Transparency Talk

Gripes and Grievances: How having an applicant and grantee “complaint” policy improves relationships
April 14, 2014

Rebecca H. Donham is senior program officer at the MetroWest Health Foundation, an independent health philanthropy addressing the unmet health needs of the 25-town MetroWest region of Massachusetts.

Rebecca Donham headshotThe MetroWest Health Foundation was created from the sale of a community asset – a two-campus suburban hospital.  As such, we feel a tremendous responsibility to the residents of the 25 towns we serve.  We’ve been entrusted with funds and seek to invest them wisely, both in terms of revenue generation as well as the grant distribution side.

We also embrace best practices. As a health funder, we understand there are programs and interventions that are evidence based, and therefore known to work. Since our founding 15 years ago, we’ve worked to encourage applicants to embrace best practices.

We welcome potential applicants and community members to meet with staff at any time, either before or after grant decisions. Our board meetings are even open to the public, including free dinner!

There are best practices for funders in terms of transparency and we have incorporated those into our work. We have a searchable grant database that allows anyone to see all the grants we’ve made and for what purposes. We post our financials, board and committee members, performance dashboards, strategic plans and other information on our website. We welcome potential applicants and community members to meet with staff at any time, either before or after grant decisions. Our board meetings are even open to the public, including free dinner!

Given the organization’s historical commitment to transparency, it makes sense that in 2007 the foundation’s board of trustees adopted a policy for handling complaints by applicants and grantees. The trustees viewed it as a way of walking the walk and fostering good community relations. The policy makes clear that grant and scholarship decisions are final and not subject to appeal, but that if there are complaints about the foundation’s grant process or work, we have a formal procedure to address them.

We post this policy on our website (http://www.mwhealth.org/Portals/0/Uploads/Documents/Public/Key_Policies/Complaints.pdf), along with ones addressing conflicts of interest, compensation, whistle blowing, site visits and sustainability. The last two go even further than what Glasspockets recommends and they speak to our strong commitment to transparency. Foundations can be seen as secretive and arbitrary, and we frequently are praised for being so up-front about how we do our work.

The foundation recently completed its third iteration of the Grantee Perception Report, the results of which (not surprisingly) are published on our web site. I think it is no coincidence that the foundation was rated higher than 90% of foundations in terms of our relationship with grantees. The results were similar in terms of how fairly grantees felt we treated them (>92%) and how comfortable they felt approaching us if a problem arose (>97%).

I would argue that there is zero downside to having a complaint policy. We’ve never had a complaint filed and having the policy publicly available on our website sends a message to the community that we care about fairness and transparency. Some might think this means grantee complaint and response mechanisms are not worth the investment, but quite to the contrary we find it supports and complements our organizational culture that prizes treating everyone respectfully and professionally. Maybe it’s because we’re a health funder, but we think it holds true that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

-- Rebecca H. Donham

Vote for Glasspockets to win a Webby Award!
April 10, 2014

We are delighted to announce that Glasspockets.org, the Foundation Center’s web site and initiative to champion greater philanthropic transparency, has been nominated for a Webby Award!  Glasspockets, originally launched in 2010, underwent a complete site redesign last year to improve usability and interactivity.  Webby, the online awards group "honoring excellence on the Internet" nominated Glasspockets in its Charitable Organizations/Nonprofit category as one of the five best web sites in the world in its category.

This means we are competing for the Internet industry's two most coveted awards: The Webby Award and The Webby People's Voice Award.  Since the People’s Voice Award is entirely based on audience selection, we ask you to please vote for Glasspockets.org today!  And please help us spread the word to your communities and vote by April 24th. Winners will be announced April 29th.

 

Webinar available on demystifiying funder transparency
April 9, 2014

Opening Up CoverOn March 20, Glasspockets and GrantCraft held a “free coffee and conversation” webinar discussing the demystification of funder transparency featuring Mary Gregory of Pacific Foundation Services discussing transparency challenges and opportunities for family foundations. If you were unable to attend and would like to view the recording, it is available here. Co-sponsored by Northern California Grantmakers, GrantCraft  and Glasspockets provided an overview of the new guide, Opening Up: Demystifying Funder Transparency, which delves into the innumerable benefits of funder transparency, including increased public trust and greater credibility. Mary Gregory then discussed how transparency strengthens grantee relationships. This webinar series on transparency will continue exploring further chapters in the resource guide with other guest funders. Stay tuned to Transparency Talk for more updates.

