RFA-CA-24-026: National Cancer Institute Youth Enjoy Science Research Education Program (R25)

RFA-CA-24-026: National Cancer Institute Youth Enjoy Science Research Education Program (R25)

RFA-CA-24-026 is an NIH research education opportunity from the National Cancer Institute (NCI), focused on building institutional YES (Youth Enjoy Science) programs that engage middle school, high school, and/or undergraduate participants in hands-on cancer research experiences. It is a practical fit if your institution can deliver a program with three required components: Research Experiences, Curriculum or Methods Development, and Outreach, with explicit pathways for long-term participant engagement and community impact.

This opportunity was reissued in 2025 and remains active on NIH as part of a recurring NIH funding cycle that already had entries in 2024 and 2025, with an upcoming application due date in September 2026 and review tied to 2027 funding decisions. If your institution works on early-stage STEM pipelines or education-linked cancer research exposure, this is one of the strongest NIH education grants to anchor a structured pathway from early interest to sustained biomedical participation.

Key details at a glance

What this program is and what it is not

This is not a standard training grant for individual trainees. It is an institutional program competition intended to fund organizations that run structured, community-facing research education models around cancer research. NIH explicitly frames the goal as building pathways for people who have had limited biomedical research exposure and helps them develop realistic science career trajectories.

The program is especially explicit that the opportunity is designed for institutional program-building, not one-off workshop funding. That distinction drives every scoring conversation: proposals should describe how your institution will operate a sustained model, not just sponsor isolated laboratory placements.

The opportunity is most suitable when your program:

• Works directly with middle school (grades 6-8), middle-to-high school, and/or undergraduate audiences.
• Demonstrates mentorship and mentor continuity.
• Supports teachers and faculty as part of the intervention, not as optional add-ons.
• Uses research experiences to improve both participant learning and future participation in the science workforce pipeline.

It is also not the right fit if your institution is proposing primarily a traditional lab course with no formal outreach strategy or if your plan is mostly symbolic engagement without measurable continuity.

Who should apply and who should not

This is one of the opportunities where organization-level fit is as important as idea quality.

Strong fits

• Cancer-focused universities, research centers, and mission-aligned nonprofits with demonstrable community and school partnership capacity.
• Institutions that can support participant-level planning, data collection, mentoring systems, and educational materials.
• Organizations planning to scale beyond one-off short events into repeated school-year programming.
• Teams with evidence of prior community science, mentoring, or pipeline program experience.

Weak fits

• Institutions that can only offer ad hoc summer outreach with no stable year-round framework.
• Proposals that rely on unverified partnerships or letters that are not specific enough to demonstrate role clarity.
• Programs focused on general science without explicit cancer-focused research experiences.
• Institutions unable to complete federal registrations in advance of submission.

The solicitation also allows a broad set of U.S. eligible applicants, including institutions of higher education, nonprofits, for-profit organizations (including small businesses), local governments, tribal governments, and certain federal entities where applicable. Foreign organizations are not eligible. Keep that constraint explicit in internal planning before proposal writing starts.

Core program design requirements (non-negotiables)

This opportunity is unusually clear that non-compliant applications are rejected before science review. The three required components are explicit:

1. Research Experiences
   • Participants should gain hands-on cancer research exposure in mentored settings.
2. Curriculum or Methods Development
   • Programs should develop learning pathways that transfer knowledge and methods to classrooms or career pipelines.
3. Outreach
   • Program should include communication and educational activities that extend beyond the immediate participant group.

NIH explicitly calls out applications that omit any of these and are not cancer-focused as non-responsive.

The NOFO also states applicants are expected to maintain institutional capacity and commitment, including staff, facilities, and educational resources for implementation. If your institution does not have a clear support owner (program lead, budget owner, and compliance lead), build that before drafting.

Eligibility details you should verify early

If your team is still deciding whether to apply, run this as a pre-check:

• Participating organization type: Must be U.S.-based and within the approved categories listed in NIH text.
• Institutional commitment: You need staff/facilities and educational resources to sustain the program.
• Participant eligibility: Students, teachers, and faculty expected to be enrolled/employed and to have proper legal status (citizen, lawful permanent resident, or equivalent as stated in NIH terms).
• Clinical trial status: Programs proposing clinical trials are not accepted.
• Regulatory/compliance readiness: Required registrations must be active before submission.

For NIH submissions, registration completeness is commonly underestimated. Missing eRA Commons, SAM.gov, or equivalent account prerequisites can be fatal even if your science is excellent.

Application and submission mechanics (high-level path)

The NOFO confirms multiple submit paths: NIH ASSIST, institutional system-to-system workflows via Grants.gov and eRA Commons, or Grants.gov Workspace. Choose one early and avoid switching at the last minute.

A practical submission approach:

• Assign one team lead as primary PD/PI and one admin lead for registrations.
• Confirm SAM.gov + UEI + eRA Commons are complete and synchronized.
• Validate application type (new/renewal/resubmission) against allowed types.
• Use NIH How to Apply guidance for SF424(R&R) components.
• Verify all required files and formatting constraints before final submission.

The solicitation allows letter of intent (not required), but even optional items should be used strategically. If your NOFO states review workload planning helps from LOI, submitting one can still be useful for internal readiness.

Budget strategy and financial clarity

The NOFO gives a maximum direct cost cap of $400,000 per year, with a project period up to 5 years. Budget should reflect the specific needs of each participant group and program pathway.

