Department of Health and Human Services 
OFFICE OF 
INSPECTOR GENERAL 
NIH GRANTS MANAGEMENT: 
L A
ATE  WARDS 
Inspector General 
May 2004 
OEI-01-03-00020  Office of Inspector General
http://oig.hhs.gov 
The mission of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), as mandated by Public Law 95-452, 
as amended, is to protect the integrity of the Department of Health and Human Services 
(HHS) programs, as well as the health and welfare of beneficiaries served by those 
programs. This statutory mission is carried out through a nationwide network of audits, 
investigations, and inspections conducted by the following operating components: 
Office of Audit Services 
The OIG's Office of Audit Services (OAS) provides all auditing services for HHS, either by 
conducting audits with its own audit resources or by overseeing audit work done by others. 
Audits examine the performance of HHS programs and/or its grantees and contractors 
in carrying out their respective responsibilities and are intended to provide independent 
assessments of HHS programs and operations in order to reduce waste, abuse, and 
mismanagement and to promote economy and efficiency throughout the department. 
Office of Evaluation and Inspections 
The OIG's Office of Evaluation and Inspections (OEI) conducts short-term management 
and program evaluations (called inspections) that focus on issues of concern to the 
department, the Congress, and the public. The findings and recommendations contained 
in the inspections reports generate rapid, accurate, and up-to-date information on the 
efficiency, vulnerability, and effectiveness of departmental programs. 
Office of Investigations 
The OIG's Office of Investigations (OI) conducts criminal, civil, and administrative 
investigations of allegations of wrongdoing in HHS programs or to HHS beneficiaries 
and of unjust enrichment by providers. The investigative efforts of OI lead to criminal 
convictions, administrative sanctions, or civil monetary penalties. The OI also oversees 
state Medicaid fraud control units, which investigate and prosecute fraud and patient 
abuse in the Medicaid program. 
Office of Counsel to the Inspector General 
The Office of Counsel to the Inspector General (OCIG) provides general legal services to 
OIG, rendering advice and opinions on HHS programs and operations and providing all 
legal support in OIG's internal operations. The OCIG imposes program exclusions and 
civil monetary penalties on health care providers and litigates those actions within the 
department. The OCIG also represents OIG in the global settlement of cases arising 
under the Civil False Claims Act, develops and monitors corporate integrity agreements, 
develops model compliance plans, renders advisory opinions on OIG sanctions to the 
health care community, and issues fraud alerts and other industry guidance.  A B S T R A C T

Grants management is a priority area for both the Secretary of Health 
and Human Services and the Office of Inspector General. In fiscal year 
(FY) 2002, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded $16.8 billion 
in extramural research grants. Noncompeting continuation (type 5) 
awards account for the majority, about 70 percent, of NIHs extramural 
research funding. The timeliness of type 5 awards is an important 
aspect of grants management at NIH. NIH policy is to issue all grant 
awards prior to the beginning of the budget period (i.e., the time period 
for which NIH provides funding, usually 12 months). NIH awarded 
35 percent of type 5 awards late for 3 common funding mechanisms in 
FYs 2000 through 2002, accounting for $9.2 billion in late funding. 
Potential factors contributing to late awards are grantees submitting 
late applications, grantees submitting incomplete applications, process 
delays at NIH, and late congressional budget appropriations. For 
example, 55 percent of awards that were 30 days or more late at 
3 institutes had late applications, 39 percent had incomplete 
applications, and 12 percent had process delays. Late awards can 
create problems at NIH and, to some extent, at grantee institutions. 
NIH has several initiatives planned or underway to help facilitate 
timely type 5 awards. In addition to these, we recommend that NIH 
develop a centralized system to monitor late type 5 awards and address 
late awards more systematically by focusing on grantee institutions. 
NIH concurred with our recommendations. 
OEI-01-03-00020  NIH GRANTS MANAGEMENT: LATE AWARDS  i  E X E C U T I V E   S U M M A R Y

OBJECTIVE 
To determine the extent to which the National Institutes of Health 
awards noncompeting continuation (type 5) awards on time. 
BACKGROUND 
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the largest Federal funder of 
health research and development. In fiscal year (FY) 2002, NIH funded 
$16.8 billion in extramural research grants supporting a total of 43,520 
awards. Extramural grants fund scientists and organizations outside 
the agency. NIH awards grants through 24 distinct institutes and 
centers (institutes) that are responsible for the day-to-day management 
and oversight of their grants. 
Typically, NIH awards grants with a multi-year project period (i.e., the 
total time for which NIH agrees to support the project), divided into budget 
periods. As a budget period comes to a close, the grantee must submit an 
application to receive funding for the next budget period. A noncompeting 
continuation (type 5) award renews funding for a project that is 
currently underway and does not require peer review. Type 5 awards 
represented about 70 percent of NIHs extramural research grant funding 
in FY 2002, totaling almost $12 billion and supporting 30,343 grants. 
Grants management is a priority area for both the Secretary of Health 
and Human Services and the Office of Inspector General. Given that 
type 5 awards represent the majority of NIHs extramural research 
funding, their timeliness is an important aspect of grants management 
at NIH. NIH policy is to issue all grant awards prior to the beginning 
date of the budget period of the award, provided that the grantee has 
submitted the necessary documentation on time. A late type 5 award 
results in a situation in which NIH has not issued funding for the next 
budget period until after the end of the previous years budget period. 
This causes a gap in funding, although grantees may incur preaward 
costs (at their own expense). 
This inspection is based on multiple sources of data: analysis of the 3 
most common type 5 funding mechanisms for FYs 2000 through 2002, a 
file review of 272 late type 5 awards, a survey of grantee institutions 
that resulted in 111 responses, and interviews with grants management 
staff. 
OEI-01-03-00020  NIH GRANTS MANAGEMENT: LATE AWARDS  ii  E X E C U T I V E   S U M M A R Y  
A companion report, NIH Grants Management: Late Closeouts (OEI-01-
03-00021), applies a similar methodology to determine the extent to 
which NIH closes out grants on time. 
FINDINGS 
NIH awarded about one -third of awards late for three common 
funding mechanisms in Fiscal Years 2000 through 2002. NIH 
awarded 35 percent of its 60,993 type 5 research project awards (R01), 
program awards (P01), and cooperative agreements (U01) late in FYs 
2000 through 2002. These late type 5 awards combined represented 
$9.2 billion in funding to grantee institutions. On average, these 
awards were 24 days late. The proportion of late type 5 awards was 
relatively constant across the years in our sample, but varied by 
institute and among the three most common funding mechanisms. 
Potential factors contributing to late awards are grantees 
submitting late applications, grantees submitting incomplete 
applications, process delays at NIH, and late congressional budget 
appropriations. Fifty-five percent of type 5 awards at 3 institutes that 
were 30 days or more late had a late application and 39 percent had 
applications that were missing 1 or more required elements. Twelve 
percent of the awards that were 30 days or more late also had internal 
process delays, such as delayed reviews, lost files, and data entry errors. 
Institutes may also have been delayed in issuing funding for type 5 
awards at times when Congress was late in approving the agencys 
budget. 
Late awards can create problems at NIH and, to some extent, at 
grantee institutions. NIH staff can quickly become inundated with 
type 5 awards, between overcoming the backlog caused by late awards 
and dealing with each months incoming applications. Twenty-five 
percent of grantee institutions noted that late type 5 awards have 
caused problems for their institutions to a large or moderate extent. 
Grantees cited increased burden on grants administrators and having to 
use funding from other sources as particular problems. 
NIH has several initiatives planned or underway to help facilitate 
timely awards.  NIH is in the process of launching an automated, 
online research administration system, which will electronically notify 
grantees of application deadlines, allow grantees to submit applications 
and financial status reports electronically, and enable grants 
management staff to electronically review and approve type 5 
OEI-01-03-00020  NIH GRANTS MANAGEMENT: LATE AWARDS  iii  EE XX EE CC UU TT II VV EE    SS UU MM MM AA RR YY  
applications. NIH also has a workgroup that is developing approaches 
to improving compliance among grantees with patterns of late type 5 
applications, as well as preventing future delinquencies. 
RECOMMENDATIONS 
To facilitate timely awards, we recommend that NIH 
	 Develop a centralized system to monitor late awards and to identify 
and address the key problems and bottlenecks that are causing late 
awards 
	 Address late awards more systematically by focusing on grantee 
institutions, specifically by following up with a key administrator at 
grantee institutions with patterns of late applications or late 
awards 
Agency Comments 
NIH reviewed a draft of this report and concurred with our 
recommendations. In its comments, NIH indicated additional steps that 
it is taking to address these issues. 
OEI-01-03-00020  NIH GRANTS MANAGEMENT: LATE AWARDS  iv    T A B L E   O F   C O N T E N T S

