Transparency Talk

Category: "Data" (140 posts)

Philanthropy is contributing billions to Indian development, but who is counting?
February 26, 2021

Arif
Arif Ekram

Arif Ekram is Global Partnerships Manager, Candid.

This blog also appears in the Candid blog.

It is an exciting time for Indian philanthropy, especially for institutional philanthropy in India. The sector has come a long way since 1892, when the Tata group established one of India’s first philanthropic trusts, the JN Tata Endowment. In recent times, Indian billionaires have joined the Giving Pledge led by Warren Buffet and Bill and Melinda Gates, and an increasing number of high net-worth Individuals have been making significant contributions to Indian development.

Another notable aspect of Indian philanthropy is the rise of giving by India’s growing middle class, thanks to a flourishing Indian economy. According to some estimates, India has added millions new donors in the last decade. Although many of these donors use traditional informal channels, a large portion have started to use formal and innovative channels to funnel their contributions. Retail giving—crowdsourcing philanthropic funds from ordinary citizens—is becoming popular and supporting some of India’s largest NGOs (nongovernmental organizations). Corporations also play an important role in the sector. India is the first country in the world to make corporate giving mandatory. Total spending by companies has increased steadily since the law came into effect. Over the last several years, CSR (corporate social responsibility) spending by the top 100 Indian companies has exceeded $3 billion and is expected to keep growing.

Philanthropy-in-India-website-homepage-header-1200x539
Taking all of these sources of giving together, philanthropy is one of the largest players in the mix of development actors of India. But who is counting its contribution?

One might be tempted to think that Indian philanthropy would be the most data savvy in the world. After all, Indian data and software engineers and programmers compete and often dominate at the highest level worldwide. Ironically, the country’s philanthropic sector suffers from an acute shortage of data availability and transparency. Often contained in their own bubbles, philanthropic actors of India usually do not know who is doing what and where, who is contributing to which program area, which population groups are getting help from which high net-worth donors, foundations, or corporations, and where their money could most complement government actions. Similarly, international foundations that fund or want to fund programs in India often see only a partial picture as they support projects in India. The lack of data results in inefficiency, redundancy and an incredible loss of opportunity to collaborate within the sector and with other development actors outside philanthropy. As a result, millions of lives across India that philanthropy could help remain out of reach.

One might think that the shortage of data, at least, is not a problem when it comes to grants made by international foundations. After all, these foundations’ contributions must be reported to the government’s publicly accessible portal under the Foreign Contribution Regulations Act (FCRA). Sadly, the lion’s share of the reported data remains largely unusable. The lack of a data standard renders the data useless. To make the FCRA data useful, one must go through a thorny data-massaging process, which is time-consuming and expensive. Even then, a large part of the data remains hopelessly inadequate for any useful application.

India-grant-distribution
Although corporate philanthropy and CSR, one of the biggest sources of data in Indian philanthropy, easily clear the bar set by FCRA data, they fall distinctly short in answering many critical questions important to the sector. The very general project descriptions and broad categorizations fail to provide important details imperative for the sector’s efficiency: Where and how has the money has been spent? Was the recipient an NGO or another type of organization? What thematic area and geographic location do the recipients operate in? Is the corporation running its own programs?

So how do you address some of these problems? For one, you could gather all the data available in multiple sources, clean it up, index it using a common standard and taxonomy, analyze it, and then make it available for all for free on a data visualization platform. Well, that is precisely what we did when we created the Philanthropy in India portal. The portal includes grants made by both Indian foundations and international foundations, high net-worth individuals, corporations, charities, and official donors. We have analyzed these grants to provide snapshots of the sector in an effort to answer some of the primordial questions of Indian philanthropy, such as who is doing what and where, what issues are getting funding, what issues may need more attention, and where funding gaps exist.

