We are proud to announce five new research grants, totaling over $2.7 million, in support of four studies on ways to reduce inequality in youth outcomes and one study on strategies for improving the use of research evidence in ways that benefit young people. Approved at the most recent meeting of the Foundation’s Trustees, these grants will help build theory and empirical evidence in our two focus areas.
In the reducing inequality focus area, studies will investigate whether a culturally-adapted advocacy program for parents improve outcomes for Latino, Spanish-speaking young adults with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities; how digital help-seeking might be measured in ways that support increased access to mental health care among Black adolescents; whether state income support policies that are inclusive of immigrant families improve parental employment and income outcomes and child health and education outcomes; and how a state policy designed to reduce structural barriers to high school graduation for immigrant-origin and language minority youth has impacted student outcomes.
The study in the use of research evidence focus area will build on previous Foundation-funded work on the Research-to-Policy Collaboration model, which provides a supportive infrastructure to integrate research evidence in policy. In this study, the team proposes a new model to examine whether stronger institutional leadership at research intensive universities, targeted programming for institutional leaders, improved engagement incentives, and equity-focused recruitment lead to more effective and sustained research use by Congressional staffers.
“These studies have proposed exciting work with the potential to inform state policy and practice decisions that improve outcomes for Black, Latinx, and immigrant-origin youth. We are proud to support these studies as they contribute to our knowledge of strategies to reduce inequality and improve the lives of young people,” said Senior Program Officer Jenny Irons, who oversees grants on reducing inequality.
“Institutions can play a key role in facilitating relationships between researchers and policymakers, and ultimately improve the use of research evidence in decision-making. We are excited by the tremendous work the team has already accomplished through the Research-to-Policy Collaboration model, and look forward to learning more from this study,” said Program Officer Anupreet Sidhu, who oversees grants on improving the use of research evidence.
Focus Area: Reducing Inequality
Reducing Inequitable Outcomes for Latino Youth with Intellectual and/or Developmental Disabilities: A Multisite Randomized-Controlled Trial
Meghan Burke, Dept. of Special Education, Vanderbilt University
$599,985, 4/1/2026–3/31/2029
Does a culturally-adapted advocacy program for parents improve outcomes for Latino, Spanish-speaking young adults with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities?
At age 18, youth with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities (IDD) fall off a service cliff upon transitioning from school to the complexity of the adult service delivery system. Without services, adults with IDD have worse academic, social, behavioral, and economic outcomes. Latino, Spanish-speaking families face unique and exacerbated barriers in accessing services related to language, cultural differences with service providers, and discrimination. This study builds on a pilot randomized-controlled trial to test the efficacy of ASISTIR (Apoyando a nueStros hIjo/as con autiSmo obTener servIcios de tRansición), an advocacy program that educates caregivers about disability services, on improving their children’s access to services and academic and economic outcomes. It uses a randomized waitlist-controlled trial in three sites (The Arcs of New Mexico, Arizona, and Rhode Island) to test the efficacy of an advocacy program that educates caregivers about disability services on improving their children’s access to services and academic and economic outcomes. Burke and colleagues will conduct interviews with intervention group participants one year after program completion to explore the experience of the intervention and will also analyze program costs. Findings will inform practice at three partner organizations and could be more widely scaled to improve outcomes for Latino young adults with IDD.
Co-Developing a Measure of Digital Mental Health Help-Seeking with and for Black Adolescents
Aijah Goodwin, Dept. of Psychiatry, University of Maryland Baltimore; Rachel Hanebatt, Dept. of Psychiatry, Georgetown University; Gabriell Merrin, Dept. of Human Development and Family Studies, Syracuse University
$304,677, 6/1/2026–5/31/2028
How can digital help-seeking be measured in ways that support increased access to mental health care and service utilization among Black adolescents?
The prevalence of anxiety, depression, and other mood disorders is rising among Black youth compared to White youth. Black youth are less likely to utilize mental health services due to barriers like cultural mistrust, affordability, stigma, and accessibility, and are more likely to prefer self-reliance and personal coping. Digital mental health platforms have the potential to increase access to evidence-based, culturally relevant mental health supports and services. This study develops and validates a measure of digital help-seeking among Black adolescents. Goodwin and colleagues will work with an advisory board of Black adolescents to develop the Mental Health Technological and Cultural Help-seeking Scale (MH-TeCH Scale), which they will then refine through cognitive interviews with Black adolescents and expert reviews. They will use exploratory factor analysis to establish the initial factor structure of the scale and confirmatory factor analysis to validate the scale, examine measurement invariance, and explore population heterogeneity. The scale can be used to enhance the ability to assess and utilize digital mental health and technology to improve the reach and utilization of mental health supports and services for underserved Black adolescents.
