The first months of the second Trump administration have brought fundamental shifts in how and what types of research is funded by the U.S. government. Taken together, these changes have resulted in thousands of researchers finding themselves abruptly without funding or even jobs. Of particular concern are the recent reductions in force impacting the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), specifically the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), which threaten the development of vital research and evidence-based health care practices within the health services research space.
In light of this upheaval, researchers have begun identifying alternative funding sources and are increasingly turning to the private sector, namely private foundations. To assist health services researchers with this abrupt transition, AcademyHealth held a Field in Focus webinar, "Securing Funds – Strategies for Researchers." In the webinar, AcademyHealth members learned about different funding types and important strategies to use when pursuing private foundation funds for research. Members got a chance to discuss their challenges and share knowledge with each other, as well as glean insights from a panel discussion and Q&A with Dr. Jamae Morris, a Program Officer at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and Dr. Elizabeth Cope, the Chief Programs and Science Officer at AcademyHealth.
The panel discussion identified key differences between three different funding streams: National Institute of Health (NIH) grants, federal contracts, and private foundations. Dr. Cope noted that these funding sources require different approaches based on their purpose and scope.
NIH Grants: The purpose of the NIH is to advance scientific discovery, produce generalizable knowledge, and contribute to improvements in health. The format for these grant applications is formal and focused on innovation and scientific rigor, with particular attention being paid to the specific aims, technical methodology, and relevance of any preliminary data.
Federal Contracting Proposals: Federal contracting proposals are similarly formal and scientifically technical, but they are focused on the offeror’s approach to a fixed scope of work pre-defined by the contracting agency. Whereas NIH grants invite researchers to define the overarching research question along with the methodology for responding to the question, contracts are seeking responses to a fixed scope of work that deliver the best value (technical merit and competitive pricing). More attention is thus paid to methods for completing specific deliverables, feasibility of the approach, and risk management to ensure results are achieved.
Private Foundations: Where NIH grants prioritize the creation of new, generalizable knowledge and contracts aim to generate pre-defined outputs at the highest value for the government, private foundations are focused more on social impact or impact related to specific causes and conditions. For proposals to these foundations, there is more emphasis on narrative storytelling and how the proposed work will be transformative and advance the foundation’s mission. For example, RWJF’s mission is to improve health with a focus on health equity, resulting in an emphasis on structural barriers, and with projects extending into policy, specifically health and anti-racist policy, resource flows, such as financialization, how community work can impact health systems, supporting communities through data ecosystems, embracing new methodologies aligned with community experience and voice, and identifying creative pathways to improve access to data.
Throughout the webinar, panelists discussed important strategies that researchers should implement when pursuing private funding opportunities, specifically building and maintaining relationships with funders and demonstrating a knowledge of their audience. Below, we will break down both of these strategies into smaller elements to help researchers understand how to put them into practice.
Building and Maintaining Relationships with Funders
Initial Engagement: Building a relationship with a private foundation starts early, at the initial engagement, which often consists of an outreach email or indication of interest. Now more than ever, project officers have busy inboxes –submit a one-page letter of interest or, at most, a two-page concept – this is more efficient and can facilitate a deeper discussion.
Access to Program Officers: Dr. Morris says that maintaining relationships with program officers can be difficult, but is worthwhile, even if it doesn't immediately result in an award because they may offer insights into future proposals.
Leveraging Open Awards: Many funders, such as RWJF, have open awards publicized on their websites or through associated calls for proposals. Identifying which funders utilize open awards and then following them for updates to establish connections and develop strategies that align with funder priorities.
Knowing Your Audience
Concise Initial Submissions vs. Full Proposal: Developing a full proposal requires investing significant time and energy. Instead, create a more concise initial submission, such as a one- or two-page concept, in recognition of program officer competing priorities and to facilitate deeper conversations. Feedback on an initial concept could help guide researchers in their full proposal development or identify if another funding opportunity may be more in line with their proposal.
Tailoring Proposals: It is critical that any proposal researchers develop fits the parameters of a Request for Proposal (RFP) and aligns with the funder's priorities. Some funders will be explicit about their priorities, even including them in the RFPs or on their websites, while others will not. Tailoring a proposal to the funder's priorities will help it stand out among the other submissions. To do so, research past awards, current projects, and the foundation's mission, as well as identify partners early on who can fill gaps in expertise or resources. However, it is critical that integration with these partners is both intentional and feasible. Furthermore, researchers should clearly articulate the long-term impact and relevance of the research to align with the funders' societal goals and the mission of the foundation. Finally, researchers must balance aligning with a funder's priorities and staying true to the research's core mission and values – if tailoring a proposal requires a researcher to completely rework their concept, it is likely a poor fit.
Creating Effective Partnership Strategies: As more and more organizations, such as RWJF, emphasize the importance of research in service to and in partnership with community, building authentic and non-paternalistic partnerships is critical. Strong partnerships require developing a clear plan that leverages the strengths of each partner, ensuring that all partners have a meaningful role in achieving the project's objectives. Aligning budgets and scopes of work is critical to avoid tokenistic partnerships or strategic alliances that may not effectively deliver the work. A disconnect between budgets, scopes of work, and partnership descriptions can indicate an ineffective or inauthentic partnership.
AcademyHealth members can access even more resources to face the challenges in funding, including:
- A resource guide with tips for adapting to the current funding landscape. Key strategies for tailoring proposals, and resources/tools for identifying funding opportunities;
- The "Communicating for Impact" course, which helps individuals improve their communications skills;
- The "Health Policy Orientation" to help researchers understand how policy decisions are made at the federal level; and
- Regular Situation Reports, which help people stay up to date on to adapt to policy changes.