INTERGENERATIONAL FAMILY RESOURCE ALLOCATION RELEASE DATE: October 16, 2002 RFA: HD-02-030 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) ( National Institute on Aging (NIA) ( LETTER OF INTENT RECEIPT DATE: January 23, 2003 APPLICATION RECEIPT DATE: February 20, 2003 THIS RFA CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION o Purpose of this RFA o Research Objectives o Mechanism of Support o Funds Available o Eligible Institutions o Individuals Eligible to Become Principal Investigators o Special Requirements o Where to Send Inquiries o Letter of Intent o Submitting an Application o Peer Review Process o Review Criteria o Receipt and Review Schedule o Award Criteria o Required Federal Citations PURPOSE OF THIS RFA The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) and the National Institute on Aging (NIA) invite research grant applications proposing intergenerational research to help us understand how private behavior is manifest in allocating family resources across the generations and how public policy affects these allocations. Research is solicited that examines the manner in which private family resource allocation decisions result in improvements in health, wealth accumulation (including human capital), and well-being for children, active adults and the elderly, and how public policy interacts with family processes to alter these results. Investigators may propose secondary data analysis and/or new data collection. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES Nature of the Research Problem American families face the constant problem of caring for their dependent young and old while keeping their families prosperous. Public policy is also compelled to balance the needs of young and old while adding to the nation's wealth. Private actions undertaken by families to accumulate and transfer resources up and down the generational ladder are greatly affected by public policy aimed at the either the young or old. The research community and public policy makers are greatly challenged to keep the interactive aspects of private behavior and public policy jointly in focus. The current public interest in reforming institutions and policies relating to young and old tend to emphasize one age group to the exclusion of the other. Thus, welfare reform, child health insurance programs, targeted tax credits, child support and fragile family support, school reform, and substitute child care focus on families with dependent children and reforms of social security, Medicare, prescription drug benefits, estate taxes, and long-term health care focus on families with dependent old. The bifurcation of policies has led to an overspecialization of research. It is timely to undertake a coordinated plan of action to understand how policies and families are interrelated through intergenerational behavior within families. Moreover, there is a gap between research on intergenerational processes at the micro and macro levels of analysis. These levels of analysis should be complementary rather than separate fields. Public policy requires a systematic accounting of these levels as well. Background In the 1980s, NICHD and NIA sponsored research that encouraged a broad-based approach to document the existence and implications of intergenerational relationships. This body of research forms a foundation upon which new work can be predicated. For example, this research demonstrated that race and ethnicity were associated with very different types of resources available to families and that rips in the intergenerational fabric of families through divorce or similar events were associated with very different types of family resources available to men and women as they aged. For example, African American families were found to be very resource deprived in comparison to other racial groups and older men were very vulnerable to resource deprivation as a result of divorce or similar type of disruption to intergenerational family relationships. Also, a considerable body of research developed to examine how the intergenerational flow of resources was affected by culture and other factors shaping resource flows such as the degree of altruism in decision-making. Several of the large-scale data collection projects involving the adaptation of families to the age of welfare reform specifically incorporate modules that examine how families invest in children. Similarly, a number of new large-scale surveys have arisen in the 1990s to address intergenerational subject matter. Examples of these include: Health and Retirement Survey (HRS), Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), Wisconsin Longitudinal Study (WIS), Women's Health and Aging Study (WHAS), and the Indonesian Family Life Survey (IFLS). All of these sources of information form a large base of data upon which new intergenerational research can be predicated. The NICHD Demographic and Behavioral Sciences Branch (DBSB) co-sponsored a conference with the MacArthur Network on the Family and Economy on modeling conflict and cooperation within families and outlined the considerable theoretical and empirical progress in several related fields. This conference highlighted the need for better models of the household decision- making process that can help us formalize how gender, socio-economic status, family structure, and culture affect bargaining and decision-making within a family. Very probably, new theory and experimental design approaches are needed to extend our knowledge in the directions identified by the conference. The DBSB Long Range Planning Workshop, held in June 2001, devoted considerable discussion to intergenerational family processes as an area of opportunity and raised issues that relate to family decision-making that cut across a number of areas of interest to DBSB. These developments indicate that the questions of how families make intergenerational resource decisions and what effect these decisions have for children, the elderly, families, and society, are ripe for program expansion. A new area of emphasis dealing with intergenerational research was added to the DBSB Strategic Plan (see Goals and Opportunities 