Impacts of Changing Immigrant Eligibility for US Anti-Poverty Programs on Inequalities in Youth Outcomes
Rita Hamad, Dept. of Social & Behavioral Science, Harvard University; Justin White, Dept. of Health, Law, Policy & Mgmt., Harvard University; Pamela Joshi, School of Social Work, Boston University
$299,999, 4/1/2026-3/31/2028
Do state income support policies that are inclusive of immigrant families improve parental employment and income outcomes and child health and education outcomes?
One in four U.S. children lives in an immigrant family, and these youth face large and persistent inequalities in poverty, food insecurity, school attendance, and health compared with children in non-immigrant families. State and federal Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Child Tax Credit (CTC) policies are among the nation’s largest anti-poverty programs, yet many have historically excluded immigrant families. Over the past decade, 13 states have adopted more inclusive EITC and CTC provisions for immigrants. Prior research shows that tax credits can improve family income, reduce poverty, and support youth development, but existing studies largely overlook immigrant families. This study examines recent state policy changes to assess whether making tax credits more inclusive for immigrants narrows disparities in youth economic, educational, and health outcomes and which immigrant subgroups benefit most. Hamad and colleagues will use quasi-experimental methods, including difference-in-differences and event study models, to evaluate the effects of varying immigrant eligibility for state EITC and CTC policies on inequalities in child economic outcomes, educational, and health outcomes. To strengthen causal inference, they will incorporate multiple identification strategies such as triple-differences analyses and conduct extensive robustness checks. Findings will offer evidence on the efficacy of tax policy to improve outcomes for immigrant youth and their families, which could inform state-level policy changes in the near future and federal policy in the longer term.
Implementation and Impact of Access to Linguistic Inclusion in Oregon
Karen Thompson, College of Education, Oregon State University; Mary Martinez-Wenzl, Oregon Dept. of Education; Ilana Umansky, Dept. of Education Studies, University of Oregon
$599,999, 4/1/2026–3/31/2029
How has a state policy designed to reduce structural barriers to high school graduation for immigrant-origin and language minority youth been implemented, and how has it impacted student outcomes?
English learners (ELs) are substantially less likely to graduate from high school than their peers and are less prepared for postsecondary education. In 2021, Oregon passed Access to Linguistic Inclusion (ALI), which aims to recognize and give credit for ELs’ knowledge and skills, reducing barriers toward accumulating credits for graduation. This study will examine the implementation of ALI in Oregon school districts and postsecondary institutions and its impact on academic preparation, graduation, and postsecondary outcomes among ELs. Thompson and colleagues will use surveys and interviews with school district educators and higher education admissions officers to examine implementation. They will draw on longitudinal student data for English learners (spanning school years 2013-14 through 2025-26) to estimate the impact of the policy on high school and post-secondary outcomes using a set of two-way fixed effects and difference-in-differences models. Findings will inform policy implementation in Oregon and provide insight into the effectiveness of asset-based policies for reducing inequality among ELs.
Focus Area: Improving the Use of Research Evidence
Building National Infrastructure for Improving the Use of Research Evidence For Children & Families
Daniel Crowley and Jennifer Taylor Scott, Depts. of Human Development and Family Studies and Public Policy, Pennsylvania State University
$925,000, 4/1/2026–3/31/2029
Can a model designed to strengthen infrastructure to support institutions in facilitating researcher–policy engagement improve research use in policymaking?
Congressional policymaking about issues affecting children and families occurs in a complex and dynamic environment with constraints on staff capacity. Improving research use in this context requires strategies that are relational, agile, and responsive to legislative workstreams. Prior experimental trials of the Research-to-Policy Collaboration (RPC) model, which provides a supportive infrastructure to integrate research evidence in policy, have demonstrated an increase in congressional use of research evidence. But scaling the model to sustain long-term policy engagement requires institutional change. In this study, the team proposes a new Research-to-Policy Collaboration Institution (RPC-I) model that integrates institutional interventions with the existing RPC approach to build research use infrastructure to facilitate researcher policymaker engagement. The team will examine whether stronger institutional leadership at research intensive universities, targeted programming for institutional leaders, improved engagement incentives, and equity-focused recruitment lead to more effective and sustained research use by Congressional staffers. The study uses a dual community randomized-controlled trial to experimentally evaluate the RPC-I’s impact on research use. They will use multilevel modeling and mixed-effects models to assess outcomes at the institutional level and congressional level. Findings will contribute to literature on scalable institutional interventions to improve and sustain the use of research evidence in children and family policymaking.
