and Human Services (HHS)
EXPIRED
Department of Health and Human Services
Participating Organizations
National Institutes of Health (NIH), (http://www.nih.gov)
Components of Participating Organizations
National Institute on Aging (NIA), (http://www.nia.nih.gov)
Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research (OBSSR), (http://obssr.od.nih.gov)
Title: Developmental Research on Elder Mistreatment
Announcement Type
New
Update: The following update relating to this announcement has been issued:
Request For Applications (RFA) Number: RFA-AG-05-009
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number(s)
93.866
Key Dates
Release Date: March 23, 2005
Letters of Intent Receipt Date(s): June 1, 2005
Application Receipt Dates(s): June 23, 2005
Peer Review Date(s): September - October, 2005
Council Review Date(s): January - February, 2006
Earliest Anticipated Start Date: April, 2006
Expiration Date: June 24, 2005
Due Dates for E.O. 12372
Not Applicable
Additional Overview Content
Executive Summary
For-profit and non-profit organizations;
Public and private institutions, such as universities, colleges, hospitals, and laboratories;
Units of State government;
Units of local government;
Eligible agencies of the Federal government;
Domestic institutions/organizations; and
Faith-based or community based organizations.
Part II Full Text of Announcement
Section I. Funding Opportunity Description
1. Research Objectives
Section II. Award Information
1. Mechanism(s) of Support
2. Funds Available
Section III. Eligibility Information
1. Eligible Applicants
A. Eligible Institutions
B. Eligible Individuals
2.Cost Sharing or Matching
3. Other - Special Eligibility Criteria
Section IV. Application and Submission Information
1. Address to Request Application Information
2. Content and Form of Application Submission
3. Submission Dates and Times
A. Receipt and Review and Anticipated Start Dates
1. Letter of Intent
B. Sending an Application to the NIH
C. Application Processing
4. Intergovernmental Review
5. Funding Restrictions
6. Other Submission Requirements
Section V. Application Review Information
1. Criteria
2. Review and Selection Process
A. Additional Review Criteria
B. Additional Review Considerations
C. Sharing Research Data
D. Sharing Research Resources
3. Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates
Section VI. Award Administration Information
1. Award Notices
2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements
A. Cooperative Agreement Terms and Conditions of Award
1. Principal Investigator Rights and Responsibilities
2. NIH Responsibilities
3. Collaborative Responsibilities
4. Arbitration Process
3. Reporting
Section VII. Agency Contact(s)
1. Scientific/Research Contact(s)
2. Peer Review Contact(s)
3. Financial/ Grants Management Contact(s)
Section VIII. Other Information - Required Federal Citations
Part II - Full Text of Announcement1. Research Objectives
Nature of the research opportunity
Purpose
The National Institute on Aging (NIA) and the Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research (OBSSR) invite initial developmental applications from the research community that will ultimately provide the scientific basis for understanding, preventing, and treating elder mistreatment. Critically, scientifically gathered knowledge of the prevalence, incidence, and risk factors associated with community and institutional elder mistreatment in the U.S. is missing and needs to be gained prior to the creation of national policy on preventing elder mistreatment. Developmental research prior to a full incidence/prevalence study is a necessary first step. This solicitation is intended to fund these initial steps.
NIA and OBSSR will fund six to eight area-based or community targeted pilot investigations to develop and test the feasibility, validity, reliability, and generalizability of methodologies for measuring the prevalence and incidence of elder mistreatment. One of the objectives of this solicitation is to develop and pilot test methodologies and techniques for estimating elder mistreatment that might be replicated subsequently in a national prevalence and incidence study. Findings from this solicitation should be useful for the Federal Government in determining the feasibility and desirability of conducting a national incidence study. The community-based orientation is essential for casting the broadest possible net to capture all cases of elder mistreatment and to validate the methods developed.
A second objective is to explore potential obstacles to a single national study. One outcome of this research then is to recommend alternatives to this next possible step since it is not clear that a national incidence study is feasible.
The third and final objective of this RFA is to increase the scientific infrastructure of scholars for conducting scientifically sound research in the broad area of elder mistreatment. To that end, researchers studying other socially stigmatized behaviors are encouraged to apply. Examples of these behaviors include illicit drug use, child abuse, family violence, sexual behavior, and criminal behavior.
