New Research Support Awards

Anyone may be designated as the Project Director (PD). The PD does not need to hold an advanced degree nor are there other educational or professional stipulations. However, the PD is responsible for ensuring the expectations and deliverables of the award are met. Two PDs may be listed in the letter of intent application, but the team is not limited to these two individuals and additional co-PDs and other team members may be included at the Full Proposal stage. For ease of administration, it is preferable, but not required, for the PD to be based at the lead organization.

The lead applicant organization must be a community-based organization (CBO) with a strong track record of racial and/or Indigenous health equity work. CBOs eligible to serve as applicant organizations include Section 501(c)(3) charitable organizations, certain for-profit organizations, local and state government agencies, and tribal organizations.

Yes, if necessary, the applicant organization may utilize the services of a fiscal sponsor to support the project’s financial management, administration, and reporting activities.

No, research institutions such as universities and contract research organizations are not eligible to serve as lead applicant organizations for New Research Support awards. However, they may serve as subcontractors or fiscal sponsors for eligible applicant organizations.

No, research institutions such as universities and contract research organizations are not eligible to serve as lead applicant organizations for New Research Support awards. However, they may serve as subcontractors or fiscal sponsors for eligible applicant organizations.

There are a plethora of reasons E4A is requiring that the lead organization is a community-based organization. There is a long history of academic institutions holding the power in research partnerships with community, and this is an attempt to shift that balance to: 

• Empower community-based organizations to set research priorities, authentically share decision-making, own the data, etc.;
• Enhance the actionability of the research findings by ensuring research questions and aims are priorities for the communities meant to be served, findings will be applicable to and actionable for community members and leadership; and
• Ensure transparency around the budget and financial information and that community-based organizations are appropriately compensated for their contributions to the work, which may not always happen when research institutions are developing funding application budgets and administering the awarded grants.

We strongly recommend submitting as part of a team. It is our experience that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve both the level of rigor and actionability that we expect without engaging multiple different perspectives and expertise in the project. We look for teams that have not only methodological expertise, but subject matter and practical expertise - including lived personal or professional experiences - as well, to help ensure that the research is not only theoretically grounded, but also reflects real world conditions and dynamics.

Not through this CFP. Research must be focused on U.S. settings, populations, and communities in alignment with RWJF’s mission to improve racial and Indigenous health equity in the U.S. While research findings and implications can also apply to other countries, the project must be focused in the U.S. (including U.S.-occupied territories).

Yes. There are no rigid restrictions against awarding funds to existing or previous E4A or RWJF grantees. However, these applicants may be more heavily scrutinized in the review process.

Yes. Applicants may submit multiple LOIs or serve as a partner for another organization's LOI. There are no rigid restrictions against multiple submissions from the same applicant. However, there is limited funding available and we aim to be inclusive of a wide range of ideas and perspectives. We encourage you to think critically about the relative strengths of the projects for which you are considering submitting LOIs as it is highly unlikely that multiple awards will be made to the same applicant.

Yes, applicants may submit a proposal that is being considered by other funding organizations. If you ultimately receive funding for the same purpose from other sources besides RWJF you will be required to report this to the Foundation and adjust the activities and budget as appropriate so there is no duplication of funding. You are allowed to expand your project’s scope of work with funding from other sources, as long as you complete the research RWJF funded you to conduct.

Yes, interested applicants may apply to other RWJF funding opportunities. Each funding program of RWJF has distinct objectives, funding guidelines, and criteria. To learn more about other funding programs and initiatives at RWJF, visit https://www.rwjf.org/en/grants/active-funding-opportunities.html.

There are two funding levels for New Research Support awards. We anticipate awarding at least four grants up to $250,000, for a total of $1M, and at least four grants up to $500,000, for a total of $2M. Please request only what is necessary to allow for maximizing funding for as many recipients as possible. Larger awards should correspond to larger scale studies and more distributed funding (e.g., multiple activities and multiple people’s salaries). Funds should include what you will need to complete and disseminate findings from your proposed research project—both direct and indirect costs—for the entire duration of your grant. Reviewers will weigh the size of the budget in relation to the importance and likely contribution of the proposed work toward advancing upstream solutions to improving racial and Indigenous health equity when making funding decisions.

