Transparency Talk

Hole in the Road to Transparency: People with Disabilities Often Excluded By Foundations & Nonprofits
October 17, 2019

Untitled design








Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi

Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi is founder & president of RespectAbility, a nonprofit that fights stigmas and advances opportunities for people with disabilities.

Philanthropic transparency is vital. But there’s a major challenge – people with disabilities are being excluded from philanthropy and nonprofits every day.

RespectAbility, a nonprofit disability organization, did a major study of close to 1,000 people in the social sector. The report, “Disability in Philanthropy & Nonprofits: A Study on the Inclusion and Exclusion of the 1-in-5 People Who Live with a Disability and What You Can Do to Make Things Better,” found that while the vast majority of foundations and nonprofits want to include people with disabilities, they don’t know what they don’t know. Hence their practices do not align with their values and they are discriminating against people with disabilities.

For example, only 59 percent of foundations and nonprofits say their events are always held in physically accessible spaces, which means that people who use wheelchairs are shut out from participating. Only 30 percent say they have a process in place to allow people with disabilities to request necessary accommodations (like a sign language interpreter or allergy-free foods) on event registration forms. And only 14 percent say their organizations use captions on web videos to ensure people who are deaf or hard of hearing can access the content (although free rough captions can be automatically generated on YouTube). Thus, people with disabilities do not have the access and accommodations they need to fully participate in the public good these groups are doing.

Take the case study of the Ford Foundation. In a 2014 keynote address at the annual conference of the Council on Foundations, Ford’s President Darren Walker announced a major game-changing initiative on equity. He gave a passionate speech about equity and lifting up the most marginalized of people. Yet he did it in a way that was not accessible to people with disabilities. Ford released a tweet about the new initiative that was not screen reader accessible to people who are blind or have low vision. That tweet directed people to a website that also was not accessible to people with vision impairments. Some tweets went to a video that had no captions – so no one who was deaf or hard of hearing could gain the information. And Ford’s grant application software was not even remotely accessible (and still is not fully accessible today).

“Only 59 percent of foundations and nonprofits say their events are always held in physically accessible spaces.”

I, and other disability activists, reached out to Mr. Walker about these barriers. Thankfully, he listened deeply, understood what was at stake and took concrete action. Indeed, in his annual open letter he wrote: “The Ford Foundation does not have a person with visible disabilities on our leadership team; takes no affirmative effort to hire people with disabilities; does not consider them in our strategy; and does not even provide those with physical disabilities with adequate access to our website, events, social media, or building. Our 50-year-old headquarters is currently not compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) – landmark legislation that celebrated its 26th anniversary this summer. It should go without saying: all of this is at odds with our mission.”

In the time since then, Darren Walker, Noorain Khan and others at the Ford Foundation have taken step after step to ensure that they no longer discriminate against people with disabilities. Their transition, while not yet complete, is nothing short of spectacular. Not only that, Ford, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and other foundations have now recruited a significant number of major foundations to join them in a cohort to move these issues forward.

But here’s the thing – you don’t need to be a big and well-funded foundation to make the changes needed. Most of them can be done for little or no money. If your foundation wants to offer transparency, accessibility, equity and accountability there are specific steps you can take. These include:

  1. Commit publicly to the inclusion of people with disabilities. The message that all people, including those with disabilities, are of equal value must be communicated publicly and repeatedly by top leaders verbally and on your website.
  2. Ensure people with disabilities are included in decision making positions, not just for issues related to them but for all issues. Organizations are at their best when they welcome, respect, and include people of all backgrounds. Indeed, problems are best solved by working with people who have experienced them first hand and know solutions that work. Just like issues that impact people of different racial, ethnic, or other backgrounds, people with disabilities should be involved in solving issues that impact them.
  3. Foster an inclusive environment with your language and practices. What we say makes a difference. Avoid saying things like “wheelchair-bound,” “confined to a wheelchair,” “wheelchair person,” or “suffers from.” Do say “someone uses a wheelchair.” 
  4. Have an inclusion point person or committee. Add an inclusion statement to your website and event invitations, and train your human resources staff to respond to requests for disability accommodations. Consider including diversity, including disability, as a performance metric for all departments and employees.  
  5. Include people with disabilities in your marketing. For example, photos on your organization’s website and your publications should include individuals with visible disabilities. 
  6. Make your website, online resources and social media accessible. Set up your website and social media for use by screen readers and for people who need captions. Ensure that all photos have alt text, and that all videos have captions. Ensure that your business cards, documents and presentations are accessible. 
  7. Ensure the accessibility of your office and events. All of the following must be accessible: invitation/notification of event, facilities, communications and staff/volunteers.
  8. Include disability in diversity data and ask your grantees to do the same. Demonstrate that your organization prioritizes diversity, equity and inclusion by walking the walk (or rolling the roll in the case of wheelchair users) on disability inclusion.
  9. Promote a disability lens among grantees and partners. Ask your grantees and partners about meaningful and inclusive policies and/or programs; public commitments on website and materials; employing people with disabilities at all levels; inviting people to request accommodations; physical accessibility of office and programs; website accessibility; video captioning; and internal and external educational efforts. Help them to look at intersectional data and impacts.
  10. Disability impacts people of all races, genders, and backgrounds and making a difference is much easier than you think.

RespectAbility is offering a free online series to train foundation and nonprofit leaders in the nuts and bolts of how to be inclusive of people with disabilities. You can free resources here:   https://www.respectability.org/inclusive-philanthropy/ and sign up for the series here: https://www.respectability.org/accessibility-webinars/

--Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi

Donor-Advised Funds Debate Intensifies with Proposed California Legislation
September 30, 2019

JeanneBell-e1490280555818







Jeanne Bell

Jeanne Bell, MNA is the Director of Practice Advancement at The Nonprofit Quarterly (NPQ) and she directs NPQ's Advancing Practice program to advance critical conversations about nonprofit management and leadership.

This post also appears in The Nonprofit Quarterly.

Before I report on the legislation that has been proposed to regulate donor-advised funds (DAFs) in California, I want to remind readers that this kind of state legislation not only can go viral but can also presage federal lawmaking on the given issues. Therefore, even though this bill addresses the DAF industry only in California, it has the potential to create a wedge in policymaking on a more national basis.