A B S T R A C T  .................................................................  i

E X E C U T I V E   S U M M A R Y ................................................  ii

I N T R O D U C T I O N  .........................................................  1

F I N D I N G S  .................................................................  7

NIH awarded about one-third of awards late. ......................... 7

Potential factors contributing to late awards. ......................... 9

Late awards can create problems ....................................  12

NIH has several initiatives planned or underway .................... 13

R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S  .................................................  16

A P P E N D I C E S   ........................................................... 18

Findings of the National Cancer Institute ............................ 18

Methodology .........................................................  19

Confidence intervals................................ . .................... 24

Late type 5 awards among all institutes ............................. 25

NIHs Comments on the Draft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S  .................................................  30

E N D   N O T E S  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
   I N T R O D U C T I O N

OBJECTIVE 
To determine the extent to which the National Institutes of Health 
awards noncompeting continuation (type 5) awards on time. 
BACKGROUND 
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the largest Federal funder of 
health research and development. NIH grants support basic and 
clinical research, research centers, scientific training and fellowships, 
and construction projects. 
Recent increases in appropriations have allowed NIH to significantly 
increase its grant-making capacity over the past 5 years. In fiscal year 
(FY) 2003, NIH received $27 billion in total funding, compared to $13.6 
billion in FY 1998. The Presidents proposed budget for FY 2004 
requests $28 billion for NIH. 
About 80 to 85 percent of NIHs budget supports extramural grants. 
Extramural grants fund scientists and organizations outside the agency. 
In FY 2002, NIHs total budget was $23.2 billion, of which NIH awarded 
$19 billion in extramural grants. NIH awarded $16.8 billion to support 
43,520 extramural research grants; the remaining $2.2 billion went to 
support 6,196 other extramural grants, such as training and fellowship 
grants. Combined, these funds supported about 49,700 extramural 
grants to researchers affiliated with more than 2,800 universities, 
hospitals, and other research facilities. 
Grants Administration 
Grants management and oversight are critical to ensure that Federal 
funds are used properly. Grants management is a priority area for both 
the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Office of Inspector 
General, and is among the top management challenges identified by the 
Office of Inspector General for FY 2003.1 As the largest funder of health 
research, NIH must have appropriate policies and procedures in place to 
effectively and efficiently manage its grants. The recent increases in 
NIH funding make it particularly important to ensure that NIH has the 
proper infrastructure to handle its increased grant workload. 
The general requirements for grants management at NIH are 
government-wide standards set forth by the Office of Management and 
Budget and codified in regulation by the Department of Health and 
OEI-01-03-00020  NIH GRANTS MANAGEMENT: LATE AWARDS  1  I N T R O D U C T I O N  
Human Services.2 These regulations establish requirements for the 
financial and program management of each award. 
Additional requirements are provided in the NIH Guide for Grants and 
Contracts, the NIH Grants Policy Statement, and the NIH Manual. The 
NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts is the official publication of NIH 
policies, procedures, and availability of funds. The NIH Grants Policy 
Statement provides a general overview of the grant application and 
review process, including terms and conditions for NIH grant awards. 
(NIH can establish other terms for particular institutions.) It 
emphasizes the importance of good grants management by stating, 
NIH, as a Federal grantor agency, is responsible to Congress and the 
U.S. taxpayer for carrying out its mission in a manner that not only 
facilitates research but also does so cost effectively and in compliance 
with applicable rules and regulations.3 The NIH Manual contains NIH 
policies regarding internal operations, including requirements for the 
awarding and oversight of extramural grants. 
NIHs Office of Extramural Research is central to the development and 
maintenance of agency policies regarding extramural grants. It also 
develops program guidelines and information systems related to 
extramural research grants administration. 
NIH awards grants through 24 distinct institutes and centers (hereafter 
referred to as institutes) that are responsible for the day-to-day 
management and oversight of their grants.4 Each institute has its own 
grants management office to handle administrative functions and to 
conduct ongoing monitoring of its grants. Grants management 
specialists in these offices are primarily responsible for reviewing 
applications for administrative content and compliance with key laws 
and regulations, reviewing all correspondence and reports from 
grantees, and providing technical assistance to grantees as needed 
throughout the grant process. A chief grants management officer 
oversees the specialists. Each institute also has its own program office. 
Program officers establish scientific program goals and objectives, which 
serve as a guide for funding decisions, and monitor scientific issues that 
arise throughout the course of the grant. 
Typically, NIH awards grants with a project period that spans several 
years. The project period is the total time for which NIH agrees to support 
the project. NIH divides a multi-year project period into budget periods, 
usually 12-month increments. The budget period may start at any point 
during the year. Grants management staff assign project periods and 
OEI-01-03-00020  NIH GRANTS MANAGEMENT: LATE AWARDS  2  I N T R O D U C T I O N  
budget periods for each grant. Grants management staff within each 
institute negotiate the terms of the award with the grantee. As each 
budget period comes to a close, the grantee must submit an application to 
the institute in order to update the institute about the status of the 
research and receive funding for the next budget period. 
Type 5 Awards 
A type 5 (noncompeting continuation) award renews funding for a project 
that is currently underway and does not require peer review.5 In FY 2002, 
NIH awarded 30,343 type 5 awards, totaling almost $12 billion. Type 5 
awards accounted for about 70 percent, in terms of both number of awards 
and amount of funding, of all extramural research funding that NIH 
awarded in FY 2002. (In FY 2002, NIH awarded $16.8 billion in 
extramural research grants supporting 43,520 awards.) 
The three most common funding mechanisms for type 5 extramural 
research grants are R01, P01, and U01.6  Combined, these 3 funding 
mechanisms accounted for about 72 percent, in terms of number, of all 
type 5 extramural research grants NIH awarded in FY 2002 and $8.5 
billion in funding. (See Table 1.) Research project grants, otherwise 
known as R01 grants, support individual research projects led by one 
primary investigator. Research program projects, or P01 grants, 
support groups of researchers who are all conducting studies related to 
a particular research objective. Cooperative agreements, or U01 grants, 
are partnerships between researchers and NIH. 
Table 1. Number of Type 5 Awards Issued by Year for the Three Most Common 
Funding Mechanisms 
Funding Mechanism  FY 2000  FY 2001  FY 2002  Total 
Research project (R01)  17,218  18,964  20,394  56,576 
Program project (P01)  703  752  780  2,235 
Cooperative agreement (U01)  553  744  885  2,182 
Overall Total  18,474  20,460  22,059  60,993 
Source: OIG analysis of NIH data from IMPAC II, 2003 
OEI-01-03-00020  NIH GRANTS MANAGEMENT: LATE AWARDS  3  I N T R O D U C T I O N  
In order to receive a type 5 award, the grantee must submit to the 
institute an Application for Continuation of a Grant (PHS-2590) at least 
60 days before the end of its current budget period for a paper application, 
or 45 days before the end of its current budget period for an online 
application.7 The principal investigator (the scientist who is responsible 
for the direction and conduct of the research) must submit a progress 
report, which summarizes the grantees work on the project to date. The 
grantee institution (the organization where the principal investigator is 
affiliated) may also include a detailed description of the budget for the 
project, if the researchers have made significant changes since NIH 
initially approved the research, and assurances that the research protocol 
meets NIH standards for the use of human subjects and animals, where 
applicable. 
Late Type 5 Awards.  The NIH Manual states that it is the policy of the 
NIH to issue all grant awards in a timely manner, which means prior to 
the beginning date of the budget period of the award, provided that the 
grantee has submitted the necessary documentation on time.8 
A late type 5 award results in a situation in which NIH has not issued 
funding for the next budget period until after the end of the previous 
years budget period. This causes a gap in funding. 
Many grantee institutions may continue to incur preaward costs, at their 
own expense, if the agency is late in issuing an award. 9 Essentially, 
grantee institutions who authorize such spending borrow against their 
expectations of the funding for the next budget period, anticipating that 
they will be able to recoup their spending once NIH issues the new award. 
Until NIH issues the award, however, that reimbursement is not 
guaranteed, leaving grantee institutions at risk for any expenses they 
incur during this period. Further, some grantee institutions are unable to 
cover their researchers expenses in the interim. 
Given that type 5 awards represent the majority of NIHs extramural 
research funding, their timeliness is an important aspect of grants 
management at NIH. Data from the National Cancer Institute, which has 
an active monitoring system in place to identify late awards and their 
causes, showed that 40 percent of its type 5 awards were late in FY 2001, 
and 33 percent of its type 5 awards were late in FY 2002. In each year, 
roughly one-third of the late awards were due to internal delays, and two-
thirds were due to the grantees. (See Appendix A for more information.) 
OEI-01-03-00020  NIH GRANTS MANAGEMENT: LATE AWARDS  4  I N T R O D U C T I O N  
METHODOLOGY 
We based our analysis of late type 5 awards on five sources of data. For 
a detailed description of our methodology and confidence intervals, see 
Appendix B and C. 
First, we analyzed 60,993 records in NIHs database system for 
managing and monitoring grants, known as the Information for 
Management, Planning, Analysis, and Coordination (IMPAC II), for all 
R01, P01, and U01 awards issued in FY 2000, 2001, and 2002. 
Second, we reviewed NIHs files for a stratified sample of 272 active 
research project (R01) awards in which NIH had issued type 5 
funding at least 30 days late between FY 2000 and FY 2002. We 
limited our population to three of the largest institutes: the National 
Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Institute of Allergy 
and Infectious Diseases, and the National Institute of General 
Medical Sciences. We excluded the largest institute, the National 
Cancer Institute, because it already has an active monitoring system 
in place to identify late awards and their causes. We stratified our 
sample by institute. The sample included all 76 awards from the 
National Institute of General Medical Sciences and random samples 
of 100 awards each from the 220 National Heart, Lung, and Blood 
Institute awards and the 174 National Institute of Allergy and 
Infectious Diseases that met our criteria. Four awards in our sample 
were missing files at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases, so the final number of awards included in our file review 
was 272. 
Third, we requested the specific operating procedures related to type 5 
applications and type 5 awards for all 24 institutes with grant-making 
authority. 
Fourth, we selected a simple random sample of 135 grantee institutions 
from the 375 locations that received 10 or more research grants from 
NIH in FY 2002. We received 111 replies to our survey, for a response 
rate of 82 percent. 
Finally, we interviewed grants management staff at the National Heart, 
Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Institute of Allergy and 
Infectious Diseases, and the National Institute of General Medical 
Sciences, as well as staff in the Office of Extramural Research. 
OEI-01-03-00020  NIH GRANTS MANAGEMENT: LATE AWARDS  5  I N T R O D U C T I O N  
Standards

We conducted this inspection in accordance with the Quality Standards 

for Inspections issued by the Presidents Council on Integrity and 

Efficiency. 

A COMPANION REPORT 
This report is one of two that resulted from our inquiry. Our companion 
report, NIH Grants Management: Late Closeouts (OEI-01-03-00021), 
applies a similar methodology to determine the extent to which NIH 
closes out grants on time. The closeout process occurs when the grant 
project period ends, or when a grant transfers to another institution. 
Grant closeouts serve as the final point of accountability for the grantee. 
OEI-01-03-00020  NIH GRANTS MANAGEMENT: LATE AWARDS  6    F I N D I N G S

