Application Guidelines

Types of Applications

The Foundation is currently accepting Research Project (RP) proposals and Existing Program Evaluation (EPE) proposals.

The Foundation is particularly focused on supporting projects that are consistent with a strength-based perspective and have the potential to inform future educational research, practice, major philanthropic giving, and/or public policy.

The proposed project may span up to three years (this applies to both Existing Program Evaluations and to Research Project proposals). Projects that would only analyze existing data sets (i.e., secondary data analyses; no new data collected) are expected to be conducted within 1.5 years.

Aims for Existing Program Evaluation (EPE proposals):

• Primary aim:
  • What works: The primary aim must concern evaluating the effectiveness of programs designed to promote positive cognitive and/or achievement outcomes for children (birth through 18 years).

• Secondary aims may also focus on one or more of the following:
  • What works for whom, under what conditions: Investigate variations in program effects; that is, test for moderation effects that inform whether effects are stronger for certain groups and/or under certain conditions than other groups or conditions.
  • Reasons for effects: Investigate mechanisms through which effects occur; that is, test for mediation effects that inform why the program is effective.
  • Cost-benefit analyses: Compare the total costs of the program (start-up and ongoing operational costs) with its estimated monetary benefits to determine the net cost or benefit associated with the program.

• Primary and secondary aims:
  • The Primary and any secondary aims must focus on educational research that will inform future education research, practice, philanthropic funding, and/or public policy.

Aims for Research Project (RP) proposals:

• Primary and secondary aims:
  • The Primary and any secondary aims must focus on developmental or educational research that will inform future education research, practice, philanthropic funding, and/or public policy.
  • Examples of this type of grant include (but are not limited to): measurement development, studies investigating factors associated with achievement outcomes, studies investigating strength families bring to the learning environment and how those can be capitalized upon to promote children’s learning and achievement outcomes, and policy studies.

---

Submission Timetable

LOI Submissions*	Stage 1 Due	Invitation Notification	Stage 2 Due	Funding Notification	Funding Start Date Range
6/1/25 – 7/31/25	8/1/25	10/15/25	12/1/25	2/15/26	5/1/26 – 8/31/26
9/15/25 – 10/30/25	11/1/25	1/21/26	3/15/26	5/21/26	9/1/26 – 12/31/26
1/15/26 – 2/28/26	3/1/26	5/21/26	7/15/26	9/21/26	1/1/27 – 4/30/27
5/15/26 – 6/30/26	7/1/26	9/21/26	11/15/26	1/21/27	5/1/27 – 8/31/27
9/15-26 – 10/30/26	11/1/26	1/21/27	3/15/27	5/21/27	9/1/27 – 12/31/27
1/15/27 – 2/28/27	3/1/27	5/21/27	7/15/27	9/21/27	1/1/28 – 4/30/28

Stage 1 Applications are accepted throughout the year. Submission deadlines and funding cycles are as follows:

*LOIs are accepted during these dates. If invited to submit a Stage 1 application, applicant can submit for this cycle or any future cycle (i.e., an applicant can submit for this cycle or wait to submit their Stage 1 application in a later cycle). If they choose to wait and submit for a later cycle, they are NOT required to resubmit their LOI.

Application Process

1) Letter of Intent

The application process for all grants begins with the submission of an LOI.

Prior to submitting an LOI, please review Submission Timetable above, all information concerning Submission Review Criteria (including linked pages concerning factors that disqualify applications and review criteria for EPE and RP applications) and Funding Policies below, and the FAQ page on the website.

To submit an LOI, provide the following information in a document (.pdf format):

1. Title of the proposed project.
2. The estimated timeline of the proposed project.
3. An estimate of the total budget that would be requested from the BEF (see below for information concerning indirect costs).
4. The name and contact information for the Principal Investigator.
5. The name of the sponsoring institution.
6. Other support sought or secured for the project, if applicable.
7. State how you heard of this Brady Education Foundation grant opportunity.
8. A 1,000-word (maximum) statement that describes:
   • The major research questions or aims of the proposed project and the specific hypotheses to be tested.
   • A brief, but strong rationale that includes:
     • The significance of the issue that the proposed project would address.
     • How the proposed work has the potential to make a significant impact concerning education in one or more of the following areas: research, practice, philanthropic giving, policy.
   • A brief description of the proposed methodology, including:
     • Sample.
     • Research design.
     • Key constructs, data sources, and procedures for data collection.
   • A brief summary of the data analytic plan.

If you include a reference list, it will not be counted towards the 1,000 words.

Document must be in .pdf format. Submit as an attachment via email to applications@BradyEducationFoundation.org

When you submit your LOI, you can expect to receive a confirmation email. If you do NOT receive a confirmation email within three days of submitting, please email applications@BradyEducationFoundation.org.