This solicitation focuses on initial steps discussed as research priorities in Elder Mistreatment: Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation in an Aging America (National Research Council, 2003). The NIA-funded Elder Mistreatment study and volume is a product of the National Research Council's (NRC) Panel to Review Risk and Prevalence of Elder Abuse and Neglect. The priorities include:
1. the development of standardized conceptual and operational definitions of elder mistreatment. Elder mistreatment includes physical, psychological, and sexual abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation. Operational definitions developed must be acceptable to both the research and practice communities, the latter including social service, medical, and law enforcement/legal communities. The operational definitions developed and tested in this research must meet tests of validity, reliability, generalizability, and be subject to standardized measurement methods for ease of replication;
2. a community-wide approach such that all avenues of elder mistreatment detection and remediation are included (e.g., policy, Adult Protective Services, other social services, medical);
3. testing methods of prevalence and incidence measurement using techniques that will solicit reasonable, reliable, valid, and generalizable estimates;
4. a triangulation of methods for detecting elder mistreatment at the community level;
5. designing and fielding prevalence and incidence studies of elder mistreatment that can be replicated at the national level; and
6. expanding the infrastructure for conducting elder mistreatment research to include experts in other fields currently studying socially sensitive and stigmatized behaviors.
Background
Scientifically based knowledge of elder mistreatment is probably 30-40 years behind the acquisition of scientific information in the area of child abuse and neglect. This initiative is intended to begin closing that gap. Given the dramatic growth in the population entering age categories defined as later life, it is necessary that science help shape policy and practice in dealing with the prevention and treatment of elder mistreatment. As noted by the NRC study, the field is virtually devoid of science based knowledge: fewer than 50 peer-reviewed articles based on empirical research have been published in the field (NRC, 2003; p18). The NRC recommends 14 agenda items needing scientific attention. This solicitation is intended to initiate research on the pilot and developmental studies necessary to produce the science for conducting a national study of prevalence and incidence of elder mistreatment. The estimation of prevalence and incidence is essential if social policy is to be created to impact prevention and treatment of elder mistreatment.
One of the difficulties with elder mistreatment research is the plethora of definitions used. Contributing to the ambiguity are different statutory definitions for elder mistreatment across the United States (Administration on Aging, 2004; Teaster, no date). Although every state has some form of mandated reporting of suspected elder mistreatment, Adult Protective Services (APS) mandates and definitions as well as legal requirements for data systems vary widely. A further challenge to research on elder mistreatment is the differing perceptions of elder mistreatment among various racial, ethnic, and cultural groups (Moon, 2000). The cultural context of the perpetrator/victim relationship affects the way differing groups define elder abuse and/or mistreatment (Hudson and Carlson, 1999). Furthermore, APS or its equivalent across the U.S. have widely varying methods for taking referrals, allegation determination, and referral/case tracking (Teaster, no date).
The NRC Panel defined elder mistreatment as (a) intentional actions that cause harm or create a serious risk of harm, whether or not intended, to a vulnerable elder by a caregiver or other person who stands in a trust relationship to the elder or (b) failure by a caregiver to satisfy the elder's basic needs or to protect the elder from harm (NRC, 2003, p. 40). This sufficiently broad definition invites the research community to develop specific definitions and operational terms to facilitate the reliable, valid, and generalizable assessment of elder mistreatment.
The NRC conceptual definition excludes self-neglect and victimization by strangers. Two critical elements of elder mistreatment are the presence of a trust relationship (p.40) and the elder's diminished capacity for self-care or self-protection (p. 41). Self-neglect warrants intervention to determine capacity for self-care, but self-neglect lacks a victim/perpetrator relationship. Although mistreatment by a stranger contains at a minimum a perpetrator/victim dyad, it is the nature of the trust relationship between the elder victim and the perpetrator that constitutes what is commonly understood as mistreatment. Therefore, exploitation by predatory strangers is classified as a legal harm but not mistreatment (NRC, 2003). On the other hand, financial exploitation such as a monetary arrangement that can be linked to a trusted other would constitute elder mistreatment, and will therefore be included in this research.
According to available estimates, between 0.5 and 10 percent of Americans age 65 or older have been injured, exploited, or otherwise mistreated by someone on whom they depended for care or protection (Administration for Children and Families and Administration on Aging, 1998; NRC, 2003; Fulmer, Paveza, & Guadagno, 2002; Pillemer & Finkelhor, 1988). Estimates are often based on sample surveys conducted in local areas, most using variable definitions, or on estimation techniques of questionable value. Using data from the National Center on Elder Abuse report (Administration for Children and Families and Administration on Aging, 1998), approximately 19 percent of all suspected cases are actually reported to appropriate agencies. Clearly, using reported mistreatment dramatically underestimates the incidence and prevalence of elder mistreatment. Other studies have been undertaken in Canada (Podnieks, 1992), the United Kingdom (Ogg and Bennett, 1992), Finland (Kivela et al., 1992), and the Netherlands (Comijis et al., 1998). However, there has been no systematic survey of the U.S. population to provide an accurate national estimate for the occurrence of any form of elder mistreatment.
Few studies examine the effects of elder mistreatment on the victim's psychological and physical health. Studies have attempted to demonstrate that victims of elder mistreatment are more likely to be depressed or suffer psychological distress. However, research designs used prevent a clear determination of whether these risk factors resulted from or preceded mistreatment (Wolfe, 2000).