2002-2006 on the DBSB website at The NIA Strategic Plan (see also calls for research on intergenerational family processes. The Strategic Plan calls for research to: understand how the family assembles and allocates its resources (money, skills, and time) to care for all its members; monitor these relationships over time; understand the effects on the health and well-being of older people; and gain insight into the caregiving, emotional support, and economic transfers provided by older people. Scientific Knowledge to be Achieved through Research Supported by this Program This RFA is intended to produce answers to questions of how families allocate their resources to solve intergenerational problems that are very policy relevant. There are many kinds of intergenerational transfers. Some are private: Child-rearing costs borne by parents; higher education costs born by parents or other relatives; end-of-life bequests to children or grandchildren; economic support of elderly parents by their children, perhaps facilitated by co-residence; time spent by adult children caring for or managing the care of their elderly parents. Others are created directly by the public sector: Public education, public pensions (Social Security), Medicare, Medicaid, other programs with a secondary age-related component. Still others are created indirectly by the public sector, when it incurs debt today for consumption items (rather than capital items), debt that must be repaid or serviced by future generations. Intergenerational transfers matter for several reasons. The private costs of rearing children, although the level is subject to the parents' choice, are relevant to their fertility decisions. If parents intend to leave a bequest for each child, then the timing and level of these intended bequests is a part of this cost of child rearing. Decisions about the level of private costs, or the size of the transfer to children, also determine the human capital of the next generation. The patterns of intergenerational transfers, both public and private, are a major determinant of the financial consequences of changing age distributions, and specifically of population aging. A high proportion of total household income is reallocated from the earner to some other person, either through public or private transfers, so transfers are very important quantitatively, and have a major influence on the inter-personal distribution of income. Private transfers can substitute for, or be crowded out by, public transfers. To design policy, and to understand the impact of existing age-based or need-based policies, it is essential to understand and quantify these processes of substitution and crowding out. Objectives The objective of this solicitation is to help us understand how private behavior is manifest in allocating family resources across the generations and how public policy affects these allocations. It focuses on how private family resource allocation decisions result in improvements in health, wealth accumulation (including human capital), and well-being for children, active adults and the elderly, in addition to negative effects such as caregiver strain. Research may examine the implications of these transfers for the individuals, families, and/or society. Research may also examine how public policy interacts with family processes to alter these results, how family allocation decisions transmit health, behavior, and attitudes to children and the elderly, and the long-term implications of these transmissions. For purposes of this RFA, family resources may include: Time, money, assets, in-kind help, information, and personal interaction. An example of an interesting possible approach to this RFA is to ask how structural change within the family, measured in terms of marital status, work patterns, and/or cultural expectations regarding family roles, conditions the flow of intergenerational resources and how the resultant flow of resources affects the life course of individuals. Research Scope Investigators may propose secondary data analysis and/or original data collection. Research designs may be experimental or non-experimental. Investigators may propose to use and collect data outside of the United States and comparative research with the United States is desirable. Theoretical research and simulation modeling are acceptable approaches to research proposed in response to the RFA. Research may concentrate on allocation decisions affecting only children or the elderly or consider the age spectrum in its entirety. Examples of desirable research projects include, but are not limited to: o Studies of how families of various types allocate resources to solve childcare and parent care problems simultaneously and the effect of these strategies on the caregivers and dependent child and elderly. o Studies of household decision-making regarding resource allocation. o Studies of the health and developmental consequences of household allocation decisions. o Studies of how welfare reform affects the investment of poor families in their children and the consequences of these behaviors for the health and well being of children. o Studies of how family resource allocation behavior results in the transmission of attitudes, preferences, and behavioral patterns across generations. Studies of how shared family characteristics (as opposed to differences in the attributes of individual kin within a family) such as the family's transfer culture and background can help us understand how families allocate and pool resources and address division of labor issues. Studies of how historical events, cultural environment, and family adaptation affect the attitudes, expectations, preferences, habits, and behaviors of succeeding generations with respect to family resource allocation. o Studies that create comprehensive models that relate and integrate transfers of many different types in order to understand the big picture of public-private interactions and net resource flows across generations. o Studies of the effect of health, educational, occupational, tax and/or fiscal policy on intergenerational resources flows. o Studies describing