Call for Proposals: Approaches to Advance Gender Equity from Around the Globe

What We're Looking For

The goal of this funding opportunity is to translate and adapt knowledge from around the world on approaches that can improve health or the determinants of health by improving gender equity. Specifically, we seek to learn from initiatives underway outside the U.S. whose effectiveness is supported or suggested by empirical evidence and that have the potential to be adapted and implemented in the U.S.

Who We're Looking For

We seek applicants from around the world who have first-hand knowledge of evidence-based approaches to gender equity in their countries, and who will collaborate with U.S.-based partners to study the adaptation of these approaches to a U.S. setting. Project teams should include researchers along with other stakeholders such as policy makers, practitioners, or members of impacted communities, from both the intervention's home country and the U.S.

Learn more
Join E4A Virtual Office Hours on 3rd Thursdays

Informational Videos

Applying for Funding Through the Evidence for Action Approaches to Advance Gender Equity From Around the Globe Call for Proposals: Informational Webinar

Frequently Asked Questions

Below are common questions regarding the Approaches to Advance Gender Equity From Around the Globe CFP. If you have additional questions, please email them to evidenceforaction@ucsf.edu. We will periodically post answers to those questions that may be of general interest to potential applicants.

Global CFP Project Fit

Gender is an important determinant of health and without achieving gender equity, we cannot hope to achieve health equity. Gender inequality and restrictive gender norms impact health in many ways, influencing how people access health services and how health systems respond to people's needs. The intersection of gender with race, sexual orientation, economic status and many other factors further impacts the ability to realize good health.

We feel there is much to learn from the world in terms of how other countries and cultures conceptualize and frame gender equity. This may include how countries define or describe gender equity (e.g. in terms of "gender equality," "women's equality," "women's empowerment,” etc.); how they measure gender equity and determine when it has actually been achieved, and even the very meaning of gender itself, beyond the male/female binary. We are interested in how concepts such as these may be operationalized to foster a culture of inclusion and fairness for everyone.

The types of projects that are a good fit are those that 1. Describe an initiative or approach in another country that shows evidence of effectiveness in improving gender equity and health or determinants of health; and 2. Demonstrate the potential of the approach to be adapted to and/or implemented in the United States. Projects that could accomplish both of these objectives include policy analyses, comparative case studies, scoping studies, feasibility studies, and other types of implementation research that focuses on the key attributes and assumptions of a given intervention and the theoretical or empirical basis for its adaptation to a U.S. setting.

Because this CFP is focused on generating knowledge about translation and adaptation of interventions, we will not provide funds for program implementation, operations, or delivery of services. Other projects that are not a good fit for this CFP include research on: interventions with no evidence of effectiveness in the home country context; interventions that cannot be adapted to the U.S.; drug therapy or device research; and animal or plant science. Further, while we are interested in implementation science broadly, projects that focus exclusively on the integration of findings into practices or settings outside the U.S. are not a good fit.

Yes. This CFP was issued with the explicit intent of learning from successful approaches outside the U.S. to help address gender equity issues in the U.S.  

Yes. Determinants of health and root causes of gender inequities in the U.S. may differ from those in other countries, and interventions that are not relevant in the U.S. context will not be considered. Also, in contrast to many other countries, the U.S. lacks a universal system of health care access and coverage. Therefore, interventions that rely on such a universal platform of care for delivery of services are less relevant, due to limited transferability.

At the same time, The U.S. population is large and diverse, and we anticipate that there may be solutions or approaches from various places in the world that could have implications for specific U.S. regions, contexts, or sub-groups, even if the countries differ in other ways. Therefore, we encourage applicants to consider the local conditions, assumptions, and mechanisms that contribute to the effectiveness of an approach in the home setting, and to describe how these could feasibly transfer to or be adapted for a certain U.S. region, context, or sub-group.

The initiative or approach itself does not necessarily need to be novel or new in the home country setting, but we are interested in innovative or unique ways in which these approaches may be adapted or implemented in the U.S.

The focus of this CFP is to identify approaches that improve gender equity by changing norms, expectations, and practices that are harmful due to someone’s gender or sexual identity, gender expression, or other gender-related factors. As such, women and girls are primary beneficiaries of approaches to change these conditions, but there are other people who also stand to benefit, such as those who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (LGBTQ), which includes men and boys. We are open to approaches that demonstrate benefits to any groups who are disproportionately harmed by gendered social norms and practices.

