Navigating the K Award Process

Navigating the K Award Process
CTSI K Award Workshop
June 22, 2023
Carol M. Mangione, MD, MSPH
Barbara A. Levey and Gerald S. Levey
Distinguished Professor of Medicine and
Public Health

What are Career Development
“K” awards?
Purpose: Awards to provide scholars with protected time to
conduct research and career development activities leading to
independence in the biomedical, behavioral, or clinical sciences.
Types of Awards: There are multiple “K” Award types designed
for different scientific/educational backgrounds and career
stages.
– Mentored – For early stage investigators needing
mentored research training
– Non-mentored – For independent investigators to acquire
new research skills or to support mentoring activities
– Institutional – Awards to institutions to support multiple
K-level scholars

Mentored Career Development (K) Awards
Purpose: Develop new research skills, release time for research
and training activities in the biomedical, behavioral, or clinical
sciences
Eligibility: Doctoral degree (PhD, MD, MD/PhD, DDS, DVM, etc.) US
Citizens or permanent residents (except K99) Typically junior
faculty level applicants, previous PD/PI may be Ineligible (on K
awards, large RPG)
Duration: 3 - 5 years (not renewable)
Commitment: Full-time appointment, minimum 75% effort
Support: Salary $75,000 - $100,000 + fringe (typical; IC
dependent)
Research support: $25,000 to $50,000 (see IC Tables)

Types of CDAs
• K01: For clinicians or Ph.D.s in the fields of
epidemiology and outcomes research, must have
accomplished independent research experience
after earning your degree.
• K08: Salary and research support for full time
supervised career development in health related
research that does not involve patients.
• K12/KL2: Support awarded to an institution for
the development of independent scientists.
• K23: Salary and research support for full time
supervised career development in patient
oriented research, must have completed specialty
training

Types of CDAs
• K25: Supports career development of investigators with
quantitative scientific and engineering backgrounds outside of
biology or medicine who have made a commitment to focus
their research endeavors on behavioral and biomedical
research (basic or clinical).
• K99/R00: Provides an opportunity for scientists to receive
both a 1 to 2 year “mentored” K (phase 1) and a 3 year
independent “R” (phase 2) in the same award. To qualify, you
must have a clinical or research doctorate and no more than
four years of postdoctoral research training at the time of
application.
• See the K award wizard to help you select the correct
mechanism:
• http://grants.nih.gov/training/careerdevelopmentawards.htm
• Diversity Supplements: After administrative review these are
added onto a funded grant, with extra resources for the
trainee to develop and conduct mentored research

R03 Small Grant
R01 Research
Project Grant
Fellowships & Career Awards
GRADUATE &
MEDICAL
STUDENTS
POST-
DOCTORAL
FELLOWS
FACULTY
K01 Mentored Research Scientist Development
Award
K08 Mentored Clinical Scientist Development Award
K23 Mentored Patient-Oriented K Award
K25 Mentored Quantitative K Award
K02 Independent Scientist Award
K24 Mid-career Award in Patient-Oriented Research
R21 Exploratory-
Developmental
Grant
Research Training and Career Development
Training
Independent
Research Grants
Transition
K99-R00 Pathway to Independence Award
K12 Institutional Career Development Award
T32 Institutional Training Grant (Post-doctoral
slots)
F32 Individual Post-doctoral Fellowships
T32 Institutional Training Grants (Predoctoral slots)
F30 Pre-doctoral Fellowships (MD/PhD Programs)
F31 Pre-doctoral Fellowships (Parent F31)
F31 Diversity Pre-doctoral Fellowships
K22 Career Transition Award (some ICs)

Time Commitment & Salary Caps
• Time Commitment:
• 75% full time effort (50% for surgeons in some specialties)
• As of 6/12/22: NHLBI will allow 50% effort for surgical disciplines on
K08/K23 applications (NOT-HL-22-022)
• K08 and K23 Salary Support:
• $100K at most institutes (e.g. NHLBI, NIDA, NIA)
• NIH salary cap at some institutes (e.g. NCI, NEI, NIEHS)
• $25K to $50K research budget (Varies with IC)
• NHLBI salary support is $100K for K01, K02, K08, K22, K23,
K25, and K99
• K01 salary support is $75K or higher at most institutes with a
$20K to $50K research budget
• There is variability and exceptions at the Institute level, check
the website for your institute.

