Undergraduate scholarships, research, and biomedical training.

All BUILD sites developed a student training program, which provided the most intense exposure to BUILD activities since it required students to engage in structured programming, including a combination of professional development activities, mentorship, and undergraduate research opportunities. While programming varied by site, all programs included financial support in the form of scholarships and stipends. All sites expressed a desire to continue scholar programs but were faced with challenges in finding substantial funding to continue all elements of their programs. Most sites received institutional funding commitments or obtained external grants to continue some initiatives. Three sites will continue to have scholar programs with cohorts each year that are funded by the institution. (We discuss how the context of these sites played a role further in the findings.) Three other sites are sustaining downsized versions of their scholar programs through external grant funding. Another site reported plans to partner with the Honors College as a way of obtaining funding for students selected as scholars.

Each BUILD site selected the approach that best fit its local conditions. This resulted in different trajectories for expanding undergraduate research opportunities, particularly to enhance participation of students from groups underrepresented in biomedical fields. For example, at University J, a formal staff position developed as part of its BUILD program that provides students with consistent access to support as they navigate their STEMM majors and undergraduate research training experiences. Other sites diffused initiatives into the larger campus community. At some sites, this effort was scaled-up by establishing campus-wide undergraduate research offices due to conditions that facilitated this approach. At other sites, the evidence of successful summer research programs led to institutions absorbing the program. For example, University G and University A will be continuing their summer programs by integrating with a larger summer program at the university or facilitating the program through their undergraduate research office, respectively. We will discuss the conditions that shaped these varied outcomes in a subsequent section.

Post-baccalaureate programs.

In addition to undergraduate access to research, three BUILD sites will continue to offer post-baccalaureate opportunities. At University C, post-baccalaureate technician positions are being sustained on a smaller scale through faculty writing these positions into grants. Similarly, University L offers a post-baccalaureate program where students are clinical research coordinators. Lastly, University K has submitted proposals to continue an existing post-baccalaureate program aligned with BUILD. All three of these institutions are able to continue these programs because they have faculty members committed to maintaining them. These programs are continuing to give students opportunities beyond the scope of the grant to support long-term persistence in STEMM fields.

Curriculum and courses.

All BUILD sites will be maintaining some changes to curriculum and/or courses. As stated by an administrator, “In higher ed[ucation], if you can do anything that’s part of the curriculum, then you have a chance of sustaining that and their structures and resources and things around that, that you can build off of.” All BUILD sites created new research-oriented courses through BUILD, and two sites added research elements into previously existing courses. Many of the courses are Course-based Undergraduate Research Experiences (CUREs), which span several disciplines and foci within the biomedical field. Several sites are increasing access to research by scaling up CUREs for all students enrolled in introductory STEMM courses.

Additionally, some sites have developed new programs for students to be able to receive formal access to research. University J’s program utilizes a unique philosophy that integrates the health of animals, the environment, and humans. This is now not only in the undergraduate curriculum but is also the foundation for a newly developed master’s program. Additionally, University C created a research minor, and University I has created a research training certificate for students.

Faculty training.

Faculty training largely focused on improving mentoring and teaching, and supporting faculty grant-writing. While practices that faculty have learned thus far in training will continue to impact the universities, several sites were working to institutionalize these programs. At one site, an academic administrator noted that “the training that they did for their faculty or staff, the support services that they provided to the students, really built on some of the things that we were already doing” and that they think inviting faculty across the university to development opportunities “will continue.” They will likely continue because training was effective and aligned with the goals of the university.

