Research Grants on Improving the Use of Research Evidence (IURE)

Overview:

This program supports research on strategies focused on improving the use, usefulness, and impact of evidence in ways that benefit young people ages 5-25 in the United States.

We welcome impact studies that test strategies for improving research use as well as whether improving research use leads to improved youth outcomes. We also welcome descriptive studies that reveal the strategies, mechanisms, or conditions for improving research use. Finally, we welcome measurement studies that explore how to construct and implement valid and reliable measures of research use.

We are particularly interested in research on ways to improve the use of research evidence by state and local policymakers, mid-level managers, and intermediaries. These decision-makers play important roles in deciding which programs, practices, and tools to adopt; deliberating ways to improve existing services; shaping the conditions for implementation; and making resource allocation decisions.

We invite studies from a range of disciplines, fields, and methods, and we encourage investigations into various youth-serving systems, including justice, housing, child welfare, mental health, and education. Previous studies have drawn on conceptual and empirical work from political science, communication science, knowledge mobilization, implementation science, and organizational psychology, among other areas.

Finally, we welcome critical perspectives that inform studies’ research questions, methods, and interpretation of findings.

We welcome studies that pursue one of two aims:

1. Building or testing ways to improve the use of existing research evidence in policy or practice.
   • Studies of strategies, mechanisms, or conditions that foster more routine and constructive uses of existing research evidence by decision-makers.
   • Studies to examine the relationships and organizational structures that lead to the prioritization of decision-makers’ needs in developing research agendas.
   • Studies that examine ways to optimize organized collaborations among researchers, decision-makers, intermediaries, and other stakeholders to benefit youth.
     • For example, prior work suggests that decision-makers often lack the institutional resources and some of the requisite skills to seek out and use research, and certain organizational norms and routines can help overcome those barriers. Studies might examine efforts to alter the decision-making environment by comparing the effectiveness of different ways (e.g., technical assistance, research-practice partnerships, cross-agency teams, etc.) to connect existing research with decision-makers.
       
        

This may include:

1. Testing whether and how strategies that improve the use of research evidence in turn improve decision-making and youth outcomes.
   • Studies that examine the impact of research use on youth outcomes and the conditions under which using research evidence improves outcomes.
     • The notion that using research will improve youth outcomes is a long-standing assumption, but there is little evidence to validate it. We suspect that the impact of research on outcomes may depend on a number of conditions, including the quality of the research and the quality of research use. One hypothesis is that the quality of the research and the quality of research use will work synergistically to yield strong outcomes for youth.
   • Studies to test other conditions under which using research evidence improves youth outcomes.
     • For example, recent federal policies have instituted mandates and incentives to increase the adoption of programs with evidence of effectiveness from randomized controlled trials, with the expectation that the use of these programs will lead to better outcomes. Do these policies actually increase the use of those programs and improve youth outcomes? In this example, a proposal would need to use theory and related empirical evidence to motivate the potential of the evidence mandate to improve research use and the connection between improved use of research and improved youth outcomes. More generally, whether or not the study includes measures of youth outcomes, the connection between improved use of research among decision-makers and improved youth outcomes needs to be well-described.

This may include:

These research interests call for a range of methods, including experimental or observational research designs, comparative case studies, or systematic reviews.

Where appropriate, we value projects that:

• Harness the learning potential of mixed methods and interdisciplinary work.
• Involve practitioners or policymakers in meaningful ways to shape the research questions, interpret preliminary and final results, and communicate their implications for policy and practice.
• Combine senior and junior staff in ways that facilitate mentoring of junior staff.
• Are led by members of racial or ethnic groups underrepresented in academic fields.
• Generate data useful to other researchers and make such data available for public use.
• Demonstrate significant creativity and potential to advance the field, for example by introducing new research paradigms or extending existing methods, measures and analytic tools to allow for comparison across studies.

Solicitation limitations:

New for 2026: Please note that you may only submit one application per cycle as the Principal Investigator. For example, you may submit only one major grant or one Officers’ research award letter of inquiry.

Other information:

For major research grants applications, based on review of the letter of inquiry, the Foundation either invites a full proposal for further consideration, or declines the application. We do not accept unsolicited full proposals. Officers’ research grants are awarded on the merit of the letter of inquiry alone.

Eligible Studies: Only studies that 1) align with the stated research interests of this program and 2) relate to the outcomes of young people between the ages of 5 and 25 in the United States are eligible for consideration.