How to Apply for a K Award
Follow SF424 instructions
for K awards

% Effort and Support for K Awardees
• Commit minimum 75% full-time professional
effort.
• Remaining effort (up to 25%) to additional
research, teaching, clinical work, or other efforts
complementary to career development of the K
awardee.
• Institutions normally supplement the salary of K
award PIs up to a level that is consistent with
the institution’s salary scale.
https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2017/10/11/clarifying-percent-effort-and-support-for-career-
development-k-awardees/

Salary Supplementation (NOT-OD-17-094)
• Effort directly committed to the K award - must
be from non-Federal sources (including
institutional sources) and not require extra duties
that would interfere with the goals of the K award.
• Effort not directly committed to the K award,
recipients may devote effort, with compensation,
on Federal or non-Federal sources as PD/PI or in
another role (e.g., co-I), as long the specific aims
of the other supporting grant(s) differ from those
of the K award.
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not-od-17-094.html

Figure 1: Salary supplementation and compensation during the entire period of K
award (up to 5 years)

Additional Salary Support while
on a CDA (NOT-OD-08-065)
• During the last two years of a mentored career
development award (K01, K07, K08, K22, K23, K25, KL2),
NIH will permit you to receive concurrent salary support
from any peer-reviewed grant from any federal agency,
if you meet the following criteria:
– You are a PI on a competing research project grant, or director
of a sub-project on a multi-component grant, from NIH or
another Federal agency.
– Your K award is active when the R, P or U grant is submitted
– Under those circumstances, you may reduce your K award's
time and effort to 50% person months.

Additional Salary Support while
on a CDA (NOT-OD-18-157)
• In addition, during the period of reduced effort resulting
from receipt of an additional peer-reviewed research
award, NIH will adjust the total salary support committed
to the K award consistent with the adjusted level of
effort. However, NIH will continue to provide full research
development support costs (i.e., Other Personnel,
Equipment, Travel, Participant/Trainee Support, and
Other Direct Costs budget categories) as indicated on the
original Notice of Award. All other provisions of the prior
policy on concurrent support, including the approval
process to request reduced effort, remain the same.

Figure 2: Reduced effort during the final two years of a mentored K award.

NIH Policy Concerning: Leave, Temporary
Adjustments to % Effort, and Part-Time
Appointments
• See NOT-OD-18-156
• Developed to accommodate personal or
family situations such as parental leave,
child care, elder care, medical conditions,
or a disability.
• Will not be approved to accommodate job
opportunities, clinical practice, clinical
training, or joint appointments

More on Part Time Status…
• Must submit a written request to the NIH awarding
institute requesting a reduction in effort to less than
75% for up to 12 continuous months
• Will be considered on a case-by-case basis
• In no case will it be permissible to work at less than
50% effort (equivalent to 6 person-months)
• At the time of application and initial award, must meet
the full-time appointment requirement as well as the
minimum 75% effort requirement
• Must commit at least 75% effort (of the part-time
appointment) to research and career development
activities.

