RFA-OH-25-002: Occupational Safety and Health Education and Research Centers (T42)

RFA-OH-25-002: Occupational Safety and Health Education and Research Centers (T42)

This funding opportunity is a recurring CDC/NIOSH center-style NOFO that combines advanced occupational safety and health training with regional workforce and research impact. The reissued opportunity is designed for institutions that can sustain multi-component programs, not for single projects or one-off pilots. The key strength is its long-term center model: academic and outreach systems that train the OSH workforce, advance research tied to the National Occupational Research Agenda, and support industry/community partnerships over several years.

For the 2026/2027 planning window, the official schedule is especially relevant because it includes submission windows in 2026 and 2027 and explicit review milestones for those cycles.

Key details

What this opportunity actually is

Despite the “RFA” in its title, this is best read as a recurring institutional architecture program. CDC/NIOSH uses these centers to develop a regional OSH workforce pipeline while embedding training and research in active workplace contexts.

The NOFO says ERCs provide interdisciplinary graduate and post-graduate training across core OSH disciplines (industrial hygiene, occupational health nursing, occupational medicine, and occupational safety) plus allied fields when relevant. It is explicit that research is a core component, and that the curriculum and outreach are expected to connect to NORA priorities and real-world worker-safety needs.

Practically, this means the program is not “just scholarships” or “just a training grant.” It is a multi-activity, multi-component center grant that blends:

• academic training programs,
• trainee support,
• continuing education,
• outreach,
• optional pilot research and targeted research training programs,
• and evaluation planning.

This matters because many people assume this is appropriate for single-discipline projects. In reality, reviewers evaluate center coherence, governance, and outcomes, not only intellectual merit of one program. If your applicant group has not proven it can run coordinated components with shared oversight, this NOFO usually becomes administratively too heavy too quickly.

Why this is relevant for 2026 and 2027

The opportunity window and review cadence make this useful for teams planning for the 2026–2027 cycle specifically. The NOFO includes upcoming due dates in that span:

• October 22, 2026
• October 21, 2027

The same document also lists February review windows and May council reviews for the same cycle range, which is consistent with normal federal timeline progression for major center opportunities.

If your institution wants to be competitive in 2026/2027, the most useful signal from this NOFO is that these are not one-off one-year awards. New applications are for 3 years; renewals are 5 years. With that design, you should evaluate whether your institution can commit to sustained operations, not just write a strong one-time proposal.

Also notable: the NOFO includes an expiration horizon in 2028 and had already been updated as of March 2025, so a “set-and-forget” approach to instructions is a risk. You should pull the latest full text immediately before submission and check for later notices.

Who should apply (and who usually should not)

This is an institution-led competition with strict submission design and applicant constraints.

Institutions and organizations

The program is broad enough to include U.S.-based public and private HEIs, certain nonprofits, for-profits, local governments, and tribal organizations. That breadth can help ecosystem applications in large regions that span universities, state/local partners, and community networks.

But eligibility is not global. Non-U.S. entities are excluded, and non-domestic components of U.S. entities are also excluded. If your consortium depends on a foreign institution as a core lead applicant, you need a U.S. lead that satisfies all registration requirements.

Individuals and roles

The program allows one PI only. That is unusual for a large multi-component effort and affects organizational design. A strong ERC application should still include broad leadership through component leads, advisory structures, and participating faculty, but the formal rule is one PI.

Exclusion rule you can miss

The NOFO explicitly says current recipients or applicants of NIOSH T03 Occupational Safety and Health Training Project Grants are not eligible. If your institution has active overlap with that award mechanism, factor this in early and avoid late disqualification.

Fit check for applicants

Use this quick test:

1. Do you intend to build a multi-program center or a single grant?
2. Can you submit a coordinated regional OSH training strategy with at least two core disciplines in the academic stack?
3. Do you have mechanisms to track outcomes (graduates, placement, effectiveness, outreach reach)?
4. Can you handle annual progress and multi-year budget planning?

If any answer is “no,” the NOFO is probably too large for your team’s current readiness.

Funding, duration, and what the money supports

The NOFO reports approximately 18 expected awards and a total annual award pool of around $32M. For a center, the published estimate is around $1.8M first budget year and total 3–5 year direct+indirect funding of $5.4M–$9M.

Budget interpretation that frequently causes confusion

This is a center level award, so total budgets are spread across components and years. The official budget guidance also emphasizes:

• New applications usually request 3 years.
• Renewal applications request 5 years.
• Revision applications cannot exceed current award period and cannot be submitted in final award year.

Required allocation logic inside Academic Training Programs

The NOFO imposes a minimum 70% of the Academic Training Program budget to trainee costs (stipends, tuition/fees, travel), with up to 30% for training-related expenses such as salary support, supplies, non-trainee travel, and equipment. This is one of the most enforceable programmatic rules and it materially shapes your internal spreadsheet before writing.

What the funding supports in practice

The NOFO describes required components: academic training, an evaluation and planning core, and continuing education and outreach. Pilot-targeted research training modules are optional and evaluated as part of the application design. The strongest proposals explicitly connect each component to workforce outcomes and regional needs, and then show how impact is measurable through evaluation metrics.

What your 2026/2027 application process should look like

This is where most teams overestimate time. The NOFO says no grace period exists to fix submission failures after the deadline. In federal systems, late-minute correction windows can disappear quickly.

