Part 1. Overview Information

Key Dates

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

Applicants are encouraged to apply early to allow adequate time to make any corrections to errors found in the application during the submission process by the due date.

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

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

Applications that do not comply with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.

IMPORTANT: Per NOT-OD-24-086 updated application forms (FORMS-I) will be used for this opportunity. The updated forms are not yet available and will be posted 30 calendar days or more prior to the first application due date. Once posted, you will be able to access the forms using one of the following submission options:

1. NIH ASSIST
2. An institutional system-to-system (S2S) solution
3. Grants.gov Workspace

Part 2. Full Text of Announcement

Section I. Notice of Funding Opportunity Description

Background

Addiction affects many people beyond the individual experiencing a substance use disorder (SUD), including family members (e.g., parents, spouses, siblings, children), romantic partners, friends, mentors, and peers. These loved ones routinely provide instrumental and emotional support to people experiencing addiction, representing a foundational component of recovery capital. However, these loved ones have also often experienced a multitude of negative impacts related to their loved one’s addiction. These relationships influence recovery trajectories in a myriad of ways. Loved ones and support persons are often highly influential in the service utilization pathways across the SUD cascade of care. Support persons may employ contingencies, coercion, or even force as they attempt to navigate the complex, time-consuming, and often expensive process of finding appropriate services for their loved ones experiencing addiction. Pressure from loved ones is an often-cited reason why people with SUDs engage in and continue with services.

Despite the prominence of loved ones in recovery pathways, there is a dearth of research and interventions targeting these crucial relationships. Past research has typically fallen into the following categories: delineation of family risk factors, family interventions for adolescents with SUDs, interventions for parents with SUDs, or peer interventions. Yet the impact of support persons is far more complex and there are many supportive relationships that are not well-represented in extant research, such as adult children supporting their parents in recovery or supportive relationships among siblings. Programs such as Al-Anon, Alateen, and SMART Recovery (Self-Management and Recovery Training: Family & Friends) target these supportive loved ones and are popular and widespread but understudied. Such models may exert significant influence on support person attitudes toward treatment options (e.g., Medications for Opioid Use Disorder (MOUDs), harm reduction), which in turn influences recovery trajectories of the person with a SUD. It is critical to address this research gap and develop evidence-based practices to support the engagement of loved ones and supportive others in the recovery process.

Purpose

This notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) seeks to support phased R61-R33 studies that will expand research that explores the role of loved ones/supportive others in the recovery process. Specific high priority areas of interest include, but are not limited to:

1. Developing interventions to enhance the well-being and coping skills among support persons (e.g., peer support networks focused on loved ones/support persons; support-person targeted post-overdose interventions);
2. Enhancing knowledge among support persons of effective interventions for SUDs, including MOUDs and reducing stigma, negative attitudes, and misconceptions about addiction;
3. Testing enhancements to existing evidence-based interventions, practices, and care delivery models to include engagement of support persons (e.g., increasing adoption of family therapy);
4. Developing new interventions or adapting existing interventions to leverage support persons as lay interventionists (e.g., testing models that engage loved ones to deliver cognitive behavioral therapy or motivational interviewing strategies);
5. Developing and testing care navigation interventions, resources, and supports, with a particular emphasis on addressing care transitions (e.g., inpatient to outpatient care; reentry from carceral settings); and
6. Developing and testing dyadic approaches to support engagement in evidence-based care for individuals in an existing supportive relationship (e.g., romantic partners, parent/child) where one or both people have experienced or are experiencing a SUD.

Applications should address the following issues:

• Use a recovery capital framework to drive selection of measures and study design, including measurement of outcomes for both the individual experiencing addiction and the loved one/support person;
• Meaningful engagement with loved ones and persons experiencing addiction in study conceptualization, design, execution, and interpretation specifically addressing:

(a) Consideration of nuanced interpersonal dynamics and relationship history, including history of trauma, family dynamics or developmental considerations; 

(b) Consideration of conflicts and challenges in interpersonal relationships between support persons and people struggling with addiction, including for example, how support persons and the person experiencing addiction might differentially prioritize and value certain outcomes;

• Meaningful engagement of relevant practitioners and community stakeholders in study conceptualization, design, execution, and interpretation;
• Consideration of the sustainability of the proposed intervention should it prove to be successful;
• Consideration of the potential scalability of the proposed intervention, including perspectives of prospective payers should the proposed intervention prove to be successful;
• Attention to health disparities and inequities in the study design (e.g., racial/ethnic disparities, rural/urban disparities).

Definition and scope

For the purposes of this NOFO, loved ones/support persons are defined by a sustained interpersonal relationship that originates and is maintained outside of professional service-delivery relationships. This includes, but is not limited to, family members (e.g., parents, spouses, siblings, children), romantic partners, friends, peers, personal mentors, etc. For the purposes of this NOFO, studies exclusively targeting support persons who are engaged in delivering SUD-related services in any paid professional capacity (e.g., therapists, peer navigator) would not be considered responsive. Unpaid peers and mentors (e.g., members of a faith community or mutual self-help groups) would be considered responsive if they focus specifically on the interpersonal relationships in alignment with the priorities outlined above.

Phases of the Award & Milestones

This funding opportunity uses a R61/R33 Exploratory/Developmental Phased Award mechanism. Support will be provided for up to five years total, which includes initial support of up to two years for the R61 phase, followed by up to four years of support for the R33 phase upon successfully meeting R61 milestones (with a 1-year long R61 phase).

This mechanism is provided to facilitate research for which preliminary data is not available, including high risk/high reward research. However, even for high risk/high reward research, applicants must provide a clear vision for how the research would progress if successful. The R61 phase is a planning phase that can be for up to two years and will support activities that demonstrate feasibility. It is expected that work during this phase will largely focus on issues related to (1) collecting feasibility or pilot data for a clinical trial, (2) stakeholder engagement to ensure factors such as buy-in, sustainability, scalability, or other relevant factors; (3) testing hypotheses for which preliminary data is not otherwise available; or (4) demonstrating ability to access key datasets or build critical infrastructure. Applications must delineate milestones that signify the completion of major elements necessary to support a larger scale project in the second phase (e.g., successful piloting of an intervention or intervention component; accessing or improving timeliness of a specific dataset; establishing Memoranda of Understanding [MOU] with key stakeholders).

For transition to the R33 phase, recipients must submit the transition package no less than two months before the completion of the R61 phase. The transition plan should include the R61 progress report describing in detail the progress towards the R61 milestones and a description of how research proposed for the R33 phase will be supported by the completion of the R61 phase milestones. These materials will be evaluated by NIH program staff to determine if the milestones were met.

Transition to the R33 phase requires administrative review by NIH staff and is not guaranteed. R33 funding decisions will be based on the original R61/R33 peer review recommendations, successful completion of transition milestones, any proposed changes to the R33 research based on R61 findings, program priorities, and availability of funds. It is not expected that all applications will continue to the R33 phase.

Pre-Application Consultation

Potential applicants are strongly encouraged to consult National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) Program staff early in the application development process. This early contact will provide an opportunity to discuss and clarify NIH policies and guidelines, including the scope of the project relative to the intent of this NOFO.

Special Considerations: 

NIDA applicants are strongly encouraged to review the guidelines and adhere to the requirements applicable to their research listed in the Special Considerations for NIDA Funding Opportunities and Awards. Upon award, these considerations will be included in the Notice of Grant Award. 

Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives (PEDP)

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

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

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

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

Investigators proposing NIH-defined clinical trials may refer to the Research Methods Resources website for information about developing statistical methods and study designs.

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

Section II. Award Information

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

Section III. Eligibility Information

1. Eligible Applicants

Higher Education Institutions

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

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

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

Nonprofits Other Than Institutions of Higher Education

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

For-Profit Organizations

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

Local Governments

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

Federal Government

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

Other

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

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

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

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

Applicant Organizations

Applicant organizations must complete and maintain the following registrations as described in the How to Apply-Application Guide to be eligible to apply for or receive an award. All registrations must be completed prior to the application being submitted. Registration can take 6 weeks or more, so applicants should begin the registration process as soon as possible. Failure to complete registrations in advance of  a due date is not a valid reason for a late submission, please reference the NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 2.3.9.2 Electronically Submitted Applications.

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

Program Directors/Principal Investigators (PD(s)/PI(s))

All PD(s)/PI(s) must have an eRA Commons account.  PD(s)/PI(s) should work with their organizational officials to either create a new account or to affiliate their existing account with the applicant organization in eRA Commons. If the PD/PI is also the organizational Signing Official, they must have two distinct eRA Commons accounts, one for each role. Obtaining an eRA Commons account can take up to 2 weeks.

Any individual(s) with the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to carry out the proposed research as the Program Director(s)/Principal Investigator(s) (PD(s)/PI(s)) is invited to work with their organization to develop an application for support. Individuals from diverse backgrounds, including underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, individuals with disabilities, and women are always encouraged to apply for NIH support. See, Reminder: Notice of NIH's Encouragement of Applications Supporting Individuals from Underrepresented Ethnic and Racial Groups as well as Individuals with Disabilities, NOT-OD-22-019 and Notice of NIH's Interest in Diversity, NOT-OD-20-031.

For institutions/organizations proposing multiple PDs/PIs, visit the Multiple Program Director/Principal Investigator Policy and submission details in the Senior/Key Person Profile (Expanded) Component of the How to Apply- Application Guide.

2. Cost Sharing

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

3. Additional Information on Eligibility

Number of Applications

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

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

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

Section IV. Application and Submission Information

1. Requesting an Application Package

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

2. Content and Form of Application Submission

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

Letter of Intent

Although a letter of intent is not required, is not binding, and does not enter into the review of a subsequent application, the information that it contains allows IC staff to estimate the potential review workload and plan the review.

By the date listed in Part 1. Overview Information, prospective applicants are asked to submit a letter of intent that includes the following information:

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

The letter of intent should be sent to: [email protected].

Page Limitations

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

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

SF424(R&R) Cover

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

SF424(R&R) Project/Performance Site Locations

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

SF424(R&R) Other Project Information

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

If the following required plans are not included, the application will be withdrawn before review:

Timeline & Milestone Plan (Required - 2 page maximum)

Applicants must include a Timeline and Milestone Plan, clearly specifying proposed milestones and when those milestones are expected to be achieved. Milestones for both phases must be specified, though it is expected that R33 milestones may change based on results from the R61 phase for awards that transition to the R33 phase.

Stakeholder Engagement Plan (Required 2 page maximum)

Applications must include detailed plans for engaging key stakeholders, including patients, families, providers, payers, and community leaders, as appropriate to the specific goals of their study.

Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives (PEDP)

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

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

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

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

• Selection or hiring of personnel for a research team based on their race, ethnicity, or sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, or transgender status).
• A training or mentorship program limited to certain researchers based on their race, ethnicity, or sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, or transgender status).

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

SF424(R&R) Senior/Key Person Profile

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

R&R Budget

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

PEDP implementation costs:

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

R&R Subaward Budget

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

PHS 398 Cover Page Supplement

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

PHS 398 Research Plan

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

Specific Aims:

In the single page attachment allowed for the specific aims, applicants should provide an overview of the overarching research question of interest as well as include clearly marked headers for R61 Specific Aims and R33 Specific Aims with brief descriptions of the aims specific to each phase of the study.

Research Strategy:

The Research Strategy should be organized in a manner that will facilitate peer review. 

Applications should address the following issues:

• Use a recovery capital framework to drive selection of measures and study design, including measurement of outcomes for both the individual experiencing addiction and the loved one/support person;
• Meaningful engagement with loved ones and persons experiencing addiction in study conceptualization, design, execution, and interpretation specifically addressing:

(a) Consideration of nuanced interpersonal dynamics and relationship history, including history of trauma, family dynamics or developmental considerations;

(b) Consideration of conflicts and challenges in interpersonal relationships between support persons and people struggling with addiction, including for example, how support persons and the person experiencing addiction might differentially prioritize and value certain outcomes;

• Meaningful engagement of relevant practitioners and community stakeholders in study conceptualization, design, execution, and interpretation;
• Consideration of the sustainability of the proposed intervention should it prove to be successful;
• Consideration of the potential scalability of the proposed intervention, including perspectives of prospective payers should the proposed intervention prove to be successful;
• Attention to health disparities and inequities in the study design (e.g., racial/ethnic disparities, rural/urban disparities).

Significance: The R61 and R33 should coherently address a single set of research questions and goals, with the R61 phase establishing feasibility and necessary data to support transition to the R33 phase. Given this tight integration, only one Significance section is needed.