A Gender Data Revolution
April 7, 2014

Yinebon Iniya is manager, International Data Relations at the Foundation Center.

Iniya-150With today’s technology, the public’s appetite for transparency and tracking outcomes has only increased. There is a growing demand for philanthropic players with specific interests in health, education, art, and human rights to provide metrics that show progress, especially in a world that is looking beyond the Millennium Development Goals, to the post-2015 Development Agenda. The Foundation Center, which continues to increase its data on global organizations, understands that the key to progress is to cultivate partnerships that help us do more than just acquire grantmaker data. Partnerships help us understand and frame key issues, providing us with unique opportunities to collaborate effectively and create ideas together.

In some cases, these collaborations become a web site, such as WASHfunders, which the Foundation Center created with seeding funding from the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation as a one-stop shop for funding and needs-related data and information for donors, policymakers, and stakeholders interested in water, sanitation, and hygiene. Another example is BMAfunders, a project of the Open Society Foundations and the Foundation Center that facilitates engagement, collaboration, and strategic decision making in the field of black male achievement.

But what about gender-related issues? Data 2X, announced in 2012 as a partnership between the UN Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the U.S. Government, and the office of former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, has the following goals:

To advance gender equality and women’s empowerment and further global economic and social gains through improved data collection and analysis that can guide policy, better leverage investments and inform global development agendas.

Data 2X created a report that identifies five key gender-related areas that need to be addressed: health, education, economic opportunity, political participation, and human security. The report suggests improving data collection by compiling information from various sources, including micro-level surveys, administrative records, and census data. The report also mentions that big data and mobile technology can fill many of the gaps in collecting information such as access to financial services, distance traveled for work, remittances, and connections with others while working away from home.

Earlier this month in New York City, Data 2X helped organize a roundtable discussion, New Strategies for a Gender Data Revolution, which consisted of two panels from statistical organizations that delved into these issues. The first panel featured Mayra Buvinic of the UN Foundation Data 2X team, Marcia Quintslr of Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística, Ola Awad of Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, and Lina Castro of the Philippine Statistical Authority.

One key challenge is to empower users—from women to governments, policymakers, foundations, NGOs, local organizations, universities, and other statistical organizations—to utilize the data in ways that benefit them.

The second panel included Pali Lehohla of Statistics South Africa, Imelda Musana of Uganda Bureau of Statistics, Félix Vélez Fernández Valera of the National Institute of Statistics, Geography and Informatics (INEGI), and Neil Jackson of the Department for International Development (UK).

While each member made their points about new data collection and compilation, there was an acknowledgement about the existing data that could help provide additional answers. Ms. Bulvinic stated that the emphasis was really on the data quality, availability, openness, efficiency, and usability.

Mr. Lahola was jovial yet frank as he recounted a story analyzing the unfairness of something as simple as the bathroom sizes between men and women, and he used that as a basis to make his point about unconscious biases that exist, possibly distorting the understanding of statistics.

The most resonating comment of the afternoon was made by Ms. Musana, who indicated that while Uganda collects gender-related data, it is important to know the eventual outcome of data collection and how it is being used. She cited that in some cases they run statistical reports just because they are asked to—although she noted considerable progress has been made in data compilation.

All the panelists agreed that many gaps remain; some of the speakers added that one key challenge is to empower users—from women to governments, policymakers, foundations, NGOs, local organizations, universities, and other statistical organizations—to utilize the data in ways that benefit them.

The discussion was chaired by Ruth Levine, director of the Global Development and Population Program at the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, who indicated that it was imperative to get input from the primary producers of economic and social statistics, and it is important for them to have the capacity to initiate and sustain their programs.

Will these ideas lead to a web site dedicated to gender-related issues—similar to the web sites for WASHfunders and BMAfunders? Judging from the conversation at this event, it is long overdue.

-- Bon Iniya

Inviting Grantees to the Table
April 1, 2014

Austin Long is a manager at the Center for Effective Philanthropy and leads relationships with funders using CEP's assessment tools. He is a frequent speaker at conferences and to funder boards and staff on topics of grantee, donor, and foundation staff feedback. This post originally appeared on the CEP blog.

