Federal agencies publish a funding opportunity, a deadline, and a set of review criteria, and any eligible investigator can apply. Private foundations rarely work that way. Each of the major foundations that fund research at institutional or programme scale — endowing a centre, equipping a laboratory, launching a multi-year initiative — has its own theory of what is worth funding, its own relationship-driven approach route, and its own rules on what it will and will not reimburse. The practical question for a research office or a principal investigator is not “am I eligible” in the federal sense, but “does my work match this foundation’s stated priorities, and do I have (or can I build) the right entry point.”
This guide is a map across twelve of the private foundations that fund work at that scale, not a restatement of what CASRAI already covers foundation-by-foundation. Where a foundation has its own dedicated guide, this page links to it for the current programme names, deadlines, and award figures rather than repeating them here — foundations restructure programmes often enough that a single page of record per funder is the only way to keep the detail current. This page’s job is the comparison a reader cannot get from any single funder’s site: which foundation is even the right one to approach, how the approach mechanics differ from a federal proposal, and what the indirect-cost reality does to a project’s actual budget.
This guide covers foundations that fund programmes, centres, equipment, and institutional initiatives. For foundations and societies that fund individual early-career researchers through postdoctoral and junior-faculty fellowships, see Early-Career Research Fellowships — a related but distinct funder set with different eligibility logic (the applicant, not the institution, is usually the legal grantee).
The twelve foundations at a glance
“Typical award scale” below is deliberately qualitative where a foundation’s own page states figures that change by cycle or programme tier — follow the link to that foundation’s CASRAI guide or its own site for the current number before budgeting a proposal around it.
| Foundation | Disciplinary focus | What it funds | Typical award scale | Open, LOI, or invitation-only | Institutional limited submission? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Burroughs Wellcome Fund | Biomedical science, with an emphasis on the transition into independent faculty positions | Individual career-transition awards (CASI, CAMS, PATH, PDEP, GDEP) rather than centre- or equipment-scale grants | Multi-year career awards; see the BWF guide for current figures by programme | Open competition with institutional nomination limits on several programmes | Yes — several BWF programmes cap the number of nominees per institution |
| W.M. Keck Foundation | High-risk, paradigm-challenging basic science and engineering; also medical research | Project-scale research grants through its Science & Engineering and Medical Research programs | Multi-year project grants; see the Keck guide for current figures | Staged, letter-of-inquiry-first process — a full proposal is by invitation only after LOI review | Yes — Keck limits the number of LOIs an institution may submit per cycle |
| Kavli Foundation | Astrophysics, nanoscience, neuroscience, and theoretical physics | Permanently endowed Kavli Institutes (20 worldwide) hosted at named universities, plus a Prize and Scholars programs | Institute-scale endowment, not a standard project grant | Invitation-only — new institutes are established through direct foundation initiative, not an open call | Not applicable — there is no standing open competition to submit against |
| Spencer Foundation | Education research, broadly defined | Small Research Grants on Education (up to $50,000) and Large Research Grants on Education ($125,000–$500,000 across three tiers), plus the NAEd/Spencer Dissertation Fellowship | $50,000 (small) to $500,000 (large, top tier); $27,500 for the dissertation fellowship | Open application through a non-profit or public administering institution — Spencer does not fund individuals directly on its research-grant lines | Institution-dependent; check with your foundation relations office for any internal cap |
| John Templeton Foundation / Templeton World Charity Foundation | Science and religion, “big questions” in philosophy, theology, and the sciences (John Templeton Foundation); a separately incorporated global-development-oriented sister foundation (TWCF) | Project and initiative grants under six John Templeton funding areas, or TWCF’s own programme areas — the two are legally distinct funders and should not be treated as one entry point | Project-scale, multi-year; see each guide for current figures | Online Funding Inquiry to full proposal (John Templeton); check the TWCF guide for its own process | Institution-dependent; confirm current practice with your foundation relations office |
| Robert Wood Johnson Foundation | Health equity and health policy research | Programme- and initiative-scale grants tied to specific RWJF calls, plus signature research programmes | Varies by call; see the RWJF guide for current mechanisms | Mostly call-based (specific funding opportunities with stated criteria), some invitation-only initiatives | Institution-dependent; check current call terms |
| Simons Foundation | Mathematics and the physical sciences, life sciences, autism research (SFARI), and neuroscience | Investigator awards, collaborative research grants, and centre-scale initiatives across its four programme divisions | Varies widely by division and programme; see the Simons guide for current figures | Mostly by invitation or targeted RFA; some divisions run standing application processes | Institution-dependent; confirm with your foundation relations office |
