Application & Review

The call for proposals is currently closed and no longer accepting letter of intent submissions. The call will reopen toward the end of January 2025.

Yes! E4A will continue to accept letters of intent applications until November 1, 2024 at 3pm EDT. If you have not already started an application or your request for research for support is not time sensitive, we strongly encourage you to wait to submit until the updated call launches in January 2025.

Studies will be evaluated based on the following criteria:

• Relevance—research aims are important to advancing health and racial equity in the United States; research can inform demonstrable policy or implementation priorities.
• Actionability—goes beyond theoretical implications and demonstrates potential for practical and timely application in the real world; conditions (e.g., timing, relationships, windows of opportunity) are favorable for translating findings to action; dissemination plans and tactics are appropriate.
• Methodological rigor—studies designed to support causal inference are powered to detect meaningful and plausible effect sizes, account for relevant context and covariates, and include appropriate comparison groups; qualitative studies adhere to best practices in design, sampling, analysis, and interpretation.
• Inclusion of health outcome measure(s)—outcomes may include diverse dimensions of physical, mental, and socio-emotional health and well-being, or behaviors that are well established as determinants of health and well-being, assessed using validated instruments.
• Feasibility—evidence of timely access to appropriate data and/or study populations; reasonable budgets, and timelines that account for sufficient and equitable engagement of relevant stakeholders.
• Qualifications of team—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.

The selection criteria are consistent across all applications. We will make exceptions to our overarching focus on funding evaluations of intervention for research that is explicitly focused on dismantling structural racism. While these studies may not be required to apply causal inference designs, they are still expected to adhere to correspondingly rigorous methodological standards.

We encourage submission from BIPOC research leaders. However, unlike certain RWJF leadership development programs, E4A is not permitted to ask questions about applicant racial and ethnic backgrounds and demographics during the application process. Therefore, we are not able to make selection priorities based on the demographics of researchers or principal investigators. The E4A application asks for details about the qualifications and expertise of applicant teams, and we prioritize projects led by teams that demonstrate a deep understanding and application of racial equity principles.

Successful LOIs provide a clear, concise, and compelling case for how and why the proposed research will contribute to improving population health and racial equity. Letter of intent narratives should adhere to the template provided in the RWJF Application & Review system, addressing the overarching rationale for the project, describing implications for findings, and providing an overview of the research approach and activities. Applicants must also provide convincing responses to specific questions about the potential contribution of the research to advancing racial equity, the genesis of the study, and the composition of the project team in a designated section of the application.

Detailed guidance for developing a competitive LOI is provided in our Letter of Intent Applicant Guide.

Primary outcomes are outcomes that are expected to change - either directly or indirectly, as result of the intervention - and which your evaluation is designed to detect. At least one of the primary outcomes must be a novel or meaningful outcome related to health or racial equity. Secondary outcomes are those more exploratory in nature, or for which effects may be too small to detect from your sample, but which are still of interest and/or valuable to assess. Secondary outcomes may be used to inform hypotheses or theories, or aid in interpretations of findings.

Health and well-being outcomes refer to physical, mental, socio-emotional, and well-being outcomes that can be objectively measured using validated instruments. We prioritize outcomes that directly reflect these dimensions of health, or behaviors known to influence health and well-being (see separate FAQ for examples of health behaviors). However, we will consider intermediary outcomes as proxies or surrogates for health outcomes on a case-by-case basis. For applicants proposing such outcomes, we encourage you to provide research evidence or other support for their inclusion as a proxy health outcome method.

We do not consider “health care access or utilization” alone to be a sufficient health outcome measure.

Behaviors may include, but are not limited to, tobacco or alcohol consumption; duration and intensity of physical activity; sleep duration and quality; individual food purchases and/or consumption; etc.

We are open to considering alternatives. Applicants should provide rationale and supporting evidence for the inclusion of behaviors that are not widely accepted proxies for health outcome measures.

Typically, it takes approximately 5 to 7 months from the date of the original LOI submission to the release of funds by RWJF. Built into this timeline are the LOI review process, the Full Proposal development and review process, and a formal budget and legal review. There may be circumstances that will result in shorter or longer timelines, such as time sensitive projects or requests for revisions at the LOI or FP stage, but in general we recommend that your anticipated project start date be at least 5 months after submission.

Yes, our Applicant Resources page features a Letter of Intent Applicant Guide and links to a How to Apply to E4A video tutorial. We also periodically publish Methods Notes that highlight methodological issues that are commonly encountered by E4A applicants and grantees. These notes typically accompany a corresponding blog post, and together offer insights into how E4A leadership consider important methods challenges and trade-offs. Additional resources will be added in time.

We also offer twice monthly drop-in office hours - consider joining a virtual conversation with our program staff.

If you have any other questions, please contact us at evidenceforaction@ucsf.edu.

No. Only LOIs that meet the review criteria are invited to submit full proposals. Approximately 7% of applicants advance to the full proposal stage.

Currently, between 40-45% of full proposals are recommended for funding.

We are committed to ensuring a racial equity perspective is applied when reviewing each letter of intent and full proposal that is responsive to the CFP. Letters of intent and full proposals are reviewed by members of the E4A leadership and review team, RWJF, and external reviewers with expertise in racial equity. 

Applicants generally receive a decision regarding whether they are invited to move on to the next round of the application and review process within six to nine weeks. Applicants are welcome to contact the program office with specific questions about their proposal.

Due to significant interest in the program, we are only able to advance a small proportion of LOIs we receive to the full proposal stage. LOIs are turned down for a variety of reasons, including (but not limited to):

• The intervention being evaluated was not clearly described;
• The intervention being evaluated did not focus on change at a systems, structural, or environmental level;
• The research question or hypothesis was not clearly stated;
• The research question was not relevant to advancing health and racial equity or immediately applicable to policy or practice changes;
• There were not appropriate health outcomes; and/or
• The research design did not meet E4A standards of rigor.

If you have specific questions about why your LOI was turned down you may contact us.

You can contact us via email at evidenceforaction@ucsf.edu. You can also reach out to us on social media: Twitter and LinkedIn.