We do not support non-research activities such as program implementation and operational costs, or make contributions to building funds, fundraising drives, endowment funds, general operating budgets, or scholarships. Applications for ineligible projects are screened out without further review.

Award Information 
Major Research Grants

• $100,000 to $1,000,000 over 2-4 years, including up to 15% indirect costs.
  • Studies involving secondary data analysis are at the lower end of the range (about $100,000–$300,000).
  • Studies that involve new data collection can have larger budgets (typically $300,000-$600,000).
  • Generally, only proposals to launch experiments in which settings (e.g., schools, child welfare agencies, justice settings) are randomly assigned to conditions are eligible for funding above $600,000.

Officers’ Research Grants

• $25,000–$50,000 over 1-2 years, including up to 15% indirect costs.
• Studies may be stand-alone projects or may build off larger projects. The budget should be appropriate for the activities proposed.

2026 Research Grants on Reducing Inequality

Overview:

Research grants on reducing inequality fund research studies that examine programs, policies, or practices to reduce inequality in the academic, social, behavioral, or economic outcomes of young people ages 5–25 in the United States, along dimensions of race, ethnicity, economic standing, sexual or gender minority status (e.g., LGBTQ+ youth), language minority status, or immigrant origins.

We fund:

• Descriptive studies that describe, explore, or explain how programs, practices, or policies reduce inequality.
• Intervention studies that provide causal evidence on the effectiveness of programs or policies for reducing inequality.

Our focus on reducing inequality grew out of our view that research can do more than help us understand the problem of inequality—it can generate effective responses. We believe that it is time to build stronger bodies of knowledge on how to reduce inequality in the United States and to move beyond the mounting research evidence about the scope, causes, and consequences of inequality. Thus, we fund research that focuses on responses to inequality.
 
Research Interests 
Our research interests center on studies that examine ways to reduce inequality in youth outcomes. We welcome descriptive studies that clarify mechanisms for reducing inequality or elucidate how or why a specific program, policy, or practice operates to reduce inequality. We also welcome intervention studies that examine attempts to reduce inequality.

We invite studies from a range of disciplines, fields, and methods, and we encourage investigations into various youth-serving systems, including justice, housing, child welfare, mental health, and education.

Recognizing that findings about programs and practices that reduce inequality will have limited societal impact until the structures that create inequality in the first place have been transformed, the Foundation is particularly interested in research to uproot systemic racism and the structural foundations of inequality that limit the life chances of young people.

Applications for research grants on reducing inequality must:

1. Identify a specific inequality in youth outcomes.
2. Make a convincing case for the dimension(s) of inequality the study will address.
3. Articulate how findings from your research will help build, test, or increase understanding of a program, policy, or practice to reduce the specific inequality that you have identified.

Solicitation limitations:

New for 2026: Please note that you may only submit one application per cycle as the Principal Investigator. For example, you may submit only one major grant or one Officers’ research award letter of inquiry.

Other information:

Eligible Studies

• Only studies that 1) align with the stated research interests of this program and 2) relate to the outcomes of young people between the ages of 5 and 25 in the United States are eligible for consideration.
• We do not support non-research activities such as program implementation and operational costs, or make contributions to building funds, fundraising drives, endowment funds, general operating budgets, or scholarships. Letters of inquiry for ineligible projects are screened out without further review.

Fit with Research Interests

• The proposed study aims to examine a program, policy, or practice to reduce inequality in the academic, social, behavioral, or economic outcomes of young people ages 5–25 in the United States.
• The study focuses on reducing inequality along the dimension(s) of race, ethnicity, economic standing, sexual or gender minority status, language minority status, or immigrant origins.
• Studies that focus primarily on documenting the causes and consequences of inequality are not a fit with our interests.

LOI: For major research grants applications, based on internal review of the letter of inquiry, the Foundation either invites a full proposal for further consideration, or declines the application. We do not accept unsolicited full proposals. Officers’ research grants are awarded on the merit of the letter of inquiry alone.

Award Information
Major Research Grants

• $100,000 to $600,000 over 2-3 years, including up to 15% indirect costs.
• Projects involving secondary data analysis are typically at the lower end of the budget range, whereas projects involving new data collection and sample recruitment can be at the higher end. Proposals to launch experiments in which settings (e.g., classrooms, schools, youth programs) are randomly assigned to conditions are usually on the higher end. We encourage applicants pursuing cluster randomized designs to apply for additional sources of funding to ensure support for a sufficient sample.