A video of the August 29th Candid forum upon which this article is based can be viewed below. That said, given the increasingly heated national discourse about donor-advised funds, the California legislation co-sponsored by CalNonprofits, NextGen California, and philanthropist Kat Taylor, herself a DAF holder, is perhaps surprisingly modest next to the far more extensive concerns and proposals being offered by national critics.

 

 

In its current form, AB-1712 focuses only on DAF transparency and would “require the Attorney General (AG) to adopt rules and regulations that require DAF Sponsors to disclose information about the individual funds or accounts they maintain to help the AG ascertain whether those funds are being properly administered.” In this case, “properly administered” includes that the DAF sponsor has “a publicly available policy that governs DAFs that are inactive, dormant, or do not make distributions during a specified period of time that does not exceed 36 months.”

As NPQ first reported in March of this year, Assembly Bill 1712 was introduced by Buffy Wicks of California’s 15th Assembly District, which encompasses the cities of Berkeley, Emeryville, Richmond, and parts of the City of Oakland in the East Bay. As seen above, Candid hosted a debate about AB-1712 last month in San Francisco with CalNonprofits CEO Jan Masaoka, who favors the legislation, and Daniel Baldwin of the Community Foundation for Monterey County and Nageeb Sumar, Vice President of Philanthropic Strategies at Fidelity Charitable, neither of whom support it as currently proposed.

Here, we stop for a little more context-setting. Philanthropy in general has long been resistant to changes in its regulation, and the resistance often is what Scott Harshbarger at one point called “ragging the puck”—that is, keeping the puck in play until the legislative clock runs down. In the case of DAF sponsors, this generally seems to take the form of responding to every challenge on transparency and payout with a statement about how essentially good they are (an argument more often used by community foundations) and how sad they are for being “under attack,” or, alternately, how fast they are growing/how much they are managing and granting in philanthropic funds—never mind that it is precisely this point that begs the need for greater scrutiny.

At this stage, AB-1712 is what’s called a “two-year bill”; it is still open to amendment and will have to move through the Assembly by early 2020 or die. The bill’s sponsors are in active conversation with stakeholders, including community foundation executives, though the degree of that cooperation was contested during the debate. Baldwin claimed the bill’s original language “demonized DAFs” and that he was unaware of recent language changes, while Masaoka insisted the sponsors had been in dialogue with community foundations along the way.

Jockeying for the Frame

It was immediately apparent that the debaters were jockeying for more than a winning position on whether AB-1712 is worthy legislation; instead, they were trying to frame an overall take on DAFs themselves. The discussion was often less about the specifics of the legislation and more about the desired positioning of the two leading DAF sponsor types: community foundations on the one hand, and national entities like Fidelity Charitable, which are independent charities created by and affiliated with for-profit investment firms, on the other. Baldwin and Sumar were each working hard to distinguish the worthiness of their respective organizational types. Baldwin, who in addition to being CEO of a community foundation is active in public policy work for the League of California Community Foundations, framed community foundations as local experts connecting donors to real community needs. When challenged by Masaoka about the donor-centrism of his positioning on DAFs, he claimed that his community foundation was above all else about “promoting grantmaking.” Sumar, on the other hand, underscored the scale and innovation of the Fidelity Charitable model, noting that he had previously worked at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which is now smaller than Fidelity. Several times he said that Fidelity aims to give an “Amazon-like experience” to donors’ philanthropy; they have, he said, a new app that allows people to do transactions on their phones, and they took in $70 million in cryptocurrency gifts to DAFs last year.

Which Data Do We Need?

Baldwin and Sumar showered us with data, citing it near constantly in their arguments.

  • From Sumar on the “geography of giving”: 42 percent of their DAF grants stay in the city of their origin, and 50 percent of their DAF grants stay in their state of origin.
  • From Baldwin’s poll of 31 members of the League of California Community Foundations: Together, they hold 7,200 DAFs, 5,500 of which are not endowed, meaning the full funds are available for grantmaking. They hold roughly $9 billion in these funds and granted $2 billion for the last year reported.

The irony is that Masaoka’s argument for AB-1712 is that none of this self-reported data is the data we would need to determine whether and what kind of regulation of this multi-billion-dollar industry is appropriate to protect the taxpayer from bad actors.

Of most significance, the data they offer is not reported fund by fund, but rather in aggregate, allowing for impressive percentages in grants made, for instance, but obfuscating the dormant or questionably invested cases in these large portfolios.

Best Practice vs. Regulation

In the end, this debate was a very plain one. It’s a debate over whether an industry of this size with this much untaxed money in play should set its own standards or be regulated. In arguing for internal standard-setting,

Baldwin and Sumar made all the cases one would expect. They both suggested that reporting by fund would be an administrative burden to them as sponsors and a turnoff to DAF donors who enjoy the flexibility and relative anonymity of this vehicle. Baldwin pointed to the National Standards for US Community Foundations, through which he and his colleague organizations get certified. It’s important to note that the Council on Foundations describes these standards thusly: “The National Standards for US Community Foundations® is an accreditation program created by community foundations for community foundations. They are peer-driven, voluntary, and self-regulatory.” And Sumar noted that Fidelity Charitable does in fact have a five-percent DAFs payout policy, which is a voluntary policy choice on its part.

But of course, as Masaoka countered, regulation is not for the good actors; it is for the current or potential bad ones: “Best practices should go hand-in-hand with regulation; they aren’t a substitute for it.” And attention to DAFs, it seems, will only increase as their holdings grow. Masaoka said a copycat bill to AB-1712 is in the works in Minnesota, and the National Association of State Charity Officials (NASCO) has expressed concern as well.

“It behooves the nonprofit sector,” Masaoka argued, “to stay in the lead and not [just] let this happen to us.”

--Jeanne Bell

Ask, Listen, Act. Embedding Community Voices into our Brand.
September 12, 2019

Untitled design






Zeeba Khalili

Zeeba Khalili is the Learning and Evaluation Officer at Marguerite Casey Foundation.

Los Angeles, California; Baltimore, Maryland; Mobile, Alabama; Rapid City, South Dakota; El Paso, Texas; and Yakima, Washington. These six cities were chosen to reflect a diversity of regional, generational, cultural, ethnic and socioeconomic perspectives. In 2002, as part of our creation, Marguerite Casey Foundation convened listening circles in these six cities to listen to the voices of more than 600 families. The Foundation posed the same three questions in each listening circle:

  • What creates strong families and children?
  • What would it take to change the systems that have an impact on the lives of families and children?
  • How would you leverage $30 million to ensure the well-being of children, families and communities?