An NIA-supported study is the only research to examine the long-term effects of mistreatment on mortality. In a 13-year retrospective longitudinal study of abuse and neglect using a cohort of 2,812 individuals, Lachs et al. (1998) found that only nine percent of the population with reported abuse and 17 percent of those with reported self-neglect survived the duration of cohort follow-up. By contrast, fully 40 percent of those with no reported abuse or neglect survived the 13 years. Not a single death, however, was attributed directly to abuse and/or neglect. Moreover, controlling for known mortality risk factors (e.g., chronic disease, socioeconomic status, social factors, cognitive status, and demographic characteristics), the all-cause mortality odds ratio (OR) for those abused to those with no APS report is 3:1; the OR for those self-neglected is 1:7. These findings suggest that preventing abuse and neglect may have a significant impact on mortality and perhaps disability as well.
Scholars currently conducting research on elder mistreatment have made excellent inroads into a difficult topic. However, since 1990, fewer than 15 studies on elder mistreatment have been funded by the NIA, and support from other agencies has been even less substantial (NRC, 2003). This dearth of research stems not from an unwillingness to fund elder mistreatment research, but from a lack of applications meeting NIH's criteria for excellent science. It is a difficult area to investigate and presents significant scientific challenges. Seldom has an entire avenue of investigation, with the potential to impact health, well-being, and longevity of an entire population group, been so devoid of scientifically gained knowledge. The field of elder mistreatment is ripe for research. While society and governmental agencies, as well as the social, behavioral, and medical sciences, recognize elder mistreatment as a significant social problem, there is little scientific information about its prevalence, causes, consequences, or prevention.
Finally, there are potential ethical dilemmas in any research involving abuse and neglect. Unlike child abuse, the older victim of mistreatment may be part of a family dynamic of abuse existing for many years. Since families create unique patterns of interaction to cope with and survive everyday living and adversity (Becker, 1997), any disruption in that interaction pattern, even though legally appropriate, may produce unintended negative consequences. Research must remain cognizant of this potential, despite the practical need to intervene. Therefore, this research will offer NIA and other funding agencies insight on how to protect subjects and at the same time gain access to essential data for the investigation of elder mistreatment.
Scope
To meet the objectives listed in the Purpose section above, applications addressing elder mistreatment in specific, identifiable communities are solicited. Each application must include at a minimum one community that can be geographically (e.g., a city or community), conceptually (e.g., an institutional setting), or socially (e.g., race, ethnic, or cultural group) defined. These community based studies should provide techniques and mechanisms that can be transferred to subsequent generalizable research on the prevalence and incidence of elder mistreatment in the U.S. Applications must present the applicant's conceptual and methodological approach to measuring and assessing the prevalence and incidence of elder mistreatment. Additionally, the researcher must show that the techniques developed capture as much of the elder mistreatment in the community as feasible.
Applicants must deal with physical abuse, psychological abuse, sexual abuse, neglect by a trusted other, and financial exploitation. Risk factors associated with each type of mistreatment should be identified and measured. It should be noted that self-neglect is not part of this initiative. There is sufficient evidence to indicate that self-neglect is a separate form of mistreatment (see NRC, 2003).
Applications may deal with either community- or institution-based mistreatment. Applications may combine community-based and institutionally-based mistreatment in a single study. At least one application that includes institutional abuse will be selected, whether that project deals exclusively with institutional abuse or includes it as a component of the community studied.
The applications are to be considered a pilot or developmental program that will eventually prepare the research community for undertaking a national prevalence and/or incidence study of elder mistreatment.
Obstacles to a valid, reliable, and fully generalizable national incidence study must also be scientifically assessed. For example, there is strong evidence that various cultural groups provide family rather than institutional or formal help for vulnerable elderly (Dilworth-Anderson, et al., 2002). To what extent does delaying care seeking influence the incidence of elder mistreatment in various groups? Are language barriers or the cultural context of the victim and perpetrator (Hudson and Carlson, 1999) a sufficiently problematic impediment to conducting a single national incidence study? If so, are there other scientific alternatives?
Each application needs to specify or actually test methods of conducting research on how to gain access to reliable and valid information from cognitively impaired victims of elder mistreatment. Proxy interviews may be insufficient since the perpetrator is likely to be unwilling to provide self-incriminating information.
Each application should specify how it will deal with sensitive material.
Applicants with prior experience in elder mistreatment and those without such prior experience in elder mistreatment are encouraged to apply. Scientists in the latter category and/or their colleagues must display some scientific expertise in related areas. These related areas include, for example: child abuse, epidemiology, scientific experience in asking questions about socially stigmatized behaviors, research on family and family dynamics, the sociology of law, society, and criminology, the economics of crime and deviance, and the psychology of deviance. (The foregoing list is intended to provide examples and not to exclude other scientific areas that can contribute to the field.) This RFA thus encourages new combinations of scientists with expertise in related fields to apply that expertise to the field of elder mistreatment through interdisciplinary approaches.
