The How and Why of Recovery of Grant Funds

We have been asked before under what circumstances NIH recovers funds because of grant noncompliance. This important question has many layers, as there are implications for NIH grants oversight, integrity in research, protection of the U.S. taxpayer’s investment, and the public’s trust in scientific research. Here, we will discuss the reasons why NIH may seek to recover funds, specifically in situations of overt and covert omissions of non-compliance (not “honest errors”).

Types of Integrity Concerns 

Let’s say an investigator puts together an application that was very similar to another one of their studies that a private organization funded. Their institution was unaware of the other support, and submitted the application seeking NIH funding. As the application scored favorably, NIH subsequently approved it for funding. Our program staff noticed that the research team had publications that clearly fell within the scope of the NIH award, yet NIH was not cited while other grants were. Upon closer review, we learned that there was duplicative, overlapping funding. When we shared these findings with the recipient institution, they agreed to repay grant funds.

We do not allow for overlapping or duplicative funding. Along with this example of a breach in research integrity, others may include research misconduct (which may include fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or any combination of the three), overcommitment, unallowable costs, false claims, foreign interference, or unmanaged conflicts of interest. Such breaches could lead us to require the recipient to return grant funds. This administrative action, if continued, could lead us to also take further enforcement actions, as I will discuss.

We have also experienced real (not perceived) instances where a principal investigator designated on an NIH award purposefully omitted their involvement, including time and commitment, on multiple projects supported by another funder. Importantly, they did not disclose this information to NIH or even their own institutions. When looking further, we may find that the researcher was overcommitted. If we were made aware of the other support when the application was submitted (as required to be disclosed), there is a high probability we would have made a different, more informed funding decision. For instance, we may not have funded the proposal or we may have reduced the budget, salary support, or other costs depending upon the specifics.

We also recover funds when we learn that grant-supported work has been affected by research misconduct. In one example, an institution notified us of fabrication and falsification affecting several publications and one funded NIH application. The institution also informed us that they were requesting retraction of the affected publications. To address the funded application, subject matter experts at the funding Institute opined on whether the application would have been funded without the affected data. The answer was no, so we pursued recovery of the entire amount of the grant. 

We next looked at the grants which supported those publications, which represented a large portion of the grant products. Since NIH grant funds were used to support the work in those affected publications, we likewise pursued recovery of funds for these awards. We conduct similar analyses after the publication of findings from the HHS Office of Research Integrity. 

What happens after integrity violations are found …

The exact amount of funds returned in such situations varies case-by-case. Please keep in mind that the money goes back to the U.S. Treasury, not the NIH’s pool of funds to support another research project. 

We generally will afford the recipient an opportunity to correct the deficiencies before taking action. To determine how much monies should be returned, we perform a careful and thorough review of each situation as part of our rigorous oversight, compliance, and stewardship roles (see this section of the NIH Grants Policy Statement). It is important to remember that since NIH makes awards to organizations, they are responsible for repaying or returning any funds, not the designated principal investigator. In some cases (for example, see here) the Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”) will seek monies directly from the principal investigator.

Recouping costs is only one action we may take to remedy non-compliance. Depending on the severity and extent, we may also restrict grant funds, suspend or terminate awards, implement specific award conditions, preclude future awards for some time, and/or require closer monitoring to prevent future non-compliance. If need be, we may work with colleagues in the HHS Office of Inspector General, Department of Justice, or other federal partners depending on the specific violations.

Collaborating and engaging with the recipient is key. We will present any findings to ensure they have relevant details and allow them the opportunity to review and provide their perspective and appropriate evidence. Negotiating the final payback amount is also part of this process.

What it comes down to…

Even though grant funds are recouped for the taxpayer, we can never fix the damage that bad actors caused by unfairly diverting funds away from meritorious applications. The damage has been done. So, somewhere out there a principled researcher was not supported, a deserving project did not get off the ground, and potential public health advances may have been curtailed all because grant funds were misused.

If you have concerns related to possible misuse of funds or other non-compliance, please inform us.