THE NEXT GENERATION OF DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION RESEARCH
Release Date: January 15, 2001
RFA: RFA-DA-01-009
National Institute on Drug Abuse
(http://www.nida.nih.gov)
Letter of Intent Receipt Date: March 16, 2001
Application Receipt Date: April 16, 2001
THIS REQUEST FOR APPLICATIONS (RFA) USES THE "MODULAR GRANT" AND "JUST-IN-
TIME" CONCEPTS. IT INCLUDES DETAILED MODIFICATIONS TO STANDARD APPLICATION
INSTRUCTIONS THAT MUST BE USED WHEN PREPARING APPLICATIONS IN RESPONSE TO
THIS RFA.
PURPOSE
This RFA encourages a new generation of drug abuse prevention research.
Applications are solicited to examine elements that may account for program
effectiveness of drug abuse prevention interventions that have either been
empirically validated or are currently undergoing rigorous
efficacy/effectiveness trials. The purpose is to gain a better understanding
of what accounts for program effectiveness through: (1) empirical tests of
theoretically derived processes, (2) identification of patterns related to
differential effectiveness, (3) generating and testing alternate hypotheses
accounting for effectiveness based on differential outcomes from current or
previous research, and (4) specification and testing of elements singularly
and in combination that contribute to effectiveness.
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 RFA, "The Next
Generation of Drug Abuse Prevention Research," is related to the priority
area of substance abuse. Potential applicants may obtain a copy of "Healthy
People 2010" at: http://www.health.gov/healthypeople/.
ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
Applications may be submitted by domestic and foreign, for-profit and non-
profit organizations, public and private, such as universities, colleges,
hospitals, laboratories, units of state and local governments, and eligible
agencies of the federal government. Racial/ethnic minority individuals,
women, and persons with disabilities are encouraged to apply as Principal
Investigators. This RFA invites applications from both investigators with
experience in drug abuse research and investigators who have not typically
conducted drug abuse research.
MECHANISM OF SUPPORT
The mechanisms of support will include the investigator-initiated research
project grant (R01) and the exploratory/development grant (R21) mechanisms.
Applicants are advised to contact NIDA program staff listed under INQUIRES
for additional information and specific application procedures.
Because the nature and scope of the research proposed in response to this RFA
may vary, it is anticipated that the size of an award will vary also.
Modular budgeting procedures apply for grants up to $250,000. See
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/modular/modular.htm for further
information about modular budgets.
When applying under the R21 mechanism, the applicant should obtain a copy of
the R21 announcement, as it contains instructions for the preparation of the
application and other useful information. R21 grants are limited to $100,000
in direct cost per year to a 3 year effort. The announcement may be obtained
from NIDA staff or at http://www.nida.nih.gov/ResFundslist.html.
FUNDS AVAILABLE
NIDA intends to commit approximately $1,250,000 in FY 2001 to fund five to
six new awards in response to this RFA. Because the nature and scope of the
research proposed may vary, it is anticipated that the size of each award
will also vary. Although the financial plans of the Institute provide
support for this program, awards pursuant to this RFA are contingent upon the
availability of funds and the receipt of a sufficient number of applications
of outstanding scientific and technical merit.
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
Over the past 20 years, NIDA has supported research on a number of drug abuse
prevention programs that have been shown to be efficacious and effective.
Primary evidence for efficacy and effectiveness has taken the form of long-
term positive results in reducing the onset or progression of drug abuse
among intervention subjects compared to control group subjects. To date,
demonstrating global results of effectiveness has been the goal of much
prevention research. Given the substantial number of theory-based
interventions in various stages of efficacy and effectiveness trials, the
primary evolving questions address which elements of content, client,
implementer, and delivery account for program success alone or in
interaction. Specifically, when drug abuse prevention programs work, what
accounts for their success? For whom do they work? Under what conditions
are they successful? Answers to these questions should be expected to vary
depending on the underlying theory, the program’s aims derived from that
theory, the program’s content, the implementers, the target population, the
delivery, and the interactions among these program aspects. Addressing these
questions is a necessary next step for refining both prevention science and
the theories that contribute to prevention science. Drug abuse may include
illicit drug use and/or tobacco, as well as illicit drug use or tobacco in
combination with alcohol.