India-number-of-grants
The funding map section of the portal provides access to disaggregated grants data so that philanthropic actors can have a better understanding of how their dollars can make greater impact while minimizing redundancy and encouraging potential collaboration between different organizations. The portal also provides access to knowledge created by and for the sector and the latest updates on Indian philanthropy. Philanthropy in India is a one-of-a-kind tool designed to address some of the data challenges that the sector experiences now.

The portal, of course, has limitations, which are directly related to data quality and availability. For example, we have very little data on grants made by Indian foundations; giving by Indian foundations is one of the largest gaps in the portal. Also, the number of grants reported in a year can vary widely as philanthropic actors’ data reporting may differ from year to year. As a result, we cannot run some much needed key analysis, including trend analysis, of Indian philanthropy. In other words, the portal is as good as the data on it. As more quality data becomes available, the more helpful it will be for Indian philanthropy. Hence, we welcome all philanthropic actors working in India to share their data with us. Not only because sharing data can enrich the portal for them but also because it can help the sector become a better version of itself.

Action & Accountability: Why Demographic Data Matters Now
May 28, 2020

Every day we wake up anxiously to frightening new data. The number of cases. The number of deaths. Which country has surpassed another? Who’s flattening the “curve.”  And... that the pandemic’s impact is shockingly disproportionate across race, age, gender, and geography. Due to the living legacies of oppression baked deeply into our social, economic, and political systems, we are seeing that the folks most negatively affected by the crisis are more likely to be Black, Brown, and Native.  In the US especially, we are also seeing a backlash of xenophobia towards Asian and Pacific Islander communities due to efforts to racialize the virus. Add in other intersecting identities like gender identity, age, sexual orientation, immigrant status, justice-system impacted, disability status, and socio-economic class and it becomes clear that those most affected will likely face greater challenges to accessing aid or meeting eligibility requirements for existing support and recovery packages.

Although the scale here is unprecedented, the narrative is a familiar one to us. Prior to the pandemic, CHANGE Philanthropy, PEAK Grantmaking, D5 Compass, and Candid were partnering to raise awareness about the importance of collecting and sharing demographic data. As COVID-19 continues to disproportionately affect our most vulnerable communities and philanthropy mounts a large scale response to growing needs, we encourage foundations and nonprofits to consider these recommendations in an effort to accurately account for the reach and impact of philanthropic dollars and use this data to address funding gaps to communities most impacted by the crisis.

Our challenge for you: 

  • Review your response strategy with an equity lens. 
  • Move the money simply and equitably.
  • Track your grants' intended impact and community reach.
  • Be transparent by sharing your giving and program data.

Reviewing Your Response Strategy with an Equity Lens 

Billions of dollars are being mobilized to support what will become a lengthy and multi-stage response to both the pandemic and a devastating economic downturn. How they will be invested, and to which organizations and communities, will shape the legacy of philanthropy’s response during this historic crisis. A survey in 2018 by PEAK Grantmaking and Frontline Solutions found that 56% of funders had a formal equity statement. Yet, when PEAK conducted a flash survey of its members it found that so far only around 10% of funders are reporting that they are collecting any demographic data for the leaders or nonprofits or the beneficiaries they serve as part of this rapid response.

This represents an opportunity for foundations to not only to walk the talk around embedding equity into practice, but also to show it. As funders continue to distribute aid addressing COVID-19, it will be imperative for them to document the intended beneficiary community, demographics about the leadership of grantee organizations, and how the organizations are addressing community needs. This kind of focus on demographic data is essential if philanthropy truly wants to assess and improve its track record on equity and inclusion.

Move the Money Simply and Equitably

As the calls for more responsive and streamlined philanthropy grow around the current crisis, grants management professionals—the people inside grantmaking organizations who are managing technology systems, application, and reporting processes, grant agreements, and payments—are leading organizational efforts to adapt grantmaking processes, procedures, technology, and communications. At PEAK Grantmaking, many members have reported that they are already adding fields to their grants management systems to collect data around how money is being spent during this crisis. 

