2026-2027 Intramural Grant

Program Overview

The purpose of the UCLA Joe C. Wen School of Nursing Intramural Grant is to provide SON faculty (senate and adjunct) an opportunity to conduct preliminary research needed to successfully compete for larger extramural grants (NIH or equivalent). SON grants can be used to conduct pilot/feasibility studies, data analysis to obtain needed preliminary findings, or to develop tools and technologies. SON grants are not to be used for faculty salaries, computer purchases, or conference travel. Please see details below:

Eligibility

• Senate and adjunct faculty.
• Scores of 1- 3 will be considered potentially fundable if the applicant is eligible. Priority (fundable scores of 1-4) will be given to Assistant Professors without previous NIH support (R21 or R01) or equivalent (>$100,000 per year).
• Priority will also be given to faculty who have had no previous intramural funding.
• Faculty who has had previous intramural funding must provide documentation of submission of a final progress report, as well as publication(s) and/or abstracts in conference podium or poster. Funding decisions may also consider whether R level grant proposals were developed after the previously awarded intramural grant.
• Applicants must not have overlap across funding sources. Faculty who has a previously funded intramural grant, NIH R21, or R01 support (or equivalent) may apply for funding for new projects, provided they address research questions/hypotheses/aims that are distinct from their previously funded project.
• Applicants cannot have two UCLA SON internally funded grants at one time.
• A plan for progression toward extramural funding must be included in the Specific Aim section.
• These intramural grants are expected to produce pilot data to support future NIH or foundation grant submissions. Prospective grant recipients need to assume the selection process for intramural grant funding is dependent upon receipt of proposals that demonstrate likelihood of future funding.
• Evidence of IRB application submission must be provided to the fund manager within 30 days of a funding award notice.
• PI must have IRB approval before the grant is activated and funds are disbursed.
• If a member of the Faculty Research Committee (FRC) submits for funding, she/he may not participate in meetings where review assignments or grant reviews are discussed.
• One resubmission is allowed with a one-page letter of introduction. The applicants are STRONGLY ENCOURAGED to meet with FRC Chair and Associate Dean for Research and Innovation to discuss the reviews and resubmission.
• Other grant support (can be NIH Other Support page) will be requested from PIs of proposals with fundable scores before the final funding decisions are made.

Key Dates

Letter of Intent Date(s) and time: December 1, 2026

Submission Date(s) and time: January 15, 2027

Awardee Announcement (Estimated): March 19, 2027

Earliest Start Date: The earliest start date is two weeks post award announcement (pending IRB or ARC approval).

Amount: $5,000-$20,000 (2026-2027 Total SON Intramural Allocation $50,000)

Period of Support: A one-year limit will be imposed for the conduct of the study. A no-cost extension might be approved following the submission of a formal request, approved by the Associate Dean for Research.

The applicants are STRONGLY ENCOURAGED to contact the Associate Dean for Research and/or the Director of Research for guidance on the preparation of their proposals.

General Instructions

Application format:

1. Single space. Times New Roman or Arial font, size 11. Margins of 0.5 inch should be used on all sides.
2. An electronic version (in MS Office and PDF) of the complete proposal, including appendices, should be submitted to Cuellar, Ingrid <icuellar@sonnet.ucla.edu> by 5 PM on the deadline date. Proposals will not be returned to the principal investigator (PI) after the review process is completed. Each applicant will be provided a written summary of critical feedback.