Though these six hundred voices spoke of diverse needs, in many ways we discovered they spoke as one. They called for respecting and valuing families; empowering families and holding them at the center of systems of care; promoting grassroots activism and leadership; collaborating across agencies and systems; changing unresponsive policies; and galvanizing public will to support families that help avoid crises and ultimately lead away from dependence on systems.

We didn’t convene listening circles just to check a box of community involvement. Hearing stories and ideas directly from communities allowed us to build a Foundation that challenged preconceived notions about the “best” way to support families and end poverty. What we heard became the framework for the Foundation’s mission and strategy, grounded in listening to communities’ concerns as articulated by community leaders and taking action informed by families’ voices. We committed to Ask, Listen, Act, making it our brand promise, and one of our forms of philanthropic transparency. The Foundation grounds its decisions in what we’ve heard from our constituencies, both grantees and families, and we make our learnings public so that other groups can learn from the work we’ve already done.

Today, Marguerite Casey Foundation’s grantmaking echoes the sentiments heard seventeen years ago. We provide long-term, sizeable multi-year general operating support grants to grassroots activism and advocacy organizations. We invest in Equal Voice networks, regionally and nationally, facilitated by network weavers, who help grantees collaborate across issues, form alliances and bring about long-term change.

Marguerite-casey-foundationAdditionally, the Foundation lifts the voices of low-income families to the national dialogue through our Equal Voice News online platform, harnessing the power of storytelling about families leading change in their communities. Program officers, closest to the grantees, connect the Foundation’s communications team to the families on the ground and elevate their experiences so that others can learn from them. For example, in July, the Foundation chronicled a Black farming community in rural Georgia, once thought to be vanishing, but that remains steadfast in its efforts to fight issues of Black land loss and food-related disparities. This story supports the work of Southwest Georgia Project for Community Education, a grantee of the Foundation, serving as a tool in fundraising and in garnering greater media attention.

Ask, Listen, Act allows us to engage the community for both our benefit and for theirs. Its methodology can be seen across the Foundation, including in how we learn from our grantees. Every few years we commission the Center for Effective Philanthropy (CEP) to conduct a Grantee Perception Report survey of our grantees to assess our impact and interactions. These reports create genuine opportunity for the Foundation to reflect on our strategies and in the past, based on feedback, we identified two key areas to improve: consistency of communications and assistance beyond grant dollars. We created cross-regional teams of Program Officers to ensure that grantees could always reach someone with questions or concerns and provided several grantees in the South with technical assistance funding to grow their financial and governance infrastructures.

We hold ourselves accountable to the six hundred families that came together from across the country in 2002 to help us with our founding. Their unique circumstances and breadth of perspectives continue to be heard today in the communities we serve, shared with us by our grantees, and so the Foundation’s approach remains steadfast. We hope that the philanthropic community will recognize that the constituencies we serve deserve to be listened to and more than that, deserve to be experts of their own lives.

--Zeeba Khalili

WEBINAR—#OpenForGood: Sharing Knowledge to Advance Foundation Impact
September 5, 2019

Square (1)
Meg Long
Square (2)

Veronica Olazabal
Square

Lee Alexander Risby

Learn how to go about sharing knowledge to drive broader impact across the social sector. This webinar coming up on September 17th, hosted by Grantmakers for Effective Organizations, featuring the inaugural winners of Candid’s #OpenForGood Award, will present best practices and approaches to help your foundation shift to a culture of learning.

The webinar will explore how foundations can take specific steps to better support knowledge-sharing by providing an overview of Candid’s #OpenForGood field scan and how-to guide, and asking participants to identify challenges and possible solutions when it comes to opening up knowledge for the greater good. Recent #OpenForGood award-winning foundations, the Rockefeller Foundation and the C&A Foundation, will share their insights and lessons learned in shifting to a culture of learning.

Building on a recent field scan and interviews with leaders across the globe, we will explore the following questions:

  • Why share knowledge? What are the benefits and for whom?
  • What barriers get in the way of foundations sharing their knowledge, and what are practical strategies for overcoming those barriers?
  • How can knowledge-sharing be used to level power dynamics and advance equity?
  • What role can technology play in helping to simplify the act of knowledge sharing?

REGISTER HERE

Shedding Light on DAFs: Pros & Cons of New Legislation
August 26, 2019

The transparency of donor-advised funds has been the subject of much scrutiny, debate, and now in California, pending legislation. Become informed about the proposed legislation and both sides of the debate in an upcoming program offered by Candid West in San Francisco this Thursday, August 29th. You can also participate remotely via livestream.

The California Association of Nonprofits recently helped introduce California bill AB 1712, which would mandate greater transparency around donor-advised funds (DAFs) through annual reporting requirements, promoting best practices, and requiring minimum annual distributions. Opponents, however, say it violates the privacy of the individual fund donors, as well as fund advisors who make grant recommendations.

Come join us and co-sponsor, Northern California Grantmakers, for an in-depth discussion of the pros and cons of this bill between interested parties, including Cal Nonprofits, Fidelity Charitable and the League of California Community Foundations. It’s an issue of critical concern to the social sector. Contributions to DAFs rose 16.5% from 2016 to 2017, and grants from donor-advised funds to qualified charities increased nearly 20% during the same period.

Register or learn more here.

Meet Our New GlassPockets Foundation: An Interview with Chris Langston, President & CEO, Archstone Foundation
August 8, 2019

GlassPockets Road to 100

This post is part of our "Road to 100 & Beyond" series, in which we are featuring the foundations that have joined us in building a movement for transparency that now surpasses 100 foundations publicly participating in the "Who Has GlassPockets?" self-assessment. This blog series highlights reflections on why transparency is important, how openness evolves inside foundations over time, helpful examples, and lessons learned.

Since its inception in 1985 as a healthcare conversion foundation, Archstone Foundation has responded to the implications of changing demographics by supporting innovative responses to the emerging and unmet needs of older adults. The Foundation has funded a wide range of grantees making important contributions in critical, yet often overlooked areas of need.

Today, the Foundation focuses its grantmaking on four major areas:

  • Enabling older adults to remain in their homes and communities;
  • Improving the treatment of late-life depression;
  • Developing innovative responses to the family caregiving needs of older adults; and
  • Expanding the health care and broader workforce needed to care for, and serve, the rapidly growing aging population.