Innovation: Given this tight integration of the R61/R33 phases, only one Innovation section is needed. The Innovation section should explain how the proposed project, if successful, would lead to innovations that could help accelerate the translation of research findings to practice that would address the overdose crisis.

Preliminary data is not required nor is it required that teams have worked together previously. The phased award approach allows for earlier stage high risk/high reward projects. However, applications without preliminary data should have a strong scientific premise and establish a strong rationale for how solving the challenges outlined in the application would improve outcomes relevant to overdoses and/or opioid-related morbidity and mortality. NOTE: For early stage research involving new partnerships or where preliminary data is needed to support the premise of the larger study, these aspects of feasibility must be explicitly included as milestones for the R61 phase.

Approach: The application must contain separate Approach sections for the R61 and R33 phases. It is not necessary to repeat any information or details in the R33 section that are described in the R61 section. Applications must also include a Timeline & Milestone plan as an attachment as described in the SF424(R&R) Other Project Information. The approach sections may reference this attachment and should limit what is repeated from this attachment, except where necessary for clarity.

The approach section must clearly address the following considerations in the phase most appropriate to the proposed study:

• Clear operationalization of the interpersonal relationships being targeted for inclusion
• Selected recovery capital framework and corresponding outcomes being measured
• Approach to addressing interpersonal dynamics between the support person and the person experiencing addiction
• Approach to capturing and addressing differing perspectives on prioritization and valuation of possible outcomes between the support person and the person experiencing addiction
• Strategy for engaging loved ones and persons experiencing addiction in study conceptualization, design, execution, and interpretation
• Strategy for engaging relevant practitioners and service providers in study conceptualization, design, execution, and interpretation
• Approach to considering sustainability of intervention
• Approach to considering scalability of the proposed intervention
• Approach to addressing equity in study design 

R61 (Phase 1) Approach: 

The R61 phase of the award may be up to 2 years long. The R61 Approach section application must include milestones that are expected to be achieved by the end of the R61 phase. Milestones should be specific, quantifiable, and scientifically justified; they should establish the feasibility or empirical basis for pursuing the R33 phase of the study. Milestones should not simply be a restatement of the specific aims for the R61 phase.

Examples of Milestones for the R61 Phase:

• Fully executed MOUs, letters of support, and data sharing agreements, as relevant to the goals of the study, from partnering departments, agencies or stakeholders
• Demonstration of active engagement and partnership with key entities and stakeholders (e.g., formation of trans-department or trans-agency change teams)
• If preliminary data was not included in original application, preliminary data demonstrating feasibility of R33 phase must be included.

For applications where there is no preliminary data or where new partnerships are proposed, applicants should be especially attentive to proposing milestones that will help establish the feasibility of their proposed R33 project.

R33, Phase 2 Approach:

Although the Research Strategy for the R33 Phase is expected to be broad and flexible due to the nature of the explorative research in the R61 Phase, the research strategy for the R33 phase of the award should be described in enough detail for reviewers to evaluate the merit of this component of the application, based on anticipated results.

The proposed milestones for the R33 phase may be revised based on activities during the R61 planning phase. In the event of an award, the PD/PI and NIH staff will negotiate proposed changes and a list of appropriate milestones for each year of support.

The R33 phase may include a clinical trial if appropriate for the research questions and study design. Applications that propose a clinical trial in the R33 phase should include relevant information for the proposed clinical trial in the clinical trial attachment. As with milestones, the overall design of the R33 may be modified based on findings from the R61 phase, if appropriate. Any such modifications must be discussed in advance with NIH program staff and would include discussions of relevant changes to the proposed milestones.

Letters of Support: Include letters of support/agreement for any collaborative arrangements, subcontracts or consultants. For activities to be conducted at an institution other than the applicant institution, a letter of assurance or comparable documentation, signed by the collaborator as well as the institutional officials, must be submitted with the application.

Applicants should include relevant letters of support from targeted systems or stakeholders. Where relationships with relevant systems or stakeholders do not exist or are not yet fully formalized, applicants should include formalizing these relationships as a milestone for the R61 phase.

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

Other Plan(s): 

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

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

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

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

PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information

When involving human subjects research, clinical research, and/or NIH-definedclinical trials (and when applicable, clinical trials research experience) follow all instructions for the PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information form in the How to Apply- Application Guide, with the following additional instructions:

If you answered “Yes” to the question “Are Human Subjects Involved?” on the R&R Other Project Information form, you must include at least one human subjects study record using the Study Record: PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information form or Delayed Onset Study record.