NIH Resubmissions (NOT-OD-14-074)
 NIH and AHRQ will accept a new application following an unsuccessful
resubmission application. The new application need not demonstrate
substantial changes in scientific direction compared to previously reviewed
submissions, and must not contain an introduction to respond to the critiques
from the previous review.
 NIH will not accept duplicate or highly overlapping applications under review at
the same time(NOT-OD-09-100). This means that the NIH will not accept: -
• a new application that is submitted before issuance of the summary
statement from the review of an overlapping resubmission application.
• a resubmission application that is submitted before issuance of the summary
statement from the review of the previous new application.
• an application that has substantial overlap with another application pending
appeal of initial peer review (NOT-OD-11-101).
 The NIH will not accept a resubmission that is submitted later than 37 months
after the receipt date of the initial new, renewal, or revision application.
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-10-
140.html#sthash.MUZVeRSX.dpuf

Governmental Alphabet Soup
• NIH - National Institutes of Health
• AHRQ - Agency for Healthcare Research
and Quality
• PCORI – Patient Centered Outcomes
Research Institute
• RFA - Request for application
• RFP - Request for proposals
• PA - Program announcement
• FOA – Funding opportunity annoucement

Approach of the NIH
U.S. Government
Congressional
Appropriation
NIH funds allocated to
each institute
Investigator Initiated Institute Initiated
R awards
K awards
NRSA
RFP - contracts
RFA – grants
FOA - either

Different NIH institutes have different K programs and requirements
NEI
NCI
NHLBI
NLM
NINDS
NIAMS
NINR
NHGRI
NIA
NIAAA
NIDCD
NIDCR
NIDDK
NIDA
NIEHS
OD
FIC
CSR
NIAID
NIGMS
NIBIB
NIMHD
NCCIH
NCATS
Clin Ctr
CIT
NIH Organization
NIMH
NICHD

Organization of the NIH
• Establish relationships with the program officers
at the institutes in your research area
• Each Institute handles career development
funds in slightly different ways – Review their
websites
• 2 parts:
– Program- Includes the Institutes that set the
research priorities
– Review - CSR or Center for Scientific Review
• Evaluates the scientific merits of the proposals
• http://www.csr.nih.gov

NIH Review Process
• Takes about 9-10 months at best (Receipt dates
February/June/Oct 12th for new applications)
• Initial Administrative review
• Importance of the title and “steering the proposal”
• Peer Review - Study sections made up of scientists
from universities and other institutions (4 to 6
months after submission)
• Council (another 3 to 4 months)
• Most applications are not funded on the first round
(Total time, submission & resubmission (12-18 mos)
• For detailed information on success rates:
http://report.nih.gov/success_rates/index.aspx

Approach of the NIH
R, NRSA, or K applications
CSR assigns the application to
1) Study Section
2) An Institute
Study Section assigns a
Priority Score (1-9)
Institute uses the Priority Score
to rank the application among those
received from various study sections
Advisory Council reviews
the priorities
Applications are funded in order of priority
until the money runs out!

K Awards: Scientific Review
 Overall Impact Score (not a numerical average)
Scored Review Criteria (Score 1-5)
 Candidate
 Career Development Plan
 Research Plan (Rigor and reproducibility, SABV)
 Mentor(s), Consultant(s), and Collaborator(s)
 Environment and Institutional Commitment to the
Candidate
Additional Review Criteria
• Protection for Human Subjects
• Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and
Children
• Vertebrate Animals
• Biohazards
• Resubmission, Renewal, Revision factors
• Study Timeline (for Clinical Trials)
Additional Review Considerations
• Training in the Responsible Conduct of
Research
• Select Agents Research
• Resource Sharing Plans
• Budget & Period of Support

NIH grant application scoring system
• 9-point rating for the impact/priority score with 1
= Exceptional and 9 = Poor.
• Ratings in whole numbers only

NIH Review Process
• Final decision by Council -- where the
previous contact with administrators can
matter!
• If successful, final administrative
procedures to set up the budget

Mentor
A person who helps a more junior person
develop professionally through a
combination of advising on projects, skills
development, creation of opportunities,
and personal growth in an intensive
manner over an extended period of time.

