FACACLASSIC

Note: An Annual Comprehensive Review, as required by §7 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, is conducted each year on committee data entered for the previous fiscal year (referred to as the reporting year). The data for the reporting year is not considered verified until this review is complete and the data is moved to history for an agency/department. See the Data From Previous Years section at the bottom of this page for the committee’s historical, verified data.

Details on agency responses to committee recommendations can be found under the Performance Measures section for each committee in the fields “Agency Feedback” and “Agency Feedback Comment.”

HHS - 926 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Initial Review Group - Authorized by Law

GENERAL INFORMATION

Committee Name	Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Initial Review Group	Agency Name	Department of Health and Human Services
Fiscal Year	2025	Committee Number	926
Original Establishment Date	11/20/1985	Committee Status	Terminated
Actual Termination Date	6/30/2025	Committee URL	https://www.nichd.nih.gov/about/org/der/srb
Actual Merged Date		Presidential Appointments*	No
New Committee This FY	No	Max Number of Members*	Unlimited
Terminated This FY	Yes	Designated Fed Officer Position Title*	DIRECTOR, SCIENTIFIC REVIEW BRANCH
Merged This FY		Designated Federal Officer Prefix
Current Charter Date	3/26/2009	Designated Federal Officer First Name*	Joanna
Date Of Renewal Charter		Designated Federal Officer Middle Name
Projected Termination Date		Designated Federal Officer Last Name*	Kubler-Kielb
Exempt From Renewal*	Yes	Designated Federal Officer Suffix	Ph.D.
Specific Termination Authority	2025 Secretary Directive	Designated Federal Officer Phone*	(301) 435-6916
Establishment Authority*	Authorized by Law	Designated Federal Officer Fax*	301-402-4104
Specific Establishment Authority*	42 U.S.C. 282(b)(16)	Designated Federal Officer Email*	kielbj@mail.nih.gov
Effective Date Of Authority*	11/20/1985
Exempt From EO 13875 Discretionary Cmte	Not Applicable
Committee Type*	Continuing
Presidential*	No
Committee Function*	Grant Review Committee

