the team of research investigators demonstrate expertise in community-engaged research? Does the investigative team individually or collectively have a track record of publishing the results of previously completed research or evidence of training in community-engaged research methods?
  • How well does the team include research investigators at diverse career stages (e.g., early stage or junior investigators)? How well does the research team include research investigators with the training or expertise (formal or lived) to support culturally and linguistically diverse strategies for furthering our understanding of children’s language development?
 

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:

  • To what extent will the strategy outlined in the Community Engagement plan meaningfully contribute to the theoretical or methodological novelty of the application? 
 

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:

  • How well does the Community Engagement plan: 1) Describe the roles of the community partners and provide sufficient resources to support their engagement, 2) Describe the potential research benefits to the community partners? 3) Describe how information from the study will be disseminated back to the community? 4) Describe the feasibility of success in ensuring the research is relevant to the communities it is meant to impact? 5) Describe a timeline and milestones suitable to the relevant components of the plan?
  • Does the proposed research incorporate adequate methodological rigor where applicable, including, but not limited to, clear rationale for the chosen model(s) and primary/secondary endpoint(s), clear descriptions of tools and parameters, blinding, randomization, adequate sample size, pre-specified inclusion/exclusion criteria, appropriate handling of missing data and outliers, appropriate controls, preplanned analyses, and appropriate quantitative techniques? Do the applicants clearly indicate the exploratory vs. confirmatory components of the study, consider study limitations, and plan for transparent reporting of all methods, analyses, and results so that other investigators can evaluate the quality of the work and potentially perform replications?
 

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?

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.

 

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.

 

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 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.

 

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.

 

Not Applicable

 

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.

Additional Review Considerations

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.

 

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

 

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.

2. Review and Selection Process

Applications will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by (an) appropriate Scientific Review Group(s) convened by the Center for Scientific Review (CSR), in accordance with NIH peer review policies and practices, 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 appropriate NIH Institute or Center. Applications will compete for available funds with all other recommended applications submitted in response to this NOFO. 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:

  • Scientific and technical merit of the proposed project, including the PEDP, as determined by scientific peer review
  • Availability of funds.
  • Relevance of the proposed project to program priorities.

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 Section 2.5.1. Just-in-Time Procedures. This request is not a Notice of Award nor should it be construed to be an indicator of possible funding.

Prior to making an award, NIH reviews an applicant’s federal award history in SAM.gov to ensure sound business practices. An applicant can review and comment on any information in the Responsibility/Qualification records available in SAM.gov.  NIH will consider any comments by the applicant in the Responsibility/Qualification records in SAM.gov to ascertain the applicant’s integrity, business ethics, and performance record of managing Federal awards per 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.

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

A Notice of Award (NoA) is the official authorizing document notifying the applicant that an award has been made and that funds may be requested from the designated HHS payment system or office. The NoA is signed by the Grants Management Officer and emailed to the recipient’s business official.

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.

Recipients must comply with any funding restrictions described in Section IV.6. Funding Restrictions. Any pre-award costs incurred before receipt of the NoA are at the applicant's own risk.  For more information on the Notice of Award, please refer to the NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 5. The Notice of Award and NIH Grants & Funding website, see Award Process.

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

The following Federal wide and HHS-specific policy requirements apply to awards funded through NIH:

All federal statutes and regulations relevant to federal financial assistance, including those highlighted in NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 4 Public Policy Requirements, Objectives and Other Appropriation Mandates.

Recipients are responsible for ensuring that their activities comply with all applicable federal regulations.  NIH may terminate awards under certain circumstances.  See 2 CFR Part 200.340 Termination and NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 8.5.2 Remedies for Noncompliance or Enforcement Actions: Suspension, Termination, and Withholding of Support

Cooperative Agreement Terms and Conditions of Award

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 Section 8.4.1 Reporting. To learn more about post-award monitoring and reporting, see the NIH Grants & Funding website, see Post-Award Monitoring and Reporting.

  • Recipients will provide updates at least annually on implementation of the PEDP.

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 Section 8.6 Closeout. 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.

Section VII. Agency Contacts

We encourage inquiries concerning this funding opportunity and welcome the opportunity to answer questions from potential applicants.

Application Submission Contacts

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: GrantsInfo@nih.gov (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: support@grants.gov

Scientific/Research Contact(s)

Virginia Salo, PhD 
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
Telephone: 301-402-3682
Email: virginia.salo@nih.gov

Holly Lynn Storkel
NIDCD - NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DEAFNESS AND OTHER COMMUNICATION DISORDERS
Phone: 301.451.6842
E-mail: holly.storkel@nih.gov

Kristina Koren Hardy
NINDS - NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS AND STROKE
E-mail: kristi.hardy@nih.gov

Peer Review Contact(s)

Examine your eRA Commons account for review assignment and contact information (information appears two weeks after the submission due date).

Financial/Grants Management Contact(s)

Marianne Galczynski
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
Phone: 301-496-1170
Email: Marianne.Galczynski@nih.gov 

Samantha Tempchin
National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD)
Telephone: 301-435-1404
Email: samantha.tempchin@nih.gov

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.

Authority and Regulations

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.

NIH Office of Extramural Research Logo
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) - Home Page
Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS)
USA.gov - Government Made Easy
NIH... Turning Discovery Into Health®