Officers’ Research Grants

• $25,000–$50,000 over 1-2 years, including up to 15% indirect costs. 
• Studies may be stand-alone projects or may build off larger projects. The budget should be appropriate for the activities proposed.

2026 Educating Character Initiative: Collaboration and Community Across U.S. Higher Education

Overview:

The Educating Character Initiative aims to equip a wide range of public and private institutions of higher education––including, but not limited to, major research universities, liberal arts colleges, community colleges, military academies, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, religiously affiliated colleges, and colleges that serve under-resourced students––with the resources, funding, and support to integrate character education into their distinctive institutional contexts, curricula, and cultures. Additionally, our initiative provides support for practitioners and researchers across a variety of roles and sectors within higher education to collaborate and build communities of character. The broader aspiration is to work with individuals and institutions to foster a robust community that recognizes the value of educating character within higher education.

In addition to organizing workshops, conferences, and convenings and developing resources for faculty and staff, the Educating Character Initiative awards grants to institutions. In 2026, funding for institutions will include Institutional Impact Grants of between $100,000 and $1,000,000 and Capacity-Building Grants of up to $50,000. Successful grantees will be teams of faculty, staff, and administrators at U.S. colleges and universities with outstanding proposals for developing the moral, civic, and/or intellectual character of faculty, staff, and students.

1. Institutional Impact Grants: We will award Institutional Impact Grants of between $100,000 and $1,000,000 to institutions who wish to undertake a substantial and sustained effort to educate character in undergraduate populations at their institution or through multi-institutional collaborations. Organizations should align the size of the request with the impact of the proposed project and with their expertise and capacity to steward the funds efficiently and effectively. Since funds are limited, please design projects that will have the maximum impact using the fewest resources.

2. Capacity-Building Grants: Among the persistent challenges for faculty, staff, and administrators seeking to cultivate character at their institutions is a lack of resources, including difficulty integrating character across their curriculum or culture without more institutional and financial support. To address this challenge, ECI will award Capacity-Building Grants of up to $50,000 to institutions who wish to strengthen their ability to educate and embed character in their distinctive contexts. These grants may be especially useful for institutions that are just beginning to explore how to educate character or envisioning discrete projects that do not require substantial funding. Some teams may wish to use funding from this grant to develop a larger grant application to a funding initiative in a future year.

Solicitation limitations:

 ASU may apply for (1) an Institutional Impact Grant or (1) a Capacity-Building Grant, but not both.

• Colleges and universities should coordinate projects internally and plan to apply for no more than one Institutional Impact Grant.
• In most cases, institutions may apply for an Institutional Impact or Capacity-Building Grant, but not both.
• Institutions that currently hold an Institutional Impact Grant from the ECI should consult with ECI before applying for any additional funding opportunities.

Other information:

Awards: Institutional Impact Grants: $100,000- $1,000,000; Capacity-Building Grants: up to $50,000

The Educating Character Initiative team will host two hour-long online sessions in order to provide a general overview of all available grants on October 28 and November 13, 2025, 12:00-1:00 pm ET. We will host one one-hour online session in order to provide an overview of Capacity-Building Grants on January 8, 2026, 12:00-1:00 pm ET.  Register for an online session here. All inquiries should be directed toward [email protected].   

  Please note there are different deadlines for Institutional Impact Grants and Capacity Building Grants.

Call for LOIs (Racial, Economic, and Environmental Justice)

Overview:

Over the last three decades, NCF has awarded nearly half a billion dollars in funding to support movements, organizations, and individuals pursuing justice for people and the planet. We embrace a “totality of assets” approach to impact, meaning we leverage the full power of our financial and non-financial resources to support our partners’ solutions. We want to learn from, work with, and support organizations that share our commitment to advancing racial, economic, and environmental justice (REEJ).

We support organizations based in the United States, its Territories, and Israel-Palestine. We are particularly interested in work focused on the U.S. South (see below). See more about our Israel-Palestine strategy here.

Racial Justice -- Our vision for racial justice is the removal of structural barriers and hierarchies based on race. It seeks to reimagine political, economic, and social systems in ways that allow all people to thrive, regardless of their racial identity.

Economic Justice -- Economic justice means that everyone has opportunities to participate and thrive in the economy, including those who are marginalized by our current economic systems. The principles of economic justice create a stronger economy because prosperity and equity go hand in hand.

