Last month we launched the Research to Advance Racial and Indigenous Health Equity call for proposals (CFP) with two award types – Rapid Response Research and New Research Support. We set an eligibility criterion for New Research Support awards that requires lead applicant organizations to be community-based organizations (CBOs). We think this is an important step toward reorienting the power dynamics on research teams and enhancing the actionability of health equity research. In this blog, we’ll discuss why we’ve made this shift, how we’re operationalizing it, and our hopes for the impact it will have.
How are we defining CBOs for this call?
For this call, we consider a CBO to be any organization that is not a college, university, or large-scale contract research organization. This includes foundations affiliated with and centers embedded within academic institutions, unless those centers are financially independent with their own funding streams and decision-making authority, and indirect funds accrue solely to the center. Any organizations that align with these guidelines, whether nonprofits, government agencies, or for-profits, are eligible to serve as the lead applicant.
We are especially interested in CBOs that reflect the values articulated in the CFP – organizations that are embedded in or directly partnered with Indigenous or other racialized communities, and that value and uplift the knowledge, assets, and power of community members. This shift has been driven by the applicants and grantees we have worked with on past calls for proposals; the Indigenous scholars, community leaders, and community advocates who worked with us on the Ways of Knowing Symposia series we co-produced with Partners for Advancing Health Equity; our review committee; and the many other partners we have worked with over the years.
Why are we requiring a CBO lead?
Throughout the history of E4A, we have recognized the benefits of research that authentically engages community. Over the years, the nature of that engagement has shifted from authentic engagement to community-driven and community-led research. We find that research driven by the needs identified and solutions developed by communities is more likely to drive real-world change because it is derived from and centered on the people who have first-hand experience of the problems and contexts in which they are situated and a nuanced understanding of the strengths and assets in the community that can serve as the foundation for their solutions.
While there are academic researchers and research organizations that work with communities in this way, there is also a long history of research institutions holding the power in those partnerships. This power imbalance manifests itself in several ways that include decision-making around data collection and ownership, research approaches and methodologies, publication and dissemination of results, distribution of grant funds and other resources, and even what practices are considered ethical or extractive.
What does it mean for the CBO to be the lead?
Our intent in requiring CBOs to act as the lead applicant does not mean we are attempting to exclude academic institutions or other research organizations from participating meaningfully in New Research Support projects. We encourage CBOs to partner with research organizations as needed to support them in designing, conducting, and disseminating the research. Additionally, research organizations can aid in developing and crafting application materials, assisting with Institutional Review Board (IRB) approvals, and other aspects of application development. Academic or research organizations and individual researchers can receive funding through the grant via subcontracts with the CBO (note that for RWJF purposes, any funds that leave the lead organization are reflected as subcontracts in grant budget documents, even if the formal mechanism for transferring funds follows a different procedure).
What do we hope to accomplish?
Our requirement that a CBO acts as the lead applicant organization is an attempt to reorient an historical power imbalance by empowering CBOs to set research priorities, serve in decision-making positions, and control grant resources; elevating research questions and aims that are community priorities and that will be applicable to and actionable for community members and leaders; and ensuring transparency around the budget and financial information and that the CBO is appropriately compensated for their contributions to the work, which may not always happen when research institutions are developing grant budgets and administering the award.
Beyond this CFP, we are working in other ways to help overcome the challenges CBOs have faced when working with large research institutions, and to more broadly transform the health science knowledge system so that community knowledge and leadership are equally valued, compensated, and respected in the research process. Ultimately, we hope that power is shared equitably among research partners regardless of which organization serves as the lead, and we hope this funding opportunity helps start tipping the balance in that direction.