Grant durations must be 36 months or less. Based on prior experience, we recommend planning at least 12 to 18 months to account for completing research activities, from the launch of the project to the dissemination of the findings.

We expect to award at least four grants of up to $250,000 and at least four grants of up to $500,000. The total number of grants awarded will depend on the budget requests of the projects that are ultimately selected for funding.

Budget requests should be inclusive of both direct and indirect costs over the entire grant duration. Applicants will specify a total budget request at the LOI stage, but please do not provide a detailed budget breakdown in the LOI. Applicants are allowed to modify the budget request at the full proposal stage if needed and within reason.

The Foundation’s maximum approved rate for indirect costs is up to 30% of direct costs (Personnel, Other Direct Costs, and Purchased Services) for non-profit organizations, 15% for colleges/universities and hospitals or health systems, and 0% for for-profit and government entities. More detailed guidance and exceptions are provided in the Budget Preparation Guidelines at the Full Proposal stage. For further detail about permissible uses of grant funds please see the related FAQ.

E4A funds all research-related aspects of a project, including staff time, travel stipends, support for participant involvement, consultant fees, data collection & analysis, meetings, supplies, support for community review sessions, compensation for community advisory board members, and a variety of other costs related to the operations/implementation of the research project itself. In contrast, costs related to program operations/implementation are typically NOT allowed. Additionally, up to 30% in indirect costs for non-profit organizations and up to 15% in overhead or indirect costs for colleges/universities and hospitals or health systems are allowed. For-profit and government agencies are not entitled to indirect costs through RWJF grants.

Research activities include anything related to conducting the research, analyzing results, and disseminating the findings. Examples include salaries, stipends, or other forms of payment related to participant recruitment, community engagement, data collection and analysis, interpreting and disseminating findings, etc.

Programmatic activities are those related to implementing or operating a program, such as salaries for staff who administer or deliver a service or the cost of a program or service. For example, for a study on the impact of voucher assistance (e.g. for housing or education), we would not fund the cost of the vouchers.

We recognize the funding amount and duration could impact the type of studies that may be undertaken under this CFP. We encourage applicants to consider creative ways for achieving high-impact research within the duration and budget parameters of this funding opportunity. For example, by breaking research into phases, utilizing funding to supplement an existing project, leveraging funding from multiple sources, etc.

No, matching funds are not required. Supplemental funding is welcomed and encouraged. The ability to leverage other funding for the proposed research project is not a criterion for awarding grants, but it may be a consideration in the decision-making process.

Letters of intent and full proposals will be reviewed using the below criteria. We anticipate that funded projects will meet or exceed all selection criteria. For more detailed information on these criteria, please review the call for proposals. 

