Evidence & Evaluation RFP FAQs

We only fund studies that focus on U.S. programs, policies, and interventions, and expect applicants to be at U.S.-based institutions.

Yes, for-profit institutions are eligible for funding, though budget and reporting requirements may differ if we award a grant.

Yes, we welcome multiple research ideas. Please submit a separate LOI for each distinct project.

Duration varies by project scope but the process—from LOI submission to grant execution—typically takes around six months.

Applicants should include figures that are central to the proposed study design – and that they want to ensure are reviewed as part of the submission – in the narrative. These will count toward the page limit. Applicants should then briefly describe any supplemental figures in the narrative and include the figures themselves in an appendix alongside references and citations. Appendix materials do not count toward the page limit. 

We are committed to funding research that meets the most rigorous standards of research quality and transparency. We expect all funded studies to be pre-registered with a publicly posted pre-analysis plan, typically on the Open Science Framework. If there is a compelling reason to use an alternative registry (e.g., AEA or ICPSR), applicants may discuss this with the team. Note that we expect applicants to post pre-analysis plans after a study is funded.

Unfortunately, due to the volume of inquiries we receive, our team is unable to schedule a call or provide individual feedback at the LOI stage. For applications invited to the full proposal stage, we typically provide feedback and offer opportunities to discuss the project.

We invest in rigorous research across an array of social policy areas and strengthen the evidence base on what works. Through our RFPs, we fund both Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) and Quasi-Experimental Designs (QEDs) that can credibly estimate causal effects of programs, policies, and interventions, and generate actionable insights for key stakeholders. Please reference each specific RFP for additional detail on eligible methods and research questions being solicited.

Please see AV’s Criminal Justice initiative’s open RFP, which accepts applications on a rolling basis for causal research projects evaluating policies, practices, and interventions related to public safety and the criminal justice system.

Applicants should select 1-2 primary outcomes that are policy-relevant, central to the study’s research question(s), and that the study is adequately powered to detect. These outcomes represent a pre-specified set of measures upon which researchers will report, regardless of whether estimated effects are positive, negative, or null. 

Applicants may also include secondary or exploratory outcomes to provide additional context; however, primary outcomes should reflect the most important endpoints for decision-makers and the study’s core contribution. This approach does not preclude reporting additional outcomes; rather, it ensures clear pre-commitment to reporting results on the primary outcomes, regardless of findings.

Examples of primary outcomes used in prior E&E-funded studies include standardized test scores, educational attainment (e.g., high school or postsecondary completion), earnings, housing supply, land values, eviction rates, and healthcare expenditures. These examples are illustrative and reflect outcomes that typically come from valid administrative data and are directly relevant to policy decisions. We generally prioritize primary outcomes that capture meaningful, longer-term impacts, at least 12 months or more after randomization or policy implementation. Applicants should refer to each specific RFP for any additional guidance on prioritized outcomes.

At the LOI stage, applicants should provide a proposed sample size, along with a brief justification for why it is realistic in the context of the study. Estimates of minimum detectable effects (MDEs) or effect sizes are encouraged but optional. We do not require detailed power calculations at this stage.

At the full proposal stage, we will ask applicants to provide a detailed power analysis for primary outcome(s) including assumptions and calculations. The E&E team will provide additional guidance with the full proposal invitation. Applicants may also consult our guidance on power analysis for further detail.

Applicants can review examples of previously funded projects on our existing grants page and in prior grant announcements (1, 2, 3). These examples illustrate the range of policy areas, study designs, and partnerships supported through our RFPs, but should not be viewed as prescriptive or exhaustive. Applicants should refer to the specific RFP for guidance on priorities.

At the LOI stage, applicants should specify the amount of funding requested from AV, reflecting the project timeline and the study scope, and include an approximate project budget consistent with AV’s cost policy. While we do not require a detailed budget at the LOI stage, applicants should provide a brief (up to one page) budget narrative that outlines the key cost drivers and provides a high-level overview of how funds would be allocated (e.g., personnel time, data acquisition, travel, and administrative costs). The narrative should provide a clear, high-level understanding of the project’s scope and cost structure and does not need to include line-item justification. 

At the full proposal stage, applicants must submit a detailed, itemized budget. The E&E team will share a budget template and provide additional instructions with the full proposal invitation.