Archstone Foundation is among our newest GlassPockets participants. In this interview with GlassPockets’ Janet Camarena, Chris Langston, President & CEO of the Archstone Foundation, explains why transparency is central to its philanthropic efforts.

GlassPockets: Archstone Foundation was born out of a healthcare conversion, when a nonprofit HMO became a for-profit corporation. Do you think transparency is more important for healthcare conversion foundations to demonstrate that these dollars are being used for public good? Or are there other reasons that you are prioritizing philanthropic transparency?

Langston_hi_Staff_Photos_3.0_165_165_c1_c_t_0_0
Chris Langston

Chris Langston: I’m sure the public is more interested in what’s going on with healthcare conversion foundations, as the funds are more clearly a public trust because they derived from the tax advantages given to the nonprofit parent. As an older, smaller conversion, the public has long since forgotten the origin of the endowment, but what we do is still supported by the taxpayers granting favorable treatment to the endowment. Nevertheless, to my mind, conversions or foundations born of a wealthy individual’s gift (or other source) have the same obligation to transparency. Foundations are granted tremendous autonomy in what and how they do their work and, beyond some very broad IRS regulations, are only accountable to their boards. As a consequence, I think that we owe the public great visibility into what we do and how we do it. I believe that the great diversity of foundations is a strength in the sector, and I oppose external mandates regarding subject matter, limited lifespan, payout rates, or other aspects of foundation discretion. So, the only remaining constraint is public scrutiny of our process and our work.

GP: We often hear concerns that transparency takes a lot of time and resources, so it's really more relevant for large foundations. Why would you say transparency and openness should be a priority for even foundations comprised of a small team? How have you benefited from your efforts to open up your work?

CL: I see the GlassPockets standards as a floor and not one that takes a great deal of effort to keep shiny. We share through our website our current grants, our strategic plans, our governance documents, and financial reports. Even small foundations need to have these tools and structures and sharing them digitally is no burden. These things change relatively slowly and in the modern era are relatively easy to keep up to date.

Moreover, I’ve worked at two other foundations previously, one which started as not very transparent because of inattention to communicating to the public and one which had historically gone to great lengths to be opaque – the Atlantic Philanthropies during its anonymous giving phase. In neither case did our lack of transparency make our work better – I think it made it worse. We got less constructive engagement from the field, we got less alignment between us and grantees, and we didn’t benefit from the extra energy that comes from knowing that your successes and failures are going to be visible for all to see.

GP: Your commitment to openness includes maintaining a responsive grantmaking program with an open RFP that can be submitted on an ongoing basis. At a time when many foundations are putting up walls by shifting to invite only grantmaking, this is notable in that you are maintaining this kind of openness with a very small program team made up of three officers. Why has it been important to maintain the open RFP, and what is your advice to keeping it manageable for lean teams?

CL: Actually, we are right now reviewing our responsive grantmaking program and could very well stop or constrain it. While having an open RFP mechanism is one kind of openness, I am more committed to having an open-door policy. I think it is a legitimate strategic decision as to whether a foundation takes grant applications by invitation only, has a monthly letter of intent review (as we currently do), or something in between. What’s more important is that there be regular opportunities whereby grantseekers can learn from foundation staff about foundation priorities and strategies for change and where foundation staff can learn about the needs and interests of nonprofits in the field and the people in need.

”The GlassPockets process is a thoughtful and well-structured way of getting started in opening up to the public, what largely belongs to the public, even if it is held in trust for them by us on the inside.”

GP: How did the GlassPockets self-assessment process help you improve or better understand your organization's level of transparency, and why should your peers participate?

CL: The GlassPockets process is a thoughtful and well-structured way of getting started in opening up to the public, what largely belongs to the public, even if it is held in trust for them by us on the inside. Providing the information helps you in many ways – it helps you be sure that you even have all the tools, policies, and procedures of a modern nonprofit (e.g., conflict of interest, committee charters, etc.). It helps you whenever you have a twinge of conscience at the thought of making something public, in so far as that is telling you that you are doing something that you don’t feel good about – something that doesn’t pass the “would you want to see it on the front page of the paper test.” And the process is part of creating a culture of openness and honesty among and between board, staff, and grantees. Creating this kind of culture is an enormous project undermined by fear, norms of silence, and power differentials – but I think it is critical for effective grantmaking.

GP: Since ideally, transparency is always evolving and there is always more that can be shared, what are some of your hopes for how Archstone Foundation will continue to open up its work in new ways in the future?

CL: Having earned a GlassPockets designation now at a second organization, it is this issue that really interests me – how can we take further steps in transparency. While it is scary and a long-term project to build a shared understanding and the will to change, I hope to make much more information public – for example, grant proposals (at least the funded ones), evaluations, board minutes, budgets, and more. The federal grantmaking process at the National Institute of Health already does much of this. When I think about government processes, I expect all of that transparency and more -- and yet government is at least nominally subject to the control of the voting public. Since foundations do not make their grantmaking or staffing decisions subject to elections, shouldn’t we be even more transparent than government?

Fundamentally, the issue is that among funders and nonprofits, we spend a lot of time not just “reinventing the wheel” but more accurately, reinventing the flat tire. It is not that there is more knowledge or skill on one side or the other of the grantmaking table, it’s that there isn’t enough truth and light illuminating the conversation. And as the party with the power of the purse, it is incumbent on us to go first to change the dialogue if we want to have better results.

--Chris Langston & Janet Camarena

Transparency Levels Go Live on GlassPockets
July 25, 2019

6a00e54efc2f80883301b7c90b6cb7970b-150wi
Janet Camarena

Janet Camarena is director of transparency initiatives at Candid.

Earlier this year, we announced a new Transparency Level framework on GlassPockets that would recognize grantmakers for having Core, Advanced, or Champion-level transparency practices based on how detailed the websites are for each profiled foundation. This announcement coincided with GlassPockets reaching its 100th publicly shared profile when the Walton Family Foundation joined and doubled down on their commitment to transparency by supporting GlassPockets in developing the new tiered-approach to transparency. Now, for the first time in the history of the platform, these levels are publicly visible when viewing the funders profiled on the site.