NIH awarded about one-third of awards late for  Between FY 2000 and FY 2002, 
three common funding mechanisms in Fiscal  NIH awarded 35 percent of its 
60,993 type 5 research project (R01) 
Years 2000 through 2002. 
awards, program project (P01) 
awards, and cooperative agreement (U01) awards late. (See Table 2.) 
These late awards account for $9.2 billion in NIH funding to grantee 
institutions. This is 43 percent of NIHs total type 5 funding for that 3-
year period. 
Table 2. Proportion of Late Awards by Funding Mechanism and Year 
Funding Mechanism  FY 2000  FY 2001  FY 2002  FY 2000  FY 2002 Combined 
Research project (R01)  31%  36%  31%  33% 
Program project (P01)  62%  66%  55%  61% 
Cooperative agreement (U01)  72%  80%  72%  75% 
R01, P01, and U01 Combined  33%  39%  34%  35% 
Source: OIG analysis of NIH data from IMPAC II, 2003 
Twenty-eight percent of these late awards were at least a month late.  The 
late awards ranged between 1 day late and 603 days late. On average, late 
type 5 awards were issued 24 days after the end of the previous budget 
period. (See Table 3.) 
Table 3. Extent of Delay in Issuing Late Type 5 Awards, FY 2000FY 2002 
Weeks Late  Number of Late Awards  Percent of All Late Awards 
Less than 1 week  6,586  31% 
Between 1 and 2 weeks  4,394  20% 
Between 2 and 4 weeks  4,506  21% 
Between 4 and 8 weeks  3,584  17% 
More than 8 weeks  2,425  11% 
Overall Total  21,495  100% 
Source: OIG analysis of NIH data from IMPAC II, 2003 
OEI-01-03-00020  NIH GRANTS MANAGEMENT: LATE AWARDS  7  F I N D I N G S  
The proportion of late awards was relatively constant over the past 3 years. 
NIH awarded 33 percent of all type 5 awards late in FY 2000. In FY 
2001, it awarded 39 percent of all type 5 awards late. And in FY 2002, 
it awarded 34 percent of all type 5 awards late. (See Table 2 on p. 7.) 
The proportion of late awards by institute ranged from 10 percent to 70 
percent.  The National Library of Medicine had the greatest proportion 
of late type 5 awards between FY 2000 and FY 2002, at 70 percent. 
However, the National Library of Medicine only issued 82 type 5 awards 
during that time period. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and 
Alcoholism and the National Institute of Deafness and Other 
Communication Disorders had the smallest proportion of late type 5 
awards between FY 2000 and FY 2002, at 10 percent. Each of those 2 
institutes issued more than 1,000 type 5 awards during that time 
period. (See Appendix D for the proportion of late awards by institute.) 
Among the 10 institutes that issued the most type 5 awards between 
FY 2000 and FY 2002, 4 institutes awarded 50 percent or more of their 
type 5 awards late. (See Table 4.) The frequency of lateness at the 
remaining top institutes ranged from 15 percent to 38 percent. 
Table 4. Proportion of Late Awards at the 10 Institutes that Issued the Most Type 5 Awards, FY 
2000 -FY 2002 
Number of  Percent of Awards  Average Number 
Institute 
Late Awards  That Were Late  of Days Late 
Nat. Cancer Inst.  3,076  37%  31 
Nat. Heart, Lung, & Blood Inst.  2,788  36%  18 
Nat. Inst. of Neurological Disorders & Stroke  2,472  50%  23 
Nat. Inst. of Diabetes & Digestive & Kidney Diseases  2,111  38%  31 
Nat. Inst. of Allergy & Infectious Diseases  1,717  28%  24 
Nat. Inst. of Mental Health  1,871  56%  26 
Nat. Inst. of Child Health & Human Development  1,463  50%  34 
Nat. Inst. on Drug Abuse  1,216  52%  20 
Nat. Inst. of General Medical Sciences  1,189  15%  13 
Nat. Eye Inst.  1,051  47%  22 
Source: OIG analysis of NIH data from IMPAC II, 2003 
OEI-01-03-00020  NIH GRANTS MANAGEMENT: LATE AWARDS  8  F I N D I N G S  
Cooperative agreement awards were most likely to be awarded late.  NIH 
awarded 75 percent of type 5 cooperative agreement awards, 61 percent of 
type 5 program project awards, and 33 percent of type 5 research project 
awards late between FY 2000 and FY 2002. (See Table 2 on p. 7.) Because 
research project awards account for the largest proportion of awards, they 
drive down the overall proportion. The fact that a greater proportion of 
cooperative agreements and program grants were awarded later than 
research grants may reflect that cooperative agreements and program 
grants are more complex funding mechanisms, involving research at 
multiple sites with multiple primary investigators. 
Eight percent of grantee institutions accounted for 56 percent of all late 
awards.  NIH awarded type 5 research project (R01) awards, program 
project (P01) awards, and cooperative agreement (U01) awards to 892 
grantee institutions between FY 2000 and FY 2002. Yet, 50 of these 
grantee institutions accounted for 56 percent of the late type 5 awards 
(and 56 percent of type 5 awards overall). Given that some grantee 
institutions are so large that they receive several thousand grants from 
NIH each year, while others receive only a few, it is not surprising that a 
small number of these large grantees made up more than half of all late 
awards during this time. These large grantees had the largest absolute 
number of late awards, but this does not necessarily indicate that they had 
a greater proportion of late awards than other grantees. 
Potential factors contributing to late awards are  NIH does not have a centralized 
grantees submitting late applications, grantees  system to monitor the underlying 
causes of late type 5 awards. 
submitting incomplete applications, process 
However, our analysis found four 
delays at NIH, and late Congressional budget 
potential factors that may 
appropriations. 
contribute to late awards. 
Grantees submit applications late more than half of the time where data is 
available. NIH requires grantees to submit type 5 applications 60 days 
prior to the end of the current budget period. NIHs grants management 
database had application receipt dates for 65 percent (39,939) of the type 5 
awards for the 3 years in our review. Sixty-four percent of those 
applications were late. On average, these applications were 44 days late. 
In 38 percent of the cases with late applications, the resulting award was 
late. On average, those awards were 26 days late. 
In addition, we reviewed the files for 272 active type 5 research project 
(R01) awards that were at least 30 days late, at the National Institute of 
OEI-01-03-00020  NIH GRANTS MANAGEMENT: LATE AWARDS  9  F I N D I N G S  
General Medical Sciences, the National Institute on Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.  Fifty-five 
percent of the applications were received past the 60-day deadline. On 
average, these applications were 43 days late. 
NIHs IMPAC system now automatically generates letters to grantee 
institutions when an application is more than 15 days late. During the 
time period in our review, however, this system was not yet in place, 
leaving the institutes responsible for following up with delinquent 
grantees. Fourteen institutes provided us with their follow-up procedures 
*
for late applications.  These generally called for the institute to send the 
grantee a reminder letter between 10 and 16 days after the application 
due date, requesting the information. 
Grantees may be late in submitting type 5 applications for several reasons, 
according to NIH officials and grantee institutions. First, principal 
investigators are sometimes slow to provide information, because they are 
busy conducting the research and balancing additional responsibilities, 
such as teaching. Second, some grantees do not understand the NIH 
requirements for type 5 applications. Grants specialists reported that 
grantee institutions with less experience with NIH grants may especially 
encounter this problem. Third, some grantee institutions may not have 
adequate systems in place to monitor type 5 award deadlines. 
Grantees often submit applications that are missing financial information or 
assurances of research integrity.  The instructions for the Application for 
Continuation of a Grant (PHS-2590) lay out the required elements of the 
type 5 application. The institutes cannot process a type 5 application until 
the grantee submits all of the required elements. 
Thirty-nine percent of the awards that were 30 days or more late at the 
National Institute of General Medical Sciences, the National Institute of 
Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood 
Institute lacked one or more of the required elements. The most common 
missing elements were human subjects assurances (49 percent), financial 
status reports (25 percent), and animal research assurances (23 percent). 
Grantees may submit incomplete applications to show that they are 
making an effort to meet NIHs deadline, even if they have not collected all 
* 
Since the time of our review, NIH has centralized its tracking and processing of type 5 
applications, such that individual institutes procedures are being replaced by standard 
operating procedures. 
OEI-01-03-00020  NIH GRANTS MANAGEMENT: LATE AWARDS  10  F I N D I N G S  
of the required information. However, institute staff told us that they 
would prefer grantees to notify the institute of the delay, and agree on a 
revised due date. 
Five institutes provided us with specific procedures related to follow-up for 
incomplete applications. Their guidelines instruct grants management 
staff to contact the grantee institution to request the missing information, 
but do not provide a timeline for follow-up. 
Incomplete applications should become less of a problem once NIH 
implements its system for submitting applications electronically, which is 
currently being tested. The electronic system will reject an application if 
one or more of the required elements is missing. 
Heavy workload and processing problems at NIH limit the ability of grants 
management staff to review applications.  Twelve percent of the late 
awards that were 30 days or more late at the National Institute of General 
