Funding Opportunities Designed to Promote Antiracist Change Across a Health Sciences University

IMPORTANCE: As health professionals acknowledge the historic and current influences racism has on patient care and health outcomes, leaders must develop antiracist activities to disrupt current narratives. OBJECTIVE: To examine the outcomes of antiracism funding opportunities for development, implementation, and evaluation of initiatives across a multi–health professions academic university. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This mixed-methods cohort study involved the evaluation of 17 antiracism projects conducted at a midsize single academic university in the Pacific Northwest with schools of dentistry, medicine, nursing, pharmacy, and public health. Projects were designed by students, faculty, staff, and community members, many of whom were from diverse backgrounds. Data collection and analyses were conducted between January and December 2022. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Influence and reach of institutionally funded antiracist projects and best practices for funding them. Key metrics included project types, allocation of funds, level of community engagement, number of individuals engaged, demographic characteristics of project leaders, and project facilitators and barriers. RESULTS: Forty-two proposals were submitted, and 17 were selected for funding, representing 3 of 5 health profession schools. Study teams included women (15 of 19 [79%]), gender queer (1 [5%]), Asian American (5 [26%]), Black or African American (2 [11%]), Hispanic or Latinx (1 [5%]), Middle Eastern, North African, or biracial (4 [21%]) and White (7 [37%]) individuals. Four of 17 teams (24%) returned funds because their proposed projects exceeded their workload. Eight projects (47%) were fully implemented, most in the School of Medicine. Community engagement surveys were completed by 10 projects (59%), and 1741 participants engaged in 1 or more funded events. Two focus groups were attended by 7 of 17 projects (41%), which reflected diversity among grantees. Participants noted that facilitators of antiracist activities included strong community engagement, improved well-being, and sense of support by both the community and the institution. Barriers to advancing antiracist initiatives included restrictive timelines, being unprepared for the time needed for their efforts, distrust from community members due to previous experiences with diversity and inclusion projects, and difficulties navigating complex institutional systems and processes. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The findings of this study suggest that efforts needed to implement antiracist change should not be underestimated. Engagement should be inclusive across academic health centers and communities. Future efforts need to support innovator full-time equivalent support, individual mentorship, and institutional sponsorship.