| MacArthur Foundation | Broad — institutional grantmaking spans climate, criminal justice, journalism, and other public-interest fields; the separate MacArthur Fellows Program spans all fields | Large-scale initiative grants (Big Bets, 100&Change) — not a standing open research-grants line; the Fellows “genius grant” is nomination-only and not something an investigator applies for | Initiative-scale, often multi-million-dollar and multi-year | Invitation-only for both the institutional grantmaking and the Fellows Program | Not applicable — there is no open competition to submit against |
| Russell Sage Foundation | Social and behavioral sciences, US social policy | Core Research Grants (PhD-held investigators), Pipeline Grants and Dissertation Research Grants (early-career/doctoral), Causal Research on the Criminal Justice System, and Visiting Scholar residencies | Up to $200,000 (Core Research Grants), up to $100,000 (Criminal Justice), up to $65,000 (Pipeline Grants), $15,000 (Dissertation Research Grants) | Open application against published deadlines; confirm current LOI/full-proposal staging on russellsage.org before drafting a budget | Institution-dependent; check with your foundation relations office |
| Whitehall Foundation | Basic research in vertebrate and invertebrate neurobiology — explicitly not applied or disease-focused neuroscience | Research grants (up to $100,000/yr, 2–3 yrs) and grants-in-aid (up to $30,000, 1 yr) to individual investigators in basic neurobiology | Open, direct application — a letter of intent is required before a full application is invited; no institutional nomination. See CASRAI’s discipline-specific foundations guide for current figures | Three annual cycles: LOI deadlines January 15, April 15, October 1 | Institution-dependent; check with your foundation relations office |
| Camille & Henry Dreyfus Foundation | Chemistry and the chemical sciences | Camille Dreyfus Teacher-Scholar Awards ($100,000 unrestricted grant), plus the parallel Henry Dreyfus Teacher-Scholar program, supplemental grants, lectureships, and the Dreyfus Prize in the Chemical Sciences — nomination- and award-based rather than a standing open research-grants competition for unsolicited proposals | Camille Dreyfus Teacher-Scholar: $100,000 unrestricted grant. See CASRAI’s discipline-specific foundations guide for eligibility and current deadlines | Nomination-only for the Teacher-Scholar programs — one nomination per institution per year; other named awards vary, see dreyfus.org | Yes — one Camille Dreyfus Teacher-Scholar nomination per institution per year |
| Gates Foundation | Global health, global development, discovery and translational sciences | Grand Challenges initiatives and programme-area grants, mostly through targeted RFAs rather than a standing unsolicited line | Varies widely; see the Gates guide for current mechanisms | Mostly RFA/invitation-based; Grand Challenges runs periodic open calls | Institution-dependent; confirm with your foundation relations office |
Why the approach mechanics differ from a federal proposal
A federal proposal is submitted against a published funding opportunity announcement, reviewed by a panel of external peers against stated criteria, and scored. Almost none of that machinery exists at most private foundations, and treating a foundation approach like a smaller, friendlier federal proposal is the most common mistake research offices make with new investigators.
The letter of inquiry is a gate, not a formality
Most of the foundations above — Keck and Russell Sage are explicit examples in the table — use a staged process: a short letter of inquiry (LOI) screens ideas before a small subset is invited to submit a full proposal. The LOI is not a compressed proposal; it is a distinct document written to persuade a program officer that an idea fits the foundation’s current priorities well enough to spend staff time developing it further. See CASRAI’s Letter of Inquiry for Grants guide for format and drafting guidance that applies across foundation funders generally, not just the ones listed here.
Program officers, not review panels, are the primary audience
A federal program officer administers a competition; a foundation program officer often is the decision-maker, or the person whose internal advocacy determines whether a proposal advances to the board. Foundations that run largely invitation-only processes — Kavli’s institute model, MacArthur’s Big Bets and Fellows Program, most of Simons’ divisional funding — make relationship and reputation the entry point, not a submission portal. This is why an early, unsolicited cold proposal rarely works at these foundations even when the science fits perfectly: there is no open door to walk through.
This is why the foundation relations office owns first contact
Because access runs through a relationship rather than a portal, most research institutions route a first approach to a private foundation through a dedicated foundation relations (or corporate and foundation relations) function rather than letting an individual investigator cold-email a program officer directly. That office typically already tracks which program officers cover which fields, which foundations the institution has an existing relationship with, and which internal projects are already in a foundation’s pipeline — contacting a foundation outside that channel risks either duplicating an existing conversation or reaching the wrong person. Confirm your institution’s process before drafting an LOI to any of the foundations above.
Limited submissions apply to foundations as often as federal programs
Several of the foundations in the table above (Keck and Burroughs Wellcome are explicit, verified examples) cap the number of LOIs or nominations an institution may submit in a given cycle, which forces an internal competition before the external one. See CASRAI’s Limited Submissions guide for how research offices typically run that internal process. Where a specific foundation’s current limited-submission rule isn’t confirmed above, check with your foundation relations office — these caps are set by the funder and can change between cycles.