Study Record: PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information

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

Delayed Onset Study

Note: Delayed onset does NOT apply to a study that can be described but will not start immediately (i.e., delayed start).All instructions in the How to Apply-Application Guide must be followed.

PHS Assignment Request Form

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

Foreign Organizations

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

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

See Part 2. Section III.1 for information regarding the requirement for obtaining a unique entity identifier and for completing and maintaining active registrations in System for Award Management (SAM), NATO Commercial and Government Entity (NCAGE) Code (if applicable), eRA Commons, and Grants.gov.

4. Submission Dates and Times

Part I. Overview Information contains information about Key Dates and times. Applicants are encouraged to submit applications before the due date to ensure they have time to make any application corrections that might be necessary for successful submission. When a submission date falls on a weekend or Federal holiday, the application deadline is automatically extended to the next business day.

Organizations must submit applications to Grants.gov (the online portal to find and apply for grants across all Federal agencies). Applicants must then complete the submission process by tracking the status of the application in the eRA Commons, NIH’s electronic system for grants administration. NIH and Grants.gov systems check the application against many of the application instructions upon submission. Errors must be corrected and a changed/corrected application must be submitted to Grants.gov on or before the application due date and time.  If a Changed/Corrected application is submitted after the deadline, the application will be considered late. Applications that miss the due date and time are subjected to the NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 2.3.9.2 Electronically Submitted Applications.

Applicants are responsible for viewing their application before the due date in the eRA Commons to ensure accurate and successful submission.

Information on the submission process and a definition of on-time submission are provided in the How to Apply- Application Guide.

5. Intergovernmental Review (E.O. 12372)

This initiative is not subject to intergovernmental review.

6. Funding Restrictions

All NIH awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.

Pre-award costs are allowable only as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 7.9.1 Selected Items of Cost.

Applications must be submitted electronically following the instructions described in the How to Apply - Application Guide. Paper applications will not be accepted.

Applicants must complete all required registrations before the application due date. Section III. Eligibility Information contains information about registration.

For assistance with your electronic application or for more information on the electronic submission process, visit How to Apply – Application Guide. If you encounter a system issue beyond your control that threatens your ability to complete the submission process on-time, you must follow the Dealing with System Issues guidance. For assistance with application submission, contact the Application Submission Contacts in Section VII.

Important reminders:

All PD(s)/PI(s) must include their eRA Commons ID in the Credential field of the Senior/Key Person Profile form. Failure to register in the Commons and to include a valid PD/PI Commons ID in the credential field will prevent the successful submission of an electronic application to NIH. See Section III of this NOFO for information on registration requirements.

The applicant organization must ensure that the unique entity identifier provided on the application is the same identifier used in the organization’s profile in the eRA Commons and for the System for Award Management. Additional information may be found in the How to Apply - Application Guide.

See more tips for avoiding common errors.

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

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

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

Send written disclosures to the NIH Chief Grants Management Officer listed on the Notice of Award for the IC that funded the award and to the HHS Office of Inspector Grant Self Disclosure Program at [email protected].

Post Submission Materials

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

Section V. Application Review Information

1. Criteria

Only the review criteria described below will be considered in the review process. Applications submitted to the NIH in support of the NIH mission are evaluated for scientific and technical merit through the NIH peer review system.

Reviewers will provide an overall impact score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, in consideration of the following scored review criteria and additional review criteria (as applicable for the project proposed).  An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have a major scientific impact. As part of the overall impact score, reviewers should consider and indicate how the plan to for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives affects the scientific merit of the project.

Review Criteria

Reviewers will consider Factors 1, 2 and 3 in the determination of scientific merit, and in providing an overall impact score. In addition, Factors 1 and 2 will each receive a separate factor score. 

Factor 1: Importance of the Research

Significance

• Evaluate the importance of the proposed research in the context of current scientific challenges and opportunities, either for advancing knowledge within the field, or more broadly. Assess whether the application addresses an important gap in knowledge in the field, would solve a critical problem, or create a valuable conceptual or technical advance.
• Evaluate the rationale for undertaking the study, the rigor of the scientific background for the work (e.g. prior literature and/or preliminary data) and whether the scientific background justifies the proposed study.