Transgender generally refers to a diverse group of people whose gender identity differs from the sex they were assigned at birth. It may also be used as an umbrella term that includes those whose gender identity does not conform to a male/female binary (i.e. nonbinary). We recognize that the most appropriate and respectful ways to describe the transgender community may change over time and vary among groups; and our intention is to be as inclusive and respectful as possible, in recognition of the complex and intimate nature of one’s gender identity and expression. Applicants are encouraged to use the terms that they consider most appropriate, even if they differ from those used in the CFP.

Transgender people face similar health and social concerns as the cisgender population and are at higher risk for additional mental and physical health problems, due to a higher burden of discrimination or violence. The World Health Organization provides more information about health concerns of special relevance to the transgender population.

No, the examples provided in the CFP are only to illustrate the types of interventions and projects that may be a good fit. Applicants are in no way limited by these examples. Approaches that are not listed will also be considered, as long as they aim to address root causes of inequities, such as systems or structural barriers, as opposed to focusing on individual behavior modification in the absence of large systems changes.

No, the study design should be the one that is most appropriate to answer the research question(s) and correspond to the appropriate stage of adaptation that is being investigated. Studies may use qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods approaches.

For an intervention or approach to be considered effective, there should be findings from previous research that was able to attribute health or gender equity outcomes to the intervention. These studies may have been qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods and should have included valid and reliable measures, high quality data, and appropriate analyses. We also highly value findings from natural experiments that have taken advantage of changes in large-scale programs, policies, and practices to establish causal evidence of effects.

Global CFP Eligibility

Eligible applicants include U.S and non-U.S. based organizations, such as academic institutions, public entities, private nonprofit organizations, government agencies, and for-profit organizations. Applicants must have a demonstrated history of administrating grant awards and managing project funds. Research projects should reflect collaborations between U.S.- and non-U.S.-based organizations, based on pre-existing relationships that demonstrate a durable and productive partnership. Note that U.S. laws and regulations (e.g., U.S. Department of Treasury Office of Financial Assets Control Sanctions Programs) limit funding in certain countries.

No, awards will only be made to organizations.

Anyone may be designated as the Principal Investigator (PI). The PI does not need to hold an advanced degree nor need to be one of the researchers for the project, provided the research team as a whole has the capacity to complete the proposed research. Two PIs may be listed in the application, but the team is not limited to these two individuals. For ease of administration, it is preferable, but not required, for the PI to be based at the lead organization.

In addition to the Principal Investigator(s), the research team should include other project staff or partners from both the U.S.- and non-U.S.-based organizations, including research staff, program implementors, administrators, or other stakeholders whose perspectives are necessary to guide the research approach and activities.

We are interested in learning from interventions taking place outside the U.S., and we believe that those with firsthand knowledge or experience with an intervention in its home country setting are in a better position to lead research on transferability and adaptation, compared with partners who are not located in the home country. However, we also recognize that the logistics of administering the grant may be prohibitive for some non-U.S. organizations, or that other aspects related to the nature of the study may necessitate the non-U.S. partner serving as the lead. Therefore, we will consider lead organizations both outside and within the U.S. All applicants are required to provide justification for how the lead organization was determined.

Applicants must demonstrate that team members from both the U.S. and non-U.S. organizations have successfully worked together previously. The prior work should reflect elements of strong collaboration – such as mutual trust, communication, and a system for coordinating tasks – that can serve as a basis for this project. Due to the inherent challenges of collaboration across countries, cultures, or long distances, having a track record of previous partnership helps ensure a more successful project.

Global CFP Submission

Full proposals will be reviewed by the E4A Leadership Team, National Advisory Committee members, experts in implementation science, and representatives from RWJF. Learn more about the reviewers.

Yes, all application materials must be submitted in English. All communications with the National Program Office, including but not limited to progress updates, financial and narrative reports, and dissemination products, must also be in English.

Applications are due August 26, 2020 at 3pm Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) (UTC/GMT-4). It is recommended you submit your application prior to this date to avoid delays that may be caused by technical issues or other difficulties that may arise. Late proposals will not be accepted.

No, RWJF policy prevents us from providing proactive feedback on proposals; however, applicants may contact the program office to request feedback. Applicants will receive a decision in early November 2020 regarding whether or not they are awarded a grant.

You can contact us on Twitter @Evidence4ActionFacebook, or LinkedIn or via email at EvidenceForAction@ucsf.edu. We will periodically post answers to questions that may be of general interest to potential applicants.

Global CFP Funding

  • Strength of the existing evidence – the effectiveness of the intervention or approach must be supported by research that demonstrates a beneficial impact of the intervention on gender and health equity outcomes.
  • Relevance to improving gender equity – interventions must address overt or underlying causes of inequity, with an emphasis on improving social and structural determinants of health, as opposed to requiring individual behavior modification in the absence of larger systems changes.
  • Plausibility –  a plausible argument should be made for the impact of the intervention on improved health outcomes. The theory of change or causal mechanism through which the intervention is presumed to work in the home country setting should be clear, along with a strong rationale for how these would operate in a U.S. setting.
  • Actionability –  findings from the proposed research should provide guidance to key end users in the U.S. (policymakers, practitioners, program implementors) and inform public discourse and decision-making using appropriate products (policy briefs, protocols, implementation plans).
  • Rigor of proposed study design – studies must include a clear research question, feasible plan for data collection, analysis, and dissemination, and/or use an appropriate framework that guides implementation or adaptation.
  • Qualifications of research team – project teams should have a track record of successful and productive collaboration, as demonstrated by a history of previous partnership; work and resources should be equitably distributed across collaborating organizations; teams should include key stakeholders (i.e. practitioners, program implementers, members of impacted communities) to guide the research questions and approach.

We will award a total of up to $1 million USD through this CFP. We expect to award between 4-10 grants, with individual awards ranging from $100,000 USD to $250,000 USD for a duration of up to 30 months. These amounts are inclusive of indirect costs.

Funds may be used for personnel, consultant fees, data collection and analysis, meetings, supplies, project-related travel, other direct expenses, and up to 12% in overhead or indirect costs. In general, it is not appropriate to buy office equipment or office software with grant funds. However, if office equipment or software essential for conducting research (i.e., collecting or analyzing data) is needed and justified in the budget narrative, and the cost does not exceed 5% of the total direct costs in the budget, it is acceptable to include such items.

Budget requests should be inclusive of both direct and indirect costs. Funds should be allocated equitably among partners. Budgets should also account for costs associated with grantee expectations, including costs for dissemination activities to share findings with stakeholders. The Foundation’s maximum approved rate for indirect costs is 12% of all project costs. More detailed guidance is provided in the Budget Preparation Guidelines in the RWJF Application and Review System.

No, matching funds are not required, but 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. Awards may also be used to add a supplemental component to an existing project funded by another source; for example, if there is an existing, funded intervention study taking place in another country, this CFP could fund a supplemental study about translating or adapting the intervention to a U.S. setting. 

Yes, applicants may submit a proposal that is being considered by other organizations. If your proposal is selected by both RWJF and other funding organizations you will be required to report this to RWJF and adjust or expand 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 project that RWJF funded you to conduct.

In addition to carrying out the specified research project, the following are additional expectations:

·      Participation in peer networking activities with other E4A and RWJF grantees, including at least one in-person learning exchange event.

·      Pre-registration of study on Open Science Framework (OSF) at the start of the grant period.

·      Participation in periodic progress check-ins throughout the grant period with E4A National Program Office staff.

·      Coordination with E4A to develop and implement a plan to share findings with stakeholders beyond the research community.

·      Reasonable adherence to timelines and budgets built into the project plan, including major project milestones and  dissemination after analyses are complete.

·      Upon completion of the grant, delivery of select products to support next steps for action, such as policy briefs, models or projections of the anticipated effect of the approach in a specific U.S. context, toolkits to guide program leaders in the U.S. who are interested in adapting interventions, and implementation plans for adaptation of an intervention to the U.S.

 

Yes, applicants can apply for other RWJF funding opportunities for which they are eligible. We recognize that good ideas have no borders; and RWJF occasionally offers funding opportunities open to organizations outside of the United States that can help us learn from and adapt global ideas that can help build a Culture of Health in the United States. Organizations outside of the United States should check the eligibility requirements within the particular funding opportunity of interest. To learn more about our global learning efforts, visit Global Ideas for U.S. Solutions and sign up for email alerts to be notified when new solicited global funding opportunities are available.