Environmental Justice -- Environmental justice is the right of all people and communities to a clean, healthy, and safe environment. It promotes equal environmental protection under the law and in fact. It empowers all communities to make informed decisions and fully participate civically and economically in the creation of environmental solutions.

Place Based Initiative | Israel-Palestine. -- In June 2024, Nathan Cummings Foundation’s Board of Trustees approved an updated strategy for our place-based work in Israel-Palestine. To align this work with our north star of advancing racial, economic, and environmental justice (REEJ), we decided to expand our geographic area to include the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza, and to use the following pillars [listed here] to guide our efforts.

Solicitation limitations:

 If you’re planning to apply, please notify Ashley O’Brion (ASUF) in advance.

Other information:

We believe that social change takes time and requires long-term investments. We also see immense value in supporting new, innovative, and exploratory work. To reflect this, we have a range of grant types:  

• Venture Grants (up to $100k for one year): These grants are short-term and designed to expedite support to social entrepreneurs with breakthrough, emerging, and innovative solutions. They also serve to mutually explore new relationships and partnerships.  
• Advancement Grants (Up to $250k annually for up to two years): These grants are designed to provide two-year support to project-based work and/or help scale organizations and promising solutions.  
• Enterprise Grants ($250k+ annually for more than two years): These grants are invitation-only and are designed to provide multi-year, unrestricted funding to partners that have deep alignment across our REEJ focus areas and offer the most opportunity to use all our financial and non-financial resources to support their solutions. 

Deadlines/Timeline: Nathan Cummings Foundation (NCF) is now welcoming proposals for partnerships via our Letters of Inquiry (LOI) portals year-round. Grant and Program Related Investment proposals can be submitted using the same portal. LOIs will be reviewed, and decisions will be made, on a rolling basis. NCF staff anticipates notifying applicants to learn more about their submissions within 12 weeks of submission. 

Draper Richards Kaplan Foundation Grants

Overview:

Draper Richards Kaplan Foundation seeks to dramatically improve the lives of underserved communities across the globe by supporting scalable, innovative, and impact-first solutions that leverage existing systems and stakeholders. Our goal is to find social entrepreneurs with dynamic products or services that have a proven ability to positively impact the lives of underserved people, and nurture those organizations at the early stages by providing capacity, capital, and community.

Our application process is designed to be open and accessible, and we accept applications year round from across our priority geographies and sectors. Borrowing from our venture capital legacy, we find exceptional entrepreneurs and provide them with: 

• Capacity: The core of DRK’s model is deep and extensive operational and technical support for each portfolio organization, both through dedicated hands-on Board service and specialist capacity-building resources for fundraising, board and organizational development, leadership, financial support, and scaling strategy,
• Capital: DRK provides up to $300,000 USD in either unrestricted grant funding or investment capital over a three-year period, and
• Community: DRK convenes our portfolio and alumni annually, facilitating connections and community. 

We invite you to learn more about what we fund and our selection process, and to share your solution with us through our online application.

 What are the attributes of a strong DRK candidate organization?

• Problem-first: Organizations addressing an urgent or critical social or environmental problem in an innovative fashion and in a way that directly benefits underserved populations.
• Systems-thinking: Organizations with solutions work within existing systems, leveraging existing stakeholders, infrastructure, and incentives to grow their impact.
• Scalable: Organizations with solutions can scale significantly, in that they can grow exponentially over time to directly impact a minimum of 10,000 lives within the next five years, and ambitions to grow well beyond that.
• Geographically aligned: Organizations operating in our priority geographies of Africa, Europe, India, and the United States, although we will also consider opportunities in Latin America in select situations.
• Independent entities: Organizations that are structured as independent nonprofit or impact first, mission-driven for-profit entities, including US 501(c)3 and its non-US equivalents, C corporations, B corporations, hybrid organizations, and fiscally sponsored organizations where there is a plan to spin out.
• Financially sustainable: Organizations that have at least a growable stream of earned income revenues or plans to develop an earned income revenue stream in the immediate future.
• Measurable evidence of impact: Organizations that are developing solutions based on data and clear evidence of what works, and through their pilot(s) have a demonstrated ability to clearly and effectively measure their impact on underserved populations.  

What stage of growth does DRK Foundation typically fund?