• Relevance and significance to advancing racial and/or Indigenous health equity: Applicants should provide evidence that the research reflects the needs and priorities of Indigenous and other historically oppressed and marginalized communities of color, including how it was conceived and co-developed; the project should reflect real-world considerations, and address the root causes of structural racism and/or settler colonialism, and identify the specific, practical systems-level changes that could result from this research project to advance racial and/or Indigenous health equity.
• Actionability: Applicants should explain how the research findings will be solutions-oriented, ensure tangible benefits to impacted communities, and will be used in the real world, especially given the current context. We consider projects to be actionable if findings have the potential to inform real world actions and decisions to advance racial and Indigenous health equity. You should be able to state the specific audiences, communities, or decision-makers that would be able to take action as a result of the research and how those people will be influenced by findings - and how these may vary depending on whether findings are positive, negative, or null.
• Methodological appropriateness: Applicants should clearly state the research questions, approach, theoretical framework guiding the work, outcomes and how they will be measured, and a data collection and analysis plan.The research and outcomes must be guided by appropriate concepts, frameworks and worldviews. Appropriate methods could include Indigenous approaches, methods, and frameworks, and/or Western research methods, and frameworks.The proposed study design and methodological approach should align with impacted communities’ values and priorities, and Indigenous data sovereignty principles.
• Equitable research practices: Equitable research practices should be centered in both the research questions and approach as well as the research process. Principles of equity, power-sharing, and distributed leadership should be evident throughout the research proposal. Language and framing in the application should be strengths and assets based.
• Clear and compelling connection to health: Applicants should be able to demonstrate a clear connection between the research and the impacted communities’ health and wellbeing. Health outcomes must be included as either primary or secondary measures and may include diverse dimensions of physical, mental, and socio-emotional health and well-being, cultural connectedness, or intermediary outcomes that are well-established predictors of health, assessed using measures that are valid/credible and appropriate for the research question(s) and the impacted community. 
• Feasibility: Applicants should demonstrate the existence of relationships or agreements that will enable data collection and analysis. The study population should be representative of people or communities directly impacted by a particular issue – not chosen solely based on convenience. The identification strategy should adequately distinguish those who should be included in the research. There should be consideration for equitable engagement of study participants and shared ownership of the data.
• Project team expertise: Applicant research teams should demonstrate they have appropriate skills and background to conduct, analyze, interpret, and disseminate the proposed research. Expertise should reflect relevant cultural, contextual, methodological, analytical, and practical experience. The perspectives of community members should be reflected in project leadership and decision-making throughout all phases of the research process, from conception through dissemination. Traditional community advisory boards are not sufficient representation for integrating perspectives into the research team.

LOIs and FPs are reviewed by members of the E4A leadership and review team and RWJF. All final funding decisions are made by leadership within the Foundation's Research-Evaluation-Learning department.

New Research Support funding has a two-stage application process, beginning with a two-page letter of intent (LOI) with select applicants being invited to submit a 10-page full proposal (FP). The FP offers an opportunity to provide more detail and nuance about the proposed project.

• Letters of intent are due July 16, 2025 at 3pm EDT.
• LOI status notifications will be sent the week of August 25, 2025.
• For those invited, Full Proposals are due December 17, 2025 at 3pm EDT.
• Full proposal notifications will be sent the week of February 16, 2026.
• Grants are anticipated to begin April 15, 2026.

Successful LOIs will provide a clear explanation of how the proposed research project, and associated funding, will be especially impactful to advancing racial and Indigenous health equity in the current sociopolitical context. LOIs should clearly demonstrate how the proposed work meets the selection criteria outlined in the call for proposals. 

LOI 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. 

E4A and RWJF program staff will NOT review letter of intent narratives or other application materials prior to submission in the RWJF Application & Review System.

Applicants must present an evident connection between the solution being studied and health equity, conceptualized and guided by relevant worldviews and culturally specific understandings of health and wellbeing. For research measuring the impact of a solution, health outcomes must be included as either primary or secondary measures and may include diverse dimensions of physical, mental, and socio-emotional health and wellbeing, cultural connectedness, or intermediary outcomes that are well-established predictors of health, assessed using measures that are valid/credible and appropriate for the research question(s) and the impacted community. 

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

Measures or instruments that have been standardized and undergone appropriate tests to ensure they are accurately measuring what they are intended to measure, and that are trusted by the relevant community are considered valid and credible.

We are most interested in outcomes that indicate community and population health. Sometimes this may be captured by aggregating individual responses or outcomes; other times, it may be best measured using community-level indicators of health or equity.

Actionability means that the research findings are applicable to real-world decision-making to inform policy, program, and other mechanisms to advance racial and Indigenous health equity. Applicants must demonstrate why and how the proposed research will be especially impactful given the current sociopolitical climate. Applicants should clearly describe when and how the findings from your research will be used to benefit the health and wellbeing of communities of color and/or Indigenous Peoples. Be specific and practical. For example, what decisions will be influenced by the findings, who makes those decisions, and what is your relationship with them? Are they poised to act on what you learn?

