Did private election administration funding advantage Democrats in 2020?

Private donors contributed more than $350 million to local election officials to support the administration of the 2020 election. Supporters argue these grants were neutral and necessary to maintain normal election operations during the pandemic, while critics worry these grants mostly went to Democratic strongholds and tilted election outcomes. How much did these grants shape the 2020 presidential election? To answer this question, we collect administrative data on private election administration grants and election outcomes. We then use advances in synthetic control methods to compare presidential election results and turnout in counties that received grants to counties with similar election results and turnout before 2020. While Democratic counties were more likely to apply for a grant, we find that the grants did not have a noticeable effect on the presidential election. Our estimates of the average effect on Democratic vote share range from 0.03 to 0.36 percentage points. Our estimates of the average effect of receiving a grant on turnout range from 0.03 to 0.14 percentage points. Across specifications, our 95% CIs typically include negative effects and all fail to include effects on Democratic vote share larger than 0.58 percentage points and effects on turnout larger than 0.40 percentage points. We characterize the magnitude of our effects by asking how large they are compared to the margin by which Biden won the 2020 election. In simple bench-marking exercises, we find that the effects of the grants were likely too small to have changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.

Mobilizing community-driven health promotion through community granting programs: a rapid systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Effective health promotion responds to the unique needs of communities. Community granting programs that fund community-driven health promotion initiatives are a potential mechanism to meet those unique needs. While numerous community health-focused programs are available, the various strategies used by granting programs to foster engagement, administer grants and support awardees have not been systematically evaluated. This rapid systematic review explores the administration of community granting programs and how various program components impact process and population health outcomes. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted across three databases: Medline, SocINDEX, and Political Science Database. Single reviewers completed screening, consistent with a rapid review protocol. Studies describing or evaluating community granting programs for health or public health initiatives were included. Data regarding program characteristics were extracted and studies were evaluated for quality. A convergent integrated approach was used to analyze quantitative and qualitative findings. RESULTS: Thirty-five community granting programs, described in 36 studies, were included. Most were descriptive reports or qualitative studies conducted in the USA. Program support for grant awardees included technical assistance, workshops and training, program websites, and networking facilitation. While most programs reported on process outcomes, few reported on community or health outcomes; such outcomes were positive when reported. Programs reported that many funded projects were likely sustainable beyond program funding, due to the development of awardee skills, new partnerships, and securing additional funding. From the perspectives of program staff and awardees, facilitators included the technical assistance and workshops provided by the programs, networking amongst awardees, and the involvement of community members. Barriers included short timelines to develop proposals and allocate funds. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides a comprehensive overview of health-related community granting programs. Grant awardees benefit from technical assistance, workshops, and networking with other awardees. Project sustainability is enhanced by the development of new community partnerships and grant-writing training for awardees. Community granting programs can be a valuable strategy to drive community health, with several key elements that enhance community mobilization. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO #CRD42023399364.

Mapping philanthropic support of science.

While philanthropic support for science has increased in the past decade, there is limited quantitative knowledge about the patterns that characterize it and the mechanisms that drive its distribution. Here, we map philanthropic funding to universities and research institutions based on IRS tax forms from 685,397 non-profit organizations. We identify nearly one million grants supporting institutions involved in science and higher education, finding that in volume and scope, philanthropy is a significant source of funds, reaching an amount that rivals some of the key federal agencies like the NSF and NIH. Our analysis also reveals that philanthropic funders tend to focus locally, indicating that criteria beyond research excellence play an important role in funding decisions, and that funding relationships are stable, i.e. once a grant-giving relationship begins, it tends to continue in time. Finally, we show that the bipartite funder-recipient network displays a highly overrepresented motif indicating that funders who share one recipient also share other recipients and we show that this motif contains predictive power for future funding relationships. We discuss the policy implications of our findings on inequality in science, scientific progress, and the role of quantitative approaches to philanthropy.

Introducing Five New Cancer Grand Challenges Teams.

SUMMARY: Cancer Grand Challenges is an international funding initiative that aims to unite the world's best scientists to tackle some of cancer's toughest problems by funding team science on a global scale. Here, we discuss the five newly funded teams and the challenges they will address over the coming years.

