Table 4

Active Research Support of Participating Faculty Members

Overview

This table demonstrates UCLA’s research funding environment and confirms mentors have available funds to support trainee research projects. Mentors must have appropriate and active research to support potential future trainees. 

What kind of information would you like? 

Overall Instructions

  • List participating faculty in alphabetical order by last name.
  • List mentors from UCLA in Part I and partner organization(s) in Part II, if applicable. Omit Part II if only UCLA mentors are participating. 
  • Only include grants that are relevant to the proposed application where the faculty member is the PD/PI or Project/Core Lead. Exclude:
    • Organizational research training grants
    • Organizational career development grants
    • Research education grants
    • Applications pending review
    • Administrative/competitive supplements
    • Awards in no-cost extension status
  • For multi-project grant or cooperative agreements (P-series grants, U54s, etc.), only list information for the component for which the participating faculty member is responsible.
  • In 2020, the NIH revised Table 4 guidelines with the aim of fixing overstated annual direct costs for multi-PI, year, and component awards:
    • If possible, contact fund managers to collect current budget period direct costs for each award.
    • If a fund manager is not available, divide the total current budget period direct cost evenly between all of the award’s Multi-PIs and/or Project Leads.
    • For multi-component awards, only report costs associated with the subproject(s) for which the faculty member is responsible.
  • Calculating Totals Correctly: Divide the sum of all current budget period direct costs by the number of mentors (should match the number of mentors counted on Table 1 and represented on Table 2). It is recommended that the final average calculation occur after mentors are finalized and current budget period direct costs are verified to ensure overlaps are accounted for correctly. Enter the final amount in bold.
  • Page Limit: None. For more information visit our FAQs.

Summarize Table 4 data in the Research Training Program Plan's narrative Program Faculty subsection. Highlight the total and average grant support reflected in the table and explain how trainees would work with any faculty who have no funding listed on this table.

Guidance by Column

  1. Faculty Member. Last Name, First Name and Middle Initial
  2. Organization. Only include in Part II (non-UCLA mentors); omit column entirely in Part I (UCLA mentors) 
  3. Funding Source. Use the following allowable options:
    1. AHRQ
    2. Foundation (Fdn)
    3. NIH
    4. None
    5. NSF
    6. Other – specify in parenthesis
    7. Other Federal (Other Fed)
    8. University (Univ)
  4. Grant Number. Provide the full grant number, if applicable, for currently active grants at the time of submission
  5. Role on Project. Use the following allowable options; do not include co-investigator roles
    1. PD/PI
    2. MPI
    3. Project Lead/Project PI, Core Lead, or Site PI (multi-component projects) 
  6. Grant Title. Include the full grant title
  7. Project Period. Entire project period in the format MM/YYYY-MM/YYYY
  8. Current Budget Period Direct Costs. For the current budget period only

Renewals Only / xTRACT Users: xTRACT will automatically populate the proper grant numbers, direct cost calculations, and total sum based on the requirements listed above. Please verify these calculations with fund managers to ensure accuracy.

Helpful Hints

Maximize Research Funding

  • Participating faculty must have sufficient ongoing research to support a trainee's research. It is recommended that you minimize the number of faculty without any current grant funding and maximize the Average Grant Support per Participating Faculty Member. If the average is low, consider adjusting your participating faculty to increase this number while still ensuring that each participating faculty adds value to the grant.
  • If two PIs, who are both participating faculty, claim the same grant but have slightly different grant totals, contact their fund managers to get each of their current budget period direct costs. Sometimes costs can be slightly different for PIs based on supplements, etc. Always strive to get the average amount as accurate as you can. 
  • Example: Dr. Zhao does not have any applicable active funding, so he was removed from the grant. Dr. John and Dr. Patel are both Project Leads on the same grant, so the submission team reached out to their fund managers to determine their appropriate division of funding.

Table 4 FAQs

Different awards may have different fiscal years or budget periods. Therefore, report costs associated with the specific award’s fiscal year at the time of submission as the “current budget period."

The “Average Grant Support per Participating Faculty Member” summarizes how robust the training program’s research environment is and what research projects are available for trainees to participate on. As such, consider: 

  • Reducing the number of mentors who do not have active research funding or adjusting their role on the grant.
  • Adding mentors with a history of mentorship who have applicable active research funding in the grant’s focus area.
  • Ensuring only appropriate funding is listed (see the “Overall Instructions” section for more details).

Ensure that current budget period direct costs are appropriately calculated (see the “Overall Instructions” section for more details).

Consider adjusting their participation to a committee or other non-mentorship role, or create a co-mentorship plan wherein only “senior mentors” with applicable funding are listed in the Data Tables and “junior mentors” or others are referenced in the Program Plan. 

Co-mentorship plans uplift junior faculty by allowing them to gain relevant experience to be listed on future Data Tables, strengthening pathways for mentorship at UCLA. Ensure that a strong description is included in the Program Faculty section of the Program Plan for how the teams will work together and what training or peer-mentorship resources are available to ensure junior faculty are getting the supports they need. Contact GSU for an example of a co-mentorship plan at GSUTraining@mednet.ucla.edu.

Multi-organizational programs should list non-UCLA mentors in Part II to clearly delineate mentors from each organization. 

If UCLA is the primary institution, PD/PI’s should address the disparity in the Program Plan, justify why it is advantageous for UCLA to lead the award (administrative structure, institutional support, mentorship expertise, etc.), and describe how leadership will ensure that trainees will have access to rewarding research projects regardless of their home organization. 

Although Other Support (OS) provide several elements that appear on Table 4, further information is often required. For instance, direct and indirect costs appear as a lump sum on OS, which complicates extracting the current budget period direct cost required for Table 4. It also may not list the faculty’s role if they are not a PI/MPI, which may create challenges auditing for unallowable roles such as Co-Investigator. 

If you have a mentor’s OS, we recommend filling in as much of Table 4 as possible with the OS information before asking the faculty or their fund manager to verifying the current budget period direct cost and role. If a fund manager is not available, NIH grants can be verified via NIH RePORTER. 

For multi-component grants, mentors may have more than one role. However, the award should only be listed once on this table with the highest-ranking role (e.g. PI/MPI). Under this single role, you can then add the underlying component(s) separate funding to the current budget period direct cost to reflect an accurate budget total across multiple roles. 

NIH Templates & Other Resources