Several campuses focused on creating training that was scalable both within and beyond the institution. At University G, the faculty development certificate program trains faculty to adopt teaching practices to support diverse STEMM students. While this began with a cohort of faculty primarily in the sciences, it has now expanded across disciplines, and operations will continue to be maintained by the Faculty Teaching Center with colleges contributing to the cost of running the initiative. One evaluator mentioned, “[the faculty training program has had] an institutional impact outside of STEM, to other areas as well. So that’s a real success story that’s going to continue.” University F also scaled its faculty pedagogy training campus-wide as it reflected the greater goal of the university. As one PI mentioned,

Our now-Provost, former Dean in our school, came in and we explained [active learning pedagogy training] to him. Instead of struggling to find a way to do it, he immediately embraced it, and said, ‘this is great. I want all my new incoming faculty to take this and I’m going to encourage everybody to take it.’ And now it is institutionalized in a new office.

This work at both sites reflects an effort and success at scaling the faculty programming more widely. In this process, the program was able to be institutionalized as it was actively integrated into different parts of the institution.

Further, some BUILD sites are spreading their training to other universities. Three of the BUILD institutions created their own consortium within BUILD because of shared institutional characteristics and structures. The BUILD-funded campuses are leveraging their connection with one another. University B developed six mentor training modules that are now made available across this three-site consortium. University A has expanded some of its faculty training beyond its campus by creating faculty mentor training models using a Critical Race Theory framework. Faculty training was also expanded for graduate student teaching assistants. At University L, this effort emerged from faculty initiatives, with the basic content of the training institutionalized into a pedagogy course:

The timeline [began with] the [program’s] readings, which then informed a workshop that several of us gave to tenure track lecturers, faculty, and graduate teaching assistants … and that workshop was funded by BUILD. And then that led to the pedagogy course [which] uses some of those readings that we did in the [program workshop]. That’s now, the graduate teaching assistant pedagogy course [that] is now institutionalized.

Other initiatives lack the same amount of support across universities. Most sites are discontinuing their grant-writing training and faculty writing retreats as independent programs, but several institutions have embedded some aspects of support for grant writing. For example, University A institutionalized the training through the office of the Associate Vice Provost of Research; University F is continuing to give course releases for faculty to focus on grant writing; and University D is integrating grant-writing training into other faculty initiatives. Additionally, sites had invested in internal grants and purchasing equipment for research. While most sites are discontinuing BUILD-funded pilot grants, University F is continuing to offer pilot grants to faculty funded by the institution.

Changing faculty hiring practices.

Several sites have also institutionalized BUILD-initiated changes to faculty hiring practices as they are a way of creating change that can be easily maintained without ongoing funding. Two sites institutionalized “faculty search advocates,” members of a faculty search committee who receive training to ensure that the hiring is fair at all stages of the process. While the original grant aims focused on biomedical fields, faculty search advocates became part of every department search process at these two sites. At University I, one core director highlighted how this change is necessary and reflected on campus:

It’s a campus-wide policy that you have a search advocate on faculty and administrative search committees to ensure that there is equity in the process... because the search process is a racialized process. That’s one of the systemic things we’re trying to undo. And so by having a search advocate that’s checking for bias and checking for, “Well, why are you disqualifying this candidate? I see that they have eight publications,” or whatever it is, that person is there to check you and make sure that you’re trying to weigh candidates not the same way, but equitably.

At other campuses, policies were oriented toward their differing campus needs. At University B, their version is fully paid for by the institution and added to the budget. Thus, each campus adapted the work to their own context.

Contextual element 1: Institutional financial status.

Institutional financial status refers to the availability of funds within the university and, consequently, the availability of funds for interventions. Across all sites and programs, financial viability emerged as the largest factor that affected programs’ ability to sustain program activities. Sites sought funding from institutional budgets, private donors, and/or external grants to maintain interventions. Thus, while some sites were able to be successful primarily through these outside sources of funding, having fewer institutional funds available limited the extent to which the institution was receptive to sustaining BUILD activities.

While all sites expressed the difficulty of having significantly decreased funding after the end of the grant, this was further exacerbated at institutions that were experiencing financial challenges. For example, leaders at University H, University B, University J, and University E all mentioned that they were facing declining funding. As one administrator described their financial status:

[Institutionalizing faculty initiatives has] been a challenge as we’ve been cutting a lot of money from our budget. What was, when I started here, an $11 million dollar shortfall, is now turning into a $20 million dollar shortfall.

