Department of Health and Human Services 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Inspector General 

May 2004 

OEI-01-03-00020 

NIH GRANTS MANAGEMENT: 

LATE AWARDS 
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. 
ABSTRACT

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 NIH’s 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 M ANAGEMENT : LATE A WARDS i 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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 NIH’s 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 NIH’s 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 year’s 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 M ANAGEMENT : LATE A WARDS ii 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

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 agency’s 

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 month’s 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 M ANAGEMENT : LATE A WARDS iii 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

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 M ANAGEMENT : LATE A WARDS iv 
� TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ . i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................ ................ ii

INTRODUCTION ................................ ......................... 1

FINDINGS ................................ ................................ . 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

RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ ................. 16

APPENDICES ................................ ........................... 18

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

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

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

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

NIH’s Comments on the Draft .............................. 26

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................. 30

END NOTES ................................ ..................... 31
� INTRODUCTION

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 President’s proposed budget for FY 2004 

requests $28 billion for NIH. 

About 80 to 85 percent of NIH’s budget supports extramural grants. 

Extramural grants fund scientists and organizations outside the agency. 

In FY 2002, NIH’s 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 M ANAGEMENT : LATE A WARDS 1 
INTRODUCTION 

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. 

NIH’s 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 M ANAGEMENT : LATE A WARDS 2 
INTRODUCTION 

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 M ANAGEMENT : LATE A WARDS 3 
INTRODUCTION 

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 grantee’s 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 

year’s 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 NIH’s 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 twothirds were due to the grantees. (See Appendix A for more information.) 

OEI - 01 - 03 - 00020 NIH GRANTS M ANAGEMENT : LATE A WARDS 4 
INTRODUCTION 

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 NIH’s 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 NIH’s 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 M ANAGEMENT : LATE A WARDS 5 
INTRODUCTION 

Standards

We conducted this inspection in accordance with the Quality Standards 

for Inspections issued by the President’s 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 M ANAGEMENT : LATE A WARDS 6 
� FINDINGS

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 

Years 2000 through 2002. 60,993 type 5 research project (R01) 

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 NIH’s 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 2000–FY 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 M ANAGEMENT : LATE A WARDS 7 
FINDINGS 

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 

Institute 

Number of 

Late Awards 

Percent of Awards 

That Were Late 

Average Number 

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 M ANAGEMENT : LATE A WARDS 8 
FINDINGS 

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 

grantees submitting late applications, grantees 

submitting incomplete applications, process 

delays at NIH, and late Congressional budget 

appropriations. 

NIH does not have a centralized 

system to monitor the underlying 

causes of late type 5 awards. 

However, our analysis found four 

potential factors that may 

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. NIH’s 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 M ANAGEMENT : LATE A WARDS 9 
FINDINGS 

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. 

NIH’s 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 NIH’s 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 institute’s procedures are being replaced by standard 

operating procedures. 

OEI - 01 - 03 - 00020 NIH GRANTS M ANAGEMENT : LATE A WARDS 10 
FINDINGS 

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 M ANAGEMENT : LATE A WARDS 11 
FINDINGS FINDINGS 

Institutes might also delay awards because of late congressional budget 

appropriations. Although NIH’s fiscal year begins on October 1, the 

agency’s 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 

and, to some extent, at grantee institutions. with the added workload caused 

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 month’s 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 M ANAGEMENT : LATE A WARDS 12 
FINDINGS FINDINGS 

(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 M ANAGEMENT : LATE A WARDS 13 
FINDINGS FINDINGS 

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 NIH’s 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. NIH’s 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 M ANAGEMENT : LATE A WARDS 14 
FINDINGS 

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 M ANAGEMENT : LATE A WARDS 15 
� RECOMMENDATIONS

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 NIH’s resources are limited. Taking into account 

these considerations, we recommend that NIH: 

Develop a centralized system to monitor late A centralized system to monitor 

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 NIH’s 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 M ANAGEMENT : LATE A WARDS 16 
RECOMMENDATIONS 

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 institution’s 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 committee’s 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 NIH’s attention to these important issues. For the full text 

of the agency’s comments, see Appendix E. 

