RFA-AG-26-010: NIA Expanding Research in AD/ADRD (ERA) Postbaccalaureate Education Program (R25)

RFA-AG-26-010: NIA Expanding Research in AD/ADRD (ERA) Postbaccalaureate Education Program (R25)

Executive summary

This opportunity is NIH’s dedicated mechanism to create or scale postbaccalaureate research education programs in Alzheimer’s disease and aging research (AD/ADRD) through the National Institute on Aging (NIA). It is published as a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) under code RFA-AG-26-010 and uses the R25 mechanism, which is explicitly a training and research education program, not a standard research-only grant.

As of 2026-05-20, the NOFO is open and has an active cycle deadline of May 27, 2026 at 5:00 PM local time of the applicant organization. A second listed deadline cycle is May 26, 2027. The total program level commitment is framed as about $2M for FY 2027 and FY 2028 with up to 5 awards per year, while any single project can request up to $400,000 direct costs per year.

The target applicants are U.S. institutions with the capacity to host a sustained educational program for recent baccalaureates who want to strengthen their path into AD/ADRD research careers or advanced degrees.

What this opportunity is

The NOFO funds institutions, not individuals. Even though participants are recent baccalaureates, this is structurally an institution-level award where the applicant submits a research education program and demonstrates it can recruit and train participants effectively.

Key points that define the opportunity:

• Funding instrument: Grant (R25) for a research education program.
• Activity focus: AD/ADRD research education for postbaccalaureate participants.
• Program outputs: participant recruitment, mentoring systems, professional development, reproducibility training, and responsible conduct training.
• Applicant pool: institutions with institutional commitment (staff, facilities, curriculum, mentorship capacity), not foreign organizations.
• Program cadence: at least one cycle with active near-term application deadline in late May 2026 and a stated recurring cycle into 2027.

The program is not meant to replace existing federal training support. If your institution already has NRSA programs or other federally funded education programs, this opportunity expects your ERA activity to be distinct and complementary.

Key details at a glance

What makes this a 2026/2027-relevant opportunity

The NOFO was posted in 2025 with active key dates spanning 2026 and 2027. For this repository’s target years, this one is specifically useful because:

1. It has a live 2026 deadline that is still open during the target date window.
2. It also includes a repeated 2027 cycle, which helps teams planning multi-year program planning.
3. Its budget and institutional framework are explicit enough to support decision planning for 2026/2027 hiring and mentoring pipelines.
4. NIA’s AD/ADRD workforce needs are enduring; this is not a one-off call tied to a temporary single-year pilot.

If you are building a long-cycle talent-development strategy in aging/AD research, this is directly relevant now and across the next cycle.

Who this opportunity is for

Best fit

This is a strong match when your institution can make an evidence-led argument for a structured, participant-centered training program in AD/ADRD, such as:

• Universities building formal postbaccalaureate transition support toward doctoral-level pathways in aging science.
• Medical or behavioral research institutions wanting to expand their AD/ADRD workforce pipeline.
• Community institutions that can offer research mentorship and supportive educational infrastructure.

Participant profile

The program is targeted at recent baccalaureates. The participants are expected to be in pre-doctoral developmental stages and to spend most of their time in mentored research work, plus structured academic/professional development.

The NOFO states a participant should:

• Hold a baccalaureate degree.
• Enter a program that gives meaningful training in AD/ADRD-focused research practices.
• Have realistic potential to transition into research careers or advanced degree tracks.

Institutional strengths that help

Applications are reviewed on how convincingly the institution can run the program, not just how exciting the idea sounds. Strong institutions usually have:

• Clear faculty engagement and mentorship capacity.
• Defined methods to track participant outcomes.
• Institutional letters of support and operational resources.
• A culture that can sustain ethics training, reproducibility, and responsible conduct expectations.
• Internal administrative capacity to manage NIH-required registrations and e-submission compliance.

Good fit examples

• A university wants to establish a 2-year postbacc pathway for recent graduates entering AD/ADRD translational projects.
• A small institute wants to expand existing AD-focused research training from informal exposure to formal mentorship, career planning, and outcome tracking.
• A multi-department consortium wants to bring in local partners under one formal AD/ADRD training program.

Who this opportunity is not for

This opportunity is frequently misread as a broad science grant. It is not.

It is inappropriate for:

• Single-project labs seeking funds for experiments only (without explicit educational program design).
• Institutions that only propose generalized STEM training with weak AD/ADRD alignment.
• Programs led by applicants without adequate administrative readiness for NIH submission systems.
• Proposals with participants who do not hold a baccalaureate degree.
• Institutions that assume foreign collaboration components or non-U.S. status are automatically acceptable.

Most critical: the NOFO is explicit that non-responsiveness includes programs outside the AD/ADRD scope and programs not centered on baccalaureate participants.