2) Stage 1 Application

If the LOI is approved, the applicant will be invited to submit a Stage 1 application. Stage 1 applications are accepted by invitation only.

Stage 1 applications must be submitted using a Brady Education Foundation application form (either a Stage 1 Program Evaluation Application (EPE) or a Stage 1 Research Project Application (RP), depending on the study aims). Applications that do not use either form will be disqualified and not reviewed by the Board.

When submitting a Stage 1 application, the following will also be required (the application form provides complete instructions for each):

• Budget justification
• Timeline with benchmarks
• CVs/Resumes of each key personnel (maximum 3 pages)
• Letter of Support from each partnering organization
• Data sharing agreements (if applicable)
• Letter of Approval from applicant institution / organization
• Proof of tax-exempt status for applicant and partnering institutions / organizations

Applications are submitted as one .pdf document to: applications@BradyEducationFoundation.org.

When you submit your application, you can expect to receive a confirmation email. If you do NOT receive a confirmation email within three days of submitting, please email applications@BradyEducationFoundation.org.

3) Stage 2 Application

Full Board review determines if applicant is approved to submit a Stage 2 applicatio

If approved by the Full Board, the applicant will be invited to submit a Stage 2 application. Stage 2 applications are accepted by invitation only.

Stage 2 application guidelines are provided when invited to submit.

Review Criteria Information

Prior to submitting an LOI, all applicants are strongly encouraged to read through the criteria used to disqualify and review Stage 1 proposals.

• Download the complete guidelines concerning:
  • Factors that cause applications to be disqualified
  • Review criteria for EPE applications
  • Review criteria for RP applications

In general, factors considered when reviewing an LOI include (but are not limited to):

• Specific aims:
  • The specific aims align with the mission of the Foundation to inform promoting children’s academic, achievement, and cognitive outcomes.
  • A strength-based orientation is evident.
• Potential impact:
  • The project is likely to significantly inform educational research, practice in educational settings, major philanthropic giving concerning education, and / or education policy.
  • For program evaluations, the project assesses the impact of programs that are or have the potential to be implemented at scale (rather than programs that are limited to one or a few sites).
• Proposed methodology:
  • The proposed study employs rigorous methods (quantitative, qualitative, or mixed) that are commensurate to its goals.
  • The study’s design, methods, and analysis plan fit the proposed research questions.
  • The methods will result in high quality data to address the aims.
  • The quantitative and/or qualitative analysis plan demonstrates awareness of the strengths and limits of the specific analytic techniques and how they will be applied in the current case.
  • If proposing mixed methods, plans for integrating the methods and data are clear and compelling.
  • If proposing quantitative methods, the study will have adequate statistical power to detect meaningful effects.
  • The potential generalizability of findings.
• Feasibility:
  • The proposed methods and time frame are realistic.
  • Evidence that the project can be completed as described (e.g., strong pre-existing collaboration with the program to be evaluated, access to school settings to conduct the proposed research, plans to obtain access to administrative data sets are likely to be successful).
• Budget:
  • The total budget is aligned with the capacity of the Foundation.
  • For studies that would collect data: the requested budget is on average $125,0000 per year or less (maximum 3-year timeline).
  • For studies that would only conduct analyses of existing data sets (e.g., administrative data): the requested budget is less than $100,000 (1- to 1.5-year timeline).
• BEF policies:
  • The proposed project is consistent with BEF policies (e.g., sponsoring institution is a university or college (public or non-profit, private) or large, non-profit research organization). Review funding policies below, documents concerning disqualified applications and review criteria for EPE and RP applications, and FAQ for all policies.

Download the complete guidelines concerning:

• Factors that cause applications to be disqualified
• Review criteria for EPE applications
• Review criteria for RP applications

The Foundation favors projects that:

• Represent strong collaborative relationships between researchers and practitioners and other community stakeholders (as appropriate).
• Projects that include a member of the team (not necessarily the PI) who has experience leading projects of similar or greater scope. Applicants at all career stages may apply; teams are evaluated in terms of their abilities to successfully carry out the proposed work. We welcome applications that include both early career scholars and more experienced scholars in the leadership team (PI / co-PI level).
• For Existing Program Evaluations, specifically:
  • Projects that evaluate programs consistent with strength-based approaches rather than deficit models.
  • Projects for which operational funding for the program is already secured so that funding from the Foundation is used only for evaluation activities.
  • Projects that employ randomized control designs (including wait-list control designs when assignment to wait-list condition is randomized) to assess the impact of the program. Comparison group designs may also be employed when baseline equivalence between groups can be assessed and strong efforts are made to control for potential confounding variables (e.g., due to selection effects).
  • Projects that evaluate programs that show promise of being feasible, accessible, and sustainable.
  • Projects that evaluate effects on measurable child outcomes.

Funding Policies

Definitions:

Direct costs are costs that can be specifically attributed to the proposed project. Examples include the proportion of key personnel and staff salaries, travel expenses, and supplies needed to complete the scope of work proposed. How each cost is directly attributable to the project should be made clear in the budget justification.

Indirect costs (also known as “overhead costs” and “facilities and administrative costs”) are administrative or other expenses that are not directly attributable to the specific project being proposed and are instead expenses that support the entire operations of the grantee organization and are incurred as a result of common or shared activities (i.e., activities related to overall general operations and activities shared among projects and/or functions of the institution).

BEF Indirect Costs Policy:

The Foundation recognizes that there are categories of costs that can be considered direct or indirect depending on the accounting practices of the grantee organization and the nature of the cost relative to the proposed project’s specific aims. Given that different types of organizations have different financial structures and accounting practices, the following guidance is provided for the two types of organizations that conduct projects that the Foundation typically funds:

1. universities and colleges (public or private), and
2. non-profit research organizations.

If your organization is neither of these types, please contact the Foundation at applications@bradyeducationfoundation.org.

We encourage all who are considering submitting an application to contact the Foundation at applications@bradyeducationfoundation.org if they have questions about this policy.

Please note, after an application is submitted, the Foundation may ask for additional information to determine if a proposed expense is a direct or indirect cost and to fully understand the total cost needed to achieve the aims of the project.

Universities and Colleges (public or private):

• As described above, indirect costs are administrative or other expenses that are not directly attributable to the specific project being proposed and are instead expenses that support the entire operations of the grantee organization and are incurred as a result of common or shared activities.
  • Examples include general administrative support (including salary and fringe benefits for administrative personnel, grants management and accounting, general finance management, human resources, and IT support personnel); rent; utilities; phones; internet; general office equipment (including personal computers) and supplies not directly attributable to the project; word processing and spreadsheet programs; statistical software typically used to analyze data that is made available across projects; computer network charges and utilities; insurance; accounting/bookkeeping fees; and audit fees. 
  • Proposals from universities or colleges (public or private) that include any of these indirect cost items as direct costs will be disqualified and will not be reviewed by the Board.

• Indirect cost rates for grants to universities and colleges:
  • Indirect costs may not be charged on grants that have a total project budget (including all years of the grant) of $50,000 or less (i.e., the indirect costs rate on grants $50,000 or less is 0%).
  • For grants that have a total project budget (including all years of the grant) over $50,000, the Foundation caps indirect costs for both primary institutions and subcontracts at 10% of the direct costs of the project.
  • Primary institution may NOT charge additional indirect costs on subcontract funds.

Large, Non-profit Research Organizations:

• As described above, indirect costs are administrative or other expenses that are not directly attributable to the specific project being proposed and are instead expenses that support the entire operations of the grantee organization and are incurred as a result of common or shared activities.
  • Examples include personnel costs associated with general administrative support, travel not directly related to the project, and supplies not directly attributable to the project.
  • Items that may generally be considered indirect costs (e.g., grants management and accounting, rent, utilities) may be listed as direct costs in the amount that can be demonstrated to be required and allocable to the project to meet its specific aims.
    • For example, certain personnel (e.g., accountants, IT support personnel) may conduct activities that support the central organization (e.g., manage the bookkeeping and costs for the organization); these would be considered indirect costs. These same personnel may also have duties that support the specific project being proposed (e.g., manage the bookkeeping and cost for the proposed project); the percentage of their time managing and supporting the specific project may be considered direct costs.
    • For example, facility expenses (e.g., rent, utilities) are generally considered to be indirect costs, but facility expenses that can be demonstrated to be directly attributable and allocable to key personnel working on the specific project may be included as direct costs.

• Indirect cost rate for grants to non-profit research organizations:
  • The Foundation caps indirect costs for both primary institutions and subcontracts at 10% of the direct costs of the project.
  • In the budget justification, organizations should provide a general description of what is covered by the indirect costs requested.

Other Funding Policies:

• Principal Investigators must be researchers at:
  • a university or college (public or non-profit, private), or
  • a large, non-profit research organization that has a strong history of conducting high quality and impactful research.
• Funding must be through the Principal Investigator’s home institution (i.e., the university, college, or non-profit research organization).
• Co-PI structures are permitted. The Foundation expects that at least one member of the leadership team of the proposed work (at the PI/co-PI level) will be representative of the populations included in the study sample.
• Grants are awarded to nonprofit organizations only. This applies to the sponsoring institution as well as subcontracts.
• The Foundation will support up to two key personnel to attend one conference in the last (or only) year of the project, with an allowable cost of $1,500 per person. For Existing Program Evaluations, the Foundation will support one practitioner or service provider from the program to attend the conference as well at the same rate.
• The Foundation follows National Institutes of Health guidelines for salary caps.