Innovation

• Evaluate the extent to which innovation influences the importance of undertaking the proposed research. Note that while technical or conceptual innovation can influence the importance of the proposed research, a project that is not applying novel concepts or approaches may be of critical importance for the field.
• Evaluate whether the proposed work applies novel concepts, methods or technologies, or uses existing concepts, methods, technologies in novel ways, to enhance the overall impact of the project.

Factor 2. Rigor and Feasibility

Approach

• Evaluate the scientific quality of the proposed work. Evaluate the likelihood that compelling, reproducible findings will result (rigor) and assess whether the proposed studies can be done well and within the timeframes proposed (feasibility).

Rigor:

• Evaluate the potential to produce unbiased, reproducible, robust data.
• Evaluate the rigor of experimental design and whether appropriate controls are in place.
• Evaluate whether the sample size is sufficient and well-justified.
• Assess the quality of the plans for analysis, interpretation, and reporting of results.
• Evaluate whether the investigators presented adequate plans to address relevant biological variables, such as sex or age, in the design, analysis, and reporting.
• For applications involving human subjects or vertebrate animals, also evaluate:
  • the rigor of the intervention or study manipulation (if applicable to the study design).
  • whether outcome variables are justified.
  • whether the results will be generalizable or, in the case of a rare disease/special group, relevant to the particular subgroup.
  • whether the sample is appropriate and sufficiently diverse to address the proposed question(s).
• For applications involving human subjects, including clinical trials, assess the adequacy of inclusion plans as appropriate for the scientific goals of the research. Considerations of appropriateness may include disease/condition/behavior incidence, prevalence, or population burden, population representation, and/or current state of the science.

Feasibility:

• Evaluate whether the proposed approach is sound and achievable, including plans to address problems or new challenges that emerge in the work. For proposed studies in which feasibility may be less certain, evaluate whether the uncertainty is balanced by the potential for major advances.
• For applications involving human subjects, including clinical trials, evaluate the adequacy and feasibility of the plan to recruit and retain an appropriately diverse population of participants. Additionally, evaluate the likelihood of successfully achieving the proposed enrollment based on age, racial, ethnic, and sex or gender categories.
• For clinical trial applications, evaluate whether the study timeline and milestones are feasible.

Factor 3. Expertise and Resources

Investigator(s)

• Evaluate whether the investigator(s) have demonstrated background, training, and expertise, as appropriate for their career stage, to conduct the proposed work. For Multiple Principal Investigator (MPI) applications, assess the quality of the leadership plan to facilitate coordination and collaboration.

Environment

• Evaluate whether the institutional resources are appropriate to ensure the successful execution of the proposed work.

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

Protections for Human Subjects

For research that involves human subjects but does not involve one of the categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, evaluate the justification for involvement of human subjects and the proposed protections from research risk relating to their participation according to the following five review criteria: 1) risk to subjects, 2) adequacy of protection against risks, 3) potential benefits to the subjects and others, 4) importance of the knowledge to be gained, and 5) data and safety monitoring for clinical trials.

For research that involves human subjects and meets the criteria for one or more of the categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, evaluate: 1) the justification for the exemption, 2) human subjects involvement and characteristics, and 3) sources of materials. For additional information on review of the Human Subjects section, please refer to the Guidelines for the Review of Human Subjects.

Vertebrate Animals

When the proposed research includes Vertebrate Animals, evaluate the involvement of live vertebrate animals according to the following criteria: (1) description of proposed procedures involving animals, including species, strains, ages, sex, and total number to be used; (2) justifications for the use of animals versus alternative models and for the appropriateness of the species proposed; (3) interventions to minimize discomfort, distress, pain and injury; and (4) justification for euthanasia method if NOT consistent with the AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals. For additional information on review of the Vertebrate Animals section, please refer to the Worksheet for Review of the Vertebrate Animals Section.

Biohazards

When the proposed research includes Biohazards, evaluate whether specific materials or procedures that will be used are significantly hazardous to research personnel and/or the environment, and whether adequate protection is proposed.

Resubmissions

As applicable, evaluate the full application as now presented.

Renewals

As applicable, evaluate the progress made in the last funding period.

Revisions

As applicable, evaluate the appropriateness of the proposed expansion of the scope of the project.

