The E4A Selection Criteria | Evidence for Action

Letters of intent (LOI) and full proposals are evaluated based on six review criteria:

Relevance,
Actionability,
Methodological Rigor,
Inclusion of Health Outcomes,
Feasibility, and
Qualifications of the Team.

Generally, LOIs must meet all six criteria in order to be advanced to the full proposal stage. However, we may provide questions, comments, or feedback when inviting a full proposal through a request for revisions to allow applicants the opportunity to strengthen their alignment with these criteria.

Reviewers are only able to judge LOIs based on the information and materials included as part of the application submission. Therefore, it is important to clearly address each of these review criteria by carefully following the instructions and templates provided to you in the application system, especially the letter of intent narrative and project information questions sections.

Relevance

E4A Definition:

The aims of the research are important to advancing health and racial equity. The findings of the research can inform priorities around policy, program, and practice development and implementation. Our funding aligns with the Foundation’s efforts to restructure systems and structures rooted in equity that provide every individual with a fair and just opportunity for health and well-being, no matter who they are, where they live, or how much money they have. Research funded through E4A will help inform the creation of such conditions.

What we’re looking for (and where):

Reviewers are assessing whether the proposed research is grounded in a racial equity framework (view E4A frequently asked question, “What does it mean to conduct research with a racial equity lens?” for more information). Reviewers are also assessing the theory of change, logic model, or other similar theoretical models to understand how applicants are conceptualizing the role racism plays in the interventions and outcomes they are studying. The rationale for the study should reflect a nuanced understanding of the real-world logistical and socio-political context in which an intervention is being implemented and the research will take place. Applicants should provide evidence that the proposed research questions were developed based on the priorities of communities impacted by structural racism, as well as the needs of decision-makers, advocacy organizations, communities, and/or other end-users of the research. This should be demonstrated in the rationale section of the LOI narrative, as well as in responses to the first and second open-ended Project Information Questions in the application (see E4A Guidance on Submitting a Letter of Intent).

Examples of what could meet this criteria:

Evaluation of a specific intervention implemented by and for communities that is designed to improve outcomes for a minoritized, racialized population.
Ethnographic research that centers the perspectives and counternarratives of minoritized voices to challenge policies and practices rooted in white supremacy.
Participatory action research that develops a better understanding of contextual factors influencing intervention implementation, and determines mechanisms of change and effectiveness.
Natural experiments that provide an opportunity to measure the health and racial equity outcomes of an impending change in policy or practice.
Evaluations of approaches to dismantle racist practices in housing, criminal justice, education, finance, and/or other social sectors that strongly and directly impact health.
Formative research to develop an intervention that could improve health and racial equity within a specific population, setting, or sector (e.g., defining an intervention framework, testing feasibility or acceptability, etc.).

Examples of what does NOT meet this criteria:

Research questions generated solely by academic researchers and not informed by real-world circumstances or priorities.
Research focused solely on white populations, or that is not powered to detect heterogeneous treatment effects on a racialized or minoritized group.
Research focused on addressing interpersonal or internalized racism at the level of individuals or small groups.

Actionability

E4A Definition:

The research goes beyond theoretical implications and has potential for practical and timely application in the real world. Sociopolitical conditions (e.g., timing, relationships, windows of opportunity) should be favorable for translating findings into action. The project team must also demonstrate a plan for and commitment to disseminating findings to those who can drive action to improve health and racial equity.

What we’re looking for (and where):

Reviewers are looking for clear connections between the research being proposed and decisions that can be made in the real world to advance health and racial equity. Applicants need to demonstrate that findings will answer real-world questions being asked by policymakers, program administrators, communities, advocates, and other stakeholders. Applicants also need to demonstrate that the findings will be available within a timeframe to inform decision-making opportunities. This should be demonstrated in response to the second open-ended Project Information Question and the Implications of Findings section of the LOI narrative.

Examples of what could meet this criteria:

Local, state, or federal policymakers were involved in the development of the research question(s) and can use the research to inform particular policy or program decisions.
Research questions asked by community members and organizations about specific ways to advance health, wellbeing, and racial equity in their communities.
Research questions asked by corporations, businesses, and others about how to implement programs and policies that will improve health and racial equity for their employees.
There is a demonstrated connection between the research findings and policy, program, or practice decisions that are on the horizon in the next two to four years.
There is a demonstrated need from decision-makers, communities, or other stakeholders for the findings from the study to make decisions.
An implementing agency or organization has demonstrated interest in modifying an existing intervention or implementing a new one based on findings from the study.