Given the NOFO’s own budget rules, strong proposals often:

• Match personnel costs to actual participant counts and mentoring load.
• Separate core staff activities from participant support costs and justify both.
• Include budget lines for research supplies, learning materials, meeting/travel, evaluation, and dissemination.
• Avoid ambiguous or unsupported “nice-to-have” costs that are difficult to tie to explicit activities.

Because voluntary committed cost sharing is not required, competitive proposals should be designed as standalone NIH-funded operations, with a clear link between requested expenses and expected outcomes.

The opportunity can support participants with costs when justified, including support for program-specific activities and selective participant-related expenses, but these must remain directly connected to program goals.

How to build a competitive narrative in 2026/2027 context

A lot of teams lose points because they write for “outreach” but fail to write for measurable long-term impact. Reviewers expect a clear logic chain:

• What activities are offered?
• How are participants selected and supported?
• How do teachers and faculty benefit from the program?
• How will the program influence student retention in science pathways?
• How will the institution sustain the model after year one?

The strongest submissions show a full pipeline approach:

1. Recruitment with intent
   • Define age group and target population clearly.
   • Align outreach with schools where baseline barriers are highest.
2. Mentored experiences with continuity
   • Build multi-stage progression rather than one-off events.
3. Educational transfer into classrooms
   • Require teachers and undergraduates to translate methods back to teaching and peer learning.
4. Institutional and community feedback loops
   • Track outcomes, retention, and program modifications over time.

The NOFO mentions tracking outcomes over time, and NIH has historically rewarded teams that document measurement plans from the proposal outset.

Common mistakes and how to avoid them

Mistake 1: Submitting a “partial” YES design

This opportunity explicitly requires all three core components. Do not treat one or two as optional. If your draft has uneven coverage, rework before internal review.

Mistake 2: Weak institutional ownership

A recurring failure mode is weak internal accountability. Include explicit role ownership for recruitment, finance, compliance, and evaluation.

Mistake 3: Registration delays

Some applications fail despite strong science because registration is incomplete. This is preventable with a prep timeline that includes SAM.gov and eRA readiness.

Mistake 4: Misaligned participant claims

The program expects students and educational participants tied to the program’s educational target groups. Claims of broad general reach without clear participant pathways are usually flagged.

Mistake 5: Overbuilding as a clinical-trial-style project

This is a research education grant; it explicitly excludes clinical trials.

Mistake 6: Assuming “cancer engagement” alone is enough

NIH distinguishes between “cancer-focused intent” and real, reviewable program design. General science education must connect directly to cancer research learning objectives and research environments.

Suggested timeline for a realistic 2026-2027 submission path

Given the 2026 due date and NIH submission complexity, this target timeline is practical for mid-sized institutions:

10–12 weeks before due date

• Confirm eligible applicant status and required registrations.
• Lock leadership team and PI roles.
• Draft program logic model and budget summary.

8–10 weeks before due date

• Finalize school/community partners.
• Build evaluation framework and participant engagement plan.
• Prepare required forms and collaborator tables.

6–8 weeks before due date

• Draft all major sections with compliance language aligned to NOFO wording.
• Validate every budget line against direct costs and participant outcomes.

4–6 weeks before due date

• Internal compliance review (page limits, component completeness, format).
• Verify no prohibited clinical trial framing.

2–4 weeks before due date

• Dry-run submission in chosen portal (or internal system-to-system check).
• Resolve certification, signatures, and PD/PI account linkage issues.

Final week

• Final technical/prose review and immediate submission buffer before deadline.

NIH recommends early submission because late submission windows are very strict. Use this as a hard constraint.

Frequently asked questions

Is this still relevant if my institution already has an R25 award?

Yes, but if your institution already has an active R25, ensure any proposed activity is distinct. NIH requires your new application not to duplicate or replace existing federally funded training frameworks.

Can we apply if our focus is high school science education only?

Yes if activities still satisfy the three required components and are explicitly cancer-focused research education experiences. The strongest proposals include middle school and/or high school components connected to research participation.

Are letters of intent required?

Not required. They are optional per NIH instructions, but teams use them for internal planning and communication planning.

Can we include indirect cost sharing?

The NOFO states no required cost sharing. Budget planning should therefore stand on requested direct support and justified project costs.

Is this opportunity open internationally?

No. Non-domestic organizations are not eligible, and U.S. applicants must ensure all registrations and submission structures meet NIH requirements.

Final review: what to do after publication or expiration date changes

NIH NOFO pages for active opportunities can be updated. For each review cycle, always re-open the official page and confirm key items:

• due date and review timeline,
• any Notice of Change updates,
• application instructions or links,
• contact points and email references,
• budget and administrative requirements.

Because this opportunity has already shown iterative updates (for example, the March 31, 2025 update referenced on the official page), teams should avoid relying on saved local copies from previous cycles.

Official links

• Official opportunity page: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-CA-24-026.html
• NIH grant mechanism context: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-15-101.html
• NIH How to Apply Guide: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/how-to-apply-application-guide
• NIH eRA Commons: https://public.era.nih.gov/
• Grants.gov Workspace: https://www.grants.gov/

This program remains one of the most strategically relevant NIH education grants for institutions that can integrate K-12 and undergraduate communities into real cancer research environments. The decisive factor is not only how ambitious your learning activities are, but whether your program is operationally credible from first-year launch to sustained implementation across review cycles.