• Early stage: Organizations that are early stage, which we define as post-pilot and pre-scale. This typically means:
  • Your program, product or service is already being used in the market or in the field, 
  • You have early indication that your model is having its intended impact on the beneficiary populations,
  • Your organization is relatively young (ideally between two and five years old, although we will consider both younger and older organizations).

What is not eligible for DRK funding?

• Idea stage or pre-pilot / pre-product stage organizations, or post-Series A stage organizations.
• Solutions that do not have a primary or predominant focus on supporting a vulnerable, marginalized, or otherwise underserved community
• Innovations that do not integrate with or otherwise seek to align with established stakeholders or distribution channels in the targeted sector.
• Place-based models or organizations that otherwise do not plan to expand or scale their impact in an exponential fashion to achieve their mission.
• Projects or programs housed within another organization (e.g., fiscal sponsor), unless there is an explicit plan to spin out said project or program as a standalone entity in the immediate or near-term future.
• Organizations primarily focused on awareness, advocacy, policy change, or field-building campaigns.
• Organizations with sole focus on the development of research without accompanying direct intervention (e.g., think tanks).
• Programs without an explicit focus on efficacy and/or impact measurement.
• Programs promoting religious doctrine.
• US 501(c)4 organizations, S-Corps, Partnerships (LPs or LLPs), LLCs, or investment funds.

Solicitation limitations:

Organizations may re-apply up to twice, no sooner than one year after a decline notification from DRK regarding any previous applications.

Other information:

DRK reviews approximately 2,225 applications every year. DRK funds a total of approximately 20 organizations every year, drawn from all of our priority geographies and across a wide variety of sectors.

DRK does not reinvest in organizations or provide additional capital after the initial investment period.

Clare Boothe Luce Program for Women in STEM

Overview:

The Clare Boothe Luce Program for Women in STEM is dedicated to significantly increasing the number of women in math, science and engineering at every level of higher education.

By addressing the structural and cultural barriers that contribute to the gender gap, and advancing women’s leadership in the sciences, a new–more inclusive–landscape can take shape. As of 2024, the Clare Boothe Luce Program awards grants of up to $750,000 to fund higher education institutions’ efforts to address the obstacles that prevent or discourage women on their campuses from pursuing and thriving in STEM fields.

Additionally, the Henry Luce Foundation awards CBL STEM Community Grants that allow CBL institutions to build impactful and supportive STEM ecosystems within their local communities.

Applicants must have conducted or plan to conduct research (climate surveys, sexual harassment surveys, diversity studies, or equivalent research efforts) that demonstrates a clear understanding of the barriers its particular communities of women encounter. The use of national data alone is not sufficient evidence of expertise. CBL funding can be part of the proposed research plans.

Minority-Serving institutions and institutions with high percentages of Pell Grant-eligible students whose institutional mission and/or strategic plan aligns with CBL Program goals are encouraged to apply.

Solicitation limitations:

Program Restrictions:

• We do not accept applications related to medical, behavioral, and social science fields.
• Funds may not be used for international study or travel abroad programs.
• CBL grantees may not apply for another grant until three years after the submission of their final narrative and budget report.
• The Clare Boothe Luce Program does not allow for indirect costs.

Other information:

[If you’re planning to apply, please notify Ashley O’Brion (ASUF) in advance.] 

Application Process: To apply for a CBL grant, interested institutions must first submit an initial application through our online portal. After review, the CBL Selection Committee will invite standout candidates to submit a full proposal. Only potential grantees explicitly invited by the Selection Committee may submit a detailed proposal.

Applicants must have conducted or plan to conduct research (climate surveys, sexual harassment surveys, diversity studies, or equivalent research efforts) that demonstrates a clear understanding of the barriers its particular communities of women encounter. The use of national data alone is not sufficient evidence of expertise. CBL funding can be part of the proposed research plans.

Minority-Serving institutions and institutions with high percentages of Pell Grant-eligible students whose institutional mission and/or strategic plan aligns with CBL Program goals are encouraged to apply.

Deadlines:
Initial applications: March 3, 2025 
Full proposals: September 3, 2025

Upcoming Webinars & Recordings: Sign up for one of our sessions here.