the magnitude and direction of intergenerational resource flows as conditioned by culture and other factors influencing resource allocation within the family. o Studies of the influence of gender in intergenerational resource allocation. How does the gender influence bargaining within the family? o Studies of how culture influences the magnitude and direction of intergenerational resource flows and other factors influencing resource allocation within the family. o Studies examining how race, culture, and socio-economic status affect the ability of families to assemble resources to solve intergenerational problems and accumulate wealth, assets, education, and social capital over time. o Studies that examine how families formulate and execute strategies that move resources across geographic borders to distant family members. o Studies that examine how family resource allocation, in combination with the environmental conditions enveloping the family, affects the developmental trajectories of family members. o Studies of the macroeconomic and large-scale demographic effects of private intergenerational behavior. o Studies of macro/micro linkages in intergenerational behavior. MECHANISM OF SUPPORT This RFA will use NIH Research Project Grant (R01) award mechanism. As an applicant you will be solely responsible for planning, directing, and executing the proposed project. This RFA is a one-time solicitation. Future unsolicited, competing continuation applications based on this project will compete with all investigator-initiated applications and will be reviewed according to the customary peer review procedures. The anticipated award date is September 2003. This RFA uses just-in-time concepts. It also uses the modular as well as the non-modular budgeting formats (see Specifically, if you are submitting an application with direct costs in each year of $250,000 or less, use the modular format. Otherwise follow the instructions for non- modular research grant applications. FUNDS AVAILABLE The NICHD intends to commit approximately $2.5 million in total costs [Direct plus Facilities and Administrative (F & A) costs] in FY 2003 to fund six to nine new and/or competing continuation grants in response to this RFA. The NIA intends to commit $1 million in total cost support to fund three to six new or competitive continuation grants. An applicant may request a project period of up to five years and a budget for direct costs of up to $500,000 per year. Because the nature and scope of the proposed research will vary from application to application, it is anticipated that the size and duration of each award will also vary. Although the financial plans of the NICHD and NIA 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 meritorious applications. ELIGIBLE INSTITUTIONS You may submit an application if your institution has any of the following characteristics: o For-profit or non-profit organizations o Public or private institutions, such as universities, colleges, hospitals, and laboratories o Units of State and local governments o Eligible agencies of the Federal government o Domestic or foreign o Faith-based or community based organizations INDIVIDUALS ELIGIBLE TO BECOME PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS Any individual with the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to carry out the proposed research is invited to work with their institution to develop an application for support. Individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups as well as individuals with disabilities are always encouraged to apply for NIH programs. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS Meetings There will be annual, two-day meetings of grantees in Bethesda, MD. Investigators should request annual travel budgets to enable the PI to attend each meeting. Data Sharing If data are to be collected under this RFA, then Principal Investigators are encouraged to fully describe plans for sharing data with the scientific community. PIs are encouraged to make their data publicly available within two years of collecting it. Costs for supporting data sharing should be included in the requested budget. WHERE TO SEND INQUIRIES We encourage inquiries concerning this RFA and welcome the opportunity to answer questions from potential applicants. Inquiries may fall into three areas: scientific/research, peer review, and financial or grants management issues: o Direct your questions about scientific/research issues to: V. Jeffery Evans Ph.D., J.D. Director of Intergenerational Research Demographic and Behavioral Sciences Branch National Institute of Child Health and Human Development 6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 8B07, MSC 7510 Bethesda, MD 20892-7510 Telephone: (301) 496-1176 FAX: (301) 496-0962 Email: Or Georgeanne E. Patmios Behavioral and Social Research Program National Institute on Aging 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 533, MSC 9205 Bethesda, MD 20892-9205 Telephone: (301) 496-3138 FAX: (301) 402-0051 Email: Patmios@NIH.GOV o Direct your questions about peer review issues to: Robert Stretch, Ph.D. Director, Division of Scientific Review National Institute of Child Health and Human Development 6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 5B01, MSC 7510 Bethesda MD 20892-7510 Rockville MD 20852 (for express/courier service) Telephone: (301) 496-1485 Email: o Direct your questions about financial or grants management matters to: Kathy Hancock Grants Management Branch National Institute of Child Health and Human Development 6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 8A17K, MSC 7510 Bethesda, MD 20892-7510 Telephone: (301) 496-5482 FAX: (301) 480-4782 Email: LETTER OF INTENT Prospective applicants are asked to submit a letter of intent that includes the following information: o Descriptive title of the proposed research o Name, address, and telephone number of the Principal Investigator o Names of other key personnel o Participating institutions o Number and title of this RFA 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 NICHD staff to estimate the potential review workload and plan the review. The