Applicants should include in their applications as Key Personnel or Consultants experts who provide a link to the practice community. This requires that APS, other social services, medically related personnel, and/or law enforcement professionals be included. This is to assure the field that recommendations that arise from this pilot effort as well as the anticipated national incidence survey are based on the practical aspects of working in the field, and in turn will provide the field with information that can be used to shape policy and programs.
A further requirement for applicants is that an expert in survey research or a scientist with expertise and experience in establishing and conducting large-scale surveys be included as Key Personnel or Consultant. The purpose of this is to create a research environment and techniques for scaling up this pilot to a possible broader, full-scale national incidence study and to inform the design of this pilot and assess the feasibility of the larger effort.
References
Administration on Aging (2004). Elder abuse: elder abuse is a serious problem. http://www.aoa.gov/eldfam/Elder_Rights/Elder_Abuse/Elder_Abuse.asp
Administration for Children and Families and Administration on Aging (1998). The National Elder Abuse Incidence Study. Retrieved January 19, 2005 from http://www.aoa.gov/eldfam/Elder_Rights/Elder_Abuse/ABuseReport_Full.pdf
Becker, G. (1997 ). Disrupted Lives: How people create meaning in a chaotic world. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Comijis, H.C., Pot, A.M., Smit, H.H., & Jonker, C. (1998). Elder abuse in the community:
Prevalence and consequences. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 46:885-888.
Dilworth-Anderson, P., Williams, I.C., & Gibson, B.E. (2002). Issues of Race, Ethnicity, and Culture in Caregiving Research: A 20-Year Review (1980-2000). The Gerontologist 42:237-272.
Fulmer, T., Paveza, G., & Guadagno, L. (2002). Elder abuse and neglect: Policy issues for two very different problems. The Public Policy and Aging Report , 12:15-18.
Hudson, M.F., & Carlson, J.R. (1999). Elder abuse: Its meaning to Caucasians, African Americans, and Native Americans. In Toshio Tatara (Ed.), Understanding elder abuse in minority populations (pp.187 204). Ann Arbor: Braun-Brumfield.
Kivela, S.L., Kongas-Saviaro, P., Kesti, E., Pahkala, K., & Ijas, M. (1992). Abuse in old age: Epidemiological data from Finland. Journal of Elder Abuse and Neglect , 4:1-18.
Lachs, M.S., Williams, C.S., O'Brien, S., Pillemer, K., & Charlson, M. E. (1998). The mortality of elder mistreatment. JAMA , 208:428 432.
Moon, A. (2000). Perceptions of elder abuse among various cultural groups: Similarities and differences. Generations , 24:75-80.
National Research Council. (2003). Elder mistreatment: Abuse, neglect, and exploitation in an Aging America. Panel to Review Risk and Prevalence of Elder Abuse and Neglect. Richard J. Bonnie & Robert B. Wallace (Eds). Committee on National Statistics and Committee on Law and Justice, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, D.C: The National Academies Press.
Ogg, J. & Bennet, G. (1992). Elder abuse in Britain. British Medical Journal , 305:998 -999.
Pillemer, K., & Finkelhor, D. (1988). The prevalence of elder abuse: A random sample survey. The Gerontologist , 28:51-57.
Podnieks, E. (1992). National survey on abuse of the elderly in Canada. Journal of Elder Abuse and Neglect , 41:5 -58.
Teaster, P. (no date). A response to the abuse of vulnerable adults: The 2000 survey of state Adult Protective Services.
http://www.elderabusecenter.org/pdf/research/apsreport030703.pdf
Wolf R. (2000). Introduction: The nature and scope of elder abuse. Generations , 24:6 11.
See Section VIII, Other Information - Required Federal Citations, for policies related to this announcement.
Section II. Award Information1. Mechanism of Support
This funding opportunity will use the NIH R21 award mechanism(s). As an applicant, you will be solely responsible for planning, directing, and executing the proposed project.
This funding opportunity uses just-in-time concepts. It also uses the modular budget format described in the PHS 398 application instructions (see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/modular/modular.htm).
2. Funds Available
Because the nature and scope of the proposed research will vary from application to application, it is anticipated that the size and possible duration of each award will also vary within the general rules of the R21 award mechanism. Follow the instructions in PA-03-107 (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/pa-03-107.html) using the PHS 398 form (9/2004). Although the financial plans of NIA and OBSSR provide support for this program, awards pursuant to this funding opportunity are contingent upon the availability of funds and the receipt of a sufficient number of meritorious applications.
Facilities and administrative costs requested by consortium participants are not included in the direct cost limitation, see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-05-004.html.
Section III. Eligibility Information1. Eligible Applicants
1.A. Eligible Institutions
You may submit (an) application(s) if your organization has any of the following characteristics:
1.B. Eligible Individuals
Any individual with the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to carry out the proposed research is invited to work with their institution to develop an application for support. Individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups as well as individuals with disabilities are always encouraged to apply for NIH programs.
2. Cost Sharing or Matching
This RFA does not require cost sharing as defined in the current NIH Grants Policy Statement at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/nihgps_Part2.htm#matching_or_cost_sharing.
3. Other-Special Eligibility Criteria
An eligible institution may submit more than one scientifically distinct application in response to this announcement.
1. Address to Request Application Information
The PHS 398 application instructions are available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/phs398.html in an interactive format. Applicants must use the currently approved version of the PHS 398. For further assistance contact GrantsInfo, Telephone (301) 710-0267, Email: [email protected].
Telecommunications for the hearing impaired: TTY 301-451-5936.
2. Content and Form of Application Submission
Applications must be prepared using the most current PHS 398 research grant application instructions and forms. Applications must have a D&B Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number as the universal identifier when applying for Federal grants or cooperative agreements. The D&B number can be obtained by calling (866) 705-5711 or through the web site at http://www.dnb.com/us/. The D&B number should be entered on line 11 of the face page of the PHS 398 form.
The title and number of this funding opportunity must be typed on line 2 of the face page of the application form and the YES box must be checked.
3. Submission Dates and Times
Applications must be received on or before the receipt date described below (Section IV.3.A.) Submission times N/A.
3.A. Receipt, Review and Anticipated Start Dates
Letter of Intent Receipt Date: June 1, 2005
Application Receipt Date(s): June 23, 2005
Peer Review Date: September-October, 2005
Council Review Date: January-February, 2006
Earliest Anticipated Start Date: April, 2006
3.A.1. Letter of Intent
Prospective applicants are asked to submit a letter of intent that includes the following information:
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.
The letter of intent is to be sent by the date listed at the beginning of this document. The letter of intent should be sent to:
Dr. Sidney M. Stahl
Behavioral and Social Research Program
National Institute on Aging
7201 Wisconsin Ave., #533
Bethesda, MD 20892-9205
Telephone: (301) 402-4156
FAX: (301) 402-0051
Email: [email protected]
3.B. Sending an Application to the NIH
Applications must be prepared using the PHS 398 research grant application instructions and forms as described above. Submit a signed, typewritten original of the application, including the checklist, and three signed photocopies in one package to:
Center for Scientific Review
National Institutes of Health
6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 1040, MSC 7710
Bethesda, MD 20892-7710 (U.S. Postal Service Express or regular mail)
Bethesda, MD 20817 (for express/courier service; non-USPS service)
At the time of submission, two additional copies of the application and all copies of the appendix material must be sent to:
Dr. Mary Nekola, Chief
Scientific Review Office
National Institute on Aging
7201 Wisconsin Ave., #2C212
Bethesda, MD 20892-2292
Telephone: (301) 402-7702
FAX: (301)-402-0066
Email: [email protected]
Appendix material should be sent on a CD if at all possible. Once the application has been submitted, the Scientific Review Office will accept no additional materials.
Using the RFA Label: The RFA label available in the PHS 398 application instructions must be affixed to the bottom of the face page of the application. Type the RFA number on the label. Failure to use this label could result in delayed processing of the application such that it may not reach the review committee in time for review. In addition, the RFA title and number must be typed on line 2 of the face page of the application form and the YES box must be marked. The RFA label is also available at: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/labels.pdf. Personal deliveries of applications are no longer permitted.
3.C. Application Processing
Applications must be received on or before the application receipt date(s) described above (Section IV.3.A.). If an application is received after that date, it will be returned to the applicant without review. Upon receipt, applications will be evaluated for completeness by the CSR and responsiveness by the National Institute on Aging. Incomplete and non-responsive applications will not be reviewed
The NIH will not accept any application in response to this funding opportunity that is essentially the same as one currently pending initial review, unless the applicant withdraws the pending application. However, when a previously unfunded application, originally submitted as an investigator-initiated application, is to be submitted in response to a funding opportunity, it is to be prepared as a NEW application. That is, the application for the funding opportunity must not include an Introduction describing the changes and improvements made, and the text must not be marked to indicate the changes from the previous unfunded version of the application.
Although there is no immediate acknowledgement of the receipt of an application, applicants are generally notified of the review and funding assignment within eight (8) weeks.
4. Intergovernmental Review
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. The Grants Policy Statement can be found at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/policy.htm (see also Section VI.3. Reporting).
