Accessibility Project Grant 2020 Evaluation Process

We are mindful that preparing grant proposals requires significant time and effort and we thank you for taking the time to submit a proposal. We received 72 project proposals and ultimately selected 14 projects for funding with the help of a review committee comprised of representatives from leading organizations in the disability community. Selecting the successful projects was difficult as we received many excellent applications as last year. We have prepared the following general notes and feedback for your consideration.

How were submissions reviewed?

Four project features we felt were particularly important:

  • Project theme
  • Anticipated impact to the disability community
  • Project viability
  • Organizational Capacity


We used the following guidelines and point system to guide the review of each application:

1. Organization’s capacity

  • Does the Proposal Package was all answered and not missed any required document? Including support letters?
  • Does this organization have at least a history of operation/minimum of resources?

2. Budget

  • Is the project budget reasonable and showing clearly how funds will be used?

3. Profile of Project

  • Does this proposal assert the project clearly in the first glaze?

4. Project Summary

  • Does the Proposal have clearly defined project goals, target group, activities, project team and partners?
  • Does the Proposal have clearly defined, innovative, reasonable accessibility outcomes for people with disabilities?

5. Why is the project needed?

  • Does the Proposal clearly identify an important issue for people with disabilities & offer a good proposal to address the issue?
  • Does the Proposal show how the project will result in long-term/continuing accessibility improvements for people with disabilities?

6. Competitor Analysis

  • Does this Proposal explain the trend and difference among existing projects/programs?

7. Promotional Plan

  • Does the Proposal contain realistic projections using existing/new promotional channels to espouse its presence to archive its goal?

8. Workplan

  • Does the project have a comprehensive, well-designed and achievable workplan that appears reasonably likely to result in the successful completion of the project?
  • Is the time-frame realistic?
  • Does the Proposal have a good outcome evaluation plan?


The review committee also wanted to ensure there was diversity regarding the region, disability focus, and accessibility initiative type among all the projects.


Who was on the review panel?

First-round review:

  • Disability Alliance BC

We selected 30 applications.


Second-round review:

  • BC Centre for Ability
  • Kickstart Disability Arts & Culture
  • Rick Hansen Foundation
  • Sources Community Resources Society
  • Victoria Disability Resource Centre
  • Disability Alliance BC

We selected 14 applications.


Some common themes from unsuccessful applications:

  • Incomplete application forms or missing documents
  • Ineligible projects or organizations
  • Insufficient information supporting the project