Long CEP headshot 150x150In a recent blog post from my colleague at the Center for Effective Philanthropy, Kevin Bolduc, he shared inspiring examples of two funders trying something a bit different: sharing the results of their Grantee Perception Reports (GPR) in-person with their grantees. While we often see foundations sharing their GPR results publicly, it is all too rare that grantees are invited to join the conversation when CEP engages in discussions about the results with staff and boards.

This past October, I had the opportunity to discuss the results of one foundation’s GPR with both its staff and grantees, and I wanted to share more about the experience. My hope is that it may encourage other funders to consider these unconventional but incredibly valuable opportunities to connect with grantees.

The Whitman Institute (TWI) cites its mission as investing in “the power of relationships, constructive dialogue and the connections they generate to trigger problem solving and creative approaches.” As a result, an important part of surveying their grantees was communicating back to them about what the Institute learned.

It was an ideal opportunity to hear insightful and specific suggestions from grantees—both anonymously from the Grantee Perception Report results but also delivered there.

After receiving its Grantee Perception Report in August of 2013 and participating in a conversation between CEP, the board and staff shortly thereafter, TWI decided that its annual grantee convening in October would be the ideal time to facilitate a further dialogue about the feedback.

On a sunny weekend in Santa Cruz, about 100 grantees, other funders, and stakeholders from all over the country came together for TWI’s annual convening and to discuss the GPR findings. In keeping with TWI’s values, the goal of the day was not only for me to report back to grantees about TWI’s exceptionally positive feedback and ratings compared to other funders, but also to facilitate a dialogue about what to do next.

It was an ideal opportunity to hear insightful and specific suggestions from grantees—both anonymously from the GPR results but also delivered there—about how the Institute could strengthen their work together. Standing in front of the room, it was amazing to see some grantees actually defending TWI in some areas where it was rated relatively less positively; grantees also reinforced what they felt to be TWI’s strengths, and shared personal perspectives on the key opportunities to improve.

For the second half of the meeting, TWI asked groups of grantees to formulate ideas and discuss next steps about acting on the GPR recommendations. Grantees had very insightful suggestions to share, illustrating what I consider to be one of the most valuable aspects of this type of meeting—the opportunity for a funder to hear specific suggestions and ideas from the individuals and organizations that it has chosen to help them create impact. These group conversations allowed TWI to accelerate its ability to act on the guidance from the report.

Of course, it’s not possible for every funder to convene all of its grantees and stakeholders in one place. But for TWI, it was about much more than simply having the right people together in the same location; it was about using open dialogue and grantee feedback to build stronger relationships and meaningfully improve the ability of the Institute to achieve its vision.

Now isn’t that a conversation worth having?

-- Austin Long

Glasspockets Find: Foundation Center CEO Speaks Out on Knowledge Management
March 24, 2014

(Rebecca Herman is special projects associate for Glasspockets at the Foundation Center-San Francisco.)

Herman-150

Like it or not, we live in a data-obsessed era. It can feel like we are swimming in a sea of data. Are we being swamped by data, or are we harnessing these currents to propel us along toward our objectives? Your foundation probably already gathers significant amounts of information about your programs, your grantees and your fields of interest. As foundations move toward greater transparency, it is worth considering how this data could serve a larger purpose outside of the foundation. And then this leads to the more difficult task of figuring out which internal data could be a meaningful contribution to the field.

"If philanthropy really wants to be strategic, harnessing data to purpose needs to be job number one."

Earlier this month, in the Stanford Social Innovation Review blog, Foundation Center president Brad Smith wrote about Developing a Culture of Knowledge Management.

In the SSIR, Smith argues that foundations need to learn how to manage and share information in order for philanthropy to be strategic. This may require creating a new mindset, in which data becomes "knowledge assets," and establishing new internal incentive systems for managing data effectively.

Smith also points out a number of common pitfalls in how foundations use data:

  • An over-reliance on personal networks and verbal communication to gather information about grantees and grant applicants
  • Potentially valuable contextual data lives inside foundations as static information
  • Foundations can become so obsessed with impact that they outsource data collection and proof to their grantees

Read the complete blog post on the Stanford Social Innovation Review website to learn about the importance of knowledge management and the three types of data foundations need.

-- Rebecca Herman

Transparency, Inclusion and Collaboration: Three Ways Philanthropy Can Take Its Own Medicine
March 20, 2014

Shauna Nep is the social innovation manager at the Goldhirsh Foundation. She has a background in program development, and in mobilizing online and offline engagement with various organizations in Los Angeles. This blog was re-posted with permission from Emerging Practitioners in Philanthropy. This post represents Shauna’s own opinions.

Goldhirsh-shauna-1-150x150In philanthropy, we are working each day to make the world a more open, inclusive, and participatory place. A place where marginalized voices are heard and smart solutions that work rise to the top. But, we have lagged behind in modeling the behavior we want to see in the rest of society. With some notable exceptions, the way we as philanthropic institutions currently engage is not only inconsistent with our current values, but also behind the times in which we live.

This is nobody’s fault. Foundations today are primarily top-down institutions, and changing “the way it’s always been” is hard. In many cases, foundations desperately want to engage but don’t really know how, or feel they lack the appropriate tools.

As a social change advocate who grew up in a time when most platforms are expected to be crowd-powered and open-source, I want nothing less for my field. The good news is that the field is constantly developing new tools and capabilities to help philanthropy put these values into practice.

Let’s talk about some of these values and opportunities to advance them in our own work.

Transparency

As funders, we ask for full transparency from our grantees—impact reports and financial records at the very least. At the Goldhirsh Foundation, we ask our grantees to tell us about roadblocks early on, so that we can help. We want to be considered partners, and expect honesty. What would happen if we all held ourselves to these same standards for impact and disclosure?

Ways to change it

New tools and platforms allow philanthropy to embrace transparency more easily than it could in the past. IssueLab—a project of the Foundation Center—allows foundations to upload case studies, evaluations, white papers, and issue briefs, and ensures that the content is both archived and accessible. GlassPockets, another initiative of the Foundation Center, champions philanthropic transparency by inspiring private foundations to adopt openness in their communications and by highlighting where philanthropic dollars are going. Tools like these make philanthropy more transparent and streamline access to knowledge generated by philanthropy.

One action step

Check out the many transparency tools available on the Glasspockets website and share your publications on IssueLab.

Inclusion

A fundamental issue seems to be that as foundations, our funding strategies are developed in isolation rather than in consultation with the people and organizations we seek to benefit. As a result, the impact is piecemeal, and not nearly as lasting or transformative as it could be.

Ways to change it

There are great examples of foundations who are dramatically embracing inclusion in their grantmaking. The Vancouver Foundation youth grants are administered by their Youth Philanthropy Council—made up of Vancouver youth from diverse backgrounds. The youth not only decide who gets the grants, but also, how much. Their youth are actively engaged and strong advocates for the work of the foundation.

Other great examples include the Durfee Foundation in California, who consistently rely on former grantees to help decide which individuals and projects to fund today, or the Raymond John Wean Foundation in Ohio, whose board includes a diverse mix of community voices.

One action step

Review this comprehensive report by Grantmakers For Effective Organizations on the benefits and types of grantee and public engagement, and find one action your institution might put into practice.

Collaboration does not have to be a large effort. There are low-touch ways for foundations to learn from one another and develop solutions together to make all of our work more streamlined and more effective.

Collaboration

One area in which philanthropy is getting stronger is collaboration. Funders increasingly encourage and/or require collaboration amongst their grantees, and are also starting to adopt the practice themselves, with an eye towards leveraging greater impact in the ecosystems in which they work. Over the past few years several funders collaboratives have formed, and Collective Impact (which had its third birthday this January) is gaining traction.

Ways to keep the momentum going

Collaboration does not have to be a large effort. There are low-touch ways for foundations to learn from one another and develop solutions together to make all of our work more streamlined and more effective. The field is making progress in developing better feedback loops with other funders and grantees, and efforts like the National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership are even making progress in establishing common performance measurements and sharing data. New advances in Big Data and data visualization and analysis should only accelerate this trend.

Putting these values into practice: my own experience

At the foundation where I work, the Goldhirsh Foundation, we sought to create through our LA2050 initiative a shared vision for the future of Los Angeles, and to track and drive progress toward that vision.

To create this shared vision we wanted and needed public participation, but did not have the capacity to conduct a large-scale public deliberation. So, we played to our team’s strengths: We built a brand that people wanted to engage with; we used digital media to collect thousands of visions for the future; we crowdsourced $1,000,000 in grants; and we brought together leaders in business, government, and the social sector to talk about how we are going to change the future of Los Angeles, together. And, demonstrating their willingness to collaborate, the Annenberg Foundation even pooled some of their own resources and funded an additional ten projects to move LA2050 forward.

