PAR-27-077: NIH Science Education Partnership Award (SEPA) (R25 Clinical Trial Not Allowed)

PAR-27-077: NIH Science Education Partnership Award (SEPA) (R25 Clinical Trial Not Allowed)

If you run a school, museum, nonprofit, health institution, or local education network and need a national-level, federally funded way to scale hands-on biomedical research education, the NIH Science Education Partnership Award (SEPA) under PAR-27-077 is one of the few opportunities designed specifically for pre-college STEM expansion. It is an R25 research education mechanism with a strict scope: no clinical trials, but broad educational scope across classroom teaching, mentoring, outreach, research experiences, curriculum innovation, and skills development.

This opportunity is currently a reissue of PAR-23-137, and unlike many single-deadline calls, it runs in multi-year cycles. The NOFO posted on May 5, 2026 includes recurring submission windows from September 2026 onward (for example, September 25, January 25, May 25, September 25 through 2029). That makes it relevant for teams preparing a first application in the 2026/2027 cycle.

Key details snapshot

What this program is trying to fund

SEPA is built around the practical gap between school-level scientific curiosity and sustained participation in biomedical research pathways. The announcement states that the overarching goal is to support education activities that:

• increase understanding of biomedical research among pre-college students,
• improve STEM career awareness,
• and build momentum toward careers in biomedical fields.

This is not a scholarship program in the traditional sense (there is no automatic student stipend like a training fellowship). Instead, it is an institutional grant model where your organization designs a program, recruits participants, implements the educational intervention, and measures outcomes. Because applicants can be universities, nonprofits, government entities, and school systems, you can build models that blend informal learning, curriculum redesign, mentoring pipelines, teacher development, and outreach.

The SEPA framework is intentionally broad in delivery mode, with five activity families explicitly called out:

• Courses for skills development
• Research experiences
• Mentoring activities
• Curriculum or methods development
• Outreach

An application can include one or several of these. A strong proposal usually combines at least two in a coherent logic chain (for example, mentoring + research experiences + outreach), because reviewers repeatedly score whether the plan fits the proposed participants and can be executed by existing institutional infrastructure.

Because this NOFO is a research education grant, your program should be educational and community-facing, not basic biomedical experimentation. You are expected to show how participation changes understanding, aspiration, and behavior over time.

Who this could be a good fit for

Use this as a fit check before you draft your narrative:

• Good fit: organizations with an existing education platform, strong school partnerships, and capacity to track participant outcomes.
• Good fit: institutions or systems where mentors have clear STEM/biomedical alignment and can sustain participant support.
• Good fit: teams already working on quantitative and computational skill development, since these are strongly encouraged.
• Not a fit: standalone commercial ventures with no educational mission.
• Not a fit: entities relying on clinical trial-based interventions.

Because the opportunity explicitly allows a broad range of institutions (higher education, nonprofits, some governments, school systems, and public/private organizations), your strategy can vary significantly. The single hard boundary is that foreign entities and foreign components tied to awardees are not eligible in this NOFO. Domestic institutions should still design a program that is clearly U.S.-resident in terms of applicants and delivery.

Eligibility and qualification summary

The NOFO’s eligibility language is long, but the practical interpretation is manageable if broken into decision buckets.

Eligible organizations

The application can be submitted by:

• higher education institutions (public and private),
• nonprofits (with or without 501(c)(3) status, non-HE nonprofits included),
• small business and for-profit organizations,
• local and state government entities, tribal entities and other public bodies,
• selected additional organizations such as school districts, focused research organizations, faith/community groups, and public/private/charter schools.

This breadth is unusual for NIH opportunities and means consortia can be creatively designed as long as the structure is eligible and compliant.

Non-eligible or constrained cases

• Non-U.S. organizations are not eligible.
• Foreign subawards/subcontracts are prohibited for this NOFO.
• Institutions with active parallel NIH-funded training structures may still apply, but your proposed SEPA activities must be distinct from existing federally funded training programs.
• Programmatic overlap restrictions apply: NIH will reject duplicate or highly overlapping applications submitted in parallel.

