Example · Foundation or philanthropic funder
What would need to be understood about access before we discuss extending support?
A philanthropic reviewer examines whether a pilot’s proposed benefit can continue beyond the grant
The situation
Access after a funded pilot
Your foundation is reviewing a request to extend a BCI communication pilot. The proposal emphasizes expanding participation, while the current grant covers equipment, staff assistance and travel. You need to identify public-benefit and continuity questions for the renewal discussion, keeping participants’ perspectives visible alongside the proposal
What this example starts with
- The hypothetical proposal
- The project seeks another stage of support and proposes a wider participant group, without establishing results for that group
- The missing account
- The materials do not show who could continue using the service after the grant or who would provide essential support
- The review concern
- Your foundation asks whose needs shape the project and whether practical requirements could exclude the intended participants
Working through the question
Specify who could benefit
You review the intended people and setting against the proposal’s public-benefit language. A plan to increase participation does not establish broader access. You ask how the project has heard from people facing different travel, assistance and communication circumstances, keeping missing perspectives visible
Follow the support dependency
You distinguish the proposed technology from the grant-supported service around it. Equipment, training, travel and help may each affect participation. The assessment helps you identify which assumptions would change when the current funding period ends, without inventing a sustainable delivery model
Separate learning from continuation
The next stage might contribute useful evidence even while continued access remains unresolved. You keep those two purposes explicit in your review. Questions about what a study could learn should not obscure what participants understand about support during and after their involvement
An illustrative take-away
Questions for the renewal review
You prepare the intended contribution, missing perspectives and continuity questions for discussion with the applicant
- Whose needs informed the proposed expansion, and whose perspectives are missing?
- Which participation costs and support needs are covered only by the present grant?
- What can the applicant explain to participants about support after the funded period?
Written for this example to show what the reader could take into their next conversation
The assessment informs the foundation’s review and does not recommend or award funding
Try this with your own question
Your guide explains the steps, access requirements and limits for your role