Efficacy of Centers of Biomedical Research Excellence (CoBRE) grants to build research capacity in underrepresented states.

Federal funding for research has immediate and long-term economic impact. Since federal research funding is regionally concentrated and not geographically distributed, the benefits are not fully realized in some regions of the country. The Established (previously Experimental) Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) programs at several agencies, for example, the National Science Foundation, and the Institutional Development Award (IDeA) program at the National Institutes of Health were created to increase competitiveness for funding in states with historically low levels of federal funding. The Centers of Biomedical Research Excellence (CoBRE) award program is a component of the IDeA program. The CoBRE grants support research core facilities to develop research infrastructure. These grants also support the research projects of junior investigators, under the guidance of mentoring teams of senior investigators, to develop human resources at these institutions. Few studies have assessed the effectiveness of these programs. This study examines the investment and outcomes of the CoBRE grants from 2000 through 2022. The maturation of junior investigators into independently funded principal investigators is comparable to other mentoring programs supported by NIH. The investment in research cores resulted in substantial research productivity, measured by publications. Despite the successes of individual investigators and increased research infrastructure and productivity, the geographic distribution of federal and NIH research dollars has not changed. These results will be informative in consideration of policies designed to enhance the geographic distribution of federal research dollars.

Examining who is conducting and leading National Institute of Health-funded research in U.S. schools of nursing.

BACKGROUND: Nursing science is essential for generating a unique body of knowledge that is foundational to the academic discipline of nursing. PURPOSE: The goal of this analysis is to detail the education and licensing of faculty and leadership in research-intensive schools of nursing and to present the current data on the National Institute of Health (NIH) funding patterns in schools of nursing. METHODS: The faculty composition analysis focused on the 40 U.S. schools of nursing receiving the most NIH funding through faculty serving as PIs on grants awarded in 2023. For the NIH funding patterns analysis, data were extracted from the NIH RePORTER database. DISCUSSION: Of the top 30 NIH-funded Schools of Nursing, all the Deans and Associate Deans of Academic Affairs are educated or licensed as nurses; whereas only 55% of Associate Deans of Research are educated or licensed as nurses. In 2022, nearly half of the top-ranked schools of nursing had less than half of their NIH funding awarded to faculty who are trained and licensed as nurses CONLUSION: The current trends in the research enterprise in schools of nursing implore us to assess if we are adequately training nurses to advance nursing science and more importantly to serve as leaders of nursing science.

Blinding reduces institutional prestige bias during initial review of applications for a young investigator award.

Organizations that fund research are keen to ensure that their grant selection processes are fair and equitable for all applicants. In 2020, the Arnold and Mabel Beckman Foundation introduced blinding to the first stage of the process used to review applications for Beckman Young Investigator (BYI) awards: applicants were instructed to blind the technical proposal in their initial Letter of Intent by omitting their name, gender, gender-identifying pronouns, and institutional information. Here we examine the impact of this change by comparing the data on gender and institutional prestige of the applicants in the first four years of the new policy (BYI award years 2021-2024) with data on the last four years of the old policy (2017-2020). We find that under the new policy, the distribution of applicants invited to submit a full application shifted from those affiliated with institutions regarded as more prestigious to those outside of this group, and that this trend continued through to the final program awards. We did not find evidence of a shift in the distribution of applicants with respect to gender.

Grants and Funding in Podiatric Science.

Evidence-based research is essential to improving podiatric medicine and surgery; however, there are many barriers to conducting research, with a major limitation being lack of research funding. There are various grants and funding sources available to podiatric surgeon scientists, but navigating through the resources can be daunting. In this article, we provide a framework for grant writing and funding opportunities for podiatric surgeons to consider.

Gender differences in Dutch research funding over time: A statistical investigation of the innovation scheme 2012-2021.