Benefits of Having a Mentor
• Mentors are perceived by mentees as being
important to career advancement and
career satisfaction
• Presence of a mentor may be related to
choosing an academic career
• Apparent benefit on productivity and
success
Sambunjak D, et al. JAMA 2006;296:1103-15.

Benefits of Being Mentored
• Mentored medical school faculty
– Better research skills
– Better research preparation
• Mentored primary care fellows
– More likely to publish 1 or more papers/yr
– More likely to secure funding as PI early
Steiner JF, et al. Acad Med 2000;75:74-80.
Steiner JF, et al. J Gen Intern Med 2002;17:854-60.

Disturbing Aspects Regarding
Mentorship
• Prevalence of having a mentor ranges from
19-93%
• Men are 3 times as likely as women to have
a positive relationship with a mentor
• 10-32% of mentees report that their
mentor used their work to further the
mentor’s career rather than the mentee’s
career
Sambunjak D, et al. JAMA 2006;296:1103-15.
Osborn EH, et al. Acad Med 1992;67:59-62.
Fried LP, et al. JAMA 1996;276:898-905.

Expectations of Mentor
• Help trainee choose research project(s)
• Meet with trainee regularly (e.g., weekly) to review progress
in research and didactic coursework
• Give timely feedback on manuscript or grant drafts (e.g.,
within 1 wk)
• Advise trainee on seeking funding
• Prepare trainee for abstract presentations
• Assign credit (e.g., first authorship) where credit is due
• Counsel trainee on job opportunities and negotiating for jobs
• Serve as a mirror for mentee self-reflection
• Nurture, then set free Goldman L. J Gen Intern Med 1991;6:341-4.
Chin MH, et al. J Gen Intern Med 1998;13:117-22.
Saha S, et al. J Gen Intern Med 1999;14:745-9.

The Mentorship Team
• The most important person is the primary research mentor
• Work with your primary mentor to define the UNIQUE needed
areas of expertise and roles to meet BOTH the research and
educational goals of the K award
– Methodologic Expert: What are the areas of methodologic
expertise that you want to master and who will be the most
qualified to teach you the needed content/skills?
– Contextual Expert: Identify whether you need a person with
contextual expertise (IT specialist, community partner, etc.).
This person may also help you gain access to data.
– Statistical Expert: Identify which analytic methods you need
to master and find the best person to teach you this.
– Scientific Writing Expert

Characteristics of good mentors
(according to mentees)
• Pushes mentee to develop his/her own research
agenda, not that of the mentor
• If mentee works on mentor’s project(s), it’s as a
stepping stone for the mentee
• Doesn’t try to clone the mentee
• Guides, but doesn’t control
• Sponsors mentees for awards, important roles in
national organizations
• Creates opportunities
• Matchmaking, team building skills
• Separates the worthwhile from the waste of time
(committees, other potential collaborators) for the
mentee

• Encourages mentees to pause and ask the “So what?”
question
• Excellent teacher
• Willing to take chances
• Always encouraging
• “ knows how to inspire, motivate, congratulate, and
criticize, all without creating a sense of antagonism or
favoritism.”
• Has a sense of humility
• Selfless
• Leads by example
• Role model in balancing personal and professional lives

• Not mentee’s best friend, but really cares about
mentee’s personal life
• Pro-active (doesn’t wait till mentee comes to
him/her with problems)
• Can work with mentees whose interests do not
align exactly with mentor’s
• Attracts mentees from outside his/her shop
• Leaves a long-lasting impact, lasting well beyond
the time the mentee still “needs” the mentor

Qualities of Outstanding Mentors
Cho C, Ramanan R, Feldman MD. AJM 2010
University of California, San Francisco
37

Qualities of Outstanding Mentors
38
1) Time commitment to mentoring
2) Expertise in content, methods and
communication skills
3) Personal qualities: enthusiasm, altruism,
honesty, trustworthy, empathy, patient
4) Support personal/professional balance
Cho C, Ramanan R, Feldman MD. AJM 2010