Eligibility details and constraints you must respect

Eligible applicant organizations

The NOFO is broad on U.S. organization categories: public/private HEI, nonprofits, small businesses, for-profits, state/county/city entities, federally recognized and certain tribal entities, and additional domestic entities listed in the text.

Ineligible organizational setup

• Foreign organizations are not eligible.
• Non-domestic components of U.S. organizations are not eligible.
• Foreign component funding structures are disallowed for this NOFO’s defined scope.

Participant and citizenship expectations

The NOFO says programs should primarily serve U.S. citizens and permanent residents, and any departure needs exceptional justification and scientific relevance.

Registrations are hard gates

NIH systems requirements are not optional:

• SAM registration (with renewal planning).
• UEI registration.
• eRA Commons account setup (including required roles and credentials).
• Grants.gov registration and successful transfer pathway.

Late registrations are not accepted as a reason for late submission. This can become the real reason an otherwise strong application is disqualified.

Clinical trial rule

The NOFO says clinical trials are not allowed for this mechanism, but participant exposure to supervised clinical research experience under mentor-led trials is permitted.

Application categories

New and Resubmission are allowed in this NOFO structure. Cost sharing is not required.

Funding model, budget planning, and realistic expectations

This mechanism is not about one magic number budget that applies to all applications. You need to plan from the NOFO’s structure.

What the budget can include

Based on the official terms:

• Direct costs up to $400,000/year per award.
• Staff, mentor, and program coordination support where justified.
• Participant support (salary/wages, fringe, and potentially tuition remission/fees where needed).
• Up to twelve postbaccalaureate positions per year can be proposed.
• Participant costs are tied to required minimum effort expectations:
  • 9 person-months (~75%) in mentored research.
  • 3 person-months (~25%) in academic/professional development.
• Program evaluation costs are limited in specific areas and can include modest amounts for evaluation support.
• Indirect cost policy is a fixed NIH rule in this NOFO: 8% of modified total direct costs, not fully negotiated rate.

Program scale realism

Because the total yearly commitment for NIA intent is around $2M and they expect up to five awards annually, average award size may vary by proposal quality, scope, and institutional strategy. In practical terms:

• Institutions should build proposals around clear, auditable activity, not just high dollar figures.
• If your team proposes too many components without operational evidence, reviewers often flag feasibility.
• Budget should be tightly tied to program outputs: cohort size, mentoring intensity, reproducibility and RCR instructional delivery, and participant progression metrics.

Financial planning checklist

• Start with participant model: how many postbacc participants each year, with realistic supervision load.
• Budget faculty time and program management explicitly.
• Tie travel support to actual training goals (conferences, field experiences, on-site work).
• Include a measurable evaluation plan so budget lines are defensible.

Application timeline and what each date means

The NOFO publishes standard NIH review dates and timeline components. The practical deadlines you can act on immediately are:

• 2026-05-27: New/renewal due date for cycle 1 in this context.
• 2027-05-26: Next cycle due date.
• 5:00 PM local time of applicant organization (hard submission clock).

Also note these program workflow fields:

• Peer review and advisory council dates are listed in key-date tables.
• Earliest start dates and target start windows can lag application deadlines.
• Expiration shown as 2027-05-27 in posted table language.

Practical timeline strategy for the current cycle

1. Now to one week before: confirm eligibility and registrations.
2. 6–10 days before due date: freeze all mandatory registration IDs and ensure eRA Commons credentials are valid.
3. 4–5 days before: internal compliance review of required files and attachments.
4. 2 days before: final package QA and submission test path.
5. Due date day: avoid waiting for final system correction windows.

Even if this is your first application, do not treat the period as “one-week later” readiness. NIH review systems can reject compliant-looking proposals if the e-registration, PI identity, or file naming conventions are off.

How to apply: practical workflow

Submission systems

The NOFO permits three submission routes:

• NIH ASSIST
• Grants.gov Workspace
• Institutional system-to-system workflow

Pick one route early and document your team roles. Do not decide this in the final week.

Core application architecture

In the R25 structure for this NOFO, your strongest package includes these linked elements:

• Research Education Program Plan
  • Program mission and measurable outcomes.
  • Rationale for postbaccalaureate participation.
  • Faculty and participant matching process.
• Institutional commitment package
  • Facilities, staff, and support commitments.
  • Safety, rigor, RCR, and accessibility expectations.
• Evaluation plan
  • How participant outcomes and program quality are tracked.
• Dissemination plan
  • How materials/findings are shared to a broader training audience.
• Personnel and budget plans
  • Program director effort, faculty/mentor commitment, trainee support, and coordinator role if present.

Optional but useful near-term step

Although the letter of intent is not mandatory, it is often useful to submit. It helps IC staff estimate review workload and may improve internal communication.

What reviewers are looking for in this NOFO

Review criteria are centered on program-level quality and impact rather than one research idea.