Examples of what does NOT meet this criteria:

Research goals or aims do not align with what is needed by decision-makers to inform decisions around policies, programs, or practices.
Findings only serve to inform future research.
No clear commitment and plan to share findings with relevant audiences (e.g., policymakers, communities most impacted by the research, etc.).
Research describing a problem but not identifying possible solutions.
Research replicating existing evidence.

Methodological Rigor

E4A Definition:

Quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods approaches that adhere to best practices in design, sampling, analysis, and interpretation, and are applied in a manner that yields conclusions about what works to advance racial equity and health in a given context. Quantitative studies are powered to detect meaningful and plausible effect sizes, account for relevant context and covariates, and include appropriate comparison groups. Qualitative research designs aid in examining perceptions, motivations and attitudes and demonstrate credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability.

What we’re looking for (and where):

The research design and methods should be suitable to the specific research aims, study population, and intended use of the findings. Data collection and analysis should be systematic and rigorous for the proposed design and approach. We strongly support mixed methods studies that use quantitative and qualitative approaches to establish both context and causal relationships. In quantitative approaches, we look for designs that can help demonstrate the effect (or lack thereof) of an intervention. This usually requires a control or comparison group, sufficient sample sizes, and validated measures of outcomes and covariates. For qualitative studies, we look for the identification of and rationale for a specific research design (e.g., narrative, case study, phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography) and/or methods (e.g., interviewing, focus groups, observation, document review); justification for sampling methods and size; culturally responsive recruitment and data collection procedures; thorough and thoughtful steps to data analysis and interpretation; and methods to increase the study's credibility, transferability, confirmability, and dependability. When evaluating mixed-methods proposals, we are especially attuned to whether the qualitative and quantitative components truly integrate and inform each other, rather than merely existing in parallel under the same research umbrella. We look for indicators of methodological rigor in the Research Approach and Activities section of the LOI narrative template.

Examples of what could meet this criteria:

Experimental or quasi-experimental approaches to establishing causal relationships between an intervention and its effects on health and equity, including difference-in-difference, regression discontinuity, instrumental variables, propensity score matching, etc.
Use of quantitative datasets that use measures validated for the priority populations, and/or include an oversample of priority populations to ensure power to detect differential effects - e.g., by race, ethnicity, or other identities.
Qualitative inquiry to engage participants in co-creating or modifying an intervention in which informants are sampled purposively and data collection and analyses follow established protocols in alignment with the specified approach.
Mixed methods studies that apply both qualitative and quantitative methods either sequentially or concurrently with an explanation of how each method informs the other.

Examples of what does NOT meet this criteria:

Evaluation design is a single group pre- and post-test only, with no control or comparison group.
The comparison group is not appropriate (e.g., people participating in an intervention are being compared to people who are different from participants in evident ways, such as people who can't afford or don't want to participate).
The populations of interest are not represented in the dataset in sufficient numbers to detect differential effects.
Outcomes are assessed using instruments (e.g., survey modules, interview guides) that are not appropriate or validated for the priority groups.
Research that lacks specificity about the approach to recruitment or justification for proposed activities, (e.g., lack of rationale for conducting interviews versus focus groups in qualitative research).
Informants for qualitative studies are recruited randomly or based on convenience; no consistent protocol is used for data collection or analysis; data collection is insufficient to draw conclusions.
Quantitative and qualitative studies are conducted separately without integration or alignment.

Inclusion of Health Outcome Measures

The E4A Definition:

At least one primary or secondary outcome must reflect health status. This may include measures of physical, mental, and socio-emotional health and well-being, or behaviors that are well established as proxies of health and well-being.

What we’re looking for (and where):

It should be plausible that the specified outcomes are related to the intervention of interest. Applicants should be able to demonstrate the connection between the intervention and outcomes through a reasonable theory of change. Outcomes should be meaningful and important from a racial equity and population health perspective. For example, a small but clinically important improvement in mental health outcomes as a result of a new policy or practice can have important implications when scaled at the population level. Note that outcomes are not limited to health measures. Other relevant non-health outcomes (such as academic, financial or other pertinent measures) may also be collected as part of the study. Clearly state the primary and secondary outcomes - including the datasets or validated instrument being used to collect each measure - in the Research Approach and Activities section of the LOI narrative.