Although few studies have focused exclusively on examining success-related
drug abuse prevention program elements in any depth, several have studied
such factors. These studies suggest that crucial elements include the match
between program aims and content delivered, the number of sessions provided,
the number of sessions attended, the match between the program design and the
program delivered, the use of interactive techniques, and the grouping of
clients. Research in other domains suggests that other components may also
influence successful outcome. These include implementer training, "goodness
of fit" between implementer and target population, characteristics of the
target population, interpersonal communication styles, and sequence in which
content is delivered. Since these findings have emerged from program
evaluation studies, few careful descriptions of how program elements
contribute to outcomes have emerged, findings rarely rely on theory-driven
analyses, studies have not yet tied results back to the theoretical aims that
inform the development of programs, and studies are only beginning to advance
new hypotheses aimed at the refinement of underlying theories and program
components. In general, the active elements of prevention interventions that
account for successful outcomes have not been adequately examined.
At least four general areas should be considered in determining what accounts
for program success, i.e., content, delivery, implementer, and client. Each
area may include "active ingredients" in the change process intended by the
intervention, and both process and outcome research can provide important
information. Examples of unanswered research questions related to each of
these four areas follow.
Content
Theories on which prevention programs are based inform the development of
program content. Because most prevention programs draw from multiple
theories, drug abuse prevention programs have multiple content areas such as
drug information, drug refusal skills, communication skills, and academic
achievement skills. In general, programs with multiple content areas have
been found to be more effective than single-focused programs. However,
little research has examined, either prospectively or retrospectively, the
effectiveness of content areas singularly or in combination. It is possible,
for example, that one content area of a program may be ineffective in
bringing about change when implemented alone, but in combination with another
content area, it may be very effective. It is important to identify
combinations of content areas that work synergistically to produce effects.
Effectiveness or ineffectiveness could also be related to the sequencing of
content areas. Some prevention interventions use self-contained sessions or
units, whereas others use a curriculum approach with each session building on
previous sessions. With each of these two approaches, it will be important
to discover if there are within or across session sequencing effects.
Client
Many prevention models are effective for some populations in some contexts.
But what kinds of clients make what kinds of gains in specific programs and
why? Characteristics of individuals and groups can include fixed
characteristics, such as gender, receptivity characteristics, such as
cognitive and communication styles, and grouping characteristics, such as
high-risk behaviors. Theory-based drug abuse prevention programs typically
specify target populations based on level of client risk. In general, the
universal, selective, and indicated audiences classification is used, with
some studies taking a tiered approach in which individuals are moved from
universal to selective to indicated based on level of risk or need. Beyond
these rather global classifications, little work has focused on targeting
prevention content to specific subgroups, and it remains unclear how well
client characteristics fit with content, delivery, and implementer elements
of programs. For example, interactions between the target group and the
group leader, or among members of the target group, may lead to changes in
norms that then influence outcomes independent of content. Alternately,
normative change could result from interaction between content and
environment. Thus, what is effective in one setting may not be effective in
another due to differences in either the environment or the target
population.
In some cases, it may be easier to uncover answers to these question through
data on universal intervention in which there is a full range of client types
who can be carefully monitored to determine which program elements appear to
lead to the greatest gains for which subgroups. Recent findings regarding
gender and ethnicity differences in program effectiveness underscore both the
usefulness of universal level data for examining these issues and the need to
develop a better understanding of what subgroup characteristics influence
effectiveness. On the other hand, when specific subgroups are selected for
inclusion in selective and indicated interventions, they are high-risk
populations, which can offer special opportunities for uncovering client-
related program elements because of the homogeneous nature of the group.
This maximizes the potential for identifying interpersonal processes that
might account for outcomes and underlying processes that contribute to or
detract from program effectiveness.
Subgroup analyses can be used to provide feedback for program design and for
the development of alternative hypotheses concerning the processes through
which program content may be more or less effective for subgroups. Further,
some subgroups may self-select out of particular portions of the
intervention. Program content should be examined in terms of whether the
client actually learned or mastered the content in the way intended.
