Philipp Schwartz Initiative 18th Call (2027 Funding): Historical Reference

Philipp Schwartz Initiative 18th Call (2027 Funding): Historical Reference

The Alexander von Humboldt Foundation’s 18th Philipp Schwartz Initiative call is closed. The Foundation’s current programme page says that the application deadline has expired, that selection results are expected at the end of November, and that funding from this call starts from 1 January 2027. The same page invites interested institutions to register for the next call, but it does not publish a new application window or deadline. This page therefore records the 18th call for reference; it is not an open application notice. The closed call’s deadline was 21 August 2026.

The programme itself continues as a sponsorship route for German universities and research institutions seeking to host threatened researchers. However, the next round’s dates and call-specific instructions are not yet announced on the Foundation page. Anyone planning a future nomination should use the Foundation’s programme page and register for the next call, then check its new documents before relying on details retained here. The dates, award count, and individual call terms below belong to the 18th call only.

18th call at a glance

The principal award was described as a fixed-amount fellowship earmarked for up to 24 months. The official programme page does not give one universal fellowship amount in its public summary. It separately specifies a €20,000 lump-sum allowance to the host institution for each sponsored person. Applicants should not combine those two funding components or describe the host allowance as personal stipend income.

The application deadline applied to the complete institutional submission. The Foundation’s process required both a framework form and one or more individual nominations; it stated that only complete submissions could be considered. The online portal was the submission route. Institutions had to coordinate the forms and supporting material internally so that both the institutional plan and each nominee’s case were complete by the deadline.

What the initiative supports

The Philipp Schwartz Initiative enables German universities and research institutions to host researchers subject to significant and continuous personal threat in their country of origin. The purpose is to allow researchers to continue their work in a safe academic environment. The programme can apply across disciplines. The Foundation’s page identifies eligible researchers from countries outside the European Union, subject to the individual requirements and exclusions in the programme information.

An award is more than a travel grant or short visit. It provides a fellowship period in which a researcher can resume substantive work, maintain professional connections, and develop a path toward a scientific or science-related career after the funding ends. The host institution is expected to provide a credible academic setting and practical support. The selection process takes into account the host’s concept, fit between researcher and mentor, the researcher’s qualifications, institutional commitment, concrete support, and prospects after sponsorship.

The 24-month period was the initial maximum. During that period, an application could be made for an extension of up to 12 months within a co-financing model. An extension was a possibility requiring a separate request and approval, not an automatic third year. The Foundation’s rules and relevant funding documents govern the conditions, financing, and reporting.

Host institutions and applicants

Only institutions in Germany could apply. The Foundation listed public and state-recognised universities; Max Planck, Helmholtz, Leibniz, and Fraunhofer institutes; federal and federal-state research institutions; and other research institutions that could convincingly demonstrate their research portfolio and structures. An organisation in the final category needed to show that it had the academic environment and institutional arrangements to host the proposed researcher.

Researchers could not submit an application independently. A potential German host had to take responsibility for the application and nomination. An interested researcher’s first practical step was therefore to identify a plausible host and make contact in a way that protected sensitive information. The prospective host needed to identify the relevant research group, an academic mentor, and the internal people responsible for the institutional submission. A strong match joined the researcher’s intended work to the host’s actual expertise, facilities, and support capacity.

Institutions that had the capacity to host but no identified nominee could seek help from the Scholars at Risk Network or the Council for At-Risk Academics. The Foundation also points to a Scholars at Risk list of researchers seeking placement in Germany. Such a referral can help start a conversation, but it does not replace the Foundation’s eligibility review or the need for a complete application.

Nominee eligibility

The Foundation’s general programme information says that demonstrably at-risk researchers, irrespective of discipline, may be eligible. The page identifies two routes for verifying risk: a residence status connected to an asylum-granting procedure within the European Union that confirms a recognised threat, or a credible threat assessment issued by a third party. The current page says that the Foundation will announce which partner organisations can carry out assessments at the start of the next call. Accordingly, the named assessment contacts and any special evidence instructions from the 18th call should not be assumed to carry over unchanged.

Candidates were expected to have completed a doctorate or comparable academic degree, such as a PhD or CSc. In medicine and law, the host had to provide evidence that the degree was equivalent to a research doctorate. Candidates also needed the language ability required to carry out the proposed project, academic qualifications such as publications, and potential to integrate into the broader academic employment market.

The residence-history limit was a key screening item: a candidate must not have been resident outside their country of origin for more than five years at the time of application. People holding German university entrance qualifications (“Bildungsinländer”) were ineligible. The Foundation also excludes German citizens, people who already received Philipp Schwartz Initiative sponsorship, and people who have access to residence in a safe country through dual nationality or another circumstance, such as marriage to an EU citizen. One person could not be nominated by several potential hosts.

Institutions should treat risk documentation with particular care. They should collect only what the application needs, limit access to sensitive information, and agree on safe communication with the nominee. The Foundation requests secure handling if documents exceptionally have to be sent by email; it also mentions encrypted transmission or a secure download link. A host’s protection plan should account for confidentiality, relocation and residence questions, access to support services, and the researcher’s ability to work without unnecessary exposure.

Application materials and process for the closed call

For the 18th call, institutions submitted the application package through the Foundation’s online portal. A complete package consisted of an institutional framework form and individual nomination forms. Multiple nominations from one institution had to be handled within the framework of the institutional submission. The Foundation’s programme page provides sample forms for preparation, but labels them as samples and warns that they may be subject to change; the live portal documents were controlling.

