Objectives/Goals: This poster will describe a national landscape analysis of mentoring programs for Clinical Research Professionals (CRPs) in academic medical centers, identifying gaps and opportunities for translational workforce development. This work is intended to inform planning and implementation of future initiatives. Methods/Study Population: Mentoring programs for CRPs are an important component of the workforce development landscape but have received less attention compared to faculty and trainee mentoring. In 2025, the CRP Task Force (CRPT) Special Interest Group (SIG) of the Association for Clinical and Translational Science (ACTS) convened a mentoring-focused working group. A short survey was distributed via the ACTS conference, SIG online community site, and presented at the CRPT SIG Spring and Summer 2025 meetings to identify institutions with current, past, or planned CRP mentoring programs. The goal was to map program characteristics beyond those represented in the working group. Respondents who opted in were invited to a virtual focus group in July 2025 to share additional insights. Results/Anticipated Results: Between April and July 2025, 29 complete survey responses were received. After removing duplicates, 11 institutions reported active CRP mentoring programs, 8 planned to implement future programs, and 6 had no current program or future intent. One institution had a discontinued CRP mentoring program. Including working group members, 16 programs were mapped. Most programs use a 1:1 mentoring model, two use group mentoring, and one uses a mixed approach. Common goals included career/professional development, networking, onboarding, and skill-building. Program scope varied widely, from a narrow focus on a few roles to programs open to any research employee. Future analysis will explore program buy-in, support, resources, and evaluation. Discussion/Significance of Impact: Mapping the landscape of CRP mentoring programs is a critical first step toward developing decision-making tools for institutions considering future implementation. Identifying shared and unique program features supports resource sharing, reduces duplication, and strengthens workforce development efforts.
Markman et al. (Wed,) studied this question.