Specific Instructions. Include the following sections:

1. Specific Aims. (Maximum of one page): State concisely the goals of the proposed research and summarize the expected outcome(s), including the impact that the results of the proposed research could have on the research field(s) involved.
   1. List succinctly the specific objectives of the research proposed, e.g., to test a stated hypothesis, create a novel design, solve a specific problem, challenge an existing paradigm or clinical practice, address a critical barrier to progress in the field, develop new technology, or fill a gap critical to further developing R-level projects.
   2. Proposals should outline clearly how research funded by the seed grant could be translated into a larger project, particularly an NIH R01 level grant, R34, R21 or equivalent funded by a non-governmental source.
2. Research Strategy. (Maximum of three pages): The Research Plan should contain (briefly), as applicable: importance of research (significance, innovation, and background), methodology (sufficient description that rigor and feasibility can be evaluated), expertise/resources. See also scoring details below. The research strategy should outline the key research questions and potential scientific contribution. While an elaborate description of the research design and procedures is not required, the application needs to provide a sufficient description of the methodologies to be used so that reviewers can understand the basic structure of the study and how these methods are aligned with the theoretical and conceptual development of the topic.
3. References: The references should be limited to relevant and current literature. While there is not a page limit, it is important to be concise and to select literature pertinent to the proposed research.
4. CV: Please submit a short two-page CV or an NIH Biosketch for each of the researchers involved in the project.
5. Budget and Justification: Money can be spent on personnel, consultants, travel for data collection, equipment, supplies, and subject costs. Funds cannot be used for faculty salaries, computers, or conference travel. For participating agencies, personnel costs are allowed, e.g. for a research assistant to abstract chart data, but not indirect agency costs. A budget justification page needs to be included to justify budget items.
6. Statistical consultation with the SON statistical support staff and minor analyses (e.g. 10 hours of work) are a service to faculty provided by the SON. Please consult with Nipa Warda, the SON’s principal statistician. If the proposed study requires more hours of analysis (greater than 10 hours), the cost of analyses activities should be built into the budget. Please consult with Amanda La Venture at DOMStat, UCLA Department of Medicine Statistics Core.

Important Notes:

The following must be submitted to the fund manager prior to the disbursement of the award:

• A progress or final report of most recent previous SON intramural award.
• Evidence of IRB application submission must be provided to the fund manager within 30 days of a funding award notice.
• Must have relevant (Human subjects, animal research, and/or institutional biosafety and chemical reagent) IRB and/or IBC approval before the grant is activated and funds are disbursed. An award will be started only after the SON Office of Research receives a copy of the approval from the appropriate UCLA research subject protection committee. The investigator must supply the SON Office of Research with a copy of the approval.

Acknowledgement: All abstracts, manuscripts, posters or podium presentations MUST ACKNOWLEDGE the UCLA Joe C. Wen School of Nursing/UCLA Intramural Award with the year funded as a funding source. 

• Example: This research was supported by an Intramural Grant from the UCLA Joe C. Wen School of Nursing.

Deliverables

Deliverables include final project close out report (see appendix for format) and publications, poster or podium presentations based on the study, as well as those that were informed in any way by this project. Please also remember to cite this funding award in your publications, along with any other funding that contributed to the research. For the final close out report, complete the questions in the Final Close Out Report Template (see appendix) and email the report to Cuellar, Ingrid <icuellar@sonnet.ucla.edu> within one month of completion of the study or no later than 1 (one) year after award notification whichever is first. An exception will be made for awardees with an approved one-year no-cost extension. However, those with an approved no-cost extension must submit a final close out report at the end of the one-year extension. Any balance remaining after the award expiration date will be returned to UCLA SON research office. Upon completion of the project, the PI is strongly encouraged to present their findings at the UCLA School of Nursing WIP (Work-in-Progress) meeting and the annual research day. Faculty members who

have NOT submitted a closing report for a previously funded intramural project will not be eligible to apply for a new intramural grant (see Appendix).

Review Process

Description:

• The UCLA Joe C. Wen SON/ Intramural Grants will be peer-reviewed using the criteria based on the new 2025 NIH scoring procedures for evaluation of research applications.

Review Process:

• Applications will be reviewed through a two-tier system. The first level of review will focus on the scientific and technical merit of proposals. This scientific peer review will be conducted by members of the UCLA Joe C. Wen FRC and the UCLA Joe C. Wen Office of Research with assistance from experts when needed. The SON FRC may call upon other SON current and emeriti faculty, as well as outside reviewers. The second level of review will be carried out by the Executive Management Group (EMG) and will focus on funding based on the scientific merit of the proposals as evaluated in first level review, the relevance of the proposed study to the School’s programs and priorities, and the likelihood that the project can serve as a pilot study leading to future NIH or equivalent funding.