Implementer
For drug abuse prevention programming to be maximally useful it must be
capable of being delivered by a wide variety of implementers. However, there
is wide variation in implementer characteristics that may influence
effectiveness. Some intervention studies have examined training, personal
and interpersonal characteristics, and fit between target populations and
implementers. This research is only beginning to extend to drug abuse
prevention. Thus, characteristics related to implementers need to be
examined to explore the possibility that the success of some program results
are in large part contingent on the qualities of the group leader.
Untapped areas of research include identifying skills of excellent
implementers and identifying which skills can be taught in implementation
training with lasting effects. Further, characteristics of the implementer
may influence the selection of content delivery, which introduces an
interaction that may affect outcome. The extent to which the implementer
feels supported in the work environment and is given adequate time and
resources to complete the intervention may have an effect on program
effectiveness.
In addition, research in other areas suggests that characteristics such as
open interpersonal communication style, receptive body language, ability to
empathetically listen, and social reinforcement of pro-social qualities are
important characteristics of successful implementers. However, qualities
such as these may not affect all members of a target group in the same way.
Moreover, there may be bi-directional effects in the implementer-individual
client process such that those individuals who are experiencing positive
changes may be more receptive and motivated. In turn, when particular group
members are more receptive and motivated, this may make implementers more
responsive in general. Gender and ethnicity may be important, particularly
when considering characteristics of the client.
Delivery
Delivery refers to the methods through which program content is imparted to
program clients. Delivery is perhaps the most well-studied area of drug
abuse prevention effectiveness. There is well-documented evidence of
effectiveness of delivery features, such as, factors that boost recruitment
and retention rates, number of sessions provided, number of sessions
attended, booster sessions, and match between program design and program
delivered. However, these delivery features have not been well tied to other
program aspects, including content, client, and implementer. For example,
most drug abuse prevention interventions incorporate multi-feature delivery
systems. Research exploring the differential effectiveness of these features
has found that interactive delivery is more effective than didactic delivery.
However, there is little research to suggest why this is the case, which
interactive methods are the most effective, and whether there are subgroup
differences in delivery acceptance and effectiveness. In addition, drug
abuse prevention researchers have not yet examined which delivery features
account for the largest effects, whether widely used features are indeed the
most effective for imparting program content, whether the level of exposure
interacts with subgroup differences, or whether there is situational
specificity in effectiveness.
Barriers and Approaches
Moving into the next generation of drug abuse prevention research will be
challenging. Tying program content, delivery, client, and implementer
elements to theory in a way that allows for decomposing theory into testable
hypotheses is a difficult task. In this applied area of research, this
strategy will result in the ability to test the generated hypotheses and
reformulate theory on the basis of the findings from experiments in
laboratory and real-world settings.
Challenges exist for accomplishing the drug abuse prevention research that
will be necessary to answer questions about these and other program elements.
A number of approaches could be taken in conducting the next generation of
prevention research. For example, in addition to data from drug abuse
prevention interventions, data from a variety of other relevant sources, such
as those from early mental health and violence prevention interventions that
incorporate data on substance abuse, could be used to detect mechanisms of
change. Data might also come from existing longitudinal studies on a single
implementation of a given program, from the collapsing of data across
multiple replications of the same intervention, or through the conduct of
small-scale microanalyses that address a limited number of specific
hypotheses developed out of prior prevention research. Specific approaches
could include dismantling designs, test of mediational models, experimental
studies, or tests of process models. Dismantling designs can be used to
systematically add in or take away program elements or to determine
combinations of elements that produce maximum effectiveness for specific
subpopulations. Mediational models can use new or existing data to test
specific hypotheses generated from the underlying theoretical base.
Confirmation and disconfirmation of specific aspects of these models can lead
to theory and program refinement. Experimental studies can be used to test
hypotheses derived from prior prevention interventions. Finally, process
evaluations can be used to document and describe important sequences and
patterns related to effectiveness.
Despite the challenges inherent in conducting this research, there are
important heuristic and practical reasons for moving in this direction at
this time. The next stage of prevention science is to validate findings and
build new hypotheses for theory refinement and more effective programs.
INCLUSION OF WOMEN AND MINORITIES IN RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS
It is the policy of the NIH that women and members of minority groups and
their subpopulations must be included in all NIH-supported biomedical and
behavioral research projects involving human subjects, unless a clear and
compelling rationale or justification is provided 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 research involving human subjects should read the
UPDATED "NIH Guidelines for Inclusion of Women and Minorities as Subjects in
Clinical Research," published in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts on
August 2, 2000
(http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-00-048.html),
a complete copy of the updated Guidelines is available at
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/women_min/guidelines_update.htm. The
revisions relate to NIH defined Phase III clinical trials and require: a) all
applications or proposals and/or protocols to 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) all
investigators to report accrual, and to conduct and report analyses, as
appropriate, by sex/gender and/or racial/ethnic group differences.
POLICY AND GUIDELINES ON THE INCLUSION OF CHILDREN AS PARTICIPANTS IN
RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS
It is the policy of NIH that children (i.e., individuals under the age of 21)
must be included in all human subjects research, conducted or supported by
the NIH, unless there are scientific and ethical reasons not to include them.
This policy applies to all initial (Type 1) applications submitted for
receipt dates after October 1, 1998.
All investigators proposing research involving human subjects should read the
"NIH Policy and Guidelines on the Inclusion of Children as Participants in
Research Involving Human Subjects" that was published in the NIH Guide for
Grants and Contracts, March 6, 1998, and is available at the following URL
address: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not98-024.html.
Investigators also may obtain copies of these policies from the program staff
listed under INQUIRIES. Program staff may also provide additional relevant
information concerning these policies.
NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL ON DRUG ABUSE RECOMMENDED GUIDELINES FOR THE
ADMINISTRATION OF DRUGS TO HUMAN SUBJECTS
The National Advisory Council on Drug Abuse recognizes the importance of
research involving the administration of drugs to human subjects and has
developed guidelines relevant to such research. Potential applicants are
encouraged to obtain and review these recommendations of Council before
submitting an application that will administer compounds to human subjects.
The guidelines are available on NIDA’s home page at
www.nida.nih.gov/HSGuide.htm or may be obtained by calling (301) 443-2755.
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. Reviewers are cautioned that their anonymity may
be compromised when they directly access an Internet site.
LETTER OF INTENT
Prospective applicants are asked to submit a letter of intent that includes a
descriptive title of the proposed research, the name, address, and telephone
number of the Principal Investigator, the identities of other key personnel
and participating institutions, and the number and title of the RFA in
response to which the application may be submitted. 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 NIDA staff
to estimate the potential review workload and plan the review.
The letter of intent is to be sent to:
Director, Office of Extramural Affairs
National Institute on Drug Abuse
6001 Executive Boulevard, room 3158, MSC 9547
Bethesda, MD 20892-9547
Telephone: (301) 443-2755
Fax: (301) 443-0538
APPLICATION PROCEDURES
The research grant application form PHS 398 (rev. 4/98) is to be used in
applying for these grants. Application kits are available at most
institutional offices of sponsored research and may be obtained from the
Division of Extramural Outreach and Information Resources, National
Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, MSC 7910, Bethesda, MD 20892-
7910, telephone (301) 710-0267, E-mail: GrantsInfo@nih.gov.
The modular grant concept establishes specific modules in which direct costs
may be requested, as well as a maximum level for requested budgets. Only
limited budgetary information is required under this approach. The just-in-
time concept allows applicants to submit certain information only when there
is a possibility for an award. It is anticipated that these changes will
reduce the administrative burden for the applicants, reviewers, and Institute
staff. The research grant application for PHS 398 (rev. 4/98) is to be used
in applying for these grants, with the modifications noted below.