What makes a PI competitive

Even though anyone with skills and resources may be invited to craft an application conceptually, the NOFO requires clear PD/PI leadership that can provide both scientific and administrative control.

• PD/PI should demonstrate programmatic alignment and management capacity.
• No more than one active SEPA at a time per PD/PI, unless the new project is clearly distinct and no more than six months overlap is allowed.
• Renewal applications are not accepted.

For most teams, this means planning leadership around succession and workload: avoid overloading one PD/PI with multiple broad educational pilots unless evidence of distinct scope is explicit.

What you can and cannot request

The budget section is one of the strongest signals of proposal quality. It is not a high-maximum no-strings grant; NIH explicitly requires discipline:

• Direct costs are limited to $250,000 per year (excluding consortium F&A in the context described by the NOFO).
• Maximum project period is 5 years and should be proportional to scope.
• Personnel costs are tightly scrutinized; salaries must align with institutional policy and federal caps.
• Participant support is allowed if justified.
• Program-related costs (consultants, equipment, travel, supplies) are allowed where tied to the project.
• Indirect costs use 8% F&A of modified total direct costs under the terms described in the NOFO, with standard exclusions.

A common mistake is treating the budget as if it were a loose federal pool. The review committee and NIH compliance teams will evaluate whether requested costs are directly justified by a realistic activity plan and whether staffing and expenses map clearly to the stated objectives.

Review logic: how NIH will evaluate your application

The review criteria are aligned with NIH scientific review logic but adapted to education grants:

• Significance: Does your program address a documented need at your participant level?
• Investigator(s): Can your leadership and faculty execute a sustained education program?
• Innovation: Are the methods novel enough to improve engagement or access, or are they merely well-meaning but routine replication?
• Approach: Is the education model coherent, evidence-based, and operationally feasible?
• Environment: Do facilities, institutional support, and partnerships support long-term delivery?

SEPA review also gives strong weight to dissemination and evaluation plans. If participants cannot see where they fit into a STEM pathway, or if the program design lacks outcome metrics, applications get weaker scores quickly.

For programs involving human participants (most pre-college education projects will involve them in some way), reviewers assess inclusion and participant safety planning as expected by NIH norms. If you are not doing clinical research, still document your ethics and participant protections appropriately.

Application mechanics (important: planning matters)

The NOFO gives three submission routes:

1. NIH ASSIST
2. Institutional system-to-system integration to Grants.gov/eRA Commons
3. Grants.gov Workspace + eRA Commons tracking

Even if your institution usually submits NIH grants, this is a non-negotiable prep stage:

• Complete/renew SAM registration
• Complete/renew eRA Commons
• Complete/confirm Grants.gov registration and access
• Coordinate PD/PI eRA Commons and ORCID linking early

The instructions explicitly warn: registrations can take about six weeks. On a September due date, a team that starts registration in August can lose runway.

Pre-submission workflow recommendation

1. Now (pre-application): map your desired project to NIH mission fit and choose your principal participants (students/teachers by grade band).
2. Month -4 to -3 before deadline: draft the program logic model and evaluation framework together, then design forms/surveys aligned to review criteria.
3. Month -3 to -2: finalize institutional commitments, letters of support, and partner roles.
4. Month -2 to -1: submit draft budget and narrative, then run a compliance pass for SF424(R&R) instructions.
5. Week -2: internal mock review by someone who has submitted NIH applications.
6. Week -1: resolve errors and confirm all registrations are active.
7. Week -0: submit early; NIH repeatedly states late correction windows are tightly enforced.

Applications are due at 5:00 PM local applicant organization time on the due date. If your due date is a weekend or federal holiday, NIH policy may move it to the next business day.

