Learn to navigate through the possible K Awards / Career Development Awards (CDAs) available to you and which you should target. Provided by UCLA Clinical and Translational Science Institute. Presenter: Carol M. Mangione, MD, MSPH Barbara A. Levey MD & Gerald S. Levey MD Endowed Chair Professor of Medicine and Public Health at UCLA Associate Director, UCLA Clinical and Translational Science Institute Leader, UCLA CTSI Workforce Development Presentation date: February 09, 2017

1. Navigating the K Award Process
CTSI K Award Workshop
June 13, 2019
Carol M. Mangione, MD, MSPH
Barbara A. Levey and Gerald S. Levey
Professor of Medicine and
Health Policy & Management

2. 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

3. 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

4. Career Development Awards (K Awards) for Individuals
with a Health‐Professional Doctorate

5. http://grants.nih.gov/training/careerdevelopmentawards.htm

6. Timing: When to Apply to NIH

7. Timing: When to Apply

8. Time Commitment & Salary Caps
• Time Commitment:
• 75% full tie effort (50% for surgeons in some
specialties)
• Salary Cap (NIH) increased to:
• $100K for K08 and K23 (December 17, 2015, NOT‐
OD‐16‐032)
• Salary Cap (NHLBI) increased to:
• $100K for K01, K02, K08, K22, K23, K25, and K99
(March 29, 2016, NOT‐HL‐16‐309).
• There is variability and exceptions at the Institute
level, check the website for your institute.

9. % 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/

10. 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://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2017/10/11/clarifying‐percent‐effort‐and‐support‐for‐career‐
development‐k‐awardees/

11. https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2017/10/11/clarifying‐percent‐effort‐and‐support‐for‐career‐
development‐k‐awardees/
Figure 1: Salary supplementation and compensation during the entire period of K
award (up to 5 years)

12. 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.

13. https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2017/10/11/clarifying‐percent‐effort‐and‐support‐for‐career‐
development‐k‐awardees/
Figure 2: Reduced effort during the final two years of a mentored K award.

14. NIH Policy Concerning: Leave, Temporary
Adjustments to % Effort, and Part‐Time
Appointments
• See NOT‐OD‐09‐036
• 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

15. 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.

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. NIH Review Process
• Takes about 9‐10 months at best
• Initial Administrative review
• Importance of the title and “steering the
proposal”
• Peer Review ‐ Study sections made up of scientists
from universities and other institutions
• Most applications are not funded on the first
round
• For detailed information on success rates:
http://report.nih.gov/success_rates/index.aspx

21. 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!

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

23. 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

24. General NIH Reviewer
Guidelines

25. Significance
• Does this study address an important
problem? Do you make a compelling case?
• If the aims of the application are achieved,
how will scientific knowledge be advanced??
• What will be the effect of these studies on the
concepts or methods that drive this field?
How might this change the field? Be
convincing!!!
• Is the prior research that serves as the key
support for the proposed project rigorous?
(formerly Scientific Premise, NOT‐OD‐18‐229,
9/14/18)

26. Approach
• Are the conceptual framework, design, methods,
and analyses adequately developed, well‐
integrated, and appropriate to the aims?
• Has the candidate included plans to address
weaknesses in the rigor of prior research that
serves as the key support for the proposed
project? (NOT‐OD‐18‐229, 9/14/18)
• Does the applicant acknowledge potential problem
areas and consider alternative tactics?
• Is there an appropriate work plan included?
• Does the project include plans to measure progress
toward achieving the stated objectives? How will
you know when you are half way there?

27. Innovation
• Does the project employ novel concepts,
approaches or methods?
• Are the aims original and innovative?
• Does the project challenge or advance
existing paradigms or develop new
methodologies or technologies?

28. Investigator
• Is the investigator appropriately trained
and well suited to carry out this work?
• Is the work proposed appropriate to the
experience level of the principal
investigator and other significant
investigator participants?
• Is there a prior history of conducting (fill in
area) research? Does not fund empty
aspirations!