Social, Political, and Economic Inequality

Overview:

The Russell Sage Foundation’s Social, Political, and Economic Inequality program focuses on the causes and consequences of social, political, and economic inequalities in the U.S. The program examines the factors that contribute to social, political, and economic inequalities in the U.S., and the extent to which those inequalities affect social, political, psychological, and economic outcomes such as educational and labor market access and opportunities, social and economic mobility within and across generations, and civic participation and representation. Launched in 2001 as the Social Inequality program, it was renamed in November 2018 to better reflect the foundation’s research interests in a broad range of inequalities and their consequences. 

We seek innovative investigator-initiated research that will expand our understanding of social, political, and economic inequalities and the mechanisms by which they influence the lives of individuals, families, and communities. We welcome projects that explore the relevance of economic, racial, ethnic, age, gender, immigration, residence, or other statuses for the distribution of social, political, and economic outcomes within and across different status groups.

The kinds of questions that are of interest include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Economic Wellbeing, Equality of Opportunity, and Intergenerational Mobility
• Inequality and Policymaking
• Political Institutions and the Democratic Process
• Climate Change and Natural Disasters
• Neighborhoods and Communities
• Criminal Justice & the Legal System
• Psychological and/or Cultural Changes
• Educational Attainment

Solicitation limitations:

All applicants (both PIs and Co-PIs) must have a doctorate. In rare circumstances, RSF may consider applications from scholars who do not hold a doctorate but can demonstrate a strong career background that establishes their ability to conduct high-level, peer-reviewed scholarly research. Students may not be applicants.

Other information:

There are two levels of funding for core grants, Trustee-approved grants and Presidential-Authority grants.  The maximum grant amount for a Trustee grant is $200,000, including 15% indirect costs.  Grants up to $75,000 are considered Presidential-Authority grants. RSF has 3 funding cycles per year and only considers proposals that are invited following review of an initial letter of inquiry. After peer review, about 15% of those who submit an LOI will receive an invitation to submit a full proposal. The final funding rate for core research grants is approximately 6-10% of submitted LOIs.

Future of Work

Overview:

The Russell Sage Foundation’s program on the Future of Work supports innovative research on the causes and consequences of changes in the quality of jobs for low- and moderately paid workers and their families in the U.S. We seek investigator-initiated research proposals that will broaden our understanding of the role of changes in employer practices, the nature of the labor market and public policies on employment, earnings, and job quality. We are especially interested in proposals that address questions about the interplay of market and non-market forces in shaping the wellbeing of workers.

The kinds of topics and questions of interest include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Emerging Technologies and the Future of Work and Workers
• “The Big Shift”? Changes in Labor Force Participation and Increased Turnover During and After the COVID-19 Pandemic
• Labor Market Power and Institutions
• Workforce Development, Training, and the 21st Century American Workplace
• Changes in Employer Practices and Alternative Work Arrangements
• Changing Economies, Changing Families and Policy Responses

RSF rarely considers projects for which the investigators have not already fully-developed the research design, the sample framework, access to data, etc. Investigators are encouraged to submit an LOI after they have developed and pre-tested survey instruments, completed preliminary data analyses if the data are publicly available or conducted some preliminary interviews for qualitative studies.

RSF encourages methodological variety and inter-disciplinary collaboration, but all LOIs and proposals must have well-developed conceptual frameworks and research designs. Analytical models must be well-specified and research questions and hypotheses (where applicable) must be clearly stated.

Grants are available for research assistance, data acquisition, data analysis, and investigator time for conducting research and writing up results.

We are particularly interested in analyses that make use of newly available data or demonstrate novel uses of existing data, to answer emerging or long-standing questions of interest in the foundation’s program areas and special initiatives. We also support original data collection. Proposals to conduct field experiments, in-depth qualitative interviews, and ethnographies are also encouraged.

Other information:

There are two levels of funding for core grants, Trustee-approved grants and Presidential-Authority grants.  The maximum grant amount for a Trustee grant is $200,000, including 15% indirect costs.  Grants up to $75,000 are considered Presidential-Authority grants. RSF has 3 funding cycles per year and only considers proposals that are invited following review of an initial letter of inquiry. After peer review, about 15% of those who submit an LOI will receive an invitation to submit a full proposal. The final funding rate for core research grants is approximately 6-10% of submitted LOIs.