Each GlassPockets profile now comes complete with a transparency badge denoting the level that funder has attained. We encourage foundations to proudly display this badge on their websites as a way to demonstrate their commitment to transparency. You can get your badge here. Visitors to “Who Has Glass Pockets?” can also sort by transparency level to see which foundations comprise each. This sort feature also lists foundations by the number of transparency indicators they currently have, making it possible to quickly determine which foundations lead the pack when it comes to their online transparency practices.

Currently, the distinction of which foundation has the most transparent website goes to Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF), so a big congratulations to RBF for living its values when it says that it “is committed to sharing information to promote understanding of its mission and to advance the work of its grantees. The RBF values transparency, openness, and accountability, and has long provided detailed information about its history, program strategies, grants, impact, governance, operations, and finances.” The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, The Wallace Foundation, the Brazil Foundation, currently round out the top four foundations on GlassPockets based on the variety of types of data that is shared on their websites.

Badge-array-w-descriiption-2019-07

The transparency levels are designed to motivate foundations to continue to improve their transparency practices over time, as well as to use the data GlassPockets has collected to create suggested pathways for how transparency can evolve over time. The Core-level transparency practices are a natural entry point for new participants and reveal the data that is most commonly shared by foundations, which tends to be information about what the foundation does. Advanced transparency practices reveal not just what a foundation does, but also reveals how they do it by sharing information about a foundation’s operations. And Champion-level transparency practices push the current boundaries of what most foundations share online.

If it’s been a while since you’ve updated your GlassPockets profile, or reviewed your website’s transparency practices, now is an excellent time to do so, and you might just level up!

Explore GlassPockets Now

--Janet Camarena

Meet Our #OpenForGood Award Winner: An Interview with Veronica Olazabal, Director of Measurement, Evaluation and Organizational Performance, The Rockefeller Foundation
July 10, 2019

Nqrwrzfk





Veronica Olazabal

This post is part of the Glasspockets’ #OpenforGood series done in partnership with the Fund for Shared Insight. The series explores new tools, promising practices, and inspiring examples showing how some foundations are opening up the knowledge that they are learning for the benefit of the larger philanthropic sector. Contribute your comments on each post and share the series using #OpenForGood. View more posts in the series.

The Rockefeller Foundation advances new frontiers of science, data, policy, and innovation to solve global challenges related to health, food, power, and economic mobility. In this interview, Veronica Olazabal shares insights with GlassPockets' Janet Camarena about how the foundation’s practices support learning and open knowledge.

GlassPockets: Congratulations on being one of our inaugural recipients of the #OpenForGood award! The award was designed to recognize those foundations that are working to advance the field by sharing what they are learning. Can you please share why you have prioritized knowledge sharing at the Rockefeller Foundation and how this practice has helped you to advance your work? Or put another way, what is the good that has come about as a result?

Veronica Olazabal: We are excited to be an inaugural recipient of the #OpenForGood award! As you may be aware, since its founding more than 100 years ago, The Rockefeller Foundation's mission has been “ to promote the well-being of humanity throughout the world.” To this end, the Foundation seeks to catalyze and scale transformative innovation across sectors and geographies, and take risks where others cannot, or will not.

While often working in new and innovative spaces, the Foundation has always recognized that the full impact of its programs and investments can only be realized if it measures - and shares - what it is learning. Knowledge and evidence sharing have been core to the organization's DNA dating back to its founder John D. Rockefeller Sr., who espoused the virtues of learning from and with others—positing that this was the key to "enlarging the boundaries of human knowledge." You can imagine how this, in turn, resulted in transformational breakthroughs such as the Green Revolution, the eradication of Yellow Fever and the formalization of Impact Investing.

The-rockefeller-foundationGP: Your title has the word “evaluation” in its name and increasingly we are seeing foundations move toward this staffing structure of having staff dedicated to evaluation and learning. For those foundations that are considering adding such a unit to their teams, what advice do you have about the structures needed to create a culture of learning across the organization and avoid the creation of one more silo? 

VO: Learning is a team sport and to that end, an evaluation and learning team should be centrally positioned and accessible to all teams across a foundation. At the Rockefeller Foundation, the Measurement and Evaluation team engages with both the programmatic and the impact investing teams. We see our role as enablers of good practices around impact management and programmatic learning -- often working with teams in early stage design support, through start-up, implementation and exit. We also work collaboratively with others at the Foundation such as our grants-management and data teams to ensure the “right” M&E data is being captured throughout our grantee’s lifecycle.

Yet, I will be the first to say that building a culture of learning by continuously reaching “over the fence” is a lot of work and might be challenging for a small team, which is the reality for most foundations. Benchmarking data produced by the Center for Evaluation Innovation (CEI) and the Center for Effective Philanthropy (CEP) lands most M&E teams at foundations at around 1.5. So, capacity for culture change is clearly a challenge. My suggestion here is to source evaluation and learning talent that balances the hard technical chops with the softer people skills. I believe you truly need both and if an organization optimizes for one over the other, might experience a series of false starts. A good place to start in sourcing evaluation talent is the American Evaluation Association (AEA).

GP: As you heard during the award presentation, one of the reasons the Rockefeller Foundation was selected to receive this award is because of your commitment to sharing the results of any evaluation you commission, before you even know the outcome. This pledge seems designed to not let negative findings affect your decision about whether or not to share what your learned. We often hear that foundation boards and leaders are worried about reputational issues with such sharing. What would you say to those leaders about how opening up these pain points and lessons has affected Rockefeller’s reputation in the field, and why it’s worth it?

VO: In 2017, The Rockefeller Foundation was pleased to be the first to make all of its evaluations available to IssueLab as part of #OpenForGood. But to the Foundation, being open goes well beyond passively making information available to those seeking it. Being truly open necessarily involves the proactive sharing of lessons so that others can be aware of and leverage from the things that we are learning. To that end, we regularly author blogs, disseminate evaluation reports and M&E learnings via digital channels, and – perhaps most importantly – share back evaluation results with our grantees and partners – so that evaluation is more than a one-way extractive exercise.

"Being truly open necessarily involves the proactive sharing of lessons so that others can be aware of and leverage from the things that we are learning."

