AI-Enabled Consumer Engagement to Advance Family Planning
Eligibility
Who is eligible for grants?
This initiative is open globally to nonprofit organizations, for-profit companies, international organizations, government agencies and academic institutions. Multi stakeholder collaborations are encouraged. Individuals and organizations classified as individuals for U.S. tax purposes are not eligible to receive an award from the foundation as part of this initiative.
Upon registration, applicants must provide information about the tax status of their organization as different terms and conditions may apply. You should confirm your organization's tax status with the appropriate advisor or entity within your organization such as your grants or contracts department, finance, or office of sponsored research. The foundation may request additional information regarding your tax status. For information about tax statuses, you may check with your own advisors and review information provided on the Internal Revenue Service web site at: www.irs.gov.
Application Process
What must my application include?
Please refer to the Application Instructions document.
Am I able to edit my proposal once submitted?
Yes, you may edit your proposal up until the specified deadline.
What amount of indirect cost is available?
Details of the foundation indirect cost policy guidelines can be found here: Gates Foundation's indirect cost policy.
Can the application deadline be extended?
No, the deadline is fixed.
Review Process
How does the review process work?
Please refer to the Rules and Guidelines document.
Can I get a list of potential reviewers who might be assigned to my application?
No. We do not make public the roster of reviewers.
Can I request that my application not be reviewed by a specific individual?
No. However, we will ask reviewers to self-identify conflicts of interest and will not assign reviewers with conflicts.
Will I receive specific feedback on my application if it is not selected?
Due to the rapid proposal and review timelines applicable to this RFP, applicants with proposals that are not selected for award may receive a notification of decline without specific feedback.
What evaluation approaches and impact measures are considered most competitive?
The RFP favors credible designs that measure both the quality of the AI-enabled interaction and downstream outcomes such as contraceptive uptake, continuation, or informed method choice. No single study design is required. Applicants should propose the most appropriate approach and articulate a clear theory of change.
What are common pitfalls to avoid, and what makes a proposal competitive?
Proposals are strongest when they address this RFP's specific goals rather than reading as a generic application - clearly naming the problem, the innovation, and a realistic execution plan and budget. Write for a broad review audience, avoid jargon, and follow the application instructions closely, since strong ideas are sometimes weakened by missing required information.
For this RFP specifically, competitive proposals demonstrate an existing consumer engagement platform, a clear pathway to impact, a rigorous evaluation plan, and a genuine commitment to sharing learning with the field. Proposals are less competitive if they rely solely on engagement metrics, lack an existing user base in an eligible geography, or focus mainly on building new infrastructure rather than deploying and evaluating a solution.
The application asks whether AI was used to develop the proposal. How is this used by reviewers?
This is now a standard question across all Grand Challenges RFPs, added because AI use in proposal writing has become more common. It's intended to help the foundation understand how applicants are using AI — for example, to think through ideas versus fully drafting the application - rather than to penalize its use.
Award Information
Are grant awards made directly to individuals?
No. All awards are made to the organization where the individual holds their primary appointment. Institutions must agree to the terms and conditions governing each grant award prior to award activation.
How much money will each grant provide?
We will consider proposals for awards of up to $500,000 USD for each project, with a grant term of up to 12 months. Application budgets should be commensurate with the scope of work proposed. Indirect costs may be included in the budget, up to a maximum of 15% of the total budget (subject to the Gates Foundation's indirect cost policy).
Can the term of the award be extended?
Extensions to an active grant's timeline may be considered later, on a case-by-case basis, but are not decided in advance.
How should consortium partners decide who receives grant funding?
That is a decision for the consortium to make internally, including who serves as lead applicant and who is a sub-awardee. The foundation encourages funding to flow to local institutions doing the work but does not dictate the distribution.
Applicant and Partnership Considerations
Is there a geographic requirement beyond general organizational eligibility?
Yes. The opportunity is open globally to eligible organization types, but implementation must take place in sub-Saharan Africa, within one of the RFP's eligible countries. Eligible countries include: Nigeria, Ethiopia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Tanzania, Senegal, Niger, Kenya, South Africa, and Zambia or Côte d'Ivoire.
