1. Key findings of HRA workforce development survey
Survey goals were to understand protocols and practices of HRA members surrounding
Early career support
Metrics of success
Monitoring and evaluation
Diversity
Intended to complement and expand questions from HRA annual member survey
43 questions

2. Thank you! We have received responses from 17 different organizations
Thank you to: ASF, Autism Speaks, American Federation for Aging Research, American Society of Hematology, Arnold and Mabel Beckman Foundation, Brightfocus, Cancer Research Institute, Doris Duke Charitable Trust, NYSCF, Pew, Melanoma Research Alliance, Rita Allen Foundation, Rheumatology Research Foundation, Tuberous Sclerosis Alliance, Pershing Square Sohn Cancer Research Alliance, Alzheimer’s Association, The V Foundation for Cancer Research

3. What is the definition of “early career” researcher?
Organization definition
Personal definition
13 yes, 4 no
Of the 13 yes
7 define as independent faculty, past post-doc
Range of 2-8 years in first faculty position
4 include post doc or less
2 “other”
Haven’t won major award
Within 5 years of fellowship start date
9 yes, 8 no or left blank
Of the 9 yes
6 include independent research, past post doc
3 include post doc or less
One organization funded postdocs without personal or organization established definition
One organization defined early career as independent career but still funded pre and post docs

4. What are metrics of success?
Does your organization have a definition of a successful grantee?
7 yes
10 no/blank
What is the definition of success?
Follow-up funding: 8
Continued research in field: 8
Promotion: 4
Publications: 4
IP: 2
Leadership/training next gen of scientists
Clinical progress
Collaborations
Awards/national recognition
Starting a company

5. Tracking grantees after funding is over
How many months do you track early career investigators after they have completed funding?
One month
One year after final payment
5 years (4)
Every 3-5 years over course of career
Indefinitely, as possible (2)
How do you collect information after grantees have completed funding?
Reports submitted by grantees: 13
Internet searches: 13
Unsolicited contact from grantees: 13
Software life Research Fish, Uber Research: 8
Information at scientific meetings: 9
Feedback from mentors/collaborators: 6
Direct contact w/ grantees: 2
Software like Plum analytics: 1
Software to track pubs, citations: 1

6. Require acknowledgement of support
Do you require the organization be acknowledged in publications?
14 yes
3 blank
What happens if this does not happen?
1 organization reported consequences
10 provided gentle reminders

7. Diversity of applicant pool and reducing bias
Does your organization have approaches to improve diversity of the applicant pool?
5 yes; 12 no/blank
Of the 5 yes
Used more inclusive language in RFP and inclusive images on website
Modified selection criteria to avoid gendered adjectives
Provide link to guidelines to mitigate unconscious bias in reference letters
Distribute RFP to societies that promote women in science
Allow invited institutions to submit 2 applicants for consideration if at least one if from an under represented minority
Make sure department list is comprehensive when distributing RFP
Partnerships with other organizations
Many of the “no” organizations are interested in incorporating new ideas!
Yes info- from Melanoma Research Alliance (Kristin Mueller)

8. Reducing bias/balancing awards
Does your SAB make conscious decisions about balancing awards?
7 yes; 10 no/blank
Of yes
When looking at top applications, make an effort to split across gender and field of study
Have reviewers read implicit bias statement aloud
Programs that are specifically designed for underrepresented minorities
Does your organization have approaches to reduce reviewer bias?
4 yes; 13 no/blank
Implicit bias statement
Do not share gender/race information in application (though gender may be apparent in recommendation letters)
Conflict of interest policies
Structured evaluation criteria
Evaluation criteria revised to avoid adjectives that might be implicitly associated with male gender