Taking sharing one step further, earlier this year, The Rockefeller Foundation adopted a new Data Asset Policy aimed at making the data that we collect as part of our grantmaking freely available to others who could use it to effect more good in the world. The policy is grounded on two core principles: 1) that the data we fund has incredible value for public good and that these assets can serve as fuel for better decision-making; and 2) we commit ourselves to being responsible stewards of these data, which means prioritizing privacy and protection, especially of those individuals and communities we seek to serve. Moving forward, this opens up the ability to amplify our learning even further and in even more innovative ways.

GP: A concern we often hear is that a funder creating a culture of learning leads to an increased burden on grantees who are then asked for robust evaluations and outcomes measures that no one is willing to pay for. Does Rockefeller include funding for the evaluations and reporting or other technical assistance to mitigate the burden on grantees?

VO: Having had the experience of being both a funder and a grantee, I know this is a real barrier to enabling robust learning cultures and evidence-informed decision-making. For this reason, at The Rockefeller Foundation we approach resourcing in a few different ways:

  • First, through embedding resources for evaluation and learning into individual grantee budgets and agreements from the start. This type of funding enables grantees to generate the type of data they need for their own decision-making, learning and reporting.
  • We also often work in a consortia model where we commission an evaluation and learning grantee separately to synthesize learnings across groups of grantees and provide technical assistance as needed. This approach helps decrease the reporting burden for “implementation” types of grantees as it generates what is it the Foundation would like to learn (which could differ from what the grantees and their clients find useful). Here is an example from our Digital Jobs Africa portfolio generated through this evaluation and learning model.
  • Finally, we have also at times, and upon request, seconded our own M&E staff to grantees and partners to help build their M&E muscle and enable them to measure their own impact. While this is rare, we are seeing this request more and more and hence why we value both technical expertise and relationship management skills.

GP: Learning is a two-way street and foundations are both producers and consumers of knowledge. Let’s close this interview with hearing about a noteworthy piece of knowledge you recently learned thanks to another foundation or organization sharing it, and how it helped inform your own work.

VO: There are many opportunities to learn from others. In my current role, I am in continuous engagement with colleagues in similar roles at other philanthropies and regularly meet before or after convenings organized by CEP, GEO and AEA. In addition, as part of my work on the Fund for Shared Insight which is a funding collaborative working to make listening to end-users the norm, my philanthropy colleagues and I often exchange on where we all are in our personal and institutional learning journeys.

Finally, as part of a W.K. Kellogg Foundation-funded Lab for Learning, The Rockefeller Foundation was most recently among a cohort of 15 foundations that took part in a year-long series of convenings to address systemic barriers to learning. Participation here required us to experiment with ideas for supporting learning in our own settings and then sharing our experiences with the group. Through this engagement, we learned about how others were building learning habits in their foundations (written about in Julia Coffman’s post here). More specifically, the measurement and evaluation team was able to introduce Making Thinking Visible and Asking Powerful Questions in our early stage support to program teams to push thinking about assumptions and concrete dimensions of the work. This engagement then helped to structure the foundations of a learning agenda (e.g. theory of change-like tool with clear outcomes, hypotheses, assumptions and evidence) that would be used to anchor adaptive management and continuous improvement once the program strategy rolled out.

--Veronica Olazabal & Janet Camarena

Meet Our #OpenForGood Award Winner: An Interview with Lee Alexander Risby, Head of Effective Philanthropy & Savi Mull, Senior Evaluation Manager, C&A Foundation
June 19, 2019

1




Lee Alexander Risby

This post is part of the Glasspockets’ #OpenforGood series done in partnership with the Fund for Shared Insight. The series explores new tools, promising practices, and inspiring examples showing how some foundations are opening up the knowledge that they are learning for the benefit of the larger philanthropic sector. Contribute your comments on each post and share the series using #OpenForGood. View more posts in the series.

C&A Foundation is a European foundation that supports programs and initiatives to transform fashion into a fair and sustainable industry that enables everyone – from farmer to factory worker – to thrive. In this interview, Lee Alexander Risby and Savi Mull share insights with GlassPockets' Janet Camarena about how the foundation’s practices support learning and open knowledge.

GlassPockets: Congratulations on being one of our inaugural recipients of the #OpenForGood award! The award was designed to recognize those foundations that are working to advance the field by sharing what they are learning. Can you please share why you have prioritized knowledge sharing at the C&A Foundation and how this practice has helped you to advance your work?

2




Savi Mull

Savi Mull: For almost five years, C&A Foundation has been dedicated to transforming the fashion industry into a force for good. A large part of that work includes instilling transparency and accountability in supply chains across the industry. From the start, we also wanted to lead by example by being transparent and accountable as an organization, sharing what we were learning whilst on this journey, being true to our work and helping the rest of the industry learn from our successes and failures.

Lee Alexander Risby: Indeed, from the beginning, we made a commitment to be open about our results and lessons by publishing evaluations on our website and dashboards in our Annual Reports. After all, you cannot encourage the fashion industry to be transparent and accountable and not live by the same principles yourself. Importantly, our commitment to transparency has always been championed both by our Executive Director and our Board.

Savi: To do this, over the years we have put many processes in place.  For example, internally we use after-action reviews to gather lessons from our initiatives and allow our teams to discuss honestly what could have been done better in that program or partnership.  We also do third party, external evaluations of our initiatives, sharing the reports and lessons learned. This helps us and our partners to learn, and it informs initiatives and strategies going forward.

The Role of Evaluation Inside Foundations

GP: Your title has the word “evaluation” in its name and increasingly we are seeing foundations move toward this staffing structure of having staff dedicated to evaluation and learning. For those foundations that are considering adding such a unit to their teams, what advice do you have about the structures needed to create a culture of learning across the organization and avoid the creation of one more silo?

SM: I believe it is essential to have this type of function in a foundation to drive formal learning from and within programs. But at the same time, it is an ongoing process that cannot be driven by one function alone. All staff needs to be responsible for the learning that makes philanthropy effective – not just evaluators.

LAR: To begin, we were deliberate in building a team of evaluation professionals to promote accountable learning. We started hiring slowly and built the team over time. What I looked for with each new member of the team, and I am always looking for, is an evaluator with more than just skills, they also need the influencing, listening, communication and negotiating skills to help others learn. Evaluations have little effect without good internal and external communication.

”For us, it was important to be a critical friend, listener, and enabler of learning and not the police.”