As decision makers are called on to make quick determinations in new settings (many have hosted or attended their very first virtual grant review committee meetings in just the last two months!), it becomes even more important for them to have data to inform their deliberations, ensure that philanthropy’s response is equitable, and take into account communities that have been marginalized or left out of traditional grantmaking practices. It is in these moments of crisis response and recovery that we must make some changes in practice, otherwise, we will default to the philanthropic practices that have only exacerbated inequity.

Track Your Grants’ Intended Impact and Community Reach

Instead of building systems that satisfy the information needs of the few while overshadowing the needs of the system as a whole, we recommend improving transparency and data collection efforts by sharing data that can be accessed by everyone to help inform both crisis response and recovery efforts.

Nonprofits can easily share key details about who they are, whom they serve, and any specific COVID-19 response through the GuideStar Profile Update Program.  Consider asking all applicants to complete the Demographics section. There, organizations can share leadership, board, and staff demographic information as well as equity strategies. The demographic survey was updated last year in partnership with CHANGE philanthropy and Equity at the Center to revise the language and approach to collecting and sharing demographic information. This data can help to inform grantmaking and be integrated later in reporting grant details.  

It sounds counter-intuitive but tracking data about grantees need not be at odds with streamlined, rapid response processes. Common standards, taxonomies, and practices are the bedrock for comparability, analysis, and insight.  The fierce independence of our sector often works against our goals to effect large-scale change with disparate actors who frequently are reticent to share information using common standards. By adopting existing taxonomies and standards foundations can bypass the time it takes to create custom systems, and ensure comparability with peers.

Be Transparent by Sharing Your Giving and Program Data

Now is the time for foundations to go beyond the details they disclose on annual IRS reporting forms (990-PF) and share current, complete, and accurate giving data, especially on COVID-19 response work and specific populations that are intended to benefit from that work.

Candid is actively tracking philanthropy’s response to the coronavirus pandemic. The public-facing website includes funding opportunities, an interactive map listing awarded grants and grant descriptions, a directory of rapid response funds, and related news items all updated daily at candid.org/coronavirus. Though this effort is currently tracking more than $10 billion in grants, it is incomplete without your data.

Here are some tips to maximize the impact of this reporting: 

  1. If your organization has already funded efforts related to the crisis, please share information on this grantmaking with Candid. Knowing where the money is going and how, and having the latest information from organizations, facilitates thoughtful collaboration and decision making in times of crisis. 
  2. If your organization has established a coronavirus response fund, please let Candid know so we can include it on the list of funds we’re curating. 
  3. If you have never shared grants data before, we recommend using the simplified eReporting template.
  4. Provide detailed grant descriptions. This is the best way to ensure your data will be accurately coded to capture the subject, population, geographic area served, and support strategy you intended and, ultimately, mapped correctly. 
  5. For additional information or assistance with eReporting, email: egrants@candid.org.

 

In closing…

We already know that the impact of this pandemic is tragically inequitable. Let’s take this moment to embed intentionality around demographic data collection and reporting and bake it into our recovery funding practices. These tools and strategies will allow us to be more transparent and accountable about the reach of our pandemic response grantmaking.  If practiced, they will strengthen the field, our ability to analyze the impact, and help future philanthropists understand how to invest in community-based solutions. By combining equitable action response with timely and accurate data collection, philanthropy can avoid past patterns of excluding historically under-served communities from much needed support.

About the Authors

Melissa Sines leads PEAK Grantmaking’s work to identify effective, efficient, and equitable philanthropic practices and advocate for their adoption by grantmakers. She currently serves as Programs and Knowledge Director at PEAK Grantmaking

C. Davis Parchment has long worked to support a social sector driven by better data, research, and analysis. Currently serves as Director of Partnerships-West where she is responsible for elevating and expanding the reach of Candid across the western region by building partnerships and strategies that help to strengthen the social sector.