NewSchools Venture Fund: Funding Opportunities

Overview:

Our Investment Criteria:

• Alignment -- We invest in visionary, early-stage education leaders and entrepreneurs with bold ideas that expand the definition of what works. Our focus is on creating new possibilities and a just future for all students, especially those furthest from opportunity. 
  Ideas must align with at least one of our investment areas: 
  • Innovative Schools -- NewSchools invests in school founders committed to bringing new models to life. We support educators who are opening new innovative public schools during the Design, Plan, and Launch phases — from the early planning years (12–24 months before launch) through the first three years of a school’s operation. We support teams that are creating:  
    • The first or second school of an emerging charter school network
    • New district school
    • New tribally controlled schools or schools operated by the Bureau of Indian Education
  • Learning Solutions -- NewSchools invests in K-8 literacy and math solutions, including tools, content, and models that:
    • Engage and empower students to build critical skills, such as reading comprehension and algebraic thinking, that set a foundation for learning and success
    • Enable teachers to deliver grade-level and differentiated instruction that meet a range of student needs and support learning at home
    • Leverage AI to increase access to accurate, research-based learning experiences that are both personalized and instructionally rigorous
  • Teaching Reimagined -- NewSchools invests in innovative approaches that make teaching a more sustainable, effective, and joyful profession. We build on what works and catalyze new approaches. We’re especially excited to support ideas from those who understand the problem best: our educators. We fund ideas that address one or more of the following opportunities: 
    • Redesign educator roles: Providers that help schools adopt new collaborative staffing models to improve educator effectiveness and well-being  
    • Bridge school and community: Organizations that support schools to integrate caregivers, community experts, or industry professionals onto instructional teams
    • Leverage AI: Solutions co-designed with educators to strengthen their instructional practice and prepare them to use AI safely and effectively
  • Learning Differences -- NewSchools invests in ideas that enhance teaching and learning for students with learning differences through our core investment areas — Innovative Schools, Learning Solutions, and Teaching Reimagined — and makes a small set of direct investments in critical opportunities that fall outside of these areas, including:
    • Special education teacher recruitment and retention initiatives: Ideas that increase the number of highly qualified special education teachers in schools and improve retention rates by providing support throughout their careers 
    • Professional development and instructional tools:  Professional learning and related tools designed to accelerate an educator’s ability to translate research into practice, create communities of belonging and improve outcomes for students with learning differences
    • Postsecondary readiness solutions:  Experiential learning opportunities and transition support services uniquely designed for students with learning differences as they move through high school and prepare for college and career
       
• Idea -- We seek bold ideas that combine new approaches with proven practices to improve student learning and advance equitable outcomes for all. We believe equipping students with a strong academic foundation, as well as essential habits, mindsets and skills within a positive learning environment, is key to this goal. (We call this an expanded definition of student success). We aim to have a catalytic impact on student success nationally, so we invest in ventures that seek to expand their impact significantly over time by growing their organizations, codifying and sharing best practices, or influencing the work of others.
• Community Engagement -- We expect innovators to engage their stakeholders – students, families, and educators – early and often to inform solution design and implementation. By understanding the needs, interests and aspirations of those they aim to serve, innovators can not only design better solutions but also build the relationships necessary to grow their impact over time.
• Team -- We seek mission-driven innovators who demonstrate passion, integrity, and the ability to execute their vision. Innovators should build diverse and capable teams with the right mix of skills and backgrounds to drive impact. Leaders should be open to collaboration, committed to building high-functioning teams, and be excited to participate in our communities of practice, which foster learning and growth.
• Inclusion -- We support teams that are dedicated to breaking the predictability of who succeeds in this nation. Research shows that teams are more effective in meeting the needs of students when they bring a range of experiences and have leaders and educators who share the backgrounds of the students they serve. We seek teams that are building organizations and solutions uniquely designed for students furthest from opportunity.

We are also interested in learning more about how school founders are supporting post-secondary success, students with learning differences, leveraging AI, and/or adopting new approaches to educator roles. 

Across these opportunities, we are interested in solutions that prioritize equity and quality, enhance human relationships, and enable high-quality instruction that is effective for a wide range of students, including students experiencing poverty, students of color, students with learning differences and multilingual learners.

Financial Sustainability -- We look for organizations with long-term plans for achieving financial sustainability through a mix of revenue sources, such as philanthropy, earned revenue, and government grants. Our focus is on supporting ventures that can secure the revenue they need to grow their impact over time. 

Other information:

What We Offer

• Funding: Direct financial support to advance your work. One-year, unrestricted grants range from $150,000 to $250,000.
• Expert Support: One-on-one coaching and access to national experts.
• Community: Connection with peer organizations across the country.