letter of intent is to be sent by the date listed at the beginning of this document. The letter of intent should be sent to: V. Jeffery Evans, Ph.D., J.D. Demographic and Behavioral Sciences Branch National Institute of Child Health and Human Development 6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 8B07, MSC 7510 Bethesda, MD 20892-7510 Telephone: (301) 496-1176 FAX: (301) 496-0962 Email: SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION Applications must be prepared using the PHS 398 research grant application instructions and forms (rev. 5/2001). The PHS 398 is available at in an interactive format. For further assistance contact GrantsInfo, Telephone (301) 710-0267, Email: SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS FOR MODULAR GRANT APPLICATIONS: Applications requesting up to $250,000 per year in direct costs must be submitted in a modular grant format. The modular grant format simplifies the preparation of the budget in these applications by limiting the level of budgetary detail. Applicants request direct costs in $25,000 modules. Section C of the research grant application instructions for the PHS 398 (rev. 5/2001) at includes step-by-step guidance for preparing modular grants. Additional information on modular grants is available at USING THE RFA LABEL: The RFA label available in the PHS 398 (rev. 5/2001) application form must be affixed to the bottom of the face page of the application. Type the RFA number on the label. Failure to use this label could result in delayed processing of the application such that it may not reach the review committee in time for review. In addition, the RFA title and number must be typed on line 2 of the face page of the application form and the YES box must be marked. The RFA label is also available at: SENDING AN APPLICATION TO THE NIH: Submit a signed, typewritten original of the application, including the Checklist, and three signed photocopies, in one package to: Center for Scientific Review National Institutes of Health 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 1040, MSC 7710 Bethesda, MD 20892-7710 Bethesda, MD 20817 (for express/courier service) At the time of submission, two additional copies of the application must be sent to: Robert Stretch, Ph.D. Director, Division of Scientific Review National Institute of Child Health and Human Development 6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 5B01, MSC 7510 Bethesda MD 20892-7510 Rockville MD 20852 (for express/courier service) APPLICATION PROCESSING: 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 Review (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. PEER REVIEW PROCESS Upon receipt, applications will be reviewed for completeness by the CSR and responsiveness by the NICHD and NIA. Incomplete applications will be returned to the applicant without further consideration. If the application is not responsive to the RFA, NICHD staff may contact the applicant to determine whether to return the application to the applicant or submit it for review in competition with unsolicited applications at the next appropriate NIH review cycle. Applications that are complete and responsive to the RFA will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by an appropriate peer review group convened by the NICHD in accordance with the review criteria stated below. As part of the initial merit review, all applications will: o Receive a written critique o 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 and assigned a priority score o Receive a second level review by the National Advisory Child Health and Human Development Council and the National Advisory Aging Council. REVIEW CRITERIA The goals of NIH-supported research are to advance our 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 your application in order to judge the likelihood that the proposed research will have a substantial impact on the pursuit of these goals: o Significance o Approach o Innovation o Investigator o Environment The scientific review group will address and consider each of these criteria in assigning your application's overall score, weighting them as appropriate for each application. Your application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact and thus deserve a high priority score. For example, you may propose to carry out important work that by its nature is not innovative but is essential to move a field forward. (1) SIGNIFICANCE: Does your study address an important problem? If the aims of your application are achieved, how do they advance scientific knowledge? 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? Do you acknowledge potential problem areas and consider alternative tactics? (3) INNOVATION: Does your project employ novel concepts, approaches or methods? Are the aims original and innovative? Does your project challenge existing paradigms or develop new methodologies or technologies? (4) INVESTIGATOR: Are you appropriately trained and well suited to carry out this work? Is the work proposed appropriate to your experience level as the principal investigator and to that of other researchers (if any)? (5) ENVIRONMENT: Does the scientific environment in which your work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Do the proposed experiments take advantage of unique features of the scientific environment or employ useful collaborative arrangements? Is there evidence of institutional support? ADDITIONAL REVIEW CRITERIA: In addition to the above criteria, your application will also be reviewed with respect to the following: o PROTECTIONS: The adequacy of the proposed protection for humans, animals, or the environment, to the extent they may be adversely affected by the project proposed in the application. o INCLUSION: The adequacy of plans to include subjects from both genders, all racial and ethnic groups (and subgroups), and children as appropriate for the scientific goals of the research. Plans for the recruitment and retention of subjects will also be evaluated. (See Inclusion Criteria included in the section on Federal Citations, below.) o DATA SHARING: The adequacy of the proposed plan to share data. o BUDGET: The