Medical Sciences, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute had process 
delays on the part of institute staff: 6 percent had delayed reviews by staff; 
4 percent had either a lost file or data entry problem; and 2 percent 
experienced other types of delays. 
Institute staff may be responsible for hundreds of grants at a time, of 
many types and with different requirements. The size of this workload, 
compounded by other priorities such as issuing new competing awards, 
may lead to delays in the review of a type 5 application by either the 
project officer or the grants specialist. Several institute officials who we 
interviewed noted that this was a problem. Eleven percent of grantee 
institutions cited experience with delayed reviews, and another 17 percent 
cited problems with institute staffing in general as factors for late type 5 
awards. Eleven institutes provided us with the worksheets, checklists, 
flowcharts, or sets of instructions related to the processes that project 
officers and grants management specialists must follow in reviewing a 
type 5 application. Only one institute included a timeline for these 
processes, however. 
Processing problems can create delays if files are lost or data is incorrectly 
entered. Several institute officials said that they were aware of delays in 
routing the application to the project officer or grants specialist. Five 
percent of grantee institutions said that NIH had lost one of their type 5 
applications, and 4 percent of grantee institutions had experienced 
problems due to administrative errors such as computer failures. 
OEI-01-03-00020  NIH GRANTS MANAGEMENT: LATE AWARDS  11  FF II NN DD II NN GG SS  
Institutes might also delay awards because of late congressional budget 
appropriations.  Although NIHs fiscal year begins on October 1, the 
agencys budget may not be finalized for several months after that. In the 
meantime, the agency operates under continuing resolutions, which may 
allow spending at the same level as the previous fiscal year, or may 
restrict spending. Officials at the Office of Extramural Research cited late 
budget appropriations as a prominent cause of late type 5 awards, because 
many institutes tend to issue funding more conservatively under 
continuing resolutions, and some withhold funding altogether. However, 
institute staff who we spoke to seemed less concerned about the effect of 
continuing resolutions, and said that, in most years with continuing 
resolutions, they have been able to continue operating normally with 
respect to issuing type 5 awards. 
Late awards can create problems at NIH  Institute staff were concerned 
with the added workload caused 
and, to some extent, at grantee institutions. 
by late awards. In addition, 
grantee institutions noted that late awards created difficulties in terms 
of the administration of their research. 
Grants management staff can become inundated with type 5 awards as late 
awards accumulate.  The heavy workload caused by late awards can be 
difficult for institute staff to stay on top of, especially as they continue to 
deal with each months incoming type 5 applications, as well as the 
backlog.  They depend on consistency and timeliness in issuing type 
5 awards to manage their workloads effectively. 
In addition, late awards often become time consuming when they require 
follow-up with the grantee institution. Among the awards that were 
30 days or more late at the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, 
the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the National 
Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute with a late or incomplete application, 
60 percent included documentation that the institute followed up with the 
grantee. 
Grantee institutions reported problems for both researchers and 
administrators due to late awards.  Twenty-five percent of grantee 
institutions reported that late type 5 awards have caused problems for 
their institutions to a large or moderate extent, and another 67 percent 
reported that late type 5 awards have caused problems to a small extent. 
In particular, 97 percent of grantee institutions indicated that the 
increased administrative burden was a problem for their institutions 
OEI-01-03-00020  NIH GRANTS MANAGEMENT: LATE AWARDS  12  FF II NN DD II NN GG SS  
(27 percent said that this was a major problem). When an award is late, 
grants administrators must expend additional time and effort to 
communicate with NIH and, if necessary, obtain missing paperwork from 
primary investigators or business officials at their institution. In addition, 
75 percent of grantee institutions responded that having to use funding 
from other sources was a problem (26 percent said that this was a major 
problem). Grantee institutions also mentioned that late awards could 
create problems for primary investigators, in terms of delaying or slowing 
research temporarily (53 percent), creating difficulties for primary 
investigators in meeting scientific progress deadlines (49 percent), or 
stopping research permanently (7 percent). Sixty-one percent of the 
grantee institutions noted that late awards become a problem for them 
when they are awarded more than 1 month after the end of the previous 
budget period. 
To help mitigate these difficulties, NIH provides preaward authority, 
which allows grantee institutions to incur expenses before the award is 
issued. NIH also generally authorizes grantee institutions to carry over 
unused funds from the previous budget period. While these authorities 
can significantly lessen the effects of late type 5 awards for the conduct of 
research at some grantee institutions, other grantee institutions that 
cannot cover preaward expenses still face potentially serious constraints 
on their research. Further, coordinating preaward spending and carrying 
over funds creates additional work for administrators and business 
officials at these institutions. 
NIH has several initiatives planned or  Staff at the Office of Extramural 
underway to help facilitate timely awards.  Research continue to emphasize to 
grantees the importance of 
submitting type 5 applications on time.  They conduct outreach and 
education efforts through conferences, in newsletters and notices to the 
grantee community, and through site visits. 
In addition to ongoing outreach, NIH is in the process of implementing 
several initiatives that address underlying causes of late type 5 awards. 
These initiatives are related to launching an automated, online research 
administration system and targeting problem grantees. 
Electronic reminders to grantees about progress reports.  In the summer 
of 2003, NIH developed an electronic system that notifies grantees of 
upcoming deadlines for type 5 applications. This is part of a wider NIH 
initiative, called Electronic Research Administration, to computerize all 
OEI-01-03-00020  NIH GRANTS MANAGEMENT: LATE AWARDS  13  FF II NN DD II NN GG SS  
aspects of grants management into one integrated system. The system 
generates an email to the appropriate principal investigator 2 months 
prior to the application due date. Before this system was in place, NIH 
sent hardcopy reminders to grantees, but discontinued that approach in 
August 2002. Prior to implementing the automated system, NIH 
created a Web site for grantees to check on due dates periodically. 
Many grantee institutions remarked that NIHs old system of notifying 
grantee institutions about due dates through paper reminders had been 
very helpful, and that they looked forward to the electronic notification 
system. (The system went into effect after we administered our survey.) 
NIH is developing a similar system for business officials at grantee 
institutions. NIH will send a monthly email to the appropriate business 
officials at grantee institutions, listing all the upcoming due dates for 
type 5 applications. 
Electronic submission of noncompeting applications.  As another 
component of Electronic Research Administration, NIH has developed a 
system for many grantees to submit selected noncompeting applications 
electronically. This system makes it easier for grantees to complete and 
submit their applications and automatically checks the completeness of 
applications before accepting them. As a result, electronic submissions 
will likely help to mitigate the problem of incomplete applications. NIH 
piloted this program in November 2002 and implemented it more fully 
in the winter of 2004. 
Electronic submission of financial status reports.  As of January 2003, 
grantees can submit financial status reports electronically to NIH. This 
helps to facilitate grantees submitting these reports, as well as NIH 
review. It also assists NIH in tracking which financial status reports 
have been reviewed and approved. 
Electronic review of type 5 applications by program officers.  To facilitate 
the timely review of type 5 applications by program officers, NIH has 
developed a new application that will allow program officers to review 
and approve type 5 applications electronically. 
Targeting problem grantees.  NIHs Grants Management Advisory 
Committee, which is composed of the chief grants management officers of 
all the institutes, has formed a subcommittee, called the Compliance 
Education and Review Team, to address issues of grantee compliance. 
This group has plans to identify grantees with a pattern of submitting late 
type 5 applications. A workgroup of the Compliance, Education and 
OEI-01-03-00020  NIH GRANTS MANAGEMENT: LATE AWARDS  14  F I N D I N G S  
Review Team, composed of institute grant specialists and officials from the 
Office of Extramural Research, is currently developing approaches to 
improve compliance and reduce future delinquencies. 
OEI-01-03-00020  NIH GRANTS MANAGEMENT: LATE AWARDS  15    R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S