We celebrate the successes we’ve had with our incredible partners thus far, but also recognize that (1) our approach is one of many possible ones, and (2) our efforts so far are only a tiny portion of what’s needed to make change at the scale we’d like to see, and it’s going to require much more collaboration and inclusion with Angelenos to really move the needle. But, if we are able to embrace the medicine we’ve so often prescribed to our grantees, we are optimistic that we’ll get there.

What can your foundation do to catch up with the times, and emulate the society we are trying to build? And what can we do together?

-- Shauna Nep

Free Webinar: Demystifying Funder Transparency
March 17, 2014

Attention grantmakers! Join GrantCraft and Glasspockets on Thursday, March 20, 2:00pm - 3:00pm EST for a free webinar complementing our new guide, Opening Up: Demystifying Funder Transparency. The webinar, which is co-sponsored with Northern California Grantmakers, will feature a conversation with:

You bring the coffee, GrantCraft and Glasspockets bring the conversation!

OpeningUp_2014_240Grantees, funding partners, the public, and philanthropy professionals themselves all benefit when foundations make their work and their knowledge broadly accessible. However, it can be challenging to know where and how to begin with improving and enhancing your foundation’s transparency practices, as well as to determine what level of transparency is appropriate for family foundations or those with limited staff capacity.

This free webinar will provide highlights from our new guide, and the opportunity to learn from Mary Gregory, Vice President of Pacific Foundation Services, which provides philanthropic support to 20 family foundations and is currently active in promoting the benefits of increased foundation transparency to its clients. Mary will also draw from the case study shared in the guide and her experience as executive director of the Bella Vista Foundation (BVF) about why and how BVF has approached transparency and what advice Mary has for other family foundations grappling with how to best share the work of a foundation with its grantees and other stakeholders, as well as overcoming concerns about perceived risks associated with greater transparency.

Click here to register now!

Note: The webinar will be recorded and available on the GrantCraft website for later viewing. However, be sure to join the live webinar to ask questions and reflect with other participants in real time!

Boosting Transparency Through Podcasting at RWJF
March 11, 2014

Lori Melichar is a team director at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation as well as a labor economist. You can follow her on Twitter at @lorimelichar.

Listen to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Pioneering Ideas podcast:

Lori-melichar-rwjf-150x150My day job involves finding and supporting innovations with the power to accelerate the development of a culture of health in this country. This means finding ways not only to continually expose myself to new ideas but also to clearly communicate the kinds of ideas that my employer, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), seeks to fund. Lately, I’m finding that on both counts, podcasting is one of my favorite tools.

I listen to podcasts during my daily run—newsy ones from NPR, political gabfests, cultural explorations. Sometimes I listen to TED Talks or stories from The Moth. Most of the time I listen to WTF, a podcast where Marc Maron interviews other comedians like himself.

A podcast invites a unique type of conversation-based storytelling, one that we hope will stimulate real-world conversation about applying innovation to create a culture of health—and generate some ideas we’ll be dying to fund.

Though most of the podcasts I listen to are, on the surface of things, unrelated to philanthropy, let alone health or health care, I can’t tell you the number of times that something I’ve heard in a podcast has stimulated an idea related to my work. Sometimes I have to stop running to jot down a thought, fact or idea. Sometimes a nugget from a podcast festers in my mind throughout my run and ends up somewhere completely different by the end.

I believe in the power of the podcast medium to reach individuals where it matters: between the ears. Which is why I’m thrilled to be taking the reins as the host of RWJF’s podcast, Pioneering Ideas. We launched the podcast last year and our third episode debuted earlier today (you can listen to it above).

Our goal with Pioneering Ideas is to be more transparent about the way we work and the kinds of ideas we seek to fund—and to do so in a way that’s engaging for others who are interested in exploring cutting edge ideas and emerging trends that can transform health and health care. Sometimes that means talking to program officers, grantees and others in the RWJF network; other times it means having conversations with pioneering thinkers with no formal relationship to the Foundation.

In our latest episode, for example, I interview Barry Schwartz, a former professor of mine and author of The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less, about how his work on the science of decision-making might apply to health and health care. Another guest on this episode, Sheena Iyengar, author of The Art of Choosing, recently visited RWJF as part of our What’s Next Health: Conversations with Pioneers series, and graciously agreed to spend some extra time with us talking for the podcast.