Scoring:

• FRC members and/or invited reviewers with subject expertise will be instructed to evaluate research applications by addressing the scored review criteria (see below) and additional review criteria as applicable for the application.
• For each application, a final overall impact score will be given by each eligible committee member (without conflicts of interest) following the review panel discussion. Each member’s impact score will reflect his/her evaluation of the potential overall impact of the project in its entirety, rather than an arithmetic formula applied to the reviewer’s scores given to each criterion. The final impact score for each discussed application will be determined by calculating the arithmetic average of all the eligible members’ impact scores.
• All applicants will receive a written critique, called a Summary Statement. The Summary Statement represents a combination of the reviewers' written comments and scores for individual criteria. The Summary Statement for discussed applications includes the summary of the members' discussion during the FRC meeting; the final impact score; the recommendations of the FRC, including budget recommendations; and administrative notes of special considerations.

Scoring Table for Research Grant Applications

Research Proposal Evaluation Criteria

Proposals will be evaluated using the following guidelines, adapted from the NIH 2025 Simplified (3-factor) Framework for applicability specifically to SON pilot or preliminary studies. Two of the factors will be given numerical scores and one will be evaluated for adequacy; but all three factors will be considered to determine the Overall Impact score.

• Factor 1: Importance of Research (Significance, Innovation), scored 1-9
• Factor 2: Rigor and Feasibility (Approach), scored 1-9
• Factor 3: Expertise (Investigator), to be evaluated as either sufficient for the proposed research or not (in which case reviewers must provide an explanation)

The following, as they apply to UCLA Joe C. Wen School of Nursing pilot, feasibility, or preliminary studies, will be considered when scoring a proposal:

Factor 1. Importance of the Research

Significance

• Assess whether the application addresses an important gap in knowledge in the field or whether the study will provide critical pilot data to contribute to the development of a study that would solve a critical problem or create a valuable conceptual or technical advancement.

Innovation

• Evaluate the extent to which innovation influences the importance of undertaking the proposed research. Note that while technical or conceptual innovation can influence the importance of the proposed research, a project that is not applying novel concepts or approaches may be of critical importance for the field.
• Evaluate whether the proposed work applies novel concepts, methods, or technologies or uses existing concepts, methods, and technologies in novel ways, to enhance the overall impact of the project.

Factor 2. Rigor and Feasibility

Approach

• Evaluate the overall scientific quality of the proposed work, the likelihood that compelling, reproducible findings will result (rigor), and whether the proposed study aims can be accomplished within proposed timeframe (feasibility).

Rigor

• Evaluate the potential to produce unbiased, reproducible, robust data.
• Evaluate the appropriateness and rigor of the study design.
• Evaluate whether the sample size is sufficient and justified.
• Assess the quality of the plans for analysis, interpretation, and reporting of results.
• For applications involving human subjects or vertebrate animals, also evaluate: o The rigor of the intervention or study manipulation (if applicable to the study design).
• Whether the outcome variables are justified.
• Whether the sample is appropriate to address the proposed question(s).

Feasibility

• Evaluate whether the proposed approach is achievable, including plans to address problems or new challenges that emerge in the work. For proposed studies in which feasibility may be less certain, evaluate whether the uncertainty is balanced by the potential for major advances.
• For applications involving human subjects, evaluate the adequacy and feasibility of the plan to recruit and retain participants

Factor 3. Expertise and Resources

Investigator(s)

Evaluate whether the investigator(s) have demonstrated background, training, and expertise, as appropriate for their career stage, to conduct the proposed work. If collaborator(s) listed, whether the collaborations are adequately described and justified.

Questions

If you have any questions, please call/write the Interim Chair of the FRC: Benissa E. Salem, PhD, RN, MSN, PHN, CNL

How to Apply

Qualtrics Submission Form