The evaluation function itself has also evolved over the last five years. It started off as a monitoring, evaluation and learning function (MEL) and is now Effective Philanthropy. From the start, the function was as not set up as an independent department but created to help programmatic teams in the design of appropriate monitoring and evaluation for the programs, and facilitators and advisors on strategy. However, it has not always been a straight-forward process from the inside. In the first years, we had to spend a lot of time explaining and persuading staff of the need for evaluation, transparency and learning and the benefits of doing so. We wanted to avoid a strong independent evaluation function as that can reduce learning by placing too much emphasis on accountability. For us, it was important to be a critical friend, listener, and enabler of learning and not the police.

SM: So, the first bit of advice is that evaluators should be supportive listeners, assisting programmatic teams throughout the design and implementation phases to get the best results possible. They should not come in just at the end of an initiative to do an evaluation.

LAR: The second piece of advice is on positioning, support, and structure of evaluation within a foundation.  Firstly, it is critical to have is to have the buy-in of the leadership and board for both evaluation and transparency. And secondly, the evaluation function must be part of the management team and report to the CEO or Executive Director. This gives reporting and learning the appropriate support structure and importance.

The third piece of advice is to consider not creating an evaluation function, but an effective philanthropy function. Evaluation is done for learning, and learning drives effectiveness in grant-making for better results and long-term impacts on systems.

SM: The final piece of advice is to take guidance from others outside your organization. The whole team has consulted broadly with former colleagues and mentors from across the evaluation community as well as experienced philanthropic professionals. Remember you are part of a field with peers whose knowledge and experience can help guide you.

Opening Up Pain Points

GP: One of the reasons the committee selected C&A Foundation to receive the award is because of your institutional comfort level with sharing not just successes, but also being very forthright about what didn’t work. We often hear that foundation boards and leaders are worried about reputational issues with such sharing. What would you say to those leaders about how opening up these pain points and lessons has affected C&A Foundation’s reputation in the field, and why it’s worth it?

LAR: I would say this. The question for foundation boards and leaders is straightforward: do you want to be more effective and have an impact? The answer to that will always be yes, but it is dependent on learning and sharing across the organization and with others. If we do not share evaluations, research or experiences, we do not learn from each other and we cannot be effective in our philanthropic endeavors.

"There is a benefit to being open, you build trust and integrity – success and failure is part of all of us."

The other question for boards and leaders is: who does philanthropy serve? For us, we want to transform the fashion industry, which is made up of cotton farmers, workers in spinning mills and cut and sew factories, consumers and entrepreneurs, to name a few – they are our public. As such we have the duty to be transparent to the public about where we are succeeding and where we have failed and how we can improve. We do not think there is a reputation risk. In fact, there is a benefit to being open, you build trust and integrity – success and failure is part of all of us.

SM: Adding to what Lee has said, being open about our failures not only helps us but the entire field. Some of our partners have felt reticent about our publishing evaluations, but we always reassure them and stress from the beginning of an evaluation process that it is an opportunity to understand how to they can improve their work and how we can improve our partnership, as well as a chance to share those lessons more broadly.

Learning While Lean

GP: Given the lean philanthropy staffing structures in place at many corporate foundations, do you have any advice for your peers on how those without a dedicated evaluation team might still be able to take some small steps to sharing what they are learning?

SM: Learning is a continuous process. In the absence of staff dedicated to evaluation, take baby steps within your power, such as implementing after-action reviews, holding thematic webinars, or doing quick summaries of lessons from grants and/or existing evaluations from others. If the organization’s leadership endorses learning, these small steps are a good place to start.

GP: And speaking of lean staffing structures, a concern we often hear is that a funder creating a culture of learning leads to an increased burden on grantees who are then asked for robust evaluations and outcomes measures that no one is willing to pay for. Does C&A Foundation include funding for the evaluations and reporting or other technical assistance to mitigate the burden on grantees?

SM: The foundation has a Monitoring and Evaluation Policy that lays out the role of the programmatic staff and partners as well as of the dedicated Effective Philanthropy Team. C&A Foundation partners are generally responsible for the design and execution of self-evaluation - to be submitted at the end of the grant period. External evaluation budgets are covered by the foundation and do not pose a financial burden on partners at all. They are included in the overall cost of an initiative, and when needed we have an additional central evaluation fund that is used to respond to the programmatic team’s and partner’s ad hoc demands for evaluations and learning.

The Effective Philanthropy team does provide technical assistance to partners and foundation staff upon request. The guidance ranges from technical inputs related to the theory of change development to the design of baseline and mid-line data collection exercises. The theory of change work has been really rewarding for partners and ourselves. We all enjoy that part of the work.

GP: Learning is a two-way street and foundations are both producers and consumers of knowledge. Let’s close this interview with hearing about a noteworthy piece of knowledge you recently learned thanks to another foundation or organization sharing it, and how it helped inform your work.

Learning Leads to Effectiveness

C-a-foundation (1)LAR: In the moving from a more traditional MEL approach to effective philanthropy we looked at the work of other foundations. This included learning from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and others. We had discussions with a number of peers in the field. We also asked Nancy MacPherson (formerly Managing Director of Evaluation at Rockefeller) and Fay Twersky (Director of Effective Philanthropy at Hewlett) to review our Effective Philanthropy strategy when it was under development. Their feedback and advice helped a lot. In the end, we decided to begin to build out the function in a similar way to the Hewlett Foundation. But there are some differences. For example, our evaluation practice is currently positioned at a deeper initiative level, which is related to the field context where there is a significant evidence gap across the fashion industry that needs to be filled. Concomitant to this is our emphasis on piloting and testing and that goes hand-in-hand with the demand for evaluative thinking, reporting, and learning.

Our team has also been influenced by our own successes and failures from previous roles. That has also inspired us to embrace a slightly different approach.

SM: In terms of where we are at the moment, we still oversee performance monitoring, evaluation, and support to the program teams in developing theories of change and KPIs; but we are also building out organizational learning approach and are in the process of hiring a Senior Learning Manager. Lastly, we are piloting our organizational and network effectiveness in Brazil, which is being led by a colleague who joined the foundation last year.

LAR: We are also in the midst of an Overall Effectiveness Evaluation (OEE) of C&A Foundation’s first 5-year strategy. In general, this is not a type of evaluation that foundations use much. As well as looking at results, the evaluators are evaluating the whole organization, including Effective Philanthropy. For me as an evaluator, it has been really rewarding to be on the other side of a good question.