Can the same organization submit more than one application, whether as lead applicant or as a partner in multiple consortia?
Yes, at the organizational level. However, one individual can serve as lead applicant (Principal Investigator) on only one proposal, though they may still participate in others as a collaborator.
Can an organization that already holds a Gates Foundation grant apply to this RFP?
Yes. This RFP is independent of other funding, so current grantees are eligible to apply.
Is there a minimum annual budget or expenditure level expected of the lead applicant?
No, there is no such requirement.
Could a technology company with strong AI capabilities, but limited family planning or women's health experience, apply?
Yes, though partnering with an organization that brings that health expertise is recommended. Proposals should be grounded in the consumer problem being solved, not the technology, so a credible connection to the target community and user base matters.
What are the expectations for existing programs, user reach, or implementation experience at the time of application?
Applicants should already have an existing consumer engagement approach in family planning, women's health, or consumer health, along with an established user base or distribution relationship in a target geography. The grant is intended to support deployment, learning, and evaluation, not to build a new audience from scratch. Where applicants have an existing experience outside of family planning, we can support with matchmaking to existing Family Planning implementation partners if a project is selected.
What partnership models are encouraged, and what roles can consortium members, local implementers, NGOs, academic institutions, private-sector organizations, and technology partners play?
Multi-stakeholder collaborations are encouraged. Strong proposals may combine complementary expertise, such as AI technology, implementation, evaluation, and local health system knowledge. Regardless of partnership structure, applicants should demonstrate deep contextual knowledge of the target population and an established pathway to reach users during the grant period.
Is there a way for the foundation to help match partners - for example, connecting an organization with AI expertise to one with women's health expertise?
The foundation will not support matchmaking during the RFP response period but may be able to support matchmaking once grantees have been selected.
Program Scope and Technical Approach
Which countries are eligible for implementation?
Ethiopia, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Tanzania, Senegal, Niger, Côte d'Ivoire, Kenya, South Africa, and Zambia. The women and clients being reached must be in one of these countries, though partner organizations may be based elsewhere.
Is there a preference for urban versus rural populations?
No, there is no preference either way.
Is there a required age range for the target population?
The focus is on women of reproductive age (15-49). Proposals may target a subset of this range, including adolescents and youth within it, but no particular age segment is required.
What counts as an existing user cohort - for example, would women already engaged through a public health facility or a Ministry of Health family planning program qualify?
Yes, both would qualify, as would any similar group already engaged around health services. It's fine if family planning is only one of several topics covered with that cohort, as long as it is a core part of the engagement.
What does the foundation mean by "consumer engagement"?
A credible, already-established way to reach women directly - such as text messaging, WhatsApp, an app, or another private-sector channel. It does not need to be AI-enabled today; the AI component is layered on top of that existing reach. There's no required platform or format.
Is this challenge focused on tools used directly by women, or would tools that support community health workers also be in scope?
The scope is direct-to-consumer engagement with women and girls of reproductive age. Tools designed primarily for community health workers or other providers - such as clinical decision-support tools, or apps a provider uses to deliver one-on-one counseling - are not the focus of this challenge, though the foundation is separately interested in that space.
If we already have a large user base but also intend to keep growing during the grant, does that meet the requirement for an existing cohort?
Yes. Grant funds may also be used for activities that promote further uptake. The key requirement is that an existing user base is already in place - applicants should not plan to spend the full grant period acquiring new users rather than testing, learning, and building evidence.
Does the RFP require a specific AI model or technology stack?
No. The RFP is open to any technology approach that meets its objectives. Applicants are expected to follow responsible AI practices, including grounding responses in vetted, locally relevant clinical guidance and applying appropriate guardrails and escalation pathways.
Does the AI tool itself need to already exist at the time of application?
No, it does not need to already exist.
How should applicants design solutions that are accessible for underserved populations, including low-literacy, multilingual, and rural communities?