RECOMMENDATION/JUSTIFICATIONS

Agency Recommendation*	Continue
Legislation to Terminate Required	Not Applicable
Legislation Status	Not Applicable
How does cmte accomplish its purpose?*	Section 492 of the PHS Act states that The Secretary shall by regulation require appropriate technical and scientific peer review of (A) applications; and (B) biomedical and behavioral research and development contracts. This committee was composed of recognized biomedical and/or behavioral research authorities who represented the forefront of research and technical knowledge and who provided first-level merit review of funding applications and proposals, including but not limited to grant and cooperative agreement applications and contract proposals for research projects and for research and training activities in areas relevant to maternal and child health, reproductive and population sciences, intellectual and developmental disabilities, and medical rehabilitation. During this reporting period, the committee reviewed 338 applications requesting $146,981,102.
How is membership balanced?*	The members of this committee were authorities knowledgeable in the various disciplines and fields relating to maternal and child health, reproductive and population sciences, intellectual and developmental disabilities, and medical rehabilitation.
How frequent & relevant are cmte mtgs?*	The committee held 17 meetings during this reporting period.
Why advice can't be obtained elsewhere?*	Per "2025 Secretary Directive" this FACA Committee has been terminated. This committee was composed of recognized biomedical and behavioral research authorities who represented the forefront of research and technical knowledge and who provided first-level merit review of highly scientific and technical research grant applications and contract proposals. These evaluations and recommendations could not be obtained from other sources because the specialized, complex nature of the applications and proposals required a unique balance and breadth of expertise not available from the NIH staff or from other established sources.
Why close or partially close meetings?	The meetings of the committee were closed to the public for the review of grant applications. Sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act permit the closing of meetings where discussion could reveal confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material and personal information, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Recommendation Remarks	Per "2025 Secretary Directive" this FACA Committee has been terminated. Reports: This committee did not produce any reports this fiscal year. The Designated Federal Officer (DFO) and Committee Decision Maker were the same individual based on assigned duties within the IC. In general, initial/integrated review group (IRG) members served up to six years, which was documented in the Members list. Temporary members were individuals recruited based on expertise needed for each meeting. Some temporary members may have attended one meeting only while others may have attended multiple meetings. Instead of appointment start and end dates, each meeting date on which the temporary member served was identified on the Members list. Meeting rosters, including members’ affiliations and zip codes were available online at https://public.era.nih.gov/pubroster/.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Outcome Improvement To Health Or Safety*	No	Action Reorganize Priorities*	No
Outcome Trust In Government	No	Action Reallocate Resources	No
Outcome Major Policy Changes	No	Action Issued New Regulations	No
Outcome Advance In Scientific Research	Yes	Action Proposed Legislation	No
Outcome Effective Grant Making	Yes	Action Approved Grants Or Other Payments	Yes
Outcome Improved Service Delivery	No	Action Other	No
Outcome Increased Customer Satisfaction	No	Action Comment	An action of “approved” or “recommended” for grants receiving initial peer review by this committee did not infer that the grant will be or has been funded. Research grant applications submitted to NIH must go through a two-step review process that included the initial peer review for scientific and technical merit and a second step of review and approval by a National Advisory Council for program relevance. In addition, prior to an award or funding being made, NIH staff must conduct an administrative review for a number of other considerations. These included alignment with NIH’s funding principles, review of the project budget, assessment of the applicant’s management systems, determination of applicant eligibility, and compliance with public policy requirements. After all these steps have been completed, NIH officials made funding decisions on individual grant applications.
Outcome Implement Laws/Reg Requirements	Yes	Grants Review*	Yes
Outcome Other	No	Number Of Grants Reviewed	338
Outcome Comment	NA	Number Of Grants Recommended	338
Cost Savings*	None	Dollar Value Of Grants Recommended	$146,981,102.00
Cost Savings Comment	NIH supported basic and clinical research accomplishments often take many years to unfold into new diagnostic tests and new ways to treat and prevent diseases.	Grants Review Comment	Grant Review
Number Of Recommendations*	13,918	Access Contact Designated Fed. Officer*	Yes
Number Of Recommendations Comment	N/A	Access Agency Website	Yes
% of Recs Fully Implemented*	0.00%	Access Committee Website	Yes
% of Recs Fully Implemented Comment	NIH Peer Review Committees were involved in the initial review of research grant applications. The NIH dual peer review system was mandated by statute in accordance with section 492 of the Public Health Service Act. The charge to this committee was to determine scientific and technical merit of the individual grants or contracts. These recommendations were forwarded to Federal officials who generally accepted the committee's recommendations and favorable applications were then forwarded for the second level of review performed by Institute and Center (IC) National Advisory Councils or Boards. Only applications that were favorably recommended by both the initial peer review committee and the Advisory Council may be recommended for funding.	Access GSA FACA Website	Yes
% of Recs Partially Implemented*	0.00%	Access Publications	No
% of Recs Partially Implemented Comment	NIH Peer Review Committees are involved in the initial review of research grant applications. The NIH dual peer review system was mandated by statute in accordance with section 492 of the Public Health Service Act. The charge to this committee was to determine scientific and technical merit of the individual grants or contracts. These recommendations were forwarded to Federal officials who generally accepted the committee's recommendations and favorable applications were then forwarded for the second level of review performed by Institute and Center (IC) National Advisory Councils or Boards. Only applications that were favorably recommended by both the initial peer review committee and the Advisory Council may be recommended for funding.	Access Other	No
Agency Feedback*	Yes	Access Comment	N/A
Agency Feedback Comment*	Information resulting from closed initial peer review meetings is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. The public can view information on research projects funded by NIH on the RePORT (Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool) website located at http://report.nih.gov.	Narrative Description*	NIH’s mission is to seek fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce illness and disability. NIH works toward that mission by supporting the research of non-Federal scientists in universities, medical schools, hospitals, and research institutions throughout the country and abroad. Section 492 of the PHS Act states that The Secretary shall by regulation require appropriate technical and scientific peer review of --(A) applications; and (B) biomedical research and development contracts. This committee was composed of recognized biomedical and behavioral research authorities who represented the forefront of research and technical knowledge and who provided first-level merit review of highly scientific and technical research grant applications and/or contract proposals. These evaluations and recommendations could not be obtained from other sources because the specialized, complex nature of the applications and proposals required a unique balance and breadth of expertise not available on the NIH staff or from other established sources.

COSTS

1. Payments to Non-Federal Members*		1. Est Paymnts to Non-Fed Membrs Nxt FY*	$0.00
2. Payments to Federal Members*		2. Est. Payments to Fed Members Next FY*	$0.00
3. Payments to Federal Staff*		3. Estimated Payments to Federal Staff*	$0.00
4. Payments to Consultants*		4. Est. Payments to Consultants Next FY*	$0.00
5. Travel Reimb. For Non-Federal Membrs*		5. Est Travel Reimb Non-Fed Membr nxtFY*	$0.00
6. Travel Reimb. For Federal Members*		6. Est Travel Reimb For Fed Members*	$0.00
7. Travel Reimb. For Federal Staff*		7. Est. Travel Reimb to Fed Staf Nxt FY*	$0.00
8. Travel Reimb. For Consultants*		8. Est Travel Reimb to Consltnts Nxt FY*	$0.00
10. Other Costs		10. Est. Other Costs Next FY*	$0.00
11. Total Costs	$0.00	11. Est. Total Next FY*	$0.00
Date Cost Last Modified	3/14/2025 9:48 AM	Est. Fed Staff Support Next FY*	0.00
Federal Staff Support (FTE)*		Est Cost Remarks	No estimated costs due to termination of committee.
Cost Remarks	Actual costs are lower than those projected last year due to the termination of the committee.

Interest Areas

Category Area Health Health Care Medicine Health and Health Research Research Basic Research Research and Development

Custom Links

Committee Level Reports