BACKGROUND: In 2015, the Dutch research council, NWO, took measures to combat gender bias disadvantaging female applicants in a popular three-tiered funding scheme called the Talent Programme. The innovation scheme consists of three grants for different career stages, called Veni, Vidi and Vici. OBJECTIVES: This paper studies the question whether or not NWO has been successful in removing gender differences in their funding procedure. METHODS: Using all available data from 2012 onwards of grant applications in the Talent Programme (16,249 applications of which 2,449 received funding), we study whether these measures had an effect using binomial generalized linear models. RESULTS: We find strong statistical evidence of a shift in gender effects in favour of female applicants in the first tier, the Veni (p < .001). Significant gender differences are not found in the two other tiers, the Vidi and Vici schemes. CONCLUSIONS: In recent years, female applicants are more likely to be awarded with a Veni grant than male applicants and this gender gap has increased over time. This suggests that gender differences still exist in the assessment of Talent Programme submissions, albeit in a different direction than a decade ago.

The intersection of health and housing: Analysis of the research portfolios of the National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

BACKGROUND: Housing is a major social determinant of health that affects health status and outcomes across the lifespan. OBJECTIVES: An interagency portfolio analysis assessed the level of funding invested in "health and housing research" from fiscal years (FY) 2016-2020 across the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to characterize the existing health and housing portfolio and identify potential areas for additional research and collaboration. METHODS/RESULTS: We identified NIH, HUD, and CDC research projects that were relevant to both health and housing and characterized them by housing theme, health topic, population, and study design. We organized the assessment of the individual housing themes by four overarching housing-to-health pathways. From FY 2016-2020, NIH, HUD, and CDC funded 565 health and housing projects combined. The Neighborhood pathway was most common, followed by studies of the Safety and Quality pathway. Studies of the Affordability and Stability pathways were least common. Health topics such as substance use, mental health, and cardiovascular disease were most often studied. Most studies were observational (66%); only a little over one fourth (27%) were intervention studies. DISCUSSION: This review of the research grant portfolios of three major federal funders of health and housing research in the United States describes the diversity and substantial investment in research at the intersection between housing and health. Analysis of the combined portfolio points to gaps in studies on causal pathways linking housing to health outcomes. The findings highlight the need for research to better understand the causal pathways from housing to health and prevention intervention research, including rigorous evaluation of housing interventions and policies to improve health and well-being.

Why Stating Hypotheses in Grant Applications Is Unnecessary.

This Viewpoint argues that a hypothesis-centric approach to writing grant applications is problematic and instead suggests that funding applications should be evaluated by their relevance and methodological quality rather than by qualitative assertions before the study is conducted.

Massive study of dog aging likely to lose funding.

Organizers hope to save long-running project on canine aging and longevity.

National Institutes of Health grant funding for cerebrovascular diseases.

BACKGROUND: Federal research funding is highly sought after but may be challenging to attain. A clear understanding of funding for specific diseases, such as cerebrovascular disorders, might help researchers regarding which National Institutes of Health (NIH) institutes fund research into specific disorders and grant types. OBJECTIVE: To examine the current scope of NIH grant funding for cerebrovascular conditions. METHODS: The NIH-developed RePORTER was used to extract active NIH-funded studies related to cerebrovascular diseases through January 2023. Duplicate studies were removed, and projects were manually screened and labeled in subcategories as clinical and basic science and as research subcategories. Extracted data included total funding, grant types, institutions that received funding, and diseases studied. Python (version 3.9) and SciPy library were used for statistical analyses. RESULTS: We identified 1232 cerebrovascular projects across seven diseases with US$699 952 926 in total funding. The cerebrovascular diseases with the greatest number of grants were ischemic stroke (705, or 57.2% of all funded projects), carotid disease (193, or 15.7%), and hemorrhagic stroke (163, or 13.2%). R01 grants were the most common mechanism of funding (632 grants, or 51.3%). The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) funded the most projects (504 projects; US$325 536 405), followed by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) (376 projects; US$216 784 546). CONCLUSION: Cerebrovascular disease receives roughly US$700 million in NIH funding. Ischemic stroke accounts for the majority of NIH-funded cerebrovascular projects, and R01 grants are the most common funding mechanism. Notably, NHLBI provides a large proportion of funding, in addition to NINDS.