Applicants should explain how appropriate their solution is for the populations they intend to serve, including consideration of local languages, literacy levels, and equitable access. The RFP does not prescribe specific accessibility features or technology choices.
How should applicants address responsible AI, including privacy, confidentiality, informed consent, bias mitigation, and user safety?
Applicants should describe how AI-generated content will be grounded in vetted, locally relevant family planning information aligned with national Ministry of Health or WHO guidance, while incorporating appropriate safeguards for privacy, confidentiality, safety, and responsible AI. The challenge also seeks learning that will inform best practices for quality, safety, and governance.
How should AI-enabled solutions integrate with existing health systems, healthcare providers, and community health workers?
The RFP allows implementation through public-sector platforms, private-sector channels, or hybrid models. It does not require integration with specific health information systems, but applicants should explain how their solution fits within the local health ecosystem.
Is integration with the Ministry of Health or other government health systems required?
No, this is not a requirement. The RFP is viewed as an early step toward building evidence, which could later inform integration strategies and government partnerships.
What role, if any, would the Ministry of Health or other government health bodies play?
Government involvement is not required. That said, alignment or buy-in from the Ministry of Health is viewed positively, and roles can vary by context.
How much human involvement is acceptable in a hybrid (human plus AI) model?
Some level of human oversight is expected in any AI application - a human should remain in the loop. There is no fixed threshold for how much human interaction is allowed. What matters most is understanding the added value the AI brings, relative to human interaction alone.
Is there a minimum sample size expected, given the 12-month grant term?
No, there is no specific benchmark. The intervention should simply operate at a scale sufficient to generate meaningful evidence within the 12 months.
Given the short grant period, is self-reported uptake and continuation sufficient, or is clinical/facility-level verification expected?
Self-reported data is acceptable given the 12-month duration and limited resources. Measuring continuation or discontinuation is welcome where feasible but is not required beyond what can reasonably be captured in that time.
Does the evaluation partner need to be organizationally independent from the implementing partner(s)?
No, full independence is not required given the limited scope of the grant. Applicants should propose a credible approach for unbiased evaluation, even if it involves one of the applying organizations.
Is a baseline required, and what should it include?
Applications should clearly describe the existing user base: who they are, how they are currently engaged, and how that engagement would change under the proposal.
Is there an expectation regarding the qualifications of the research or evaluation lead?
No, there are no specific requirements.
Do reporting metrics need to be quantitative?
Quantitative metrics are preferred.
Intellectual Property and Confidentiality
How can applicants protect their ideas and ensure confidentiality when sharing concepts in proposals?
When submitting materials to the Foundation please keep in mind that because we have a focus on achieving charitable outcomes, we view information that we obtain through our grantmaking as a public good. Subject to the Gates Foundation's Privacy & Cookies Notice, the Foundation may also share information you provide to us (either orally or in writing) with third parties, including external reviewers, consultants, contingent workers, key partners and co-funders. You should assume that nothing will be kept confidential and should not include any information in the proposal, budget, supplemental materials, or reports that you consider proprietary.
Who owns Intellectual Property in funded projects?
Grantees retain ownership of intellectual property (IP) developed through foundation-funded grants. The foundation does, however, require that grant outputs be made widely available to the intended beneficiaries. You can read more here: Gates Foundation Global Access and IP Policy
Technical Support
I forgot my password. How do I reset my password?
You can request to update your password within the application site. If you continue to have issues, please reach out to [email protected].
How will I know if my application was submitted?
Once an application is submitted, an email confirmation will be sent.
I'm having trouble uploading my application file. What should I do?
If you are having issues submitting your application, we would encourage you to submit from a different browser. If the issue persists, please email the specifics of your problem to [email protected].
How often do you intend to update the Frequently Asked Questions, and do you plan to provide answers to all questions submitted?
We will periodically post answers to questions as they are submitted, but do not have a specific schedule. We will provide answers on this page that are of relevance and of general interest to potential applicants. For answers to specific questions that are not covered here, please email [email protected]