29. Environment
• Does the scientific environment contribute to
the probability of success?
• Do the proposed experiments take advantage
of unique features of the scientific
environment or employ useful collaborative
arrangements?
• Is there evidence of institutional support?
• Is there an appropriate degree of commitment
and cooperation of other interested parties as
evidence by letters detailing the nature
and extent of the involvement?

30. Budget
• Are all requests justified scientifically
• Do special items have quotes
• Is the project feasible with the given
budget
– Low budget often viewed worse than high
budget,
• Low budget ‐ applicant does not understand what is
need to do the work ‐ may worsen the score
– ‐High budget ‐: will get cut but usually not
worsen score, unless really high

31. Other Key areas
• Protection of human subjects (closely
reviewed)
– HIPAA plan
– data and safety monitoring plan
– inclusion of women, minorities & children
individuals across the lifespan (NOT-OD-18-229,
9/14/18)
– recruitment plan
– evidence (not plan) of proposed partnerships
• Animal welfare
• Biohazards
• Evaluation

32. Funding Climate

33. Career Development Award Trends 2009‐2018
Data from report.nih.gov/FileLink.aspx?rid=551.
Funding is the amount for each FY, and not for the life of the project.

34. 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.

35. 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 2014
Number of
Applications
Reviewed
Number of
Applications
Awarded
Success
Rate
Total
Funding
K01 579 200 35% $28,425,228
K08 394 158 40% $24,953,839
K23 524 201 38% $32,567,685
See Table #204 at “report.nih.gov/FileLink.aspx?rid=551” for more details.

36. 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 2015
Number of
Applications
Reviewed
Number of
Applications
Awarded
Success
Rate
Total
Funding
K01 598 201 34% $28,444,404
K08 430 170 40% $26,471,252
K23 589 206 35% $33,702,155
See Table #204 at “report.nih.gov/FileLink.aspx?rid=551” for more details.

37. 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 2016
Number of
Applications
Reviewed
Number of
Applications
Awarded
Success
Rate
Total
Funding
K01 629 202 32% $28,218,397
K08 429 162 38% $27,198,434
K23 575 207 36% $35,665,755
See Table #204 at “report.nih.gov/FileLink.aspx?rid=551” for more details.

38. 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 2017
Number of
Applications
Reviewed
Number of
Applications
Awarded
Success
Rate
Total
Funding
K01 645 203 32% $30,292,372
K08 447 195 44% $33,828,453
K23 641 218 34% $39,842,749
See Table #204 at “report.nih.gov/FileLink.aspx?rid=551” for more details.

39. 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 778 247 31.0% $35,047,107
K08 524 208 39.7% $34,137,392
K23 671 253 37.7% $45,421,404
See Table #204 at “report.nih.gov/FileLink.aspx?rid=551” for more details.

40. NIH Payline Definition
• Paylines 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.
• Paylines conservatively to make sure that institutes have enough funds
to pay grants throughout the year.
• A conservative payline 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 payline.
• Paylines 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 paylines.

41. Institute Success
Rate
2016
Success
Rate
2017
Pay
line
2013
Pay
line
2014
Pay
line
2015
Pay
line
2016/
ESI
Pay
line
2017/
ESI
Pay
line
2018/
ESI
NCI 12 11.7 9 9 9 10/12 10/14 10/14
NHLBI 24.2 23.5 11 12 13 14/25 15/26 15/26
NIDDK 20.1 17.8 11 13 13 13 12/18 12/18
NIA 22.8 26.6 11 11 8 11/22 12/15-
18
N/A
NIMH 22.9 20.9 10-20 10-20 10-20 10-20
/25
10-20 20
Success Rates and Pay Lines
Success Rates: https://report.nih.gov/success_rates/Success_ByIC.cfm
Pay Lines: https://www.einstein.yu.edu/administration/grant-support/nih-paylines.aspx

42. NHLBI: Promising News for Biomedical Science
(FY2016)

43. Research Supplements to Promote Diversity in
Health-Related Research
(Admin Supp) – PA-18-906 (8/22/18)
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-18-906.html

56. Questions?
• More coming up from Dr. Salusky on
proposal preparation