reasonableness of the proposed budget and the requested period of support in relation to the proposed research. o OTHER REVIEW CRITERIA: o Does the proposed research illuminate a policy-relevant aspect of intergenerational transfers? RECEIPT AND REVIEW SCHEDULE Letter of Intent Receipt Date: January 23, 2003 Application Receipt Date: February 20, 2003 Peer Review Date: June/July 2003 Council Review: September 2003 Earliest Anticipated Start Date: September 2003 AWARD CRITERIA Criteria that will be used to make award decisions include: o Scientific merit (as determined by peer review) o Availability of funds o Programmatic priorities. REQUIRED FEDERAL CITATIONS INCLUSION OF WOMEN AND MINORITIES IN CLINICAL RESEARCH: It is the policy of the NIH that women and members of minority groups and their sub-populations must be included in all NIH-supported clinical research projects unless a clear and compelling justification is provided indicating that inclusion is inappropriate with respect to the health of the subjects or the purpose of the research. This policy results from the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 (Section 492B of Public Law 103-43). All investigators proposing clinical research should read the AMENDMENT "NIH Guidelines for Inclusion of Women and Minorities as Subjects in Clinical Research - Amended, October, 2001," published in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts on October 9, 2001 (; a complete copy of the updated Guidelines is available at The amended policy incorporates: the use of an NIH definition of clinical research; updated racial and ethnic categories in compliance with the new OMB standards; clarification of language governing NIH-defined Phase III clinical trials consistent with the new PHS Form 398; and updated roles and responsibilities of NIH staff and the extramural community. The policy continues to require for all NIH-defined Phase III clinical trials that: a) all applications or proposals and/or protocols must provide a description of plans to conduct analyses, as appropriate, to address differences by sex/gender and/or racial/ethnic groups, including subgroups if applicable; and b) investigators must report annual accrual and progress in conducting analyses, as appropriate, by sex/gender and/or racial/ethnic group differences. INCLUSION OF CHILDREN AS PARTICIPANTS IN RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS: The NIH maintains a policy 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 is available at REQUIRED EDUCATION ON THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECT PARTICIPANTS: NIH policy requires education on the protection of human subject participants for all investigators submitting NIH proposals for research involving human subjects. You will find this policy announcement in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts Announcement, dated June 5, 2000, at PUBLIC ACCESS TO RESEARCH DATA THROUGH THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-110 has been revised to provide public access to research data through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) under some circumstances. Data that are (1) first produced in a project that is supported in whole or in part with Federal funds and (2) cited publicly and officially by a Federal agency in support of an action that has the force and effect of law (i.e., a regulation) may be accessed through FOIA. It is important for applicants to understand the basic scope of this amendment. NIH has provided guidance at Applicants may wish to place data collected under this RFA in a public archive, which can provide protections for the data and manage the distribution for an indefinite period of time. If so, the application should include a description of the archiving plan in the study design and include information about this in the budget justification section of the application. In addition, applicants should think about how to structure informed consent statements and other human subjects procedures given the potential for wider use of data collected under this award. URLs IN NIH GRANT APPLICATIONS OR APPENDICES: All applications and proposals for NIH funding must be self-contained within specified page limitations. Unless otherwise specified in an NIH solicitation, Internet addresses (URLs) should not be used to provide information necessary to the review because reviewers are under no obligation to view the Internet sites. Furthermore, we caution reviewers that their anonymity may be compromised when they directly access an Internet site. HEALTHY PEOPLE 2010: The Public Health Service (PHS) is committed to achieving the health promotion and disease prevention objectives of "Healthy People 2010," a PHS-led national activity for setting priority areas. This RFA is related to one or more of the priority areas. Potential applicants may obtain a copy of "Healthy People 2010" at AUTHORITY AND REGULATIONS: This program is described in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Nos. 93.864, 93.865, and 93.866 and is not subject to the intergovernmental review requirements of Executive Order 12372 or Health Systems Agency review. Awards are made under authorization of Sections 301 and 405 of the Public Health Service Act as amended (42 USC 241 and 284) and administered under NIH grants policies described at and under Federal Regulations 42 CFR 52 and 45 CFR Parts 74 and 92. The PHS strongly encourages all grant recipients to provide a smoke-free workplace and discourage the use of all tobacco products. In addition, Public Law 103-227, the Pro-Children Act of 1994, prohibits smoking in certain facilities (or in some cases, any portion of a facility) in which regular or routine education, library, day care, health care, or early childhood development services are provided to children. This is consistent with the PHS mission to protect and advance the physical and mental health of the American people.

Weekly TOC for this Announcement
NIH Funding Opportunities and Notices

H H S Department of Health
and Human Services

  N I H National Institutes of Health (NIH)
9000 Rockville Pike
Bethesda, Maryland 20892