Given the level of funding available, we anticipate that the review process will be extremely competitive. The likelihood of receiving funding is heavily dependent on the number of competitive applications received. In the past, through our rolling call for proposal, approximately 8% of applicants have advanced from the LOI to full proposal stage, with 40-45% of full proposal applicants receiving funding.

No. Due to limited resources and based on our expectations for a large number of applications, we anticipate only a small percentage of LOIs will advance to the full proposal stage. Only the most competitive applications, with the greatest likelihood of eventually receiving funding, will be invited to submit a full proposal.

New Research Support grants should have the potential to inform and drive transformative change to advance racial and Indigenous health equity. We aim to support research that centers community needs, experiences, assets, and expertise and deeply and critically interrogates upstream solutions to root causes of racial and Indigenous health inequities. These research projects should employ an intersectional lens to explore and combat the multifaceted ways in which multiple systems of oppression collude, ultimately fostering more holistic and effective strategies for promoting the social, political, and economic conditions that support health and health equity. 

Funding will support systematic inquiry into solutions, such as programs, policies, and/or practices, that are designed to improve racial and Indigenous health equity. Such projects might include experimental or quasi-experimental assessment of the health impacts of a solution, implementation science approaches to identify or modify viable policy or programmatic responses to community needs and priorities, pilot projects to test the feasibility of novel initiatives, development and validation of racial or Indigenous equity measures, etc.

Research must be appropriately and equitably designed and implemented, and findings must have the potential to lead to immediate real-world action and impact.

E4A does not have a focus or preference for specific topical areas for research projects, as long as those projects are solutions-oriented, targeted at root causes of racial and Indigenous health inequities, and are especially impactful and timely given the current sociopolitical context. However, RWJF is particularly interested in strategies that promote healthy and equitable communities (both the people and the places in which people live), support economic inclusion for family well-being, and facilitate equitable, accessible, and affordable public health and healthcare systems (learn more about RWJF’s focus areas here).

E4A does not hold a hierarchical view of particular research designs or methods. The methods employed should be appropriate for answering the research question(s).

A variety of research designs, methods, methodologies, and approaches can help improve the evidence base to advance Indigenous and racial health equity. All studies must include a clear research question(s) and use appropriate methods and frameworks to answer the question(s). These can be inclusive of Indigenous knowledges, approaches, methodologies, methods, and conceptualizations such as Traditional Ecological Knowledge or Western research methods and frameworks, including quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods approaches such as randomized trials, quasi- or natural experiments, grounded theory approaches, case studies, network or systems analyses, and a variety of other study designs and methods. Primary and/or secondary data collection, linkages, and analysis are acceptable. 

E4A views research as a tool to advance racial and Indigenous health equity. Regardless of the research design, research processes should be antiracist and anticolonial, reflect multi-cultural validity, and prioritize equitable power-sharing with participant ownership and leadership.

As a research funding program, E4A does not fund activities associated with implementing solutions or general program operations. Examples of research that is not a good fit with the program objectives include, projects that focus on describing the existence and/or scope of a problem or disparity; research that is purely theoretical in nature or driven solely by academic curiosity; literature reviews; community needs assessments; development and validation of screening tools; basic biomedical inquiry; drug therapy or device research; animal or plant science (absent a clear framework demonstrating the connection to human health); and research concerning solutions that are focused on changing individual behaviors without acknowledging or addressing greater environmental or structural changes (i.e. individual training, including implicit bias training and curriculum development are not a good fit for this funding opportunity).

E4A does not hold a hierarchical view of particular research designs or methods. The methods employed should be appropriate for answering the research question(s).