Below is a practical sequencing for the 2026/2027 cycle:

1. 8–12 months before due date
   • Confirm all registrations (SAM.gov active + UEI + eRA Commons) before template work starts.
   • Validate organizational permissions and PI Commons credentials.
   • Identify component leads for all required sections.
2. 4–6 months before due date
   • Finalize regional need statement and partnership letters.
   • Lock discipline structure so at least two core OSH disciplines are covered.
   • Map workforce pipeline outcomes to each component (graduates, job pathways, research outputs).
3. 2–3 months before due date
   • Draft required narratives: executive overview, project strategy, component plans.
   • Build budget tables with 70/30 trainee versus training-support split.
   • Begin technical review on data-sharing, evaluation, and review criteria mapping.
4. 4–6 weeks before due date
   • Use ASSIST validation path and resolve any errors early.
   • Confirm all required attachments and required PDF text tables.
   • Verify all PD/PI credentials are visible in eRA Commons entries.
5. final weeks
   • Produce submission package and run a final page-limit/format audit.
   • Submit early; do not wait to test resubmission behavior near cutoff.

The NOFO specifically requires electronic submission and highlights the 5:00 PM ET validation boundary for successful processing. Late submissions due to system rejection may fail if no error correction window is available.

Review criteria and competitiveness signals

Section V of the NOFO sets review around impact and program quality at three levels:

• overall center impact,
• individual academic training program quality,
• and core components (evaluation, continuing education, outreach).

Reviewers assess significance, environment, innovation, investigators, and approach. For this mechanism, significance is not abstract. Applicants are expected to show regional need, training outcomes, community collaboration, and sustained impact for OSH practice and research.

In practical terms, this means reviewers reward institutions that demonstrate:

• clear response to regional workforce gaps,
• a realistic mentoring and trainee support system,
• quantifiable evidence plans for measuring outcomes,
• sustained partner engagement,
• and strong evaluation infrastructure.

It is especially important to avoid “component fragmentation.” Multi-component applications with weak cross-component governance are often penalized even when each component is strong on its own.

Common mistakes to avoid before submission

1) Underestimating the center complexity

Many teams build good research narratives but underinvest in center-level integration. The review model looks for a coherent ERC across all components, so an excellent training program paired with weak outreach and evaluation coherence often underperforms.

2) Budget split violations

Direct costs in training programs should obey the trainee-cost emphasis. If this ratio is off, administrative review issues can appear before scientific review.

3) Registration timing failures

SAM.gov/eRA/Commons issues are frequent causes of rejection in multi-project submissions. Start registrations and role setup early.

4) Late assumptions about PI structure

One PI only is a hard rule. Teams must design leadership and authorship expectations around that and avoid last-minute rework.

5) Missing the recurring nature

This is a recurring NOFO with many windows, so teams sometimes recycle outdated templates. Because this opportunity includes explicit updated/notice language, always work from current full text and check for companion notices.

6) Treating it as “small support” grant

The amount and multi-year expectation can create false assumptions that smaller pilots are acceptable. This program is intended for operationalized, regionally active center models.

Frequently asked practical questions

Is this open right now?

For 2026 planning, the NOFO includes an October 22, 2026 due date and 2027 cycle dates, so it is not just historical. Your best interpretation for now is that this is still intended as an ongoing multi-round mechanism through that period.

Can non-university partners apply?

Yes, depending on the category. The program explicitly lists several U.S. entity types beyond universities. But foreign entities are excluded.

Can I apply if my institution is in a consortium with partners?

Yes, if the consortium structure and registrations are compliant. However, only one PI is allowed and final submission must align with agency systems and registrations.

What counts as the strongest applicant profile?

Institutions that can prove regional relevance, workforce outcomes, and durable evaluation practices with clear trainee pathways into OSH roles usually outperform purely research-focused teams.

Are there application supplements or letters of intent required?

The NOFO lists letter of intent due dates conceptually (30 days before application due date). Whether to submit is usually strategic, but teams should monitor whether peer-review rules in your cycle require or strongly recommend it.

Official submission notes for 2026/2027 prep

The official page confirms required submission through Grants.gov/eRA routes, with options such as NIH ASSIST or institutional systems-to-system. Because this is multi-component, all component-level requirements are enforced. Do not rely on the top-level abstract alone.

The NOFO also references explicit contact points for system failures:

• NIH eRA Service Desk for eRA issues,
• Grants.gov Contact Center for Grants.gov issues.

These contacts are useful when a submission warning becomes a blocking error close to deadline.

What to do next in the next 60 days

If you plan to apply to the 2026 cycle, use this immediate sequence:

1. Obtain or refresh current version of the NOFO and capture any changes since March 31, 2025.
2. Confirm your organization’s eligibility classification (HEI, nonprofit, for-profit, local government, etc.).
3. Lock a PI and build an evidence plan for trainee outcomes and partner impact.
4. Map all component budgets to the trainee support rule before internal approvals.
5. Prepare a submission dry run in ASSIST, with mandatory attachment checks.

The most common path to avoid a failed submission is not stronger science alone; it is stronger operational readiness before the electronic window opens.

Official links

• Official NOFO page: https://www.grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-OH-25-002.html
• Agency home pages for CDC/NIOSH terms and updates: https://www.cdc.gov and https://www.cdc.gov/niosh
• Federal submission system for grants: https://www.grants.gov
• NIH application guidance (FORMS-H and submission instructions): https://grants.nih.gov/grants/how-to-apply

This opportunity is one of the few OSH competitions where the scale of the institution matters as much as the scientific content. For teams building workforce infrastructure for the long term, it is a meaningful route. For single-lab teams, it is usually too broad. The 2026–2027 due dates make this a realistic target if your institution already has an OSH leadership pathway in place and can coordinate components across training, research, and outreach.