OEI - 01 - 03 - 00020 NIH GRANTS M ANAGEMENT : LATE A WARDS 17 
APPENDIX~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 Institute’s 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 M ANAGEMENT : LATE A WARDS 18 
� APPENDIX ~ 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 M ANAGEMENT : LATE A WARDS 19 
APPENDIX~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 

Strata for File Review 

Population of Active 

R01 Awards 30 Days 

or More Late 

Sample of Active 

R01 Awards 30 Days 

or More Late 

Missing 

Files 

Final Dataset of Active 

R01 Awards 30 Days 

or More Late 

National Heart, Lung, & Blood Institute 220 100 0 100 

National Institute of Allergy & Infectious 

Diseases 

174 100 4 96 

National Institute of General Medical 

Sciences 

76 76 0 76 

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 M ANAGEMENT : LATE A WARDS 20 
APPENDIX~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 M ANAGEMENT : LATE A WARDS 21 
APPENDIX~B APPENDIX~B 

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. 

Average Number of Awards 

Sample (n=135) 108 

Respondents (n=111) 107 

Nonrespondents (n=24) 112 

t=0.15 Degrees of Freedom=133 

Table 6. Nonrespondent Analysis by Number of 

Research Awards 

Source: OIG survey of NIH grantees, 2003 

OEI - 01 - 03 - 00020 NIH GRANTS M ANAGEMENT : LATE A WARDS 22 
APPENDIX~B 

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 

Table 7. Nonrespondent Analysis by Amount of 

Funding 

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 M ANAGEMENT : LATE A WARDS 23 
� APPENDIX ~ 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. 

Data Source Key Findings Subfindings Sample 

Size 

Point 

Estimate* 

Confidence 

Interval 

File review of late awards Percent of type 5 applications 

that were received late 

272 55% +/-4% 

Average number of days that 

type 5 applications were late 

156 43 +/-10 

Percent of type 5 applications 

that were missing information 

272 39% +/-4% 

Percent of incomplete type 

5 applications missing 

information on human 

subject assurances 

116 49% +/-6% 

Percent of incomplete type 

5 applications missing 

financial status reports 

116 25% +/-4% 

Percent of incomplete type 

5 applications missing 

information on animal 

research assurances 

116 23% +/-6% 

Percent of incomplete or late 

applications that received 

documented follow -up from 

National Institutes of Health 

(NIH) staff 

206 

60% +/-5% 

Percent of late awards with any 

kind of NIH process delay 

272 12% +/-3% 

Percent of late awards with 

a delayed review by NIH 

272 6% +/-2% 

Percent of late awards with 

lost file or data entry 

problem due to NIH 

272 4% +/-2% 

*Note: Point estimates are weighted 

Source: OIG analysis, 2003 

OEI - 01 - 03 - 00020 NIH GRANTS M ANAGEMENT : LATE A WARDS 24 
� APPENDIX ~ D 

Late Type 5 Awards Among All Institutes, FYs 2000-2002 * 

Institute/Center 

Number of 

Late Type 5 

Awards 

Number of 

Total Type 5 

Awards 

Percent of 

Late Type 5 

Awards 

Amount of Funding 

Associated with the 

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 M ANAGEMENT : LATE A WARDS 25
OEI - 01 - 03 - 00020 NIH GRANTS M ANAGEMENT : LATE A WARDS 26

APPENDIX~A APPENDIX~AA

Agency comments

0 APPENDIX ~ E
APPENDIX~E 

OEI - 01 - 03 - 00020 NIH GRANTS M ANAGEMENT : LATE A WARDS 27
APPENDIX~E 

OEI - 01 - 03 - 00020 NIH GRANTS M ANAGEMENT : LATE A WARDS 28
APPENDIX~E 

OEI - 01 - 03 - 00020 NIH GRANTS M ANAGEMENT : LATE A WARDS 29
� ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

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 M ANAGEMENT : LATE A WARDS 30 
� END NOTES

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 NIH’s expanded authorities. 

OEI - 01 - 03 - 00020 NIH GRANTS M ANAGEMENT : LATE A WARDS 31