Selection Criteria

Are you equally interested in negative health outcomes of a particular law or legal measures but have implication for immediate changes to policy?

Answer:

Good news or bad news, as long as it is actionable news—that’s what PHLR is looking to fund.

Categories:
Can you expand on whether or not the law under investigation should be new or existing?

Answer:

It doesn’t matter so much whether the law exists, but the investigator should be looking for the following: What do we know already about the law? What is the reason to believe that it’s important to health? How will studying this law give us ideas about the important things that we should be doing differently?

Categories:
Do you fund research involving international comparisons? For example, comparing US and European countries where laws impacting a particular health outcome may vary.

Answer:

Yes, provided that the applicant can demonstrate that the results will be of high interest and utility in the United States.

Categories:
Are you more interested in state-level comparative law versus local-level ordinances?

Answer:

We are equally interested in both.

Categories:
What topic areas are PHLR most interested in funding?

Answer:

We have not specified topics of higher or lower interest.

Categories:
Is the Foundation interested in funding health disparities studies?

Answer:

Yes, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) has a general interest in health disparities. Therefore, PHLR accepts proposals that investigate legal interventions that reduce or intend to reduce public health disparities.

Categories:
How should post-grant dissemination be addressed in the proposal?

Answer:

Dissemination can include a wide range of activities, including presentations, publications, and more. We encourage applicants to think creatively about how to disseminate study results effectively and frugally, and to consider that research results may not emerge until the end of the grant period. This grant cannot support dissemination costs incurred after the grant period ends.

Categories:
We would like to review the comments of your reviewers on our brief proposal. Is this feedback possible?

Answer:

According to RWJF  policies we are not allowed to give oral or written  feedback on proposals submitted. However, we have crafted a suite of resources this year to help applicants. Please visit the website www.publichealthlawresearch.org and on the home page, you will find a host of podcasts that will help you think about what the expectations are for these proposals.

Categories:
Can you talk more about the project backgrounder?

Answer:

The project backgrounder should assess the state of the policy or the state of the law and its relationship to health outcomes. It should also give an overview of the importance of the issue and how the research project will add to the existing knowledge base or fill in gaps in understanding. The NPO will provide guidance on this document at the appropriate time.

Categories:
Are there specific requirements regarding publication in peer-reviewed journals (law, health or other)?

Answer:

While RWJF does not have specific requirements around dissemination, the Foundation seeks to balance communicating information to health practitioners and policy-makers in a timely manner with support of the academic track to publish in peer-reviewed journals. In general, RWJF leans toward the timely release of information to practitioners and/or policy-makers. If the dissemination plan includes publication in a peer-reviewed journal, please look across disciplines.

Categories: