Makes access possible
Arranges and pays for the support. It does not choose the question Prova will answer.
For foundation leaders
Make evidence support better decisions—not heavier reporting.
Prova helps foundations fund practical support that grantees choose and direct. Prova also helps foundation leaders learn across grants, examine how an initiative is working, prepare for a funding decision, or commission an independent review.
The first question is whose decision the work is meant to serve. That determines who directs the work, which question Prova answers, and what information may be shared.
Recognizable situations
Evidence gathered for one purpose may not serve another.
Information collected for reporting may not answer a grantee's program question. Information shared for learning may not be appropriate for a funding decision. The same measure can mean different things across programs, making a portfolio comparison look clearer than it really is.
A grantee needs senior support around a live program or measurement decision.
Reporting burden has grown without proportionate decision value.
Your team needs to learn across programs whose models, populations, and measures differ.
A strategy, initiative, or funding approach needs a clearer account of what the record supports.
Two ways to work
Choose the path according to whose question is being answered.
Who directs the work?
Two ways a foundation can work with Prova
Path 01 · Grantee decision
The grantee holds the question.
- Foundation funds access
- Grantee chooses whether to participate
- Grantee sets the question and materials
- Grantee decides what may be shared
Result: work that helps the nonprofit make its own program decision.
Path 02 · Foundation decision
The foundation holds the question.
- The foundation names the decision it needs to make
- The materials and allowed uses are agreed in advance
- Comparison limits stay visible
- The foundation remains responsible for its decision
Result: a clear answer for a portfolio, initiative, evaluation, or funding decision.
Why Prova can work differently
Prova can examine more of the information already available while keeping its source, allowed use, limits, and responsible reviewer clear.
Prova's proprietary evidence systems keep important statements connected to their sources, make gaps and exceptions visible, and direct consequential questions to accountable professional review. Frontier models provide breadth and speed inside those systems; named people remain responsible for the conclusion.
How Prova's proprietary systems organize the work
The organizing layer
Prova's proprietary evidence systems
Organize the question, permitted record—the materials agreed for the work—standards, source connections, challenge, review, and decision path.
Frontier AI within the systems
Performs bounded reading, retrieval, extraction, comparison, tracing, synthesis, drafting, and monitoring.
Accountable people
Frame consequential questions, interpret context, challenge the record, judge what it supports, approve conclusions, and decide what happens next.
Before information is shared
Agree on control before information is shared.
Before work begins, everyone should know whose question Prova is answering, who directs the work, and what may be shared.
Grantee-directed support
Sometimes the most useful support is expertise the grantee can direct.
The foundation funds a defined engagement. The grantee chooses whether to take part, sets the question, selects the materials, and decides what may be shared.
Directs the work
Sets the question, materials, participation, use, and sharing.
Protects the boundary
Works for the grantee and does not provide private findings for grantmaking.
A foundation's own decision
Learn across a portfolio without pretending unlike programs are the same.
Begin with the decision the foundation must make, then test which definitions, populations, contexts, and measures can responsibly be compared.
Before comparing programs
What must be checked before patterns become conclusions
What must be true before results can be compared
| Element | Question before comparison | Expected status |
|---|---|---|
| Decision | What decision will the comparison inform? | Can be common |
| Definition | Do programs mean the same thing by the measure? | Must be checked |
| Population | Are participants and eligibility conditions comparable? | Often differs |
| Context | Do operating and local conditions change interpretation? | Often differs |
| Measurement | Were data collected in sufficiently similar ways? | Must be checked |
Collaborative or independent
Use the role the decision actually requires.
When the work needs an independent reviewer
Choose the review
What needs an independent review?
An existing evaluation design
Question, protocol, measures, sample, comparison, analysis plan, and implementation conditions.
Design ReviewAn existing claim or body of evidence
The claim, materials used, source locations, method, other plausible explanations, and limits.
Evidence ReviewCan Prova remain separate from building or substantially improving what it will judge?
A practical first step
Start with one organization, one decision, or one portfolio question.
A first conversation can clarify the smallest useful piece of work, who should direct it, whether independence is required, and what information may be shared.
Discuss what you need