We are learning from the OEE as we go along and we decided to create ongoing opportunities for reporting/feedback from the process rather than waiting until the very end for a report. This means that program staff can be engaged in proactive discussions about performance and emerging lessons in a timely way. The OEE is already starting to play a vital role to inform the development of the next 5-year strategy and our organization. But you will surely hear more on that evaluation process later as it will be published. There is always room for improvement and learning never stops.

--Lee Alexander Risby and Savi Mull

Meet Our #OpenForGood Award Winner: An Interview with Craig Connelly, Chief Executive Officer, The Ian Potter Foundation
June 12, 2019

Download



Craig Connelly

This post is part of the Glasspockets’ #OpenforGood series done in partnership with the Fund for Shared Insight. The series explores new tools, promising practices, and inspiring examples showing how some foundations are opening up the knowledge that they are learning for the benefit of the larger philanthropic sector. Contribute your comments on each post and share the series using #OpenForGood. View more posts in the series.

The Ian Potter Foundation is an Australian foundation that supports and promotes excellence and innovation working for a vibrant, healthy, fair, and sustainable Australia. In this interview, Craig Connelly shares insights with GlassPockets' Janet Camarena about how the foundation’s practices support learning and open knowledge.

GlassPockets: Congratulations on being one of our inaugural recipients of the #OpenForGood award! The award was designed to recognize those foundations that are working to advance the field by sharing what they are learning. Can you please share why you have prioritized knowledge sharing at the Ian Potter Foundation and how this practice has helped you to advance your work? Or put another way, what is the good that has come about as a result?

Craig Connelly: The Ian Potter Foundation decided to invest in our research and evaluation capability primarily to improve the quality of our grantmaking. We believe that evaluating our grantees and the work that we fund through measuring and evaluating outcomes enables us to understand the extent to which our funding guidelines are achieving the intended outcomes. This results in a more informed approach to our grantmaking which should improve the quality of our grantmaking over time.

A core part of this includes being completely transparent with our grantees and with the broader sector. To do anything otherwise is not being consistent with our expectations of our grantees. We are asking our grantees to be partners, to pursue a strategic relationship with them and that requires open and honest conversation. Therefore, we need to be an open, honest and transparent funder and demonstrate that in order to win the trust of the organizations we fund.

Examples of this transparency are the learnings that we glean from our grantees that we share with the broader sector. We’re getting very positive feedback from both funders and grantees on the quality of the learnings that we’re sharing and the value that they add to the thought processes that nonprofit organizations and other funders go through.

The-ian-potter-foundationGP: Increasingly we are seeing foundations move toward a structure of having staff dedicated to evaluation and learning. For those foundations that are considering adding such a unit to their teams, what advice do you have about the structures needed to create a culture of learning across the organization and avoid the creation of one more silo?

CC: Anyone in a research and evaluation role needs to be an integral part of the program management team. The research and evaluation process informs our grantmaking. It needs to assist the program managers to be better at what they do, and it needs to learn from what the program managers are doing as well. You don’t want it to be a silo, it is just another function of your program management team. It is an integral part of that team and it is in constant communication both with the program management team and with grantees from day one.

GP: As you heard during the award presentation, one of the reasons the Ian Potter Foundation was selected to receive this award is because of how you prioritize thinking about how stakeholders like grantees might benefit from the reports and knowledge you possess. We often hear that while there is a desire to share grantee reports publicly, that there are reputational concerns that prevent it or that to scrub the reports of sensitive information would be too time consuming, yet you do it for all of your portfolios. What are your tips for how to keep this a manageable process?

CC: The initial work to compile and anonymize our grantee learnings required some investment in time from our Research & Evaluation Manager and communications team. To make this task manageable, the work was tackled one program area at a time. Now that a bank of learnings has been created for each program area, new learnings are easily compiled and added on a yearly basis. This work is scheduled at less busy times for those staff involved. The Ian Potter Foundation is also looking at ways learnings can be shared directly from grantees to the wider nonprofit sector. One idea is to create a forum (e.g. a podcast) where nonprofits can share their experiences with their peers in the sector.

GP: A concern we often hear is that a funder creating a culture of learning leads to an increased burden on grantees who are then asked for robust evaluations and outcomes measures that no one is willing to pay for. Does The Ian Potter Foundation include funding for the evaluations and reporting or other technical assistance to mitigate the burden on grantees?

"...we need to be an open, honest and transparent funder and demonstrate that in order to win the trust of the organizations we fund."

CC: One of the benefits that we found at The Ian Potter Foundation of having a Research & Evaluation Manager becoming an integral part of our process is that our authorizing environment – our board and the committees responsible for program areas – have become very comfortable including funding evaluation for all of our grants. We now also understand what it costs to complete an effective evaluation. We often ask grantees to add more to their budget to ensure a good quality evaluation can be completed as part of the grant.

GP: Learning is a two-way street and foundations are both producers and consumers of knowledge. Let’s close this interview with hearing about a noteworthy piece of knowledge you recently learned thanks to another foundation or organization sharing it, and how it helped inform your own work.

CC: Yes, we have a couple of examples I can point to. The first comes from our Education Program Manager, Rikki Andrews, who points to the creation of the Early Childhood Impact Alliance (ECIA) through a grant to the University of Melbourne. The purpose of the ECIA is to convene, connect and increase understanding of research and policy among early childhood philanthropic funders, to ensure there is more strategic and concerted philanthropic support of research and its application.

Additionally, the Foundation’s Senior Program Manager, Dr. Alberto Furlan, explains, ‘We are in the process of learning from organizations we partner with all the time. In the last few years, program managers have been prioritizing extensive site visits to shortlisted applicants to discuss and see the projects in situ. In a ‘big country’ such as Australia, this takes a considerable amount of time and resources, but it invariably pays off. Such visits highlight the importance of relationship building deep and honest listening when partnering with not-for-profits. The Foundation prides itself in being open and approachable and site visits greatly contribute to understanding the reality of the day-to-day challenges, and successes, of the organizations working on the ground.’

--Craig Connelly & Janet Camarena

Share This Blog

  • Share This

Subscribe to Transparency Talk

  • Enter your email address:

About Transparency Talk

  • Transparency Talk, the Glasspockets blog, is a platform for candid and constructive conversation about foundation transparency and accountability. In this space, 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, Transparency Initiatives
    Foundation Center

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

Categories