This speaks to the drastic changes that the university is experiencing from declining enrollment and the long-term effects of COVID-19. The challenges resulted in senior administrators seeking to cut programs geared to a select number of high-achieving students with more resources, limiting what aspects of BUILD can be maintained. University J was another campus with an extreme funding deficit, having cuts of 25% and 11% within 3 years. One leader mentioned,

[Institutionalizing a BUILD-created staff position] right now, is not in the cards. Again, the reduction in support for the university was significant over the last three years. That really, I think, has hampered a lot of our ability, despite great commitment to the cause to actually provide the support that we would really love to support. Because, are you going to fire faculty in order to hire a [staff member] or two?

Regardless of university leaders’ desire to continue BUILD activities, they could not financially support BUILD because the institution was struggling to fund faculty and other pre-existing initiatives. Consequently, substantial financial shortfalls that colleges and universities face created a context that was not receptive to sustainable change, despite evidence of being both innovative and successful.

Some sites developed a more receptive context by finding additional means of funding and resources needed to sustain programs. The condition of limited institutional funds led some sites to seek funding from outside of the institution. Many program directors applied for additional grants, such as the NIH U-RISE grant, to maintain student training programs; however, not all sites were equally successful at obtaining external funding and programs that did receive funding were informed of cuts in 2025 [6]. Other sites developed ways for the institution to redirect campus income toward continuing undergraduate research. For example, University B captured grant indirect costs that will enable 10 scholars per year to be funded for another 10 years, along with an additional 10 scholars funded by the provost’s office. Similarly, University J has a model where 1% of all indirect costs from grants are used to support undergraduate research. These alternative models help address the financial burdens institutions face.

Contextual element 2: Organizational infrastructure and partnerships.

Organizational infrastructure consists of inter-institutional partnerships, intra-institutional partnerships, and physical and digital infrastructure, which are integral to facilitating program sustainability, because they enable shared resources. Additionally, preexisting offices and infrastructure provide a readily receptive context for sustainability, and some sites’ grant activities facilitated the expansion or creation of new offices/centers that subsequently sustained additional grant activities.

Strong inter-institutional partnerships increased the likelihood that BUILD sites sustained elements of their training programs, mainly by sharing resources. For example, Universities A, B, and H formed a smaller within-DPC consortium to incorporate lessons from grant implementation to scale up support for students and faculty. One PI explained how the partnership developed:

The three BUILD programs within the [consortium], we’re uniquely positioned. Of the ten BUILD programs, three of them are within the [state-wide system], I said, “We serve the same students! So why don’t we work together and see if we can pool our resources, and develop a synergy to work with our students and faculty?”

The PI went on to explain the synergy developed by lessons learned among the three sites to improve program implementation, effectiveness toward target populations, and program sustainability. Their connection to the system’s administrative office enabled a combined effort to institutionalize doctoral student mentorship and training. This partnership between sites A, B, and H required significantly less financial support provided by a single institution. Thus, these connections facilitated institutionalization of training elements despite declining institutional funding.

Strong partnerships with research institutions also facilitated program sustainability, particularly for summer undergraduate research experiences. For example, one BUILD team member at University C shared that partner institutions have committed to hosting students to do research over the summer without requiring funding from University C. Maintaining these inter-institutional partnerships reduced the costs for BUILD sites that initially used their grant budgets to fund students’ summer research experiences and internships and/or to add research institutions on as sub-awardees. While many student training interventions are expensive to sustain, research partner institutions can share or cover the cost of student summer experiences.