Kelly Brown is principal consultant at Viewpoint Consulting, which provides program design, research, and analysis to organizations and individuals investing resources to strengthen underserved communities. Previously she led the D5 Coalition, a five-year effort to advance philanthropy through diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Carly Hare (Pawnee/Yankton) strives to live a commitment to advancing equity and community engagement through her professional and personal life. Carly serves as the Coalition Catalyst/National Director of CHANGE Philanthropy.

A Call for COVID-19 Grants Data
April 15, 2020

Kati_headshot
Kati Neiheisel

Kati Neiheisel is the eReporting liaison at Candid. eReporting allows funders to quickly and easily tell their stories and improve philanthropy by sharing grants data.

Our mission to get people the information they need to do good is taking on greater urgency during the coronavirus (COVID-19) crisis. Given how many nonprofits are struggling with increased demand at a time of financial freefall, we are doubling our efforts to make sure the information and services we provide are fast, accessible, reliable, and useful as we monitor philanthropy’s response to the pandemic—but we need your help.

“Transparency and information sharing are more critical now than ever.”

Transparency and information sharing are more critical now than ever to ensure we are not responding to today’s issues with data from years ago. If your organization has funded efforts related to the crisis, please share information on this grantmaking so we can include your COVID-19 grants on our free, public map, part of our coronavirus webpage. The map documents where the money is going and visualizes funder, recipient, and grants data through a variety of filters with list and map views. To facilitate thoughtful collaboration and decision-making, we need your help to make this the most useful resource possible.

Depending on the data fields you collect, you can either use the "Simplified Template" or the "Complete Template," both of which are available here. Please be sure to include either the term "coronavirus" or "COVID-19" in your grant description.

If you use grants management software, you can find instructions for downloading grants data into an Excel spreadsheet on our software partners page. Grants data can then be uploaded through Updater or simply emailed to egrants@candid.org.

To learn more about how this data can serve to inform dialogue and advance the sector as a whole, review this previous Candid blog on the importance of sharing grants data. And remember, timely and accurate grants data help those who want to change the world connect to the resources they need to do it.

Is the Environmental Movement Still #SoWhite? Learning from the 2019 Green 2.0 Transparency Report Card
March 12, 2020

6a00e54efc2f80883301bb09f34c00970d-150wi
Whitney Tome

Whitney Tome is the executive director of Green 2.0, which advocates for improved diversity, equity, and inclusion in the mainstream environmental movement.  

As environmental disasters from the recent wildfires in Australia and California to the growing intensity of tropical storms increase, environmental work takes on heightened urgency. We know that crises such as wildfires, rising sea levels, poor water, and air quality disproportionally impact people of color and vulnerable communities, so it’s important that the movement for improving our environment be accessible, welcoming, and open to all.

Since its inception in 2014, Green 2.0 has pioneered accountability measures for the #DiversifyGreen movement writ large. Through our annual Transparency Report Cards, we’ve exposed some of the worst actors within the top 40 environmental NGO’s and foundations while praising those who’ve demonstrated true commitments to diversity with their hiring practices. Our work has been instrumental in putting the spotlight on the glaring diversity issues within the environmental movement, and as a consequence, we’ve seen folks make substantive progress.

Though the diversity statistics for 2019 are encouraging, it is far too premature to declare victory. Some of the top foundations and organizations in this space who claim to be major, influential players, perpetuate a double standard—asking their grantees for their data and equity efforts while not providing their own.

This kind of hypocrisy is not just a glaring weakness, but it needs to be understood as an obstacle to making the kind of progress and impact these organizations seek to make.

"Opportunity, accountability, and intentionality are three pillars that funders and nonprofits alike must stand on."

Let us be clear—opportunity, accountability, and intentionality are three pillars that funders and nonprofits alike must stand on. Environmental leaders cannot afford to lose sight of the significance of diversity at a time when this movement needs greater unity and coordination of resources than ever before. There is too much at stake. Especially for our most vulnerable communities.