As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will consider each of the following items, but will not give scores for these items, and should not consider them in providing an overall impact score.

Authentication of Key Biological and/or Chemical Resources:

For projects involving key biological and/or chemical resources, evaluate the brief plans proposed for identifying and ensuring the validity of those resources.

Budget and Period of Support

Evaluate whether the budget and the requested period of support are fully justified and reasonable in relation to the proposed research.

2. Review and Selection Process

Applications will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by (an) appropriate Scientific Review Group(s) convened by NIDA, in accordance with NIH peer review policies and practices, using the stated review criteria. Assignment to a Scientific Review Group will be shown in the eRA Commons.

As part of the scientific peer review, all applications will receive a written critique.

Applications may undergo a selection process in which only those applications deemed to have the highest scientific and technical merit (generally the top half of applications under review) will be discussed and assigned an overall impact score.

Appeals of initial peer review will not be accepted for applications submitted in response to this NOFO.

Applications will be assigned on the basis of established PHS referral guidelines to the appropriate NIH Institute or Center. Applications will compete for available funds with all other recommended applications submitted in response to this NOFO. Following initial peer review, recommended applications will receive a second level of review by the appropriate national Advisory Council or Board. The following will be considered in making funding decisions, consistent with applicable law.

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

Please note that reviewers will not consider race, ethnicity, age, or gender (including gender identity, sexual orientation or gender status) of a researcher, award participant, or trainee, even in part, in providing critiques, scores, or funding recommendations. NIH will not consider such factors in making its funding decisions.

If the application is under consideration for funding, NIH will request "just-in-time" information from the applicant as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 2.5.1. Just-in-Time Procedures. This request is not a Notice of Award nor should it be construed to be an indicator of possible funding.

Prior to making an award, NIH reviews an applicant’s federal award history in SAM.gov to ensure sound business practices. An applicant can review and comment on any information in the Responsibility/Qualification records available in SAM.gov.  NIH will consider any comments by the applicant in the Responsibility/Qualification records in SAM.gov to ascertain the applicant’s integrity, business ethics, and performance record of managing Federal awards per 2 CFR Part 200.206 “Federal awarding agency review of risk posed by applicants.”  This provision will apply to all NIH grants and cooperative agreements except fellowships.

3. Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates

After the peer review of the application is completed, the PD/PI will be able to access his or her Summary Statement (written critique) via the eRA Commons. Refer to Part 1 for dates for peer review, advisory council review, and earliest start date.

Information regarding the disposition of applications is available in the NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 2.4.4 Disposition of Applications.

Section VI. Award Administration Information

1. Award Notices

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

In accepting the award, the recipient agrees that any activities under the award are subject to all provisions currently in effect or implemented during the period of the award, other Department regulations and policies in effect at the time of the award, and applicable statutory provisions.

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

Individual awards are based on the application submitted to, and as approved by, the NIH and are subject to the IC-specific terms and conditions identified in the NoA.

ClinicalTrials.gov: If an award provides for one or more clinical trials. By law (Title VIII, Section 801 of Public Law 110-85), the "responsible party" must register and submit results information for certain “applicable clinical trials” on the ClinicalTrials.gov Protocol Registration and Results System Information Website (https://register.clinicaltrials.gov). NIH expects registration and results reporting of all trials whether required under the law or not. For more information, see https://grants.nih.gov/policy/clinical-trials/reporting/index.htm

Institutional Review Board or Independent Ethics Committee Approval: Recipient institutions must ensure that all protocols are reviewed by their IRB or IEC. To help ensure the safety of participants enrolled in NIH-funded studies, the recipient must provide NIH copies of documents related to all major changes in the status of ongoing protocols.

Data and Safety Monitoring Requirements: The NIH policy for data and safety monitoring requires oversight and monitoring of all NIH-conducted or -supported human biomedical and behavioral intervention studies (clinical trials) to ensure the safety of participants and the validity and integrity of the data. Further information concerning these requirements is found at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/hs/data_safety.htm and in the application instructions (SF424 (R&R) and PHS 398).

Investigational New Drug or Investigational Device Exemption Requirements: Consistent with federal regulations, clinical research projects involving the use of investigational therapeutics, vaccines, or other medical interventions (including licensed products and devices for a purpose other than that for which they were licensed) in humans under a research protocol must be performed under a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) investigational new drug (IND) or investigational device exemption (IDE).