Intra-institutional partnerships were key elements of a receptive context for program sustainability. Nine of the 10 sites utilized pre-existing offices and centers on campus to aid in institutionalizing different aspects of the program. At some sites, BUILD-funded program activities were integrated into these offices and centers, consolidating costs for staff, materials, space, and other resources to run the activity. For BUILD-developed student programming, sites primarily worked with student success centers, undergraduate research offices, and/or specific colleges to implement a transition plan in advance of the end of NIH DPC funding. Preexisting offices not only provided a place for the grant-developed activities to continue but also unlocked staff time and funding from those offices to devote to continuing BUILD initiatives.

The existence of additional STEMM training programs on campus enabled opportunities to organize and coordinate programs to streamline students’ pathways into STEMM training activities. University E leveraged the ability to connect with other science training programs on campus. One program manager explained the logic of their efforts:

The idea is take the community, get them to the [summer research academy], get them into [BUILD], and then kind of funnel them into LSAMP, McNair, U-RISE, the president’s funds for DACA students. So, it’s just kind of a way to help them explore.

This synergizing underscored that all the undergraduate research centers had a desire to work toward longer-term undergraduate research support. Thus, having a variety of STEMM-related training efforts on campus that intentionally coordinate and synergize resources and efforts contributes to a context that is receptive to institutionalizing grant-funded activities.

Some campuses were unique in building a receptive context through non-academic partnerships. For example, University G sustained their BUILD-developed STEMM Living Learning Community (LLC) through an endowment gift by partnering with their institution’s advancement office and residential life office:

We have a donor through the university that gave a million-dollar endowment for the LLC. We work[ed] with our [advancement office] and that’s how we got that partnership. Recruitment [for the LLC] will obviously look a little bit different, because I’ll be working directly with [the residence life office] just to fill all those spots as opposed to working with our evaluation team and our internal BUILD team, it will just shift.

The context of strong partnerships with a successful advancement office that was able to obtain financial support, in combination with a student affairs-related office that provided the infrastructure for delivering STEMM training opportunities to students, helped facilitate longevity of this grant-funded initiative. Since students are paying for housing already, the endowed funds can stretch further to maintain the LLC.

To sustain faculty-level activities such as training in mentoring and grant writing, several sites utilized an existing faculty training center and/or office on campus to manage and facilitate the activity developed during the grant-funded period.

Physical and digital infrastructure is another important condition for institutionalization. Several sites leveraged preexisting infrastructure to maintain some BUILD-developed activities. University A has received both university and grant funding to “transform some of the training to online training so that students could [participate in trainings].” Along with University C, they were able to leverage existing websites so that training sessions can be delivered online at little to no ongoing cost. Further, the investment in software during the BUILD grant enhanced the institution’s digital infrastructure:

We also use some carryover funds to help the university purchase some key large software packages that we will continue. …You can do appointments, like now all of our resource centers, tutoring centers, are using it for appointments for students to be tutored, like we did total drop-in tutoring, pre-COVID. … And obviously, we’re continuing the maintenance on those systems. So not on BUILD’s dime [in the future].

University C’s use of this software enhanced their preexisting support for students. As this software was already transitioned off BUILD funding, the condition of having this online system aided in being able to enhance the resource centers’ ability to reach students. As well, University E’s partner community college utilized their learning management system to maintain a repository for students to learn about announcements and events. Maintaining this repository was described as a “low-stakes” activity because it can easily be sustained.

Contextual element 3: Commitment from central administration and STEMM faculty.

Having the commitment of central administration and STEMM faculty at the institution is critical to successfully sustaining initiatives. As the actors in the university with the most authority, the response from deans, provosts, and presidents either aided or inhibited the continuation of grant-funded activities. At University A, one of the PIs mentioned, “What I learned there is if you have direct access to the provost, which my partner did, and the provost sent out emails to people, we got droves of people involved, including her.” This speaks to the central administrators’ capacity to influence which grant-funded initiatives gain traction throughout the university.

