There is a foundation that provides funds to institutions that partner with communities as an Institutional Challenge Grant. Since funders often drive research directions I think this could be a way to revolutionize data production towards community partnered solutions. This leads me to three similar ideas to that. 1. Grants for organizations to work with scientists to test and if good outcomes, scale their work. What's "evidence based" is often privileged to organizations with certain funds and infrastructure lets try and change that. 2. Grants to municipalities to work with scientists to create pilots of programs/policy changes that could change health. This allows stakeholders to do the work with maybe another set up funds to scale. The scientist can act as a third party almost, someone who is a subject matter expert that keeps the municipality 'blinded'. this also allows for science to create new methods of researching with large entities and is similar to what is done in global public health. 3. Grants, not to explore the amount of disparities but also the structural components. This would be even giving grants to historians of science and public health and promoting multi-disciplinary research in general that could then be targets for grants in point 2. This also allows for the work to be more accessible, hopefully, to policy makers who via these mechanisms have seen the direct relationships with policies and health disparities. Lastly, pilot and development grant mechanisms should have provisions for the slower processes of community partnered work. This includes sometimes few outputs, slower paces, and development of innovative ways to subaward to community organizations and members (including more accessible human subjects training).