The final application deadline is January 8, 2026, at 11:59 p.m. PT. The first step is to complete the eligibility form to determine if your idea aligns with our strategy. We encourage you to submit your eligibility form as soon as possible. Applicants who are opening a school will complete the schools application. Applicants who are aligned with the Learning Solutions, Teaching Reimagined, or Learning Differences investment areas will complete the general application. Click here to preview the General eligibility form, application questions, and review relevant FAQs.

Applications are reviewed on a rolling basis. Applicants who submit by December 1, 2025 will receive an update on their status by the end of January. All applicants will receive an update by March.

Need support? Have questions? Join our upcoming office hours on Wed. 11/19 at 12 p.m. PT / 3 p.m. ET. Register here.
2026 Funding Application Guide; Sponsor FAQs 

Implications of the 2023 Supreme Court Decision to Ban Race-Conscious Admissions at Colleges and Universities for Educational Attainment and Economic Mobility

Overview:

The Russell Sage Foundation, in collaboration with the Hewlett, Spencer, and William T. Grant foundations, seeks to support innovative research on the effects of the Supreme Court decision on a diversity of outcomes—from who attends college and where and the extent to which alternatives to race-conscious policies contribute to educational attainment and economic mobility among different groups in the population. Our interests extend beyond the effects on applications, admissions, enrollment, and degree completion and include the downstream effects, including whether and how the decision alters the college-to-career pipeline that many employers rely on to diversify their workforce, and the factors associated with public opposition to and support for race-conscious policies. We are particularly interested in analyses that make use of newly available data or demonstrate novel uses of existing data. We also support original data collection and encourage methodological variety and inter-disciplinary collaboration.

Examples of the kinds of topics and questions that are of interest include, but are not limited to, the following:

• What are the short- and long-run effects of the June 2023 Supreme Court ruling that restricts race-conscious policies in university and college admissions on who attends college and where?
• What has experience with the direct admissions or percentage plans of California, Texas, and other states revealed about what happens to racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity in enrollment and degree completion when race-conscious admission policies are no longer permissible for undergraduates or graduate students?
• Which alternatives to race-conscious policies, whether independently or in tandem, generate socioeconomic and racial and ethnic diversity in applications, admissions, enrollment, debt-free degree completion, and social mobility?
• To what extent are the beneficiaries of race-conscious admissions policies, who enroll in selective colleges and universities, more or less likely to graduate relative to those attending less-selective institutions?
• To what extent do race-neutral or alternative admissions policies contribute to the promotion of educational attainment and economic mobility among racially, ethnically, and economically diverse groups following the Supreme Court decision?
• What are the racial and socioeconomic composition effects of eliminating other admission practices such as early admissions, the use of standardized test scores, or the preferential treatment of the children of donors, alumni, faculty, and recruited athletes?
• To what extent will the race-conscious admissions ban impact the effort that high school students put into their studies, their educational aspirations, and their subsequent enrollment in higher education?
• What are the educational, social, and civic engagement benefits that derive from students’ interactions with classmates whose backgrounds, race and ethnicity, experiences, and political views differ from their own?
• What can we learn from historically Black colleges and universities (HBCU’s) and Minority Serving Institutions (MSI’s) on how to support retention, recruitment, and degree completion for students from marginalized groups?
• What program or policy changes might provide the basis for addressing historical racial harm in the context of higher education access and economic mobility?
• To what extent might improvements in college affordability lead to the promotion of educational attainment and economic mobility among racially, ethnically, and economically diverse groups?
• To what extent will the Supreme Court decision alter the college-to-career pipeline that many employers rely on to diversify their workforce?
• To what extent is the Supreme Court decision affecting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (D.E.I) initiatives in the recruitment, hiring, retention, promotion, and advancement of workers of color and or/other groups in higher education and in the private and public sectors?
• How are attitudes towards the use of race, ethnicity, or gender criteria in admissions, hiring, or contracting preferences formed? What factors are associated with opposition to and support for race-conscious policies? How might the framing of diversity, bias, opportunity, and/or mobility affect opposition or support for race-conscious policies?

Other information:

RSF has 3 funding cycles per year and only considers proposals that are invited following review of an initial letter of inquiry. After peer review, about 15% of those who submit an LOI will receive an invitation to submit a full proposal. The final funding rate for core research grants is approximately 6-10% of submitted LOIs.

Grant Seeker FAQs