Pre-Award Costs are allowable. A grantee may, at its own risk and without NIH prior approval, incur obligations and expenditures to cover costs up to 90 days before the beginning date of the initial budget period of a new or competing continuation award if such costs: are necessary to conduct the project, and would be allowable under the grant, if awarded, without NIH prior approval. If specific expenditures would otherwise require prior approval, the grantee must obtain NIH approval before incurring the cost. NIH prior approval is required for any costs to be incurred more than 90 days before the beginning date of the initial budget period of a new or competing continuation award.
The incurrence of pre-award costs in anticipation of a competing or non-competing award imposes no obligation on NIH either to make the award or to increase the amount of the approved budget if an award is made for less than the amount anticipated and is inadequate to cover the pre-award costs incurred. NIH expects the grantee to be fully aware that pre-award costs result in borrowing against future support and that such borrowing must not impair the grantee's ability to accomplish the project objectives in the approved time frame or in any way adversely affect the conduct of the project. See NIH Grants Policy Statement http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/NIHGPS_Part6.htm.
6. Other Submission Requirements
Applications must also meet the following requirements, as specified in the Research Objectives section, above:
Specific Instructions for Modular Grant applications.
Applications must be submitted in a modular budget format. The modular budget format simplifies the preparation of the budget in these applications by limiting the level of budgetary detail. Applicants request direct costs in $25,000 modules. Section C of the research grant application instructions for the PHS 398 at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/phs398.html includes step-by-step guidance for preparing modular budgets. Applicants must use the currently approved version of the PHS 398. Additional information on modular budgets is available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/modular/modular.htm.
Plan for Sharing Research Data
The precise content of the data-sharing plan will vary, depending on the data being collected and how the investigator is planning to share the data. Applicants who are planning to share data may wish to describe briefly the expected schedule for data sharing, the format of the final dataset, the documentation to be provided, whether or not any analytic tools also will be provided, whether or not a data-sharing agreement will be required and, if so, a brief description of such an agreement (including the criteria for deciding who can receive the data and whether or not any conditions will be placed on their use), and the mode of data sharing (e.g., under their own auspices by mailing a disk or posting data on their institutional or personal website, through a data archive or enclave). Investigators choosing to share under their own auspices may wish to enter into a data-sharing agreement. References to data sharing may also be appropriate in other sections of the application.
All applicants must include a plan for sharing research data in their application. The data sharing policy is available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing. All investigators responding to this funding opportunity should include a description of how final research data will be shared, or explain why data sharing is not possible.
The reasonableness of the data sharing plan or the rationale for not sharing research data will be assessed by the reviewers. However, reviewers will not factor the proposed data sharing plan into the determination of scientific merit or the priority score.
Sharing Research Resources
Not applicable
1. Criteria
Only the review criteria described below will be considered in the review process.
The following will be considered in making funding decisions:
2. Review and Selection Process
Upon receipt, applications will be reviewed for completeness by the CSR and responsiveness by the National Institute on Aging. Incomplete and/or non-responsive applications will not be reviewed.
Applications that are complete and responsive to the RFA will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by an appropriate peer review group convened by the National Institute on Aging in accordance with the review criteria stated below.
As part of the initial merit review, all applications will:
The goals of NIH supported research are to advance our understanding of biological systems, to improve the control of disease, and to enhance health. In their written critiques, reviewers will be asked to comment on each of the following criteria in order to judge the likelihood that the proposed research will have a substantial impact on the pursuit of these goals. Each of these criteria will be addressed and considered in assigning the overall score, weighting them as appropriate for each application. Note that an application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact and thus deserve a high priority score. For example, an investigator may propose to carry out important work that by its nature is not innovative but is essential to move a field forward.
1. Significance. Does this study address an important problem? If the aims of the application are achieved, how will scientific knowledge or clinical practice be advanced? What will be the effect of these studies on the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?
2. Approach. Are the conceptual or clinical framework, design, methods, and analyses adequately developed, well integrated, well reasoned, and appropriate to the aims of the project? Does the applicant acknowledge potential problem areas and consider alternative tactics?
3. Innovation. Is the project original and innovative? For example: Does the project challenge existing paradigms or clinical practice; address an innovative hypothesis or critical barrier to progress in the field? Does the project develop or employ novel concepts, approaches, methodologies, tools, or technologies for this area?
4. Investigators. Are the investigators appropriately trained and well suited to carry out this work? Is the work proposed appropriate to the experience level of the principal investigator and other researchers? Does the investigative team bring complementary and integrated expertise to the project (if applicable)? Does the research team include expertise in the social services with practical experience in the area of elder mistreatment and does the team include expertise in survey research or experience with survey research methodologies.
5. Environment. Does the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Do the proposed studies benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, or subject populations, or employ useful collaborative arrangements? Is there evidence of institutional support?
