Clinical trial budgets often look great — on paper.
But when they hit real-world sites, they collapse under the weight of missing context:
📍 Geography — “Standard” travel budgets don’t work in rural regions with limited transit.
👥 Diversity — Reaching underrepresented communities takes trust-building, time, and staff — none of which are “free.”
🏥 Site Overhead — Space, staff time, storage, training, sustainability — often underestimated or completely ignored.
The result?
🔻 Delays
🔻 Turnover
🔻 Missed recruitment goals
🔻 Strained site-sponsor relationships
At Ridge Research Solutions, we’ve seen these gaps cost studies time, money, and credibility.
💡 We give sponsors and CROs guidance on building smarter budgets for the site from the start — and we equip sites to speak up when budgets miss the mark.
🎯 What realistic responses can sites give when faced with an unrealistic budget?
- Quantify the gap
→ “This stipend assumes 1-hour visits. Ours are 3 hours due to patient education and translation support.”
- Connect the cost to outcomes
→ “This budget doesn’t support community outreach — which directly impacts our ability to recruit diverse participants.”
- Push for fairness, not fluff
→ “We’re not inflating costs — we’re clarifying what it actually takes to do this well.”
- Stand together when possible
→ Sponsors hear differently when multiple sites flag the same issue.
- Be specific
→ Give historical examples and metrics. Provide detailed rationale and documentation – provide these with the first review for best impact. Be prepared with SOPs where appropriate to show a consistent site process is in place.
At Ridge, we advocate for budgets that reflect reality — not wishful thinking.
Because if your funding doesn’t match your expectations, the study will suffer.
📌 Let’s stop asking sites to subsidize the system.
📌 Let’s fund what it actually takes to run great research — in every community.