A variety of research designs, methods, methodologies, and approaches can help improve the evidence base to advance Indigenous and racial health equity. All studies must include a clear research question(s) and use appropriate methods and frameworks to answer the question(s). These can be inclusive of Indigenous knowledges, approaches, methodologies, methods, and conceptualizations such as Traditional Ecological Knowledge or Western research methods and frameworks, including quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods approaches such as randomized trials, quasi- or natural experiments, grounded theory approaches, case studies, network or systems analyses, and a variety of other study designs and methods. Primary and/or secondary data collection, linkages, and analysis are acceptable. 

E4A views research as a tool to advance racial and Indigenous health equity. Regardless of the research design, research processes should be antiracist and anticolonial, reflect multi-cultural validity, and prioritize equitable power-sharing with participant ownership and leadership.

Racial and Indigenous health equity refers to the conditions in which race, indigeneity, or ethnicity no longer predict a person’s ability to live a healthy life. It requires that society be free of systems and structures that unfairly disadvantage Indigenous Peoples and people of color (Black, Latino/a/x, Asian, Pacific Islander, and people of other racial and ethnic backgrounds), compared to white people.

Root causes are the structural factors, such as laws, policies, norms, practices, and power dynamics that drive racial and Indigenous health inequities. Root causes are often thought of as the cause of the cause of the health outcomes. For example, people who live in neighborhoods with high levels of pollution experience higher rates of asthma and other poor health outcomes. The direct causes of these health outcomes are the toxins from pollutants and the location and condition of the housing. But the cause of these causes (or the reason there are high levels of pollution in certain neighborhoods) stems from racist housing, zoning, environmental, and economic policies, like redlining and racial covenants, that restricted access to housing on the basis of racial and ethnic backgrounds.

Upstream solutions address these causes, intervening to create new or adjust existing systems, policies, and practices to ensure equitable distribution of and access to health-promoting resources. Upstream solutions do not solely mitigate individual-level risks or modify individual knowledge or behaviors, but rather change the systems in which individuals operate or exist.

Power sharing involves ensuring there is shared leadership among project partners at every stage of the research process. This includes defining the research questions, determining the type of evidence needed for culturally and contextually relevant results, and making decisions about data collection and dissemination. Power sharing is evidenced through balanced governance structures and decision-making processes and equitable allocation of resources.

At E4A, our definition of solution is quite broad. A solution is anything that is intended to have a positive impact on outcomes for those who are exposed to or experience it. Solutions could include, but are not limited to, systems, structures, laws, policies, norms, large-scale programs and practices that determine the distribution of resources and opportunities, which in turn influence individuals’ options and behaviors. We are interested in solutions that target "upstream" causes of health inequities, NOT individual behavior-change interventions (e.g., programs that encourage individuals to modify their personal behavior in the absence of greater environmental or structural changes).

When we refer to "community" or "communities," we are not referring solely to a place-based concept. While community may refer to geography (as in a town or neighborhood), we use the term(s) broadly to refer to any group of people who share a common history or common social, economic, and political interests, regardless of physical proximity to one another.

Applicants should be specific and intentional about who they envision interpreting, using, and applying the research findings. This might include elected officials, public agencies, program administrators, community leaders or groups, etc. Ideally, the project team will have relationships with relevant end-users before starting the research project, to ensure that their research questions, approach, outcomes of interest, and other project components align with the type of information that end-users will find useful. Letters of support from people who will use the research to inform their decision-making are strongly encouraged at the full proposal stage.

We encourage community leadership, ownership, and participation in all aspects of the research process, from conception to dissemination of the findings, and therefore endorse research approaches that center community power, including CBPR. While we do not typically fund the early stages of the CBPR process (e.g., when community members are still determining priorities), we would fund community participatory/action-oriented approaches once a specific research question has been agreed on.

E4A currently only funds school-based research if the participating school(s) is already engaged in the project. Applicants working with schools MUST submit letters of support from participating school(s) at the full proposal stage.