Thirty-five percent of type 5 awards have been issued late in the past 
few years, due to late and incomplete applications, process delays, and 
late budget appropriations. This has created problems at both NIH and 
grantee institutions. 
We recognize that NIH is already taking steps to address this issue 
through electronic research administration and targeting problem 
grantees, and that NIHs resources are limited. Taking into account 
these considerations, we recommend that NIH: 
A centralized system to monitor 
Develop a centralized system to monitor late 
late awards across institutes 
awards. 
would allow the Office of 
Extramural Research to identify 
and address the key problems and bottlenecks that are causing late 
awards. The current approach, documenting these problems and 
bottlenecks in the individual grant files, is inefficient because it limits 
systematic review and analysis. 
The most straightforward way to accomplish this type of tracking is to 
require all institutes to document in the Information Management, 
Analysis and Coordination (IMPAC II) system, which is NIHs grants 
management database, the reason(s) why an award was late. Some 
institutes (such as the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute) already 
have internal systems that do this; these may provide useful models. 
This system should distinguish whether a late award was due to the 
grantee or institute process delays (or a combination). For grantee causes, 
the system could capture when the application is late, and how late it is; it 
could also capture when the application is incomplete, and which 
element(s) is missing. For institute delays, the system could capture 
delayed reviews by program officers or grants specialists, problems with 
computer systems, and lost documents. This type of tracking would allow 
NIH to detect patterns of problems, at the grantee and institute levels, 
and note specific problems with particular grantees or institutes. The 
National Cancer Institute has developed a prototype system that may be a 
good starting point in terms of identifying specific elements related to the 
grantee and the institute that contribute to late awards. (See Appendix 
A). 
OEI-01-03-00020  NIH GRANTS MANAGEMENT: LATE AWARDS  16  R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S  
Address late awards more systematically by  As we noted, 50 grantee institutions 
focusing on grantee institutions.  accounted for more than half of all late 
awards in the past 3 years. 
Efficiencies could be gained if NIH followed up with a key administrator at 
these institutions, on the basis of an overall pattern of late applications or 
late awards. This approach could go far to reduce patterns of late or 
incomplete applications, thereby reducing the time and resources that 
NIH currently devotes to follow-up with individual grantees. 
NIH could provide feedback to grantee institutions through a Web site as 
part of electronic research administration. Each grantee institution could 
link to a summary report for its grantees. Ideally, the feedback would 
address each grantee institutions overall performance for all the awards it 
received across NIH institutes; another option is for the institution to 
receive feedback on its performance for each NIH institute separately. 
NIH has taken an important first step through the Compliance, Education 
and Review Team committees efforts to identify institutions with patterns 
of late applications. We encourage the committee to maintain this focus as 
it develops a plan for addressing these problems, and to expand its scope 
to also look at the patterns of incomplete applications and other 
delinquencies. 
Agency Comments 
NIH reviewed a draft of this report and concurred with our 
recommendations. In its comments, NIH indicated additional steps that 
it is taking to address the timeliness of type 5 awards, such as 
developing a Web site as part of electronic research administration 
where grantees can obtain a list of all type 5 awards for their 
institutions and their due dates, implementing a monitoring tool to 
assist grants management officers with tracking the award process, and 
centralizing the receipt and tracking of type 5 applications. We 
appreciate NIHs attention to these important issues. For the full text 
of the agencys comments, see Appendix E. 
OEI-01-03-00020  NIH GRANTS MANAGEMENT: LATE AWARDS  17  A P P E N D I X ~ A

