New and Updated Other Support FAQs Now Available


The answers to these and other new and updated FAQs are now available on our Other Support FAQ page. Just look for the yellow button labeled 'NEW' and blue button labeled 'UPDATED' icons for updates made in the last 60 days.


  1. Now that this new world of Other Support is taking a much, much bigger chunk of administrative time, has there been any thought to **dropping** the preliminary automated request for Other Support just after the score is received? Does anyone at the NIH actually evaluate the Other Support 5-6 months prior to the anticipated award start date? Does it have any impact at all on their subsequent award or lack thereof? Our investigators are eager to upload such information with the apparent thought that it gives them a funding edge and/or that it appears to be useful and mandatory. We research administrators love to assist with the funding process, but this automated JIT has always seemed quite superfluous to the aim.

  2. Seeking clarification on ‘electronic signature’ requirements, specifically for other-support documents. For the purpose of affixing an electronic signature to the other-support document; what requirements have to be met to ensure the ‘electronic signature’ meets NIH’s standard for ‘electronic signature’? For instances; does the ‘electronic signature’ require a time stamp; does NIH require certification of ‘electronic signatures’? There are multiple versions of (E-Sign) tools/software; I am curious if the standard (fill & sign) E-Sign tool, which does NOT certify or provide official time stamp, does this meet the NIH ‘electronic signature’ requirements for the purpose of electronically signing ‘other-support’ documents. Thanks in advance for any clarification you can provide on this matter.

    1. As noted on our Other Support FAQs (, recipients and applicants may use the electronic signature software of their choice, and in alignment with their institutional practices. A typed name is not an electronic signature and is not acceptable. Applicants and recipients must maintain supporting documentation to reasonably authenticate that the appropriate individual signed the form.

  3. The application guide for Career Development Awards state that the Current and Pending Support is required for mentors and co-mentors at the time of application is limited to items relevant to the applicant’s project, excludes effort and overlap, and only allows 3 pages. Since this is not a full and complete Other Support, is a signature still required on these documents?

    1. Yes. Please refer to Other Support FAQ (, I/B:

      1. On Mentored Career Awards, mentors/co-mentors are required to submit Current and Pending Support in competing applications. NOT-OD-21-073 indicates that other support must include signatures. Do mentors need to sign the form when reporting current and pending support?
      Yes. Attachments should be submitted as a flattened PDF, after all signatures are obtained. Applicants and recipients must maintain the original electronic signature and make it available upon request.

  4. For Other Support- is the current application the OS page is submitted with supposed to be included under Pending?
    I have received conflicting instructions

  5. Could you offer guidance on how NCE years should be reported on Other Support as far as effort? At our institution, the period is extended rather than adding a new year. If the original end date was 2023 but an NCE was approved through 2024, do we report 0 effort for 2024? Do we stop the chart at 2023 and add (NCE)? Or should we be listing it some other way?

  6. Other Support submitted at Just In Time.
    Include the pending award for which the JIT is being submitted for?
    There is no clear NIH direction on this

      1. Neither of these resources appear to answer the question. The NIH Other Support Topic Page ( includes an NIH Other Support Instructions document that states, “Neither the application under consideration nor the current PHS award for this project should be listed as Other Support.” However, our institution continues to receive requests for revised Other Support, both from other institutions as well as from NIH, asking us to include the application under consideration or the award being reported on. It would be extremely helpful if NIH could update the topic page and possibly publish a notice that clarifies whether or not the application/award under consideration should be included, or if it is in fact “other” support besides the application/award in question.

        1. Thank you for reaching out. The current advice is that applicants/recipients should include the current application or award in Other Support. The relevant instructions are in the process of being updated.

  7. We are continuing to get conflicting information on how to submit an Other Support page for JIT properly. Previously, we would report all active and pending grants, including the grant under consideration. For the active grants, we would report on actual committed effort as it currently exists. If that active effort, plus the effort for the grant under consideration, exceeded 12 months, we would provide a detailed explanation in the Overlap statement for how that effort overlap would be addressed in the event an award is made (e.g., “Should R01AA123456 be awarded, the PI would reduce effort on R01YZ654321 by 0.5 CM so as not to exceed 12 CM total effort.”). Now, however, we are being told that the reported active effort plus the grant under consideration should not exceed 12 CM. That is, in the above example, I should already be reducing R01YZ654321 by 0.5 CM effort in what I am reporting as active effort, and then not say anything in the Overlap statement. Is this correct? It feels wrong to report effort inaccurately. It would also necessitate redoing the OS page for every single JIT request that comes in.

Before submitting your comment, please review our blog comment policies.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *