Release Date:  January 15, 2001

RFA:  RFA-DA-01-009

National Institute on Drug Abuse

Letter of Intent Receipt Date:  March 16, 2001
Application Receipt Date:       April 16, 2001



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.  


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:


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.  


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 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


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.


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.


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.


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 

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.


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 

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 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.  


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 
a complete copy of the updated Guidelines is available at  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.


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 

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.


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 or may be obtained by calling (301) 443-2755.


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.


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


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:

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.



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.

categorical budget table on Form Page 4 of the PHS 398.  It is not required 
and will not be accepted with the application.

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 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:

- 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: 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:

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.


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.


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 

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.


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 that will be used to make award decisions include scientific 
merit as determined by peer review, availability of funds, and programmatic 


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

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

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


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.

Return to Volume Index

Return to NIH Guide Main Index

Office of Extramural Research (OER) - Home Page Office of Extramural
Research (OER)
  National Institutes of Health (NIH) - Home Page National Institutes of Health (NIH)
9000 Rockville Pike
Bethesda, Maryland 20892
  Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) - Home Page Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS) - Government Made Easy

Note: For help accessing PDF, RTF, MS Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Audio or Video files, see Help Downloading Files.