Findings of the National Cancer Institute on late type 5 awards 
Several institutes monitor late type 5 applications and awards in some 
way, typically through an internal computer program. The National 
Cancer Institutes system is particularly noteworthy in that it captures 
both late type 5 awards and their causes, and goes back to 1992. 
Analysis by the National Cancer Institute found that 33 percent of its 
type 5 awards were late in fiscal year (FY) 2002. Ten percent were late 
due to internal delays, and 23 percent were late due to the grantee 
institution. In addition, 41 percent of its type 5 applications were late 
in FY 2002. Twenty percent were at least 30 days late, and 10 percent 
arrived after the original budget period start date. Since 1992, an 
average of 33 percent of its type 5 applications have been late. Further, 
30 percent of type 5 applications were incomplete in FY 2002.  The 
major deficiencies were assurances for human and animal research, 
streamlined noncompeting application questions, invention statements, 
and financial status reports. 
The National Cancer Institute developed a form that identifies internal 
and external barriers that may prevent awards from being issued on 
time. For each type 5 award, the grants specialist uses this form to 
identify any problems in issuing the award, the follow-up action that 
was taken, and how long it took to resolve the problems. 
OEI-01-03-00020  NIH GRANTS MANAGEMENT: LATE AWARDS  18    A P P E N D I X   ~   B

Methodology 
Data Analysis 
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) provided us with records of all 
type 5 research project (R01), program project (P01), and cooperative 
agreement (U01) grants awarded in fiscal year (FY) 2000 through FY 
2002 across all institutes. These data came from a database 
management system known as the Information for Management, 
Planning, Analysis, and Coordination (IMPAC II). NIH uses IMPAC II 
for managing and monitoring grants. NIH has used IMPAC II for 
managing and monitoring grants for the past 10 years. 
We focused specifically on R01, P01, and U01 awards, which are the 
three most common funding mechanisms for type 5 extramural research 
grants. R01 grants support individual research projects led by one 
primary investigator. P01 grants support groups of researchers who are 
all conducting studies related to a particular research objective. U01 
grants are partnerships between researchers and NIH. We selected 
these types of awards for our analysis of late awards because they 
account for the greatest proportion of type 5 extramural research grants 
awarded by NIH in terms of number and amount of funding, about 70 
percent. 
We received a dataset of 60,993 records. For each grant, the dataset 
included the grant number, grantee institution, awarding institute, 
amount of funding, end date of the previous budget period, start date of 
the current budget period, and initial encumbrance date of the award. 
We classified an award as late if the award issue date was 1 day or more 
after the end date of the previous budget period, since NIH policy is to 
issue the award before the start of the budget period. 
We tallied the number and funding of late type 5 awards overall, as well 
as by year, by grantee institution, by NIH institute, by funding 
mechanism, and by number of weeks late. We performed our analyses 