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements

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

• The rules listed at 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards.
• All NIH grant and cooperative agreement awards include the NIH Grants Policy Statement as part of the terms and conditions in the Notice of Award (NoA). The NoA includes the requirements of this NOFO. For these terms of award, see the NIH Grants Policy Statement Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart A: General and Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart B: Terms and Conditions for Specific Types of Grants, Recipients, and Activities.
• If a recipient receives an award, the recipient must follow all applicable nondiscrimination laws. The recipient agrees to this when registering in SAM.gov. The recipient must also submit an Assurance of Compliance (HHS-690). To learn more, see the Laws and Regulations Enforced by the HHS Office for Civil Rights website.
  • HHS recognizes that NIH research projects are often limited in scope for many reasons that are nondiscriminatory, such as the principal investigator’s scientific interest, funding limitations, recruitment requirements, and other considerations. Thus, criteria in research protocols that target or exclude certain populations are warranted where nondiscriminatory justifications establish that such criteria are appropriate with respect to the health or safety of the subjects, the scientific study design, or the purpose of the research. For additional guidance regarding how the provisions apply to NIH grant programs, please contact the Scientific/Research Contact that is identified in Section VII under Agency Contacts of this NOFO.

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

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

Successful recipients under this NOFO agree that:

Where the award funding involves implementing, acquiring, or upgrading health IT for activities by any funded entity, recipients and subrecipient(s) are required to: Use health IT that meets standards and implementation specifications adopted in 45 CFR part 170, Subpart B, if such standards and implementation specifications can support the activity.  Visit https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/subchapter-D/part-170/subpart-B to learn more.

Where the award funding involves implementing, acquiring, or upgrading health IT for activities by eligible clinicians in ambulatory settings, or hospitals, eligible under Sections 4101, 4102, and 4201 of the HITECH Act, use health IT certified under the ONC Health IT Certification Program if certified technology can support the activity. Visit https://www.healthit.gov/topic/certification-ehrs/certification-health-it to learn more.

Pursuant to the Cybersecurity Act of 2015, Div. N, § 405, Pub. Law 114-113, 6 USC § 1533(d), the HHS Secretary has established a common set of voluntary, consensus-based, and industry-led guidelines, best practices, methodologies, procedures, and processes.

Successful recipients under this NOFO agree that:

When recipients, subrecipients, or third-party entities have:

        1) ongoing and consistent access to HHS owned or operated information or operational technology systems; and 

        2) receive, maintain, transmit, store, access, exchange, process, or utilize personal identifiable information (PII) or personal health information (PHI) obtained from the awarding HHS agency for the purposes of executing the award.

Recipients shall develop plans and procedures, modeled after the NIST Cybersecurity framework, to protect HHS systems and data. Please refer to NIH Post-Award Monitoring and Reporting for additional information. 

Not Applicable

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

4. Reporting

When multiple years are involved, recipients will be required to submit the Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR) annually and financial statements as required in the NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 8.4.1 Reporting. To learn more about post-award monitoring and reporting, see the NIH Grants & Funding website, see Post-Award Monitoring and Reporting.

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

A final RPPR, invention statement, and the expenditure data portion of the Federal Financial Report are required for closeout of an award, as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 8.6 Closeout. NIH NOFOs outline intended research goals and objectives. Post award, NIH will review and measure performance based on the details and outcomes that are shared within the RPPR, as described at 2 CFR Part 200.301.

Section VII. Agency Contacts

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

eRA Service Desk (Questions regarding ASSIST, eRA Commons, application errors and warnings, documenting system problems that threaten submission by the due date, and post-submission issues)

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

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

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

Sean Lynch, PhD, LCSW
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)
Telephone: 301-594-4596
Email: [email protected]

Dharmendar Rathore, PhD
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)
Telephone: 301-402-6965
Email: [email protected]

Jennifer Schermerhorn
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)
Telephone: 301-827-6704
Email: [email protected]

Section VIII. Other Information

Recently issued trans-NIH policy notices may affect your application submission. A full list of policy notices published by NIH is provided in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts. All awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.

Awards are made under the authorization of Sections 301 and 405 of the Public Health Service Act as amended (42 USC 241 and 284) and under Federal Regulations 42 CFR Part 52 and 2 CFR Part 200.