Timeline strategy for the 2026/2027 windows

Because this NOFO is open across multiple due dates, you can target the first feasible window for your readiness level.

• Posted: 2026-05-05
• Open date: 2026-08-25
• First due date: 2026-09-25
• Subsequent windows: 2027-01-25, 2027-05-25, 2027-09-25, etc.
• Latest review and start date examples appear in each cycle row, so a September 2026 submission can still have peer review/award steps into 2027 with start possibilities in mid-to-late 2027.

Use the first cycle if your institution can move quickly, especially if you already have partner commitments and a pre-existing evaluation engine. If your curriculum design needs pilot data, target January or May 2027 and include stronger baseline metrics.

Common mistakes to avoid

1. Submitting without registrations confirmed: missing SAM/eRA Commons/Grants.gov is a hard preventable failure mode.
2. Confusing program eligibility: forgetting that foreign entities/subawards are not allowed.
3. Budget overreach: requesting broad line items without direct program linkage.
4. Weak evaluation design: reviewers repeatedly ask for measurable outcomes, not only activity plans.
5. Overlapping applications: submitting overlapping SEPA plans in parallel is rejected per NIH policy.
6. Ignoring responsible conduct and ethics components: even non-trial biomedical education projects can fail compliance checks if they do not cover required training and oversight language.
7. Assuming all applicants can be students: this is an institutional program grant; it is not an individual fellowship.

A simple litmus test: each paragraph of your narrative should answer “who will do this, who benefits, how do we measure change, and why this setting is better than current alternatives?”. If not, revise.

Practical preparation checklist

Before writing the final package, capture the following:

• Program narrative (3 pages): problem statement, target participants, design, sequence, milestones.
• Participant outcomes: baseline metrics and what “improvement” means by grade level.
• Evaluation plan: how progress will be measured continuously and what evidence will be collected.
• Dissemination plan: how outputs, lessons, and materials reach external educators.
• Institutional commitment letter: staffing, facilities, and data/reporting support.
• Budget justification aligned to activity: salaries, materials, participant supports, evaluation costs.
• Compliance packet: registrations, PD/PI credentials, signatures, and contact points.

If your application is team-led, make sure the leadership chart is not just advisory. NIH review tends to prefer practical governance with explicit ownership for delivery.

FAQ

Is this a fellowship for an individual researcher?

No. It is an institutional grant for education programming. It can support research education ecosystems serving pre-college participants.

Can schools apply directly?

Yes, public/private/charter school structures are explicitly listed among eligible organizations.

Can a project include virtual mentoring?

Virtual components are often accepted if integrated into a coherent approach, but RCR requirements emphasize substantive instructional quality and evidence of sustained participant engagement.

Is this suitable for grade 11–12 only?

Yes, if your program is designed for that grade band, but the NOFO is explicitly pre-college across PK–12.

What if my organization already has NRSA training grants?

Possible, if your SEPA activities are distinct from existing federally funded training programs and not duplicative.

Do foreign partners disqualify us?

They can’t be eligible recipients under this NOFO, and foreign subawards/subcontracts are prohibited for NIH-funded activities in this program.

What if our institution is for-profit?

For-profit organizations are eligible, but your proposal must still fit NIH education goals, participant outcomes, and public benefit expectations.

Official support channels and next steps

The official NOFO package includes all legal, technical, and submission references. Use this as your source of truth:

• Full announcement: NIH SEPA PAR-27-077 on NIH Grants.gov/simpler channel.
• Questions on ASSIST/eRA Commons errors: eRA Service Desk.
• Grants.gov registration and workspace questions: Grants.gov Support Center.

Contact points for scientific and fiscal offices are listed in the NOFO. Use those only for direct opportunity-specific clarifications.

Because your date context is 2026-06-01, this is an opportunity with a relevant future cycle and recurring windows. It is a strong candidate if your organization is ready to build a measurable pre-college biomedical education program rather than a one-off event.