using SAS  software version 8.0, a statistical software package. 
File Reviews 
We reviewed the files for a stratified sample of 272, active type 5 R01 
awards that were at least 30 days late at 3 institutes between FY 
2000 and FY 2002. In order to concentrate on the most prominent 
funding sources, we limited our population to three of the largest 
institutes: the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the 
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the 
OEI-01-03-00020  NIH GRANTS MANAGEMENT: LATE AWARDS  19  A P P E N D I X ~ B  
National Institute of General Medical Sciences. (For FY 2002, these 
three institutes were in the top four in terms of number of extramural 
research grants and amount funding for extramural research grants.) 
We excluded the largest institute, the National Cancer Institute, 
because it already has an active monitoring system in place to 
identify late awards and their causes. We stratified our sample by 
institute. 
We intended to review the files associated with 300 awards. But, 
because the National Institute of General Medical Sciences had only 
76 active type 5 R01 awards that were at least 30 days late between 
FY 2000 and FY 2002, our sample became 276 awards. The sample 
included all 76 awards from the National Institute of General Medical 
Sciences and a randomly selected sample of 100 awards each from the 
220 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute files and the 174 
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases that met our 
criteria. Four awards in our sample were missing files at the 
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, so the final 
number of awards included in our file review was 272 (See Table 5). 
Table 5. Sample Design 
Population of Active  Sample of Active  Final Dataset of Active 
Missing 
Strata for File Review  R01 Awards 30 Days  R01 Awards 30 Days  R01 Awards 30 Days 
Files 
or More Late  or More Late  or More Late 
National Heart, Lung, & Blood Institute  220  100  0  100 
National Institute of Allergy & Infectious  174  100  4  96 
Diseases 
National Institute of General Medical  76  76  0  76 
Sciences 
Total  470  276  4  272 
Source: OIG analysis, 2003. 
An active awards is one that was still being funded by the institute at 
the time of our review; we restricted our sample to active awards 
because NIH stores files for inactive awards at off-site warehouses, 
where they would not be readily available for our review. 
We selected awards that were 30 days late or more in order to focus on 
delays that are significant enough to become problematic for grantees. 
Sixty-one percent of the grantee institutions indicated that late type 
5 awards become a problem for them when more than 4 weeks late. 
OEI-01-03-00020  NIH GRANTS MANAGEMENT: LATE AWARDS  20  A P P E N D I X ~ B  
We limited our sample to one grant mechanism. We selected R01s 
because that mechanism is the most commonly used (accounting for 
67 percent of all type 5 awards in terms of number for FY 2002). For 
each late award in the sample, we documented the reason(s) why the 
award was late and whether the institute followed up with the 
grantee to notify them of the problem. If we could not determine why 
the award was late or whether follow-up occurred, we noted that. 
(Institutes may document the reason for a late type 5 award on the 
grants management worksheet [which the grants specialist fills out 
after reviewing the application], through records of correspondence 
with the grantee institution, or within the Notice of Grant 
Application. We could not find such documentation for 21 percent of 
the awards that we reviewed. Each institute also maintains internal 
computer systems where such information may be recorded, but staff 
told us that any information entered into those systems would be 
included in the grant files as well.) We also recorded the dates on 
which the program officer, grants management specialist, and chief 
grants management officer signed off on the funding. 
Institute Procedure Review 
We requested operating procedures related to type 5 applications and 
type 5 awards from all 24 institutes with grant-making authority. 
Nineteen of the 24 institutes with grant-making authority provided us 
with materials; the other 5 (the National Center for Research 
Resources, the National Eye Institute, the National Institute on Aging, 
the National Institute of Nursing Research, and the National Center on 
Minority Health and Health Disparities) did not maintain operating 
procedures specific to type 5 applications or awards at the time of our 
review. We included in our review any written procedures, instruction 
manuals, checklists, worksheets, timelines, flowcharts, and form letters 
that the institutes sent to us. We assessed the number of institutes that 
maintained guidelines related to (1) processing type 5 applications, 
(2) follow-up for late applications, (3) follow-up for incomplete 
applications, and (4) dealing with process delays. 
Survey of NIH Grantee Institutions 
We selected a simple random sample of 135 grantee institutions from 
the 375 locations that received 10 or more research grants from NIH in 
FY 2002. We restricted our sample to institutions with 10 or more 
research grants to ensure that they had a wide range of experiences 
with NIH so that any problems they reported with type 5 awards would 
not reflect an anomaly. We drew our sample from a list of 2,532 
institutions provided by NIH. 
OEI-01-03-00020  NIH GRANTS MANAGEMENT: LATE AWARDS  21  AA PP PP EE NN DD II XX ~~ BB     
We oversampled by an additional 18 locations in order to obtain our 
desired sample size. From 153 grantee institutions, we eliminated 
2 foreign institutions, 2 institutions with incomplete contact 
information, and 14 duplicates (where 2 or more divisions of a research 
institution were included in our sample, we kept only the first entry in 
order to avoid duplication.) 
The survey contained seven questions on late awards, addressing the 
main factors that cause late type 5 applications and awards, the extent 
to which late type 5 awards create problems, and recommendations for 
improving the type 5 award process. We pretested our survey with 
grantee institutions. 
We addressed the survey to the business official identified by NIH. In 
cases where NIH had not identified a business official, we addressed the 
survey to a senior grants administrator. In both instances, we indicated 
in our cover letter that a senior grants administrator who is 
knowledgeable about NIH grants was to complete the survey. 
To ensure a high response rate, we first sent an introductory letter to 
each institution in our sample, explaining the significance of the survey. 
One week later, we mailed the survey. We followed up with a second 
survey for institutions that did not send back our survey within 
3 weeks. 
We received 111 responses, for a response rate of 82 percent. 
Nonrespondent analysis found no significant difference between 
respondents and nonrespondents in terms of average number and 
funding of research awards. (See Table 6 on this page and Table 7 on 
the next page.) 
The estimates given in the report are within plus or minus 7 percentage 
points at the 95 percent confidence level. 
Table 6. Nonrespondent Analysis by Number of 
Research Awards 
Average Number of Awards 
Sample (n=135)  108 
Respondents (n=111)  107 
Nonrespondents (n=24)  112 
t=0.15  Degrees of Freedom=133 
Source: OIG survey of NIH grantees, 2003 
OEI-01-03-00020  NIH GRANTS MANAGEMENT: LATE AWARDS  22  A P P E N D I X ~ B  
Table 7. Nonrespondent Analysis by Amount of 
Funding 
Average Amount of Funding 
Sample (n=135)  $37,550,528.82 
Respondents (n=111)  $37,303,671.78 
Nonrespondents (n=24)  $38,692,242.60 
t=0.12  Degrees of Freedom=133 
Source: OIG survey of NIH grantees, 2003 
Interviews with NIH Officials 
We interviewed a program officer, a grants management specialist, and 
the chief grants management officer at the National Heart, Lung, and 
Blood Institute, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases, and the National Institute of General Medical Sciences. We 
discussed the causes and effects of late type 5 awards, any systems that 
the institutes had in place to monitor type 5 awards, and any barriers to 
issuing type 5 awards on time. We also solicited their recommendations 
for improving the type 5 award process. 
We also spoke with staff at the Office of Extramural Research and with 
institute administrators involved with NIH-wide grants administration 
efforts, who described the initiatives that NIH has planned or underway 
to reduce the likelihood of late type 5 applications and awards. We 
discussed the causes and effects of late type 5 awards, and any barriers 
to issuing type 5 awards on time. We also solicited their 
recommendations for improving the type 5 award process. 
OEI-01-03-00020  NIH GRANTS MANAGEMENT: LATE AWARDS  23    A P P E N D I X   ~   C