SPECIFIC APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS FOR MODULAR GRANTS
BUDGET INSTRUCTIONS
Modular grant applications will request direct costs in $25,000 modules, up
to a total direct cost request of $250,000 per year. (Applications that
request more than $250,000 direct costs in any year must follow the
traditional PHS 398 application instructions.) The total direct costs must
be requested in accordance with the program guidelines and the modifications
made to the standard PHS 398 application instructions described below:
PHS 398
o FACE PAGE Items 7a and 7b should be completed, indicating Direct Costs
(in $25,000 increments up to a maximum of $250,000) and Total Costs (Modular
Total Direct plus Facilities and Administrative (F&A) costs) for the initial
budget period. Items 8a and 8b should be completed indicating the Direct and
Total Direct Costs for the entire proposed period of support.
o DETAILED BUDGET FOR THE INITIAL BUDGET PERIOD Do not complete the
categorical budget table on Form Page 4 of the PHS 398. It is not required
and will not be accepted with the application.
o BUDGET FOR THE ENTIRE PROPOSED PERIOD OF SUPPORT Do not complete the
categorical budget table on Form Page 5 of the PHS 398. It is not required
and will not be accepted with the application.
o NARRATIVE BUDGET JUSTIFICATION Prepare a Modular Grant Budget Narrative
page (see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/modular/modular.htm for sample
pages). At the top of the page, enter the total direct costs requested for
each year. This is not a Form page.
Under Personnel, list all project personnel, including their names, percent
of effort, and role in the project. No individual salary information should
be provided. However, the applicant should use the NIH appropriation
language salary cap and the NIH policy for graduate student compensation in
developing the budget request.
For Consortium/Contractual costs, provide an estimate of total costs (Direct
plus F&A) for each year, each rounded to the nearest $1,000. List the
individuals/organizations with whom consortium or contractual arrangements
have been made, the percent effort of all personnel, and the role in the
project. Indicate whether the collaborating institution is foreign or
domestic. The total cost for a consortium/contractual arrangement is
included in the overall requested Modular Direct Cost amount. Include the
letter of intent to establish a consortium.
Provide an additional narrative budget justification for any variation in the
number of modules requested
o BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH The Biographical Sketch provides information used by
reviewers in the assessment of each individual’s qualifications for a
specific role in the proposed project, as well as to evaluate the overall
qualifications of the research team. A biographical sketch is required for
all key personnel, following the instructions below. No more than three
pages may be used for each person. A sample biographical sketch may be
viewed at: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/modular/modular.htm.
- Complete the educational block at the top of the Form page
- List position (s) and any honors,
- Provide information, including overall goals and responsibilities, on
research projects ongoing or completed during the last three years, and
- List selected peer-reviewed publications, with full citations.
o CHECKLIST This page should be completed and submitted with the
application. If the F&A rate agreement has been established, indicate the
type of agreement and the date. All appropriate exclusions must be applied
in the calculation of the F&A costs for the initial budget period and all
future budget years.
The applicant should provide the name and phone number of the individual to
contact concerning fiscal and administrative issues if additional information
is necessary following the initial review.
The RFA label available in the PHS 398 (rev. 4/98) application form must be
affixed to the bottom of the face page of the application. 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
title and number of this RFA must be typed in Item 2 on the face page of the
application for, and the YES box must be marked. The RFA number must be
typed on the label as well.
The sample RFA label is available at:
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/label-bk.pdf has been modified to
allow for this change. Please note this is in pdf format.
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
BETHESDA, MD 20817 (for express/courier service)
At the time of submission, two additional copies of the application must be
sent to:
Director, Office of Extramural Affairs
National Institute on Drug Abuse
6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 3158, MSC 9547
Bethesda, MD 20892-9547
Rockville, MD 20852 (for express/courier service)
Applications must be received by the application receipt date listed in the
heading of this RFA. If an application is received after that date, it will
be returned to the applicant without review.
The Center for Scientific Research (CSR) will not accept any application in
response to this RFA that is essentially the same as one currently pending
initial review, unless the applicant withdraws the pending application. The
CSR will not accept any application that is essentially the same as one
already reviewed. This does not preclude the submission of substantial
revisions of applications already reviewed, but such applications must
include an introduction addressing the previous critique.
REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS
Upon receipt, applications will be reviewed for completeness by the CSR and
for responsiveness by NIDA. Incomplete and/or non-responsive applications
will be returned to the applicant without further consideration.
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 NIDA. As part of the initial merit review, all applications will
receive a written critique and undergo a process in which only those
applications deemed to have the highest scientific merit, generally the top
half of the applications under review, will be discussed, assigned a priority
score, and receive a second level review by the National Advisory Council on
Drug Abuse.