The indirect-cost reality: read this before you budget
This is the single most consequential financial difference between a federal award and a private foundation award, and it is easy to miss until a budget is already built. Most private foundations cap facilities-and-administrative (F&A, or indirect) cost recovery well below a university’s federally negotiated rate — several at a flat low percentage, at least one common practice at zero. That materially changes whether a programme- or centre-scale project is financially viable once real overhead (space, utilities, research administration, compliance support) is accounted for.
Confirmed, funder-specific figures (verify against the current version of each policy before citing a number in a proposal budget, since these are exactly the kind of terms foundations revise):
- Gates Foundation: per its published Indirect Cost Policy, a maximum indirect cost rate of 0% for government agencies and other private foundations, up to 10% for US universities and community colleges, and up to 15% for NGOs, multilateral organizations, non-US universities, and for-profit organizations — explicitly stated as maximums, not entitlements.
- MacArthur Foundation: a flat 29% of project costs for grants beginning 2020 onward, requiring no itemization from the grantee.
- Spencer Foundation: Small Research Grants on Education explicitly do not allow indirect costs at all; check the Large Research Grants terms directly for that programme’s current policy.
- Russell Sage Foundation: grants over $75,000 include 15% for indirect costs, per its published application guidance; smaller grants may not include an indirect-cost allowance at all — confirm against the specific programme.
For the foundations in the table above where this guide did not independently verify a current indirect-cost figure, do not assume a rate — ask the program officer or check the funder’s own grant-application guidance directly, and build the budget around the confirmed answer rather than a federally negotiated rate assumption. CASRAI’s Foundation vs. Federal Indirect Cost Rates comparison covers this mechanic in more depth, including why a foundation’s stated percentage often isn’t calculated on the same cost base as a federal NICRA (Gates, for example, classifies certain project-management costs as direct rather than indirect, which is a different cost base than the federal Uniform Guidance uses — not simply a lower number on the same base). See also CASRAI’s general Indirect Cost Rate (F&A Rate) and Indirect Costs (Overheads) dictionary entries for the underlying mechanics.
Matching your work to the right foundation
Readers arrive at this page from very different fields, and the honest first filter is disciplinary fit — a scientifically excellent proposal sent to the wrong foundation wastes both the applicant’s and the program officer’s time. At a glance:
- Education research — Spencer Foundation
- Social and behavioral sciences, US social policy — Russell Sage Foundation
- Science and religion, “big questions” — John Templeton Foundation (Templeton World Charity Foundation is a distinct, separately governed sister funder — do not treat the two as interchangeable)
- Health policy and health equity — Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
- Basic neurobiology — Whitehall Foundation (explicitly not disease-focused or applied neuroscience)
- Chemistry and the chemical sciences — Camille & Henry Dreyfus Foundation
- High-risk, paradigm-challenging science and engineering — W.M. Keck Foundation
- Astrophysics, nanoscience, neuroscience, theoretical physics — Kavli Foundation (via its permanently endowed institutes)
- Mathematics, physical sciences, life sciences, autism research, neuroscience — Simons Foundation
- Biomedical science career transitions — Burroughs Wellcome Fund
- Global health and global development — Gates Foundation
- Broad public-interest fields at initiative scale — MacArthur Foundation
Several of these foundations only fund through mechanisms — endowed institutes, board-directed initiatives, nomination-only prizes — that no amount of disciplinary fit alone will unlock; the table above flags which ones require an existing relationship or invitation rather than an application.
Frequently asked questions
Can I approach a foundation program officer directly, without going through my institution?
Technically often yes, but most research institutions route first contact with a private foundation through a foundation relations or corporate-and-foundation-relations office, specifically to avoid duplicate or conflicting outreach and to use an existing relationship where one exists. Check your institution’s policy before reaching out independently.
Is a letter of inquiry the same thing as a short proposal?
No. An LOI is written to get an idea invited to full-proposal stage, not to make the full scientific case on its own. See CASRAI’s Letter of Inquiry for Grants guide for how the two documents differ in purpose and structure.
Why does a foundation’s indirect-cost rate not match my institution’s federal NICRA?
Because foundation indirect-cost policies are typically set unilaterally by the funder as a maximum allowable percentage, not negotiated with the institution the way a federal negotiated indirect cost rate agreement (NICRA) is, and some funders (Gates is a documented example) classify certain costs as direct rather than indirect — a different cost base, not just a lower number on the same one. Always confirm the current figure and cost-base definition directly with the funder before budgeting.
If a foundation isn’t listed here, does that mean it doesn’t fund institutional-scale research?
No — this guide covers twelve foundations chosen for genuine, verified search demand from research offices and investigators, not an exhaustive foundation directory. Many other private foundations and disease-focused charities fund at programme or centre scale; the mechanics described in this guide (LOI-first processes, program-officer relationships, foundation-relations-office first contact, below-federal indirect cost caps) generalize reasonably well across most of them, even where the specific foundation isn’t named above.
