R2HC Third Call for Proposals Launch Anne Harmer R2HC Programme Manager 4 June 2015

Agenda ELRHA and the R2HC programme 2. Guiding principles 3. Third Call for proposals 4. Overview of R2HC earlier calls 5. Q & A

ELRHA supports partnerships between researchers and practitioners to improve the effectiveness of humanitarian action Hosted by Save the Children www.elrha.org Launched in 2009. Based at Save the Children in Cardiff. Recognising that higher education institutions represent a resource that can and should be harnessed to support the humanitarian endeavour, ELRHA was set up to help meet this challenge. The organisation aims to provide a bridge between the humanitarian and higher education communities. Since then, ELRHA has made a valuable contribution to the diverse humanitarian stakeholder communities, offering services and support to a range of partners. ELRHA aims to create a vibrant collaborative community dedicated to meeting the humanitarian challenges of today and those of the future. There are 4 current programmes: Professionalisation , Humanitarian Innovation Fund, Research and Effective Partnerships

R2HC Programme Partnership ELRHA works in partnership with the Wellcome Trust and DFID on the R2HC programme. The R2HC Initiative was launched by DFID and WT (as programme funders) in 2013, with ELRHA overseeing the programme’s execution and management.

The R2HC Programme aims to improve health outcomes by strengthening the evidence base for public health interventions in humanitarian crises Globally today we are facing increasing complexity and severe humanitarian crises. Anticipating a future of increasing human vulnerability to such events, the need for expertise and research dedicated to finding solutions to humanitarian challenges has never been greater. The global community responds to humanitarian crises in a variety of ways, yet rarely do we take stock of how effective such interventions are – either in terms of addressing the needs of the affected populations, nor in terms of cost effectiveness. The R2HC programme fulfils a unique role in aiming to improve health outcomes by strengthening the evidence base for public health interventions in humanitarian crises, by linking research and humanitarian organisations to conduct research and disseminate the findings for knowledge sharing.

2. Guiding principles R2HC aims to improve health outcomes by strengthening the evidence base for public health interventions in humanitarian crises. R2HC will encourage world class research through fostering collaboration between operational humanitarian agencies and research institutions. R2HC aims to bridge the gap between research and practice in relation to public health interventions in humanitarian crises.

Background studies you Humanitarian Health Evidence Review: identified research gaps that have informed the focus of the Calls for Proposals Ethical Framework: provides guidance on ethics related issues R2HC began by commissioning the LSHTM to conduct a Health Evidence Review which looked at research addressing the following issues, and across all relevant thematic areas: Systems & Delivery: Effectiveness and feasibility of: Inter-sectoral interventions Scaling up Task shifting Health system resilience Context: Dispersed, urban, rural populations Continuity of care (before, during, and after crises) Middle-income countries Methods: Valid and robust assessment methods Certain designs (e.g. cost effectiveness) Mixed methods approaches R2HC also commission an independent consultant to develop an Ethical Framework to guide thinking around ethics in humanitarian crises.

Results: Injury & Rehabilitation, WASH, NCDs, SRH GBV, Mental Health Effectiveness of health interventions Effectiveness of delivery mechanisms Injury & Rehabilitation, WASH, NCDs, SRH GBV, Mental Health Nutrition, Communicable Diseases On the basis of the identified gaps, the 3 subsequent R2HC Call Guidelines have been prepared. We would encourage interested applicants to read the Health Evidence Review to ensure that any research proposed will contribute to an existing knowledge gap.

The value added of partnerships Evidence can improve practice Practice informs and prioritises research Partnerships can connect contextual humanitarian understanding with expert research capacity Partnerships can enable contextual research to be scaled up or applied in other humanitarian contexts For health interventions in humanitarian crises, evidence is a vital tool in informing decisions that humanitarian actors make on the ground, and influencing decisions that donor governments make in terms of deciding what to support when they respond to humanitarian crises. Evidence can best be captured by conducting research to identify what works best in any given context. Such research needs to be grounded in the reality of crises – if research outcomes are to be useful, it is vital that research is rooted in practice.

Partnership challenges Different expectations Time frames (both perceived and real) Incentive structures and aims Translation of research into practice, and practice into research Data ownership Practical challenges Translation of research into practice, and practice into research – are the mechanisms, expertise, fora and resources in place? Practical challenges can include poor security, inaccessible or remote locations in need, cultural or institutional misunderstandings, or a lack of flexible resourcing.

4. R2HC Third Call for Expressions of Interest One application channel, 2 types of grants: Core grants: known focus and location Rapid response grants Research in acute phase of rapid-onset emergency Mechanism for rapid disbursement of funds if and when ‘trigger event’ occurs Approval of grants is conditional and dependent on event actually occurring at uncertain future date

Type and phase of crisis Third Call focus Thematic areas Communicable diseases, including epidemics SRH and/or GBV Cost effectiveness Ethical issues Type and phase of crisis Natural disaster Conflict Ongoing/protracted Acute Post-emergency Early recovery Contexts Urban/rural Camp/general population Multi-sector integrated Health systems & services Applications will need to be positioned in the context of the existing evidence and the call priorities.

Robust, innovative research methods Quantitative research Trials Qualitative research Evaluation approaches Mixed methods New methodological approaches Classic scientific approach Evaluation approaches to improve existing intervention Evaluation of a new tool or intervention Research that advances new methodological approaches in challenging contexts Mixed methods

Research scope and contexts Comparative (multi-country) research Replicable in multiple contexts Multi-sector integrated responses Priority crisis areas including ongoing and sudden ‘Level 3’ crises Likely impact of the research is important, ensuring application and replicability in contexts other than the one where the research is conducted.

Uptake and dissemination Are publications foreseen in respected academic journals? Does a sound plan exist for uptake and dissemination of research findings, differentiated by audience? What steps will be taken to ensure that research findings will be put into practice? Does a plan exist for uptake and dissemination of research findings, differentiated by audience potentially including: humanitarian actors; academic institutions and/or scientific community; policy makers, government and non-governmental organisations and other key stakeholders in the country of research; those affected by the research.

Funding availability Total funding available in this Call: up to £3m No ceiling for individual applications Only indicative budgets needed for EOIs £10K seed funding available for successful EOI applicants Budgets can cover: Partnership development, travel, meetings; preliminary data collection to assist in proposal development. Project duration: up to 24 months EOIs require only indicative, not detailed budgets. Applicants may request support for personnel costs, travel costs, reasonable equipment costs, and other items so as to cover the full research costs in the relevant setting. Seed funding is only available for successful applicants invited to develop full proposal after the EOI has ben approved.

Who can apply Open to partnership applications from any part of the world. Lead applicant: Eligible: Research institution, non-profit, UN agency, public or government Ineligible: Individual, profit seeking enterprise Principal investigator: Must have previous experience of relevant research Research consortium: Research/operational partners Local/international partners In support of the R2HC programme objectives described above, research consortia must include both research institutions and operational organisations. Applicants from lower and middle income countries are particularly encouraged to develop Expressions of Interest, forming partnerships with others as necessary. Applicants from higher income countries are encouraged to seek research partners to join their consortium from lower and middle income countries as relevant to their research proposals.

Application process Expression of Interest Short-listing Full Application Appraisal Contracting 3 June 2015: Call opens 20 Jul 2015: Call closes 24 Aug 2015: Invitations to submit full application 14 Dec 2015: Deadline for submission March 2016: Funding committee decisions announced April - Sept 2016: Grants begin There will be a two-stage selection process for the R2HC 3rd Call for Proposals: an initial Expression of Interest, and a subsequent Full Application. Full Applications will be assessed by an independent expert Funding Committee which will make recommendations on proposals to be funded within the available budget. Seed funding of up to £10,000 will be available for those Expressions of Interest selected to go forward to the second stage of the application process to support the development of new partnerships between research institutions and humanitarian organisations, and to undertake preliminary data collection if necessary as part of the proposal development process. Full guidelines and application form will be made available at second stage only.

Available on R2HC website Link directly to on-line application 2. Application documents Call for Proposal Guidelines for Applicants Instructions for on-line applications Frequently Asked Questions Other reference documents www.elrha.org/r2hc

Application review criteria Impact Methodology Feasibility Value for £ Team and partnerships Dissemination and uptake Anticipated criteria. Standardised scoring system to reach funding recommendations. Impact: Is there a gap in the existing evidence base? Potential for +ve short term/immediate impact& broader long term impact? Appropriate dissemination plan in place? Methodology: Technically sound & appropriate for the research question and objectives? Is need for baseline data & M&E taken into account? Appropriate balance of quantitative and qualitative methods? Feasibility: Sound operational plan? Realistic timeframe ? Evidence that the research will be well managed ? Is the budget sufficient to cover resources required? Have risks been accurately assessed and are mitigation plans in place? Value: How cost effective is the intervention in question (if relevant)? Does the budget seem reasonable , and do costs represent good value for money, including when taking into consideration likely impact of the research? Partnerships: Evidence of strong partnership between research institutions and operational organisations? Are in-country partnerships in place? Do the lead organisation & PI have the necessary experience and expertise? Does the overall research team have relevant experience and expertise?

5. Overview of R2HC earlier calls Application outcomes Levels of funding approved Lessons learned

R2HC First Call: Review outcomes 100 EoI applications received and screened 80 eligible applications reviewed 20 ineligible 29 applications approved for shortlist 10 rapid response proposals 28 full proposals reviewed (inc technical review) 2 rapid response proposals approved 6 core grant proposals approved

R2HC Second Call: Review outcomes 115 EoI applications received and screened 99 eligible applications reviewed 16 ineligible 42 applications approved for shortlist 37 Full proposals reviewed (inc technical review) 7 rapid response proposals reviewed 9 core grant proposals approved 1 rapid response proposal approved

Summary: existing grants and approved funds Core grants: 15 Rapid response grants: 3 Total approved funding: £5,737,846 Lowest funded: £79,834 Highest funded: £599,939 Average amount requested: £326,000

Recommendations from earlier calls Ensure research is within scope of the call (research and humanitarian context) 2. Be precise about your research objective. Be clear about the intervention that you are wishing to study. 3. Ensure your methodology is clearly articulated and designed to answer the research question(s). 4. Ensure that the research outcome will be applicable beyond the immediate context of the study

Partnerships in R2HC previous calls Successful applicants successfully bridged robust scientific methodology with humanitarian expertise and priorities. Many successful applications were from established partnerships, with strong collaboration already in place For others, seed funding was vital in moving from tentative discussion to fully developed partnerships Applications funded in first two calls had strong methodologies and clear scientific rigour. They were also composed of partnerships representing people with health research experience and those with expertise in humanitarian operations. A balance between international and local expertise generally provides a good balance of complementary skills. All of the funded research to date has been led by developed country academic institutions and/or international NGOs/Ios (often from USA or UK). All have included partners from other countries including low or middle income countries. Thus far, most successful applications were from established partnerships, implying that the best collaborations take time to mature and be successful. However, even for these partnerships R2HC may have been the first time they had been funded to work as research partners. For other applications, R2HC seed funding allowed them to meet in person for the first time.

Questions and Answers

Thank you