39
Characteristics of Successful and Failed Mentoring
Relationships: A Qualitative Study Across Two Academic Health
Centers.
Straus S; Johnson M; Marquez C; Feldman M D
Academic Medicine. 88(1):82-89, January 2013.
DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31827647a0

Characteristics of Successful Mentoring
Relationships
• Reciprocity
It’s got to be a two-way street. It can’t just be a
one-way giving relationship ‘cause then it’s just
going to burn out.
• Mutual Respect
• Clear Expectations
“It’s helpful to set up sort of those guidelines in
the beginning, what the mentee can expect from
the relationship but also what the mentor
expects…”
• Personal Connection
• Shared Values
40
Characteristics of Successful and Failed Mentoring Relationships: A Qualitative Study Across Two
Academic Health Centers. Straus, S.; Johnson, M; Marquez, C; Feldman, M.D. Academic Medicine.
88(1):82-89, January 2013.

Career Development Award Trends 2011-2020
Data from https://report.nih.gov/funding/nih-budget-and-spending-data-past-fiscal-years/success-rates
Funding is the amount for each FY, and not for the life of the project.
$0
$50,000,000
$100,000,000
$150,000,000
$200,000,000
$250,000,000
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Number of Awards Funding
Fiscal Year
Number of Awards Funding

NIH Success Rate Definition
• The percentage of reviewed grant applications that receive
funding. They are computed on a fiscal year basis and include
applications that are peer reviewed and either scored or
unscored by an Initial Review Group.
• Success rates are determined by dividing the number of
competing applications funded by the sum of the total
number of competing applications reviewed and the number
of funded carryovers.
• Applications having one or more submissions for the same
project in the same fiscal year are only counted once.

NIH CAREER DEVELOPMENT (K) GRANTS
Competing Applications, Awards, Success Rates and Total Funding
by NIH Institutes/Centers and Activity Code
Made with Direct Budget Authority Funds
Fiscal Year 2018
Number of
Applications
Reviewed
Number of
Applications
Awarded
Success
Rate
Total
Funding
K01 778 241 31.0% $35,047,107
K08 524 208 39.7% $38,137,392
K23 671 253 37.7% $45,421,404
See https://report.nih.gov/funding/nih-budget-and-spending-data-past-fiscal-
years/success-rates for more details.

Fiscal Year 2019
Number of
Applications
Reviewed
Number of
Applications
Awarded
Success
Rate
Total
Funding
K01 732 237 32.4% $34,292,982
K08 530 234 44.2% $43,948,393
K23 677 251 37.1% $44,849,753

Fiscal Year 2020
Number of
Applications
Reviewed
Number of
Applications
Awarded
Success
Rate
Total
Funding
K01 691 240 34.7% $35,259,014
K08 563 232 41.2% $44,506,778
K23 671 253 37.7% $45,421,404

NIH Pay Line Definition
• Pay lines using an NIH formula and historical data including:
– Number of applications reviewed by institute specific relevant study sections.
– Amount of grant money in the budget.
– Average grant costs.
• Pay lines are conservative to make sure that institutes have enough
funds to pay grants throughout the year.
• A conservative pay line also lets institutes meet out-year payments for
existing grants as well as any new congressional mandates.
• At year's end when institutes have a clearer budget picture, they award
more grants that scored beyond the pay line.
• Pay lines vary among NIH institutes, so a percentile or overall
impact/priority score that is not fundable in one institute may be
fundable in another!
• At the start of the fiscal year institutes usually use interim pay lines.