Review lens summary

• Significance: Does the program build a real pool of trainees who can enter AD/ADRD research careers or doctoral programs?
• Investigator(s): Is PI leadership scientifically credible and administratively strong? Are faculty committed and experienced mentors?
• Innovation: Does the program use evidence-informed approaches to recruit and retain recent baccalaureates in AD/ADRD spaces?
• Approach: Is the training model coherent (recruitment, mentorship, selection, instructional components, progression tracking)?
• Environment: Are facilities, institutional culture, and resources appropriate and safe?

Hidden review risks from this specific NOFO

• No clear separation from existing federally funded training programs.
• Weak evidence of AD/ADRD-specific need.
• No mechanism to monitor and correct poor mentorship matches.
• Vague participant outcomes and no transition pathway toward research careers.
• Inadequate RCR or reproducibility instruction details.

Why this matters for a passing review

The NOFO is likely to reward evidence quality in governance:

• If your institution has broad reputation but weak internal execution details, score can suffer.
• If your program looks attractive on paper but lacks operational controls, scoring drops.
• If participants are not clearly differentiated from current training infrastructure, reviewers may question value add.

Candidate preparation checklist for institutions

Below is a practical “go-live” checklist you can operationalize quickly:

6 weeks before submission

• Confirm that your proposed program is AD/ADRD specific and not generic STEM training.
• Ensure all registrations are underway and staff assigned to support deadlines.
• Define participant selection criteria and rationale.
• Draft program outcomes in measurable terms (completion, placement, transition to doctoral/adult research roles).

4 weeks before

• Finalize PI and faculty roster with documented mentor qualifications.
• Draft reproducibility and responsible conduct instruction plan.
• Prepare institutional support letter and attach facility/administration commitments.
• Map participant workloads: 9 months research / 3 months development per trainee.

2 weeks before

• Build budget with line-item logic and justification.
• Confirm file naming conventions and attachment structure.
• Prepare advisory committee plan if used.
• Verify email and account contact details for NIH submission routing.

72 hours before

• Run full submission dry run via selected portal.
• Check page limits and required fields.
• Confirm contact PI and COI/signed-off credentials in eRA Commons.

24–48 hours before

• Submit early version, then perform error-correction pass.
• Keep at least one buffer for NIH/Grants.gov corrections.
• Do not assume last-minute re-attempts if portal instability appears.

Common mistakes and how to avoid them

1) Misunderstanding this as a standard R-series grant

This NOFO funds education architecture. If your application is only science-activity heavy and weak on mentorship/instructional design, it will likely be judged non-responsive in intent.

2) Not resolving registrations early

SAM/eRA Commons/Grants.gov delays are the #1 preventable failure path. Registration can take weeks.

3) Overstating foreign eligibility

The NOFO has explicit restrictions on foreign entities and foreign components. Do not frame collaborations in ways that conflict with these boundaries.

4) Missing participant-first design

Programs that focus only on institution outcomes often fail. The NOFO is clear: this is participant-centered.

5) Weak mentorship governance

The review criteria repeatedly assess whether mentorship structures, monitoring, and corrective governance are credible. This must be explicit, not assumed.

6) Ignoring non-responsiveness constraints

Programs outside AD/ADRD focus, or those aimed at broad baccalaureate STEM not tied to AD/ADRD, can be deemed non-responsive.

7) Treating the letter of intent as a formality

Not required, but it can provide useful strategic alignment with IC staff expectations. Submit if possible.

Frequently asked practical questions

Is the opportunity international?

No. This NOFO is not structured for foreign applying organizations. It is for U.S. institutions and strongly U.S.-focused participants unless there is explicit exception justification.

Can an institution apply with multiple submissions?

Yes, if scientifically distinct and non-overlapping. NIH will not accept duplicates or overlapping applications under review at the same time.

Can we include faculty from many departments?

Yes, if each is role-defined and aligned to the program design. The NOFO supports multi-disciplinary mentoring as long as governance and load expectations are clear.

Is cost sharing required?

No, this NOFO does not require cost sharing.

Is there a paper application path?

No. Paper applications are not accepted.

What is the most important compliance warning?

Late registration and late submission due to system issues are not accepted as reasons if the administrative setup is incomplete. Build systems-first, science-second in the final 14 days.

Official links and source trail

Use these official sources before you apply:

• NOFO: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-AG-26-010.html
• NIH How to Apply guide: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/how-to-apply-apply-grant
• NIH Grants Policy Statement: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/index.htm
• eRA Commons: https://public.era.nih.gov/
• Grants.gov: https://www.grants.gov/

For official eligibility nuances, review the exact NOFO sections on:

• Part I key dates
• Part II award information
• Part III eligibility
• Part IV submission instructions
• Part V review criteria

Official links used for this page (for verification)

• Primary NOFO page: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-AG-26-010.html
• Companion opportunity (summer variant): https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-AG-26-011.html