2.A. Additional Review Criteria:
In addition to the above criteria, the following items will continue to be considered in the determination of scientific merit and the priority score:
Protection of Human Subjects from Research Risk: The involvement of human subjects and protections from research risk relating to their participation in the proposed research will be assessed (see the Research Plan, Section E on Human Subjects in the PHS Form 398).
Inclusion of Women and Minorities in Research: The adequacy of plans to include subjects from both genders, and all racial and ethnic groups (and subgroups) as appropriate for the scientific goals of the research will be assessed. Plans for the recruitment and retention of subjects will also be evaluated (see the Research Plan, Section E on Human Subjects in the PHS Form 398).
2.B. Additional Review Considerations
Budget: The reasonableness of the proposed budget and the requested period of support in relation to the proposed research. The priority score should not be affected by the evaluation of the budget.
2.C. Sharing Research Data
Data Sharing Plan: The reasonableness of the data sharing plan or the rationale for not sharing research data will be assessed by the reviewers. However, reviewers will not factor the proposed data sharing plan into the determination of scientific merit or the priority score. The presence of a data sharing plan will be part of the terms and conditions of the award. The funding organization will be responsible for monitoring the data sharing policy. Specifically, NIA Program Staff will be responsible for the administrative review and negotiation of the data sharing plan.
2.D. Sharing Research Resources
Not applicable
3. Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates
Not applicable
1. Award Notices
After the peer review of the application is completed, the Principal Investigator will also receive a written critique called a Summary Statement.
If the application is under consideration for funding, NIH will request "just-in-time" information from the applicant. For details, applicants may refer to the NIH Grants Policy Statement Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart A: General (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/NIHGPS_part4.htm).
A formal notification in the form of a Notice of Grant Award (NGA) will be provided to the applicant organization. The NGA signed by the grants management officer is the authorizing document.
The NGA will be sent via email to the administrative official whose name is listed in Block 12 on the Face Page of the Form PHS 398. If a grantee is not e-mail enabled, a hard copy of the NGA will be mailed to the business official.
Selection of an application for award is not an authorization to begin performance. Any costs incurred before receipt of the NGA are at the recipient's risk. These costs may be reimbursed only to the extent considered allowable pre-award costs. See Also Section IV.5. Funding Restrictions.
2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements
All NIH grant and cooperative agreement awards include the NIH Grants Policy Statement as part of the notice of grant award. For these terms of award, see the NIH Grants Policy Statement Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart A: General (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/NIHGPS_Part4.htm) and Part II Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart B: Terms and Conditions for Specific Types of Grants, Grantees, and Activities (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/NIHGPS_part9.htm).
2.A. Cooperative Agreement Terms and Conditions of Award
Not applicable
Awardees will be required to submit the PHS Non-Competing Grant Progress Report, Form 2590 annually (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/2590/2590.htm) and financial statements as required in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Section VII. Agency ContactsWe encourage your inquiries concerning this funding opportunity and welcome the opportunity to answer questions from potential applicants. Inquiries may fall into three areas: scientific/research, peer review, and financial or grants management issues:
1. Scientific/Research Contacts:
Dr. Sidney M. Stahl, Chief
Individual Behavioral Processes Branch
Behavioral and Social Research Program
National Institute on Aging
7201 Wisconsin Ave., #533
Bethesda, MD 20892-9205
Telephone: (301) 402-4156
FAX: (301) 402-0051
Email: [email protected]
2. Peer Review Contacts:
Dr. Mary Nekola, Chief
Scientific Review Office
National Institute on Aging
7201 Wisconsin Ave., #2C212
Bethesda, MD 20892-2292
Telephone: (301) 402-7702
FAX: (301)-402-0066
Email: [email protected]
3. Financial or Grants Management Contacts:
Ms. Traci Lafferty
Grants and Contracts Management Office
National Institute on Aging
7201 Wisconsin Ave., #2N212
Bethesda , MD 20892-9205
Telephone: (301) 496-1472
FAX: (301) 402-3672
Email: [email protected]
Required Federal Citations
Human Subjects Protection:
Federal regulations (45CFR46) require that applications and proposals involving human subjects must be evaluated with reference to the risks to the subjects, the adequacy of protection against these risks, the potential benefits of the research to the subjects and others, and the importance of the knowledge gained or to be gained (http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm).
Sharing Research Data:
Investigators should seek guidance from their institutions, on issues related to institutional policies and local IRB rules, as well as local, State and Federal laws and regulations, including the Privacy Rule. Reviewers will consider the data sharing plan but will not factor the plan into the determination of the scientific merit or the priority score. See http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing for general information on data sharing.