Institute Pay line
2017/
ESI
Pay line
2018/
ESI
Pay line
2019
NCI 10/14 8/14 8
NHLBI 15/26 16/26 16
NIDDK 12/18 13/18 13
NIA 12/15-18 13-16/23-25 See notes
NIMH 10-20 10/20 10-20
NIH Pay Lines 2017 to 2019
Success Rates: https://report.nih.gov/success_rates/Success_ByIC.cfm
Pay Lines: https://einsteinmed.org/administration/grant-support/nih-paylines.aspx
FY 2019 Funding Strategy (13 for under 500K/16 for over 500K. New Investigators--23 under 500K/20 over. Early Stage Investigators:25
Under 500K/22 Over) ** Significantly higher pay lines for applications focusing on Alzheimer's Disease. Follow link for details
In general in 2020, Pay Lines were about 5% higher for ESI

Research Supplements to Promote Diversity in
Health-Related Research
PA-21-071 (Admin Supp, 11/16/2020)
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-21-071.html

Research Supplements to Promote
Diversity in Health-Related Research
Fiscal Year 2019 Report
Prepared by
NIH Office of Extramural Research

Eligible Parent Grants for FY19 Diversity Supplements
Institutional Training & Director Program Projects
• DP1, DP2, DP4, DP5
Resource Programs
• G12, G20
Program Project/Center Grants
• P01, P20, P2C, P30, P40, P41, P50, P51, P60, PM1, PN2
Research Projects
• R00, R01, R03, R15, R18, R21, R24, R33, R34, R35, R37, R41, R42, R43, R44, R61, RC1, RC2, RC3, RC4, RF1, RM1
Research Related Programs
• SC1, SC2, SC3
Cooperative Agreements
• U01, U10, U13, U18, U19, U24, U2C, U41, U42, U44, U54, U56, UB1, UC2, UC4, UF1, UG1, UG3, UH2, UH3, UL1, UM1,
UM2

FY19 Diversity Supplement Awards Overview
Number of New
Applications
1,209
Number of New
Awards
734
New Award Success
Rate
61%
Number of
Continuing Awards
627
Number of All
Awards
1,361
Total Award
Funding
$100,876,633

FY 2010-2019 Trends in Diversity Supplement Awards
1,1
1,36
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Fiscal Year
Total Number of Awards
$67
$101
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
$90
$100
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Fiscal Year
Funding for Awards (in millions)

Total FY19 Diversity Supplement Award Expenditures by IC
$181,312
$184,287
$260,012
$261,215
$276,428
$503,234
$531,561
$550,214
$719,818
$1,632,660
$1,902,103
$1,911,689
$2,215,043
$2,520,776
$2,704,585
$2,835,095
$4,378,543
$4,414,654
$4,438,952
$5,812,453
$5,812,900
$6,432,152
$6,733,181
$9,619,960
$15,016,885
NLM
NIMHD
FIC
NCCIH
NIBIB
NICHD
NIAAA
NIEHS
NIDA
NIAMS
NINDS
NIA
NHLBI $19,026,921

Number of FY19 Diversity Supplement Awards (New and
Continuing) by IC
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
19
21
23
25
29
32
33
67
67
68
88
95
104
110
133
182
221
NLM
OD
NINR
NCCIH
ORIP
NEI
NIAAA
NICHD
NIAMS
NIDDK
NIAID
NIDA
NHLBI
* Application and award data withheld

New FY19 Diversity Supplement Applications, Awards, and
Award Success Rate by IC
* Application and award data withheld
155
124
99
54
94
70
26
49
62
266
20
59
12
21
21
122
92
73
38
44
48
23
40
45
78
20
21
11
16
21
New Applications
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
79%
74%
74%
70%
47%
69%
88%
82%
73%
29%
100%
82%
50%
24%
34%
92%
76%
100%
80%
100%
60%
33%
100%
100%
75%
100%
NCI
NIGMS
NIAID
NIAMS
NIDDK
NIDCR
NIEHS
NICHD
NIDCD
NIBIB
NHGRI
NLM
NCCIH
Success Rate

Success Rate by Group
483
474
32
14
29
14
167
321
314
20
11
22
43
New Applications New Awards
Application and award
data withheld
66%
66%
63%
79%
76%
38%
26%
African American
Hispanic
American Indian/Alaska Native
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
Individuals w/ Disabilities
Disadvantaged
Other
Success Rate

