INTERGENERATIONAL FAMILY RESOURCE ALLOCATION  

RELEASE DATE:  October 16, 2002
 
RFA:  HD-02-030 
 
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) 
 (http://www.nichd.nih.gov) 
National Institute on Aging (NIA) 
 (http://www.nia.nih.gov)

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 
http://www.nichd.nih.gov/about/cpr/dbs/sp/index.htm).

The NIA Strategic Plan (see http://www.nia.nih.gov/strat-plan/2001-2005/) 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 
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/modular/modular.htm).  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:  evansvj@mail.nih.gov

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:  stretchr@mail.nih.gov

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:  hancockk@mail.nih.gov
 
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:  evansvj@mail.nih.gov

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 
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/phs398.html in an interactive 
format.  For further assistance contact GrantsInfo, Telephone (301) 435-0714, 
Email: GrantsInfo@nih.gov.
 
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 
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/phs398.html includes step-by-step 
guidance for preparing modular grants.  Additional information on modular 
grants is available at 
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/modular/modular.htm.

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: 
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/label-bk.pdf.
 
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 
(http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-02-001.html); a complete 
copy of the updated Guidelines is available at 
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/women_min/guidelines_amended_10_2001.htm.
The amended policy incorporates: the use of an NIH definition of 
clinical research; updated racial and ethnic categories in compliance with 
the new OMB standards; clarification of language governing NIH-defined Phase 
III clinical trials consistent with the new PHS Form 398; and updated roles 
and responsibilities of NIH staff and the extramural community.  The policy 
continues to require for all NIH-defined Phase III clinical trials that: a) 
all applications or proposals and/or protocols must provide a description of 
plans to conduct analyses, as appropriate, to address differences by 
sex/gender and/or racial/ethnic groups, including subgroups if applicable; 
and b) investigators must report annual accrual and progress in conducting 
analyses, as appropriate, by sex/gender and/or racial/ethnic group 
differences.

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 
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/children/children.htm. 

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 
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-00-039.html.

PUBLIC ACCESS TO RESEARCH DATA THROUGH THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT:  The 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-110 has been revised to 
provide public access to research data through the Freedom of Information Act 
(FOIA) under some circumstances.  Data that are (1) first produced in a 
project that is supported in whole or in part with Federal funds and (2) 
cited publicly and officially by a Federal agency in support of an action 
that has the force and effect of law (i.e., a regulation) may be accessed 
through FOIA.  It is important for applicants to understand the basic scope 
of this amendment.  NIH has provided guidance at 
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/a110/a110_guidance_dec1999.htm.

Applicants may wish to place data collected under this 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 http://www.health.gov/healthypeople.

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 
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/policy.htm 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. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-02-015.html. 

Return to Volume Index

Return to NIH Guide Main Index

	Office of Extramural Research (OER)			National Institutes of Health (NIH) 9000 Rockville Pike Bethesda, Maryland 20892			Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
Note: For help accessing PDF, RTF, MS Word, Excel, PowerPoint, RealPlayer, Video or Flash files, see Help Downloading Files.