Substantial institutional commitment from their central administrations for BUILD’s sustainability was key to a receptive context. For example, university leadership expressed how they would actively work toward further funding these initiatives. At University B, a central administrator noted that in addition to the already committed funds, they saw the BUILD grant as an opportunity to expand the institutionalization of the larger research infrastructure of the university. Their commitment to the overall programming can contribute to future funding and, consequently, further program sustainability. As well, an administrator at University G expressed a similar willingness to absorb the cost of faculty training and a dean at University I committed to “picking up more and more of the salary” for the student success coach.

Active work and direct investment in the BUILD interventions support program sustainability. Alternatively, the lack of leadership commitment can reduce the likelihood of institutionalization. For example, one site stopped providing substantial internal grants as the campus leadership did not see sufficient impact. As well, this lack of commitment can be due to broader university conditions such as central leadership turnover. As one core director mentioned,

I think one [challenge] is that there’s a constantly changing environment in terms of people, the people that we have to work with. So, we’re on our third or fourth president now, our fourth provost, our third VP for research. So that transition in leadership has been, I think, something that has made it difficult to, again, really take full advantage of everything that university could have done with BUILD.

At this site, the continuous changes in leadership inhibited the scale at which BUILD could be sustained. However, while turnover created a barrier to program sustainability, it did not halt it completely as deans and/or other campus leaders worked to sustain momentum toward institutionalizing grant activities.

Faculty commitment to enhancing diversity in STEMM fields via teaching and mentoring is essential. Having a faculty culture that values and works to improve their capacity to support STEMM students is a condition that facilitates institutionalization of student programs. It is particularly important when grant funding ends because incentives such as stipends may no longer be provided to faculty for their participation in mentorship-related training and activities. As one core director noted, “you rely a lot on faculty,” particularly when it comes to mentoring and advising students. For example, several faculty members demonstrated a desire to continue mentoring students after participating in BUILD activities. At University H, one faculty member noted that “faculty members are really eager to mentor [BUILD] scholars,” indicating that faculty value developing relationships with students. Faculty at some sites showed a willingness to voluntarily mentor and participate in training without financial or other incentives. One faculty member at University A discussed her commitment when she said, “I wish there would be some funding to be able to continue to support some of that, but even without it, I [am] committed to these students.” This faculty member felt a responsibility to students and a willingness to continue mentoring, a sentiment also expressed by faculty at University B and University C.

Contextual element 4: Alignment with institutional priorities.

The overall priorities of the institution, noted in its mission and strategic plan, are central to grant-funded program longevity because university resources are allocated toward institutional priorities. Thus, a grant’s overlap with current institutional priorities supports program sustainability.

A key component of receptivity was the extent to which the aims of BUILD were reflected in the university’s larger strategic plan. When talking about the difficulties of a limited budget, a provost commented:

This is also a really important thing, and I think it’s particularly important for people who are working on these types of projects that don’t have a provost, or a dean involved, and that [are in] alignment with this. The way to obtain funds for an initiative, or whatever you want to do, is you have to align it with the strategic priorities of the university. And I think that’s, to a certain extent, what [another administrator] and I can do. We know what the strategic plan is and [BUILD is] perfectly aligned with what we’re doing.

The administrator’s comment is framed as a reflection of not only personal experiences but also what lessons those experiences may offer to other universities. As a provost, that individual found that alignment with strategic priorities of the university is an essential element to program longevity. At University B, an administrator also echoed support for BUILD through the way it aligned with their newly launched strategic plan:

We launched a new strategic plan. … The two action zones that I like to try to connect with BUILD are the first one that aims to develop an equitable campus for every individual on our campus, irrespective of their roles. The third action zone is re-imagining faculty. How can [we examine], for instance, our campus retention, tenure, and promotion policies to recognize the hidden work that some of our very diverse faculty members find themselves involved in, particularly service? Very often when they are in an environment like ours, your diverse faculty members are the first mentors of sorts that your marginalized students will reach out to.

University B largely institutionalized their faculty training initiatives, particularly by integrating them into their faculty development center. This strategy reflects one of the “action zones” discussed by the provost.