All FY19 Diversity Supplement Awards (New & Continuing) by
Group (Race/Ethnicity)
African American
589
Hispanic
609
American Indian/
Alaska Native
36
Native Hawaiian/
Pacific Islander17
Individuals w/ Disabilities
47
Other
54
Disadvantaged Data
Withheld

Success Rate by Career Level
109
227
422
20
131
298
66
154
296
14
98
104
New Applications
Application and award data
withheld
61%
68%
70%
70%
75%
35%
100%
Investigator
Postdoc
Predoc
Post MS
Postbac
College
High School
Success Rate

All FY19 Diversity Supplement Awards (New and Continuing)
by Career Level
Number of All Awards Funding for All Awards
Investigator
132
Postdoc
328
Predoc
613
Post MS
22
Postbac
147
College
117
High School Data
Withheld
College
$2,295,874
Postbac
$8,595,086
Post MS
$1,223,178
Predoc
$38,168,011
Postdoc
$32,177,114
Investigator
$18,741,432

Research Supplements to Promote
Diversity in Health-Related Research
Fiscal Year 2019 Report
APPENDIX

Funding for All FY19 Diversity Supplement Awards by IC
IC
Funding for New
Supplement Awards
Funding for Continuing
Supplement Awards
Funding for All
Supplement Awards
NCI $10,904,844 $ 8,122,077 $ 19,026,921
NHLBI $ 7,410,907 $ 7,605,978 $ 15,016,885
NIGMS $ 5,676,487 $ 3,943,473 $ 9,619,960
NIA $ 3,339,879 $ 3,393,302 $ 6,733,181
NIAID $ 2,473,877 $ 3,338,576 $ 5,812,453
NINDS $ 2,398,993 $ 3,413,907 $ 5,812,900
NIAMS $ 1,434,112 $ 3,004,840 $ 4,438,952
NIMH $ 2,530,606 $ 3,901,546 $ 6,432,152
NIDDK $ 2,839,877 $ 1,574,777 $ 4,414,654
NIDA $ 2,017,610 $ 2,360,933 $ 4,378,543
NIDCR $ 1,642,804 $ 1,192,291 $ 2,835,095
NIAAA $ 694,000 $ 1,521,043 $ 2,215,043
NIEHS $ 815,289 $ 1,889,296 $ 2,704,585
NIMHD $ 260,012 $0 $ 260,012
NICHD $ 1,280,349 $ 621,754 $ 1,902,103
NCATS $ 1,330,721 $ 1,190,055 $ 2,520,776
NIDCD $ 1,589,943 $ 321,746 $ 1,911,689
NEI $ 1,632,660 $0 $ 1,632,660
NIBIB $ 293,933 $ 425,885 $ 719,818
OD $ 79,083 $ 105,204 $ 184,287
NHGRI $ 340,399 $ 162,835 $ 503,234
NINR $ 227,281 $ 33,934 $ 261,215
NLM $ 181,312 $0 $ 181,312
FIC $ 276,428 $0 $ 276,428
NCCIH $ 531,561 $0 $ 531,561
ORIP $ 47,045 $ 503,169 $ 550,214
ALL ICs $ 52,250,012 $ 48,626,621 $ 100,876,633