Of course, our podcast isn’t the only vehicle we have for lifting the curtain on our strategy for exploring and funding cutting edge ideas—we are active across a range of social media, and are always adding and exploring new approaches. But a podcast invites a unique type of conversation-based storytelling, one that we hope will stimulate real-world conversation about applying innovation to create a culture of health—and generate some ideas we’ll be dying to fund.

We’ve been conservative in our promotion efforts so far as we find our legs with this new venture. Just over 250 people listened to our second episode—hardly a landslide, but a very respectable showing for this type of podcast. We’ve been learning a lot behind the scenes, and the feedback we’re receiving is encouraging. A variety of thought leaders in health innovation have shared the podcast with their networks, and we're hopeful that the podcast will ultimately encourage people to tell us about their ideas for health and health care. Our goal is to increase the number of listens by 20 percent with every episode we release and build a high-quality audience that excitedly awaits each episode—just as I await new episodes of WTF every Monday and Thursday morning.

I’d love to know what you think—not just about our podcast (which you can listen to at the top of this post), but about using podcasts to support idea-sourcing and to cultivate conversations that can inform a nonprofit’s efforts at creating social change. Any examples of podcasts that you think do a superlative job of communicating an organization’s interests in a stimulating and entertaining way?

On this morning’s run, I heard Marc Maron say that a philosophy teacher once told him there are two ways to fill your mind: One is to put new stuff in there, and the other is to heat up whatever’s in there so that it expands.

I hope Pioneering Ideas fills your mind.

And if you’ve got any audacious ideas for creating a culture of health in this country, I’d love to hear them. Find me on Twitter at @lorimelichar or email me at lmelichar [at] rwjf.org.

-- Lori Melichar

Glasspockets Find: The Weingart Foundation Lays Out its Assumptions and its Grant Plan
March 3, 2014

(Rebecca Herman is special projects associate for Glasspockets at the Foundation Center-San Francisco.)

Herman-150Everyone has assumptions about charitable giving and philanthropy, but we usually don't spell out what those assumptions are. We may have devoted months to researching what nonprofits need most, and we may have spent hours deliberating where to focus our efforts--and where is that information to be found? In a foundation's private files? Not anymore.

Weingart Foundation logoThe Weingart Foundation starts planning its annual grantmaking by laying out its assumptions. This public document reads like a kind of "state of the union" from one funder's perspective, informed by grantee feedback, research, conversations with colleagues and analysis of grant applications. In the President's Message, Fred Ali describes the observations and challenges in the field that led to the Weingart Foundation's grant planning assumptions, such as:

"The failure of private and, in particular, government funders to adequately support administrative and fundraising costs undermines nonprofit effectiveness and sustainability."

Providing support for administrative costs and infrastructure versus program expenses is undoubtedly a hot-button topic in philanthropy, and it is one The Weingart Foundation addresses head-on in their FY2014 Grant Plan Assumptions:

"When combined with strong leadership and management, providing unrestricted, multi-year core operating support is one of the most effective ways to build nonprofit organizational capacity. Core Support grants provide the 'working capital' nonprofits need to sustain and improve their operations, and necessary infrastructure."

What kind of conversations are you having internally about funding administrative expenses? What might your colleagues learn from your assumptions? To start a dialogue about how to share such information publicly, check out the Why Transparency section of Glasspockets, and our new guide, Opening Up: Desmystifying Funder Transparency, created by GrantCraft in collaboration with Glasspockets.

SoundcloudThe Weingart Foundation is one of the case studies that is featured in the guide, and you can hear Belen Vargas, vice president of programs, speak about the foundation's reasons for sharing information about their grantmaking process in one of GrantCraft's new Transparency Chat podcasts.

When you find other great examples of foundations sharing their planning processes, share them with us at: glasspockets@foundationcenter.org

-- Rebecca Herman

About Transparency Talk

  • Transparency Talk, the Glasspockets blog, is a platform for candid and constructive conversation about foundation transparency and accountability. In this space, the Foundation Center highlights strategies, findings, and best practices on the web and in foundations–illuminating the importance of having "glass pockets."

    The views expressed in this blog do not necessarily reflect the views of the Foundation Center.

    Questions and comments may be
    directed to:

    Janet Camarena
    Director, San Francisco Office
    The Foundation Center

    If you are interested in being a
    guest contributor, contact:
    glasspockets@foundationcenter.org

Subscribe to Transparency Talk