Being student-centered was one of the highest priorities reported by almost all BUILD sites, considering several of the sites are also teaching-centered institutions. We found variation in the extent to which student versus faculty elements were institutionalized. Student programs were able to draw in more financial support as they could show data on their effectiveness and their alignment with the student-centered missions of the institutions. While faculty training programs were also maintained across most sites, all sites maintained elements of their student-centered initiatives. In part, this is due to student investment showing the most direct outcomes when there is limited funding. One administrator stated that “when you have to cut that much money, it’s hard to, and every penny I get, I try to put towards things that are directly tied to student outcomes.” Further, the same administrator noted that the program had shown “real evidence of what works in getting students engaged in really high-end research and in changing their trajectories.” While student interventions show a direct impact, it can still be difficult to maintain programs when there is a lack of funding. However, as a result of that priority, student interventions appeared to be institutionalized more consistently across BUILD sites.

Central administrators were committed to supporting the continuation of student-focused BUILD activities that aligned with other goals for supporting students. For example, a member of the BUILD team at University J noted, “the administration there is very much interested in engaging and supporting and helping Indigenous students be successful. And so, they’re trying to institutionalize a lot of the mentorship stuff that we’ve done and a lot of the scholarship stuff.” At the time, the institution was focused on enacting key elements of its institutional plan, which aligned with BUILD-developed activities that aimed to support retention of undergraduate students from underrepresented backgrounds.

Some BUILD institutions were able to institutionalize their research initiatives as the schools in their entirety were shifting toward becoming research-focused institutions. Over the course of the BUILD grant, one institution became an R1 institution, and two others were working toward becoming an R1. For example, University F has a distinct goal set by the university: “Overall, it is part of the bigger picture and the bigger goals of [University F] … to go from a purely training institute, a teaching institute, to a research institute.” During the grant, they became an R2 institution, and this movement toward research can be seen in what is institutionalized, such as faculty receiving course release time to focus on research. Additionally, University D became an R1 institution in 2018, and the president and state coordinating board have specified that “doing undergraduate research” is a priority. As a result, offices devoted to research for both students and faculty were accessible to absorb pieces of student training. According to the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs, they also have a surplus in grant money for students from a state funding source and many faculty have become successful at getting grants, making it possible for University D to maintain elements of the BUILD program and continue to fund scholars. The centrality of research in institutional mission has enabled BUILD sites to successfully maintain programs that reflect those priorities.

One challenge faced by BUILD sites that primarily focus on teaching is that conducting research may not be feasible in the same way it is at other institutions. As one faculty member explained, central administrators view research as more of a “hobby” that faculty pursue, rather than something that is part of the fabric of the university. This view is reflected in the other demands required of faculty by the university. For example, at many BUILD sites, there is a high course load that can prevent faculty members from devoting as much time to research:

One [challenge] is that we have a really high teaching load. We teach three courses a term. And so asking faculty to do research when they don’t, quote, “have to,” in the same way…And they’re not necessarily given a break from their teaching duties to make that happen is very difficult. You’re asking people to do stuff on top of what they’re already doing.

Along with other institutions, the focus on teaching makes it difficult for faculty to have time to work on research, regardless of their own desire to conduct research.

Further, the desire for data-driven decisions based on priorities within the university highly influenced what was able to be institutionalized. University J, for example, faced declining funding during BUILD implementation. One administrator stated,

What is important is that there is a [budget] process and once you put that process in and you know the request and what it is for, faculty have to still justify why they need it, what is it promoting? How is it adding to our goals, different goals? And they have a set of [questions on] how does it help with our accreditation process? They have to respond to those metrics, but as they rank and rate high, we try to find funding for as many proposals as possible.

This budget issue speaks to the intertwined nature of institutional financial status and institutional mission. The importance of this condition of being mission-aligned is amplified in importance by the financial constraints, demonstrating how different elements of receptive context may be held in tension with one another.