Confidence Intervals for Key Findings 
Below we provide the point estimate and 95 percent confidence interval for each of 
our key findings. The point estimates and confidence intervals for the findings vary 
based on the standard error for each individual finding. 
Sample  Point  Confidence 
Data Source  Key Findings  Subfindings 
Size  Estimate*  Interval 
File review of late awards  Percent of type 5 applications  272 
55%  +/-4% 
that were received late 
Average number of days that  156 
43  +/-10 
type 5 applications were late 
Percent of type 5 applications  272 
39%  +/-4% 
that were missing information 
Percent of incomplete type 
5 applications missing  116 
49%  +/-6% 
information on human 
subject assurances 
Percent of incomplete type 
116 
5 applications missing  25%  +/-4% 
financial status reports 
Percent of incomplete type 
5 applications missing  116 
23%  +/-6% 
information on animal 
research assurances 
Percent of incomplete or late 
applications that received  206 
documented follow -up from  60%  +/-5% 
National Institutes of Health 
(NIH) staff 
Percent of late awards with any  272 
12%  +/-3% 
kind of NIH process delay 
Percent of late awards with  272 
6%  +/-2% 
a delayed review by NIH 
Percent of late awards with 
272 
lost file or data entry  4%  +/-2% 
problem due to NIH 
*Note: Point estimates are weighted 
Source: OIG analysis, 2003 
OEI-01-03-00020  NIH GRANTS MANAGEMENT: LATE AWARDS  24    A P P E N D I X   ~   D  
Late Type 5 Awards Among All Institutes, FYs 2000-2002 * 
Number of  Number of  Percent of  Amount of Funding 
Institute/Center  Late Type 5  Total Type 5  Late Type 5  Associated with the 
Awards  Awards  Awards  Late Type 5 Awards 
Nat. Cancer Inst.  3,076  8,264  37%  $1,565,162,883 
Nat. Heart, Lung, & Blood Inst.  2,788  7,841  36%  $1,331,563,063 
Nat. Inst. of Neurological Disorders & Stroke  2,472  4,984  50%  $883,557,719 
Nat. Inst. of Diabetes & Digestive & Kidney Diseases  2,111  5,565  38%  $811,115,919 
Nat. Inst. of Mental Health  1,871  3,340  56%  $684,988,441 
Nat. Inst. of Allergy& Infectious Diseases  1,717  6,238  28%  $1,061,935,328 
Nat. Inst. of Child Health & Human Development  1,463  2,949  50%  $657,576,517 
Nat. Inst. on Drug Abuse  1,216  2,336  52%  $480,865,965 
Nat. Inst. of General Medical Sciences  1,189  7,908  15%  $349,934,137 
Nat. Eye Inst.  1,051  2,235  47%  $306,203,339 
Nat. Inst. of Arthritis & Musculoskeletal & Skin Diseases  834  1,592  52%  $283,015,157 
Nat. Inst. on Aging  554  2,148  26%  $332,468,252 
Nat. Inst. of Environmental Health Sciences  420  1,030  41%  $168,309,313 
Nat. Inst. of Dental & Craniofacial Research  223  1,041  21%  $87,354,637 
Nat. Inst. on Deafness & other Communication Disorders  140  1,355  10%  $60,050,718 
Nat. Inst. on Alcohol Abuse & Alcoholism  114  1,152  10%  $45,405,392 
Nat. Inst. of Nursing Research  59  393  15%  $20,642,872 
Nat. Library of Medicine  57  82  70%  $17,480,321 
Nat. Center for Research Resources  49  212  23%  $17,695,662 
Nat. Center for Complementary & Alternative Medicine  45  103  44%  $28,237,221 
Nat. Human Genome Research Inst.  40  194  21%  $41,700,105 
John E. Fogarty International Center  6  31  19%  $1,185,950 
Overall Total  21,495  60,993  35%  $9,236,448,911 
Source: OIG analysis of NIH data from IMPAC II, 2003

*Although 24 Institutes have grant-making authority, only 22 issued type 5 awards in this timeframe

OEI-01-03-00020  NIH GRANTS MANAGEMENT: LATE AWARDS  25
 0AAAA PPPP PPPPA EEEEP NNNNP DDDDE IIIINXXXXD~~~~ IAAAAXA       ~   E  
Agency comments 
  OEI-01-03-00020  NIH GRANTS MANAGEMENT: LATE AWARDS  26  A P P E N D I X ~ E  
OEI-01-03-00020  NIH GRANTS MANAGEMENT: LATE AWARDS  27
 A P P E N D I X ~ E  
OEI-01-03-00020  NIH GRANTS MANAGEMENT: LATE AWARDS  28
 A P P E N D I X ~ E  
OEI-01-03-00020  NIH GRANTS MANAGEMENT: LATE AWARDS  29
   A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S

This report was prepared under the direction of Mark R. Yessian, Ph.D., Regional Inspector 
General for Evaluation and Inspections in the Boston Regional Office, and Joyce M. Greenleaf, 
MBA, Assistant Regional Inspector General. Other principal Office of Evaluation and Inspections 
staff who contributed include: 
Aimee Golbitz, Team Leader 
Sara Schulman, Project Leader 
Danielle Fletcher, Program Analyst 
Genevieve Nowolinski, Program Specialist 
Ayana Everett, Program Specialist 
Elise Stein, Director, Public Health and Human Services 
Technical Assistance 
Barbara Tedesco, Mathematical Statistician 
OEI-01-03-00020  NIH GRANTS MANAGEMENT: LATE AWARDS  30    E N D   N O T E S

1 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Performance and 
Accountability Report Fiscal Year 2002, Appendix A. 
2 45 CFR  74 and 92. 
3 NIH Grants Policy Statement, March 2001, p. 25. 
4 NIH is comprised of 27 Institutes and Centers, such as the National 
Cancer Institute. Twenty-four institutes have grant-making 
authority. 
5 NIH distinguishes grants by type. A type 1 award refers to funding for 
a new project, which must first undergo peer review. A type 2 award 
is an extension of a project that was scheduled to expire, and must also 
undergo peer review. Type 3 and type 4 awards allow for changes in 
either the budget or scope of research for a project that NIH is 
currently funding. Type 7 and type 9 awards reflect changes in either 
the grantee institution at which the research is taking place or the 
NIH institute overseeing the grant. 
6 These are the most common funding mechanisms among single project, 
multiple project, and cooperative agreement awards, respectively. 
7 NIH Grants Policy Statement, March 2001, p. 117. 
8 NIH Manual, 5003 -Issuance and Recording of Grant Award 
Obligations, Release Date 7/1/89. 
9 NIH Grants Policy Statement, March 2001, p. 96. Preaward spending is 
part of NIHs expanded authorities. 
OEI-01-03-00020  NIH GRANTS MANAGEMENT: LATE AWARDS  31