Generally, AV funding supports evaluation-related expenses such as research management, sample recruitment, data collection, data analysis, and support to programs for research and data costs. In a limited number of cases, budgets may include a nominal amount of funding for programmatic costs that are necessary to enable a sufficiently sized evaluation to go forward, for example, if additional program staff are needed to administer the program as part of the study.

While the primary objective of our RFPs is to fund impact evaluation, applicants may seek funding for implementation or cost-effectiveness components to complement the core study. These components should be closely linked to the primary research questions and represent a relatively small share of the overall project scope and budget.

There is no set maximum budget or period of performance. We expect project costs and timelines to vary based on the complexity of the study, data collection methods, and overall scope of work. Applicants should ensure budgets are well-justified and aligned with the project’s goals and design. Reviewers will assess the proposed budget and timelines closely as part of the evaluation process.

As a general reference, we have previously funded quasi-experimental studies in the range of approximately $100,000 to $300,000 with project durations of 1-3 years, and RCTs in the range of approximately $200,000 to $400,000 with project durations of 2-4 years. These ranges are intended as guidance only, and we will consider proposals outside these ranges if well-justified.

The E&E team reviews applications alongside external academic reviewers, all of whom have deep expertise in quantitative study design, causal inference, and rigorous impact evaluation. We also consult topic-area experts both within AV and externally, as needed, to assess policy relevance and alignment with organizational priorities.

We evaluate applications against the full set of criteria outlined in each RFP. All criteria are important and collectively inform how we assess the strength of a proposal.

In general, strong submissions first establish clear policy relevance—articulating why the study matters, who stands to benefit, and how the findings could inform policy or practice, consistent with the priorities outlined in each RFP. Among proposals that meet this threshold, we then place particular emphasis on the rigor and feasibility of the study design, including the clarity of the identification strategy, adequacy of statistical power, and the practicality of implementation given the proposed partnerships, timeline, and resources. Proposals that do not demonstrate both strong policy relevance and a credible, well-resourced study design are unlikely to advance.

LOIs are less competitive when they do not clearly demonstrate alignment with AV priorities, strong policy relevance, or rigorous study design. Common reasons include:

• A weak or unclear case for policy relevance, including how the findings would inform real-world decisions and decision makers.
• Limited discussion of how the proposed study builds on prior evidence to contribute meaningfully to the evidence base.
• Proposed sample sizes that are too small to detect policy-relevant effects or answer the primary research questions.
• Weak or insufficiently specified study designs, such as an unclear identification strategy, lack of a comparison group, or lack of detail on how causal impacts will be estimated.
• Unclear data access, timelines, or contingency planning, including uncertainty around administrative data agreements or feasibility of key study milestones.
• Limited evidence of implementation readiness, such as the lack of confirmation that the intervention can be delivered as proposed within the study timeframe.

This depends on i) the proposed study design, and ii) the proposed research question. The Building Evidence RFP provides funding for quasi-experimental studies in specific policy areas that align with AV’s strategic areas of interest. These areas are outlined in the Building Evidence RFP. The Strengthening Evidence RFP provides funding for RCTs across all areas of social policy.

Not at this time. This RFP is specifically soliciting studies that align with the listed policy areas and, when relevant, the priority research questions. Proposed studies should evaluate programs, policies, and interventions and/or measure outcomes that align with the policy areas listed in the RFP.

This RFP will provide funding to conduct quasi-experimental studies that generate rigorous causal evidence. We prioritize the following designs based on natural experiments: regression discontinuity, difference-in-differences, and instrumental variables. Applicants proposing lottery-based designs (e.g., lottery-based school assignment) should submit their LOI to the Strengthening Evidence RFP. We do not fund studies that only rely on matching or selection on observables as their primary identification strategy. Examples of previously funded quasi-experimental studies can be found on our existing grants page.

In contrast to the Building Evidence RFP, which specifies included topic areas and priority research questions, the Strengthening Evidence RFP is open to funding RCTs across most domestic social policy areas. As described in the RFP, we may consider alignment with AV focus areas, particularly for projects with larger proposed budgets. A full list of AV focus areas can be found here.

The E&E team periodically issues special call RFPs focused on specific policy areas or research questions. For example, in the past we have launched special calls for causal research on sports betting, and on the impact of cell phones in schools. Please visit our RFP landing page to view current opportunities and any RFP-specific FAQs. Applicants may also subscribe to our newsletter to receive updates on new RFP releases.