Inaction is inexcusable. And data can move people to action. This is why we publish these diversity statistics each year. With the critical support, leadership, and thought-partnership of Guidestar by Candid and Dr. Stefanie K. Johnson, our report cards and data analysis are produced with great care and efficacy because these organizations, like every organization, must be held accountable.

Based on our 2019 findings, we urge leaders in the environmental movement to adopt the following recommendations: Green2.0_logo-NEW

  1. More organizations in the funder sector of the movement need to report their data. As it stands, so few foundations have reported that Dr. Stefanie K. Johnson simply could not make an apples-to-apples comparison of which sector is excelling more rapidly. It is clear that NGOs excel in reporting data and are making strides, and while we assume foundations are making less progress due to lack of commitment to even report data, we simply cannot know for sure. What is clear is that data reporting signals external commitment and reinforces internal resolve to remove barriers to diversity that exist in persistently white organizations.
  2. Leaders must be thoughtful about how the opportunity to diversify manifests differently at different levels of their organizations. For example, while senior staff numbers have increased slightly in this year’s report, leaders have to consider whether that is sustainable if C-Suite professionals stay longer and their organizations are not expanding the number of senior staff positions. When senior positions do open, pushing search professionals to deliver truly diverse slates is an urgent necessity, and underscores the importance of having good data to back up the need. Evidence for the importance of tracking demographic data and using it to advocate for greater inclusion can be seen in the growing diversity of boards noted in this year’s report.
  3. Listen to young people. As we’ve seen, despite their lack of representation in the public sphere, young people are already building separate lanes of influence on climate change. Their leadership, messaging, and organizing strategies are noticeably more inclusive and racially diverse than the institutions that comprise the wider movement. They are nimble and rapidly responsive, in part, because they are the communities they are trying to save.

    "Inaction is inexcusable. And data can move people to action."

While we have faith that the longstanding, mainstream environmental movement will challenge itself to push the envelope on inclusivity, we implore the recalcitrant organizations to step forward and pledge to do better today. Not tomorrow. Not next year. Because many brown and Black communities just don’t have the time.

When Numbers Fall Short: The Challenge of Measuring Diversity in a Global Context
January 16, 2020

Athreya profile OSF 2 (2)
Bama Athreya

Bama Athreya is the Gender and Social Inclusion Advisor at the C&A Foundation, a corporate foundation committed to making fashion a force for good and transforming the industry to be more sustainable and provide decent livelihoods.  

At C&A Foundation we believe many of the challenges we seek to tackle are rooted in social exclusion. We are on a journey to deepen our approach to gender justice, diversity, equity, and inclusion. As part of our own effort to learn, we recently undertook a demographic survey of our 60+ employees worldwide to find out how “diverse” we are as an organization and what it might imply for our efforts to create an equitable organization. It was a first for us and we learned far more than the numbers alone revealed.

The process itself was both eye-opening and humbling. It forced us to reflect on what really matters for our global organization when it comes to diversity and it revealed some of our own implicit biases.

"We believe many of the challenges we seek to tackle are rooted in social exclusion."

We worked with US-based consultants to prepare the survey—covering age, sexual orientation, gender identity, nationality, disability, race, religion, and educational status. Unknowingly, the very act of selecting these categories imposed a US-centric world view, particularly with respect to our understanding of race and ethnicity.

For example, the category “Latinx” was used in the initial survey; this category is very relevant in the US, but reductive in Latin America, confusing in Europe, and irrelevant in South Asia. An important category for Europe—Roma—was not available for selection.

So we tried again, re-surveying our country offices in an attempt to create meaningful country-specific data. This proved far more useful in revealing what we should be considering as we seek to foster an inclusive workplace culture.

In Brazil, for example, race is a very salient concept and we are developing a much stronger understanding of why power dynamics around race may be the single most important thing we can address in that context. Less than half the Brazilian population is white —yet, political and economic structures are predominantly controlled by whites.