REVIEW CRITERIA
The goals of NIH-supported research are to advance the understanding of
biological systems, improve the control of disease, and enhance health. In
the written comments, reviewers will be asked to discuss the following
aspects of the application 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 the
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.
(1) Significance: Are the goals and objectives of this application relevant
to this RFA? Does the study address an important problem? If the aims of
the application are achieved, how will scientific knowledge be advanced?
What will be the effect of these studies on the concepts or methods that
drive this field?
(2) Approach: Are the conceptual framework, design, methods, and analyses
adequately developed, well integrated, and appropriate to the aims of the
project? Does the applicant acknowledge potential problem areas and consider
alternative tactics? For the R21 mechanism, a strong rationale and
conceptual framework are normally sufficient for establishing the feasibility
of the project in lieu of extensive preliminary data. This may be true of
some R01 applications as well.
(3) Innovation: Does the project employ novel concepts, approaches, or
method? Are the aims original and innovative? Does the project challenge
existing paradigms or develop new methodologies or technologies?
(4) Investigator: Is the investigator 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, if any?
(5) Environment: Does the scientific environment in which the work will be
done contribute to the probability of success? Do the proposed experiments
take advantage of unique features of the scientific environment or employ
useful collaborative arrangements? Is there evidence of institutional
support?
In addition to the above criteria, in accordance with NIH policy, all
applications will also be reviewed with respect to the following:
- The adequacy of plans to include both genders, minorities, and their
subgroups, as appropriate, for the scientific goals of the research. Plans
for the recruitment and retention of subjects will also be evaluated.
- The adequacy of plans to make data available to other investigators in a
timely fashion.
- The reasonableness of the proposed budget and duration in relation to the
proposed research.
- The adequacy of the proposed protection for human, animals, or the
environment, to the extent they may be adversely affected by the project
proposed in the application.
- The adequacy of plans for including children as appropriate for the
scientific goals of the research.
Schedule
Letter of Intent: March 16, 2001
Application Receipt Date: April 16, 2001
Peer Review Date: June/July 2001
Council Review: September 2001
Earliest Anticipated Start Date: September 30, 2001
AWARD CRITERIA
Award criteria that will be used to make award decisions include scientific
merit as determined by peer review, availability of funds, and programmatic
priorities.
INQUIRIES
Inquiries concerning this RFA are strongly encouraged. The opportunity to
clarify issues or questions from potential applicants is welcome.
Direct inquiries regarding programmatic issues to:
Elizabeth Robertson, Ph.D.
Division of Epidemiology, Services, and Prevention Research
National Institute on Drug Abuse
6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 5153, MSC 9589
Bethesda, MD 20892-9589
Telephone: (301) 443-1514
FAX: (301) 443-2636
E-mail: eroberts@nih.gov
Direct inquiries regarding fiscal matters to:
Gary Fleming, J.D., M.A.
Grants Management Branch
National Institute on Drug Abuse
6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 3131, MSC 9541
Bethesda, MD 20892-9541
Telephone: (301) 443-6710
FAX: (301) 443-594-6847
E-mail: gf6s@nih.gov
Direct inquiries regarding review matters to:
Teresa Levitin, Ph.D.
Director, Office of Extramural Affairs
National Institute on Drug Abuse
6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 3158, MSC 9547
Bethesda, MD 20892-9547
Telephone: (301) 443-2755
FAX: (301) 443-0538
E-mail: tl25u@nih.gov
AUTHORITY AND REGULATIONS
This program is described in the catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No.
93.279. Awards are made under authorization of Sections 301 and 405 of the
Public Health Service Act as amended (42 USC 241 and 284) and are
administered under NIH grants policies and Federal Regulations 42 CFR 52 and
45 CFR Parts 74 and 92. This program is not subject to the intergovernmental
review requirements of Executive Order 12372 or Health Systems Agency review.
The PHS strongly encourages all grant recipients to provide a smoke-free
workplace and promote the non-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.
Weekly TOC for this Announcement
NIH Funding Opportunities and Notices
|
|
|
|
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
|
|
|
|
NIH... Turning Discovery Into Health®
|