New FY19 Diversity Supplement Applications, Awards,
and Success Rate by IC
IC
Number of New
Applications
Number of
New Awards
New Award
Success Rate
Number of
Continuing Awards
Number of All
Awards
NCI 155 122 79% 99 221
NHLBI 124 92 74% 90 182
NIGMS 99 73 74% 60 133
NIA 54 38 70% 29 67
NIAID 94 44 47% 51 95
NINDS 70 48 69% 56 104
NIAMS 26 23 88% 44 67
NIMH 49 40 82% 48 88
NIDDK 62 45 73% 23 68
NIDA 266 78 29% 32 110
NIDCR 20 20 100% 13 33
NIAAA 11 * 82% 16 25
NIEHS 16 * 50% 21 29
NIMHD 17 * 24% 0 *
NICHD 62 21 34% 11 32
NCATS 12 11 92% * 19
NIDCD 21 16 76% * 23
NEI 21 21 100% 0 21
NIBIB * * 80% * *
OD * * 100% * *
NHGRI * * 60% * *
NINR * * 33% * *
NLM * * 100% 0 *
FIC * * 100% 0 *
NCCIH * * 75% 0 *
ORIP * * 100% * *
ALL ICs 1,209 734 61% 627 1,361
* Data withheld

Number of All FY19 Diversity Supplement Awards
(New and Continuing) by Group and IC
IC Hispanic
African
American
American
Indian/
Alaska Native
Native
Hawaiian/
Pacific Islander
Individuals w/
Disabilities
Disadvantaged Other
NCI 105 97 * * * 0 *
NHLBI 68 100 * * * * *
NIGMS 74 44 * * * 0 *
NIA 26 34 * 0 * 0 *
NIAID 42 44 * * * 0 0
NINDS 51 45 0 * * 0 *
NIAMS 28 34 * 0 * 0 *
NIMH 46 32 * 0 * * 0
NIDDK 31 27 * 0 * * 0
NIDA 39 37 * * 0 0 28
NIDCR 20 11 * 0 0 0 *
NIAAA 12 11 0 0 * 0 0
NIEHS 17 * 0 0 0 * 0
NIMHD * * 0 0 0 0 0
NICHD 15 15 * 0 0 0 *
NCATS * * 0 0 0 0 *
NIDCD * * 0 0 * 0 0
NEI * * * 0 * 0 *
NIBIB * * 0 0 0 * 0
OD * * 0 0 0 0 0
NHGRI * * * 0 * 0 0
NINR 0 * 0 0 0 0 *
NLM 0 * 0 0 0 0 0
FIC 0 * 0 0 * 0 0
NCCIH * * 0 0 0 0 *
ORIP * * * * * 0 0
ALL ICs 609 589 36 17 47 * 54
* Data withheld

Number of All FY19 Diversity Supplement Awards
(New and Continuing) by Career Level and IC
IC High School College Postbac Post MS Predoc Postdoc Investigator
NCI 0 * 19 * 97 63 33
NHLBI 0 * 19 11 77 43 26
NIGMS 0 15 13 * 71 32 0
NIA 0 * * 0 21 25 13
NIAID 0 * 14 0 57 14 *
NINDS * * * 0 67 19 *
NIAMS 0 * * 0 43 14 *
NIMH 0 * 14 * 40 16 *
NIDDK 0 * 13 0 26 21 *
NIDA 0 59 0 0 29 18 *
NIDCR * 0 11 * * 12 *
NIAAA 0 * * 0 * * *
NIEHS 0 0 0 0 14 * *
NIMHD 0 0 0 0 0 * *
NICHD 0 * * 0 18 * *
NCATS 0 0 * 0 * * 12
NIDCD 0 0 * 0 * * *
NEI 0 0 * 0 * * *
NIBIB 0 0 * 0 * * 0
OD 0 0 * 0 * 0 0
NHGRI 0 0 * 0 * 0 *
NINR 0 * * 0 * 0 *
NLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 *
FIC 0 0 * 0 0 0 0
NCCIH 0 0 * 0 * * 0
ORIP 0 0 * * * * *
ALL ICs * 117 147 22 613 328 132
* Data withheld

Questions?
• More coming up on proposal preparation

Navigating the K Award Process

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Navigating the K Award Process

Similar to Navigating the K Award Process (20)

More from UCLA CTSI

More from UCLA CTSI (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Navigating the K Award Process