In Mexico, we need to consider the significant proportion of indigenous people and “mestizos” (mixed ethnicity). Although Mexicans of European descent are the minority there, they too remain a dominant political and economic class. In India, race itself is a problematic construct. Instead, caste discrimination has played a powerful role in reinforcing social group dominance and oppression for centuries. A dizzying array of ethno-linguistic groups suggests diversity but masks the real and sometimes violent social exclusion based on caste and religion. While historically disadvantaged “scheduled” castes and tribes make up around 25 percent of India’s population, they are significantly under-represented in the country’s economic life.

And throughout South Asia, religion is a political and social flashpoint. This applies to Bangladesh, a majority Muslim country where Hindus and Christians face increasing sectarian violence, as well as India, where, as recent events show, laws and policies excluding Muslims reflect rising Hindu nationalism.

Since C&A Foundation always aims to be open and transparent, it is our practice to openly share what we learn from our research, and this exercise was no exception. However, in the end, due to the importance of country and cultural context, the only demographic categories we felt were appropriate to include in our annual report were gender, disability, and migration status. Age is another context-neutral category we might report globally in the future. But for our 60 staff people spread across the world, we realized that inclusive hiring, promotion and retention policies needed to do more than just look at the numbers, even for these categories.

So what did we learn, and what do we suggest to other foundations undertaking similar surveys?

First, generic global surveys aren’t the best way to tackle region-specific diversity and inclusion challenges. Instead, start with a social inclusion assessment that looks at the local context. Who has power? Who is marginalized? From there you can craft context-specific demographic questions for your employees or your partners.

Lesson two: don’t just play the numbers game. With, at most, a dozen staff in any given country office, we found there is limited value in trying to add them all up to some global statistic on diversity. However, it is important to look at who’s not present in your workplace. For example, in Brazil, we’ve taken affirmative steps to recruit more Afro-Brazilians by hiring a consultancy specialized in searching for Afro-Brazilian professionals. And we are looking carefully at how to create more inclusive workplaces for people with disabilities across all of our country offices. For us, this kind of targeting does more to address diversity than a broad-brush effort.

"It is important to look at who’s not present in your workplace."

Finally, another value of this approach is that you are leading by example to your grantees since you likely ask them to provide you with their own demographic data. Just as we realize the limitations to what we do with this data, we can understand and respect the variety of approaches that our grantees may take to tackle their own specific diversity, equity and inclusion challenges. At C&A Foundation we see our efforts to address inequality as another means to encourage our local grantees to prioritize and embrace their own equity and inclusion agendas. This is where our broader influence may lie—and offers a further compelling reason to continue our own internal journey.

 

In 2020, C&A Foundation`s work in fashion will become part of Laudes Foundation - a new, independent foundation designed to support brave initiatives that will inspire and challenge industry to harness its power for good. The organization will works both to influence capital so that investment encourages good business practices, and through industry to tackle its deep and systemic challenges.

Laudes Foundation is a part of the Brenninkmeijer family enterprise, next to the COFRA  businesses and the family’s other private philanthropic activities, including Porticus, Good Energies Foundation, and Argidius Foundation.

Candid Announces Inaugural #OpenForGood Award Winners
May 30, 2019

Janet Camarena is director of transparency initiatives at Candid.

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.

Open For Good Awardees and Committee MembersLeft to Right: Meg Long, President, Equal Measure (#OpenForGood selection committee); Janet Camarena, Director, Transparency Initiatives, Candid; Awardee Savi Mull, Senior Evaluation Manager, C&A Foundation; Awardee Veronica Olazabal, Director, Measurement, Evaluation & Organizational Performance, The Rockefeller Foundation; Clare Nolan, Co-Founder, Engage R + D (#OpenForGood selection committee).