The published materials included guidance for the host institution’s concept for sustainable support infrastructure, questions for the academic mentor’s statement, research proposal guidance, examples for a CV and publication list, and application form samples. Required evidence included documentation of at-risk status and proof of the research doctorate or confirmation of equivalence. If a degree certificate was not in German or English, a professional translation was required, including the translator’s name and signature; self-translations were not accepted.

The host’s framework form needed to show what the institution could sustain: who would supervise the researcher, what facilities and services would be available, and how the institution would support the fellow’s safety and professional integration. The mentor’s statement and research proposal then needed to make a clear academic case. The proposal should identify the work to be undertaken and explain why the host setting is appropriate. The nominee’s CV and publication record provide context for the proposed work, while the threat documentation addresses the protection requirement.

For a future round, applicants should wait for the Foundation to publish the new call’s requirements rather than reuse an old checklist as if it were current. The official page already says that assessment partners will be named at the start of the next call. Dates, available forms, portal fields, or country-specific evidence directions can change. Registering for the next call and consulting its official application documents are the reliable way to identify what will be needed.

How selection was framed

The Foundation’s central selection question considered the application as a connected proposal. Reviewers looked at the host institution’s concept; professional fit between the researcher, intended mentor, and project; the researcher’s scientific qualifications; the host’s commitment; concrete support measures from the institution and mentor; and prospects after the end of funding. The combined plan needed to make a promising new start in a scientific or science-related career seem likely, whether in Germany, another country, or the researcher’s country of origin.

That standard means the institution’s name alone could not establish fit. A persuasive case connected a specific research question with a particular group, mentor, method, collection, facility, dataset, or collaboration. The host should explain what the researcher can do there that is academically useful and how mentoring will work in practice. The nominee should retain ownership of their research goals and have a realistic role in shaping the project.

The support proposal also needed to be concrete. Examples might include a named academic mentor, a second contact for administrative or personal support, access to relevant institutional services, a plan for onboarding, and opportunities to join seminars or collaborations. Support should be offered without requiring the fellow to disclose sensitive information more widely than necessary. The goal was a workable placement and a credible future pathway, not a promise of permanent employment.

Planning lessons for institutions and researchers

The closed application process offers useful preparation lessons for any later cycle, although the next call’s rules must be checked afresh. A host considering a future nomination can establish an internal contact point, identify a mentor, and decide how its research office, international office, and support services will coordinate. These arrangements take time and are more convincing when they exist before a call deadline than when they are assembled as general assurances in the final days.

A prospective host can also assess fit early. It should confirm that the nominee’s qualifications and proposed research correspond to the institution’s strengths, and that the group can provide suitable supervision and resources. The institution can map which evidence it can verify and who will review sensitive material. If an eligibility question is unresolved, the host should contact the Foundation before building an application around an assumption.

Researchers interested in future rounds can prepare a concise academic profile, current CV, publication list, and short outline of the work they hope to continue. They can identify possible German research groups and approach them through a safe channel. This early preparation does not constitute an application, and the researcher cannot submit alone; it can help a prospective host assess whether a collaboration is plausible when the next call opens.

Institutions should avoid presenting possible funding as guaranteed. The initial maximum was 24 months, while a co-financed extension of up to 12 months required an application. Likewise, the €20,000 amount was for the host institution per sponsored researcher. The fellowship itself was described as fixed-amount funding, and the public English summary did not specify one universal rate. The binding funding documents and individual calculation, rather than a generic web summary, governed the financial details.

Questions readers often ask

Can an at-risk researcher still apply to the 18th call?

No. The Foundation says the 18th call’s application deadline has expired. Its next-call registration link is not an application form or an announcement of a new deadline.

Has the next application round been announced?

The Foundation’s current page invites interested people to register for the next call, but it does not give that call’s opening date, closing date, or detailed rules. Check the official page and its portal when the Foundation releases the next call.

Who submitted an application?

An eligible German university or research institution submitted the framework form and nominee materials through the online portal. Researchers could not apply directly.

What funding did the 18th call offer?

The Foundation described a fixed-amount fellowship for up to 24 months, with an application possible for an extension of up to 12 months under a co-financing model. The host institution received a €20,000 lump-sum allowance per sponsored person. The public English page did not set out one universal fellowship amount.

Did every at-risk researcher qualify?

No. Risk had to be verifiable through one of the accepted routes, and candidates had to meet degree, residence, language, academic qualification, and career-potential criteria. Exclusions also applied, including prior Philipp Schwartz sponsorship, German citizenship, and access to safe-country residence through specified circumstances. Future applicants must consult the next call’s terms.

Where should an institution get current information?

Use the official Philipp Schwartz Initiative programme page. It contains the Foundation’s current programme description, current general eligibility information, documents, portal access when open, and contact details. The programme team can be reached at schwartz-initiative[at]avh.de.

Historical reference and next steps

This archive preserves the 18th call’s verified offer and application structure while making its closed status explicit. Its fixed deadline belongs to that cycle. Selection results were expected at the end of November, and this call’s funding start was from 1 January 2027. Those milestones describe the 18th round; they must not be read as dates for a new application opportunity.

For institutions preparing to host threatened researchers, the continuing programme remains relevant, but a new nomination must follow the Foundation’s next published call. Register through the official programme page, wait for the new dates and current partner guidance on threat assessments, and use the newly available forms and funding documents. Researchers should approach a potential German host rather than seek an individual portal submission. These steps keep the initiative’s institutional structure clear while protecting nominees from relying on expired application instructions.