Inclusion of Women And Minorities in Clinical Research:
It is the policy of the NIH that women and members of minority groups and their sub-populations must be included in all NIH-supported clinical research projects unless a clear and compelling justification is provided indicating that inclusion is inappropriate with respect to the health of the subjects or the purpose of the research. This policy results from the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 (Section 492B of Public Law 103-43). All investigators proposing clinical research should read the "NIH Guidelines for Inclusion of Women and Minorities as Subjects in Clinical Research (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-02-001.html); a complete copy of the updated Guidelines is available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/women_min/guidelines_amended_10_2001.htm. The amended policy incorporates: the use of an NIH definition of clinical research; updated racial and ethnic categories in compliance with the new OMB standards; clarification of language governing NIH-defined Phase III clinical trials consistent with the new PHS Form 398; and updated roles and responsibilities of NIH staff and the extramural community. The policy continues to require for all NIH-defined Phase III clinical trials that: a) all applications or proposals and/or protocols must provide a description of plans to conduct analyses, as appropriate, to address differences by sex/gender and/or racial/ethnic groups, including subgroups if applicable; and b) investigators must report annual accrual and progress in conducting analyses, as appropriate, by sex/gender and/or racial/ethnic group differences.
Required Education on the Protection of Human Subject Participants:
NIH policy requires education on the protection of human subject participants for all investigators submitting NIH applications for research involving human subjects and individuals designated as key personnel. The policy is available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-00-039.html.
Public Access to Research Data through the Freedom of Information Act:
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-110 has been revised to provide public access to research data through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) under some circumstances. Data that are (1) first produced in a project that is supported in whole or in part with Federal funds and (2) cited publicly and officially by a Federal agency in support of an action that has the force and effect of law (i.e., a regulation) may be accessed through FOIA. It is important for applicants to understand the basic scope of this amendment. NIH has provided guidance at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/a110/a110_guidance_dec1999.htm. Applicants may wish to place data collected under this PA in a public archive, which can provide protections for the data and manage the distribution for an indefinite period of time. If so, the application should include a description of the archiving plan in the study design and include information about this in the budget justification section of the application. In addition, applicants should think about how to structure informed consent statements and other human subjects procedures given the potential for wider use of data collected under this award.
Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information:
The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) issued final modification to the "Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information", the "Privacy Rule", on August 14, 2002. The Privacy Rule is a federal regulation under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 that governs the protection of individually identifiable health information, and is administered and enforced by the DHHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR).
Decisions about applicability and implementation of the Privacy Rule reside with the researcher and his/her institution. The OCR website (http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/) provides information on the Privacy Rule, including a complete Regulation Text and a set of decision tools on "Am I a covered entity?" Information on the impact of the HIPAA Privacy Rule on NIH processes involving the review, funding, and progress monitoring of grants, cooperative agreements, and research contracts can be found at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-03-025.html.
URLs in NIH Grant Applications or Appendices:
All applications and proposals for NIH funding must be self-contained within specified page limitations. Unless otherwise specified in an NIH solicitation, Internet addresses (URLs) should not be used to provide information necessary to the review because reviewers are under no obligation to view the Internet sites. Furthermore, we caution reviewers that their anonymity may be compromised when they directly access an Internet site.
Healthy People 2010:
The Public Health Service (PHS) is committed to achieving the health promotion and disease prevention objectives of "Healthy People 2010," a PHS-led national activity for setting priority areas. This PA is related to one or more of the priority areas. Potential applicants may obtain a copy of "Healthy People 2010" at http://www.health.gov/healthypeople.
Authority and Regulations:
This program is described in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance at http://www.cfda.gov/ and is not subject to the intergovernmental review requirements of Executive Order 12372 or Health Systems Agency review. 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 52 and 45 CFR Parts 74 and 92. All awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement. The NIH Grants Policy Statement can be found at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/policy.htm.
The PHS strongly encourages all grant recipients to provide a smoke-free workplace and discourage the use of all tobacco products. In addition, Public Law 103-227, the Pro-Children Act of 1994, prohibits smoking in certain facilities (or in some cases, any portion of a facility) in which regular or routine education, library, day care, health care, or early childhood development services are provided to children. This is consistent with the PHS mission to protect and advance the physical and mental health of the American people.
Loan Repayment Programs:
NIH encourages applications for educational loan repayment from qualified health professionals who have made a commitment to pursue a research career involving clinical, pediatric, contraception, infertility, and health disparities related areas. The LRP is an important component of NIH's efforts to recruit and retain the next generation of researchers by providing the means for developing a research career unfettered by the burden of student loan debt. Note that an NIH grant is not required for eligibility and concurrent career award and LRP applications are encouraged. The periods of career award and LRP award may overlap providing the LRP recipient with the required commitment of time and effort, as LRP awardees must commit at least 50% of their time (at least 20 hours per week based on a 40 hour week) for two years to the research. For further information, please see: http://www.lrp.nih.gov/.
Weekly TOC for this Announcement
NIH Funding Opportunities and Notices
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) |
|
|||
|
NIH... Turning Discovery Into Health® |
||||||