Examples of what could meet this criteria:

Self-assessed health or quality of life measures captured through standard surveys such as the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), American Community Survey (ACS), etc.
Physical health measures, such as blood lipid markers, HgA1c, blood pressure, hormonal indicators of stress, disease rates (e.g., asthma occurrence). (Note that while biometric measures are appropriate, primary collection of these data can be costly, making them often infeasible for E4A studies. Using secondary data - by linking electronic health records, for example - may be a more cost-effective way to integrate this kind of data into studies).
Mental health measures, such as scales of depression, stress, well-being, etc.
Health behaviors strongly linked to health outcomes, such as smoking, physical activity, dietary intake, sleep, or vaccination.

Examples of what does NOT meet this criteria:

Knowledge or awareness about a health-related topic.
Behavioral intentions or goals.
Skill or performance scores after a training or educational activity.
Access to or usage of health services (except for rare cases in which they may be a proxy for physical health status).
Satisfaction with a service or product.

Feasibility

E4A Definition:

Demonstrated ability to conduct the research within the proposed grant duration and with the proposed budget. This includes evidence of timely access to appropriate data and/or study populations and reasonable budgets and timelines that account for sufficient and equitable engagement of relevant stakeholders.

What we’re looking for (and where):

Applicants need to demonstrate the existence of relationships or agreements that will enable the team to respectfully collect and analyze data from or about the study population, including key subgroups. In studies using primary data collection, there should be consideration for equitable engagement of study populations and shared ownership of the data. In studies using secondary data, the data sources should reflect adequate representation (including oversampling as needed) of priority racial and ethnic subgroups and the use of variables and measures that are appropriate for these subgroups. The proposed grant duration should also include sufficient time for interpretation and dissemination of findings with key stakeholders. Feasibility should be demonstrated in response to the third Project Information Question, as well as throughout the LOI narrative.

Examples of what could meet this criteria:

Strong and equitable partnerships between the research team and the population(s) of interest.
Existing data use agreement.
Evidence that the dataset is of a high quality and includes the outcomes of interest.
Clear indicators of existing relationships among research stakeholders, including community partners.

Examples of what does NOT meet this criteria:

Knowledge of populations but no existing relationships within that community.
Project could not be completed within 36 (or, in select cases, 48) months.
Intervention being evaluated is not funded or there are no imminent plans for implementation.
Budget does not seem appropriate for the anticipated project (either excessively high or inadequately low).

Qualifications of the Team

E4A Definition:

Expertise of academic researchers, practitioners, and individuals or groups with issue-specific knowledge and experiences are integrated at appropriate stages of the project; community members, advocates, policymakers, and/or other stakeholders are engaged equitably and meaningfully.

What we’re looking for:

In order for research to have the greatest impact on racial equity, it should be conducted by diverse, interdisciplinary teams who possess not only subject matter and methodological expertise, but deep knowledge of structural racism and the practical implications of research findings. We look for teams that demonstrate shared power among members with different professional and lived experiences, as well as a research plan and budget that reflects authentic collaboration with and adequate compensation for members of impacted groups throughout the research process. At least one member of the team should be adept at designing, conducting, and interpreting research using a racial equity or antiracist framework, theory, or lens.

Examples of what could meet this criteria:

A non-profit director and academic researcher serve as co-PIs and work together to design and execute a study of an issue impacting the community served by the non-profit.
Staff of a social service agency serve as co-PIs and partner with an academic researcher to design and implement an evaluation of specific components of the agency’s services.
Academic or contract researchers serve as PIs and convene a paid advisory group of community members, practitioners, and advocates to advise on the research question, setting, outcome measures, implementation practices, and interpretation of findings.

Examples of what does NOT meet this criteria:

An all-academic team proposing to study the impact of an intervention taking place in a real-world setting, where none of the team members has lived personal or professional experience with the setting or context.
A team that lacks a member with a proven track record of designing and conducting qualitative research in studies that include qualitative components.
A research team in which nobody has specific expertise in how to design and conduct antiracist research.
A team proposing to study a specific racial/ethnic/cultural group without authentic inclusion of members of that group in the research design or decision-making.
A team that was hastily assembled to provide the appearance of diversity, but relationships are not authentic and power is not equitably shared.