Yesterday as part of the Grantmakers for Effective Organizations Learning Conference, Candid announced the inaugural recipients of the #OpenForGood Award, which is designed to recognize and encourage foundations to openly share what they learn so we can all get collectively smarter. The award, part of a larger #OpenForGood campaign started in 2017, includes a set of tools to help funders work more transparently including a GrantCraft Guide about how to operationalize knowledge sharing, a growing collection of foundation evaluations on IssueLab, and advice from peers in a curated blog series.

The three winning foundations each demonstrate an active commitment to open knowledge and share their evaluations through IssueLab, an open repository that is free, searchable, and accessible to all. Selected by an external committee from a globally sourced nomination process, the committee reviewed the contenders looking for evidence of an active commitment to open knowledge, creative approaches to making knowledge shareable, field leadership, and incorporating community insights into knowledge sharing work.

And the Winners Are…

Here are some highlights from the award presentation remarks:

C and A FoundationC&A Foundation
Award Summary: Creativity, Demonstrated Field Leadership, and Willingness to Openly Share Struggles

The C&A Foundation is a multi-national, corporate foundation working to fundamentally transform the fashion industry. C&A Foundation gives its partners financial support, expertise and networks so they can make the fashion industry work better for every person it touches. Lessons learned and impact for each of its programs are clearly available on its website, and helpful top-level summaries are provided for every impact evaluation making a lengthy narrative evaluation very accessible to peers, grantees and other stakeholders. C&A Foundation even provides such summaries for efforts that didn’t go as planned, packaging them in an easy-to-read, graphic format that it shares via its Results & Learning blog, rather than hiding them away and quietly moving on as is more often the case in the field.

The Ian Potter FoundationIan Potter Foundation
Award Summary: Creativity, Field Leadership, and Lifting Up Community Insights

This foundation routinely publishes collective summaries from all of its grantee reports for each portfolio as a way to support shared learning among its existing and future grantees. It’s a refreshing reinvention of the traditional grantee report, placing priority on collecting and sharing the kinds of information that will be helpful to other practitioners, rather than questions to satisfy the typical ritual of a grant report that goes something like submit, data enter, file away never to be seen, and repeat.

Beyond being transparent with its grantee learning and reports, the Ian Potter Foundation also recently helped lift the burden on its grantees when it comes to measurement and outcomes. Instead of asking overworked charities to invent a unique set of metrics just for their grant process, foundation evaluation staff took it upon themselves to mine the Sustainable Development Goals targets framework to provide grantees with optional and ready-made outcomes templates that would work across the field for many funders. You can read more about that effort underway in a recent blog post here.

The Rockefeller FoundationThe Rockefeller Foundation
Award Summary: Field Leadership, Consistent Knowledge Sharing, and Commitment to Working Transparently

The Rockefeller Foundation can boast early adopter status to transparency and openness—it  has had a longstanding commitment to creating a culture of learning and as such was one of the very first foundations to join the GlassPockets transparency movement and also to commit to #OpenForGood principles by sharing its published evaluations widely. Rockefeller Foundation also took the unusual step of upping the ante on the #OpenForGood Pledge aiming for both creating a culture of learning and accountability, with its monitoring and evaluation team stating that: “To ensure that we hold ourselves to a high bar, our foundation pre-commits itself to publicly sharing the results of its evaluations - well before the results are even known.” This ensures that even if the evaluation reports unfavorable findings, the intent is to share it all.

In an earlier GlassPockets blog post, Rockefeller’s monitoring and evaluation team shows a unique understanding of how sharing knowledge can advance the funder’s goals: “Through the documentation of what works, for who, and how/under what conditions, there is potential to amplify our impact, by crowding-in other funders to promising solutions, and diverting resources from being wasted on approaches that prove ineffectual.”  Rockefeller’s use of IssueLab’s open knowledge platform is living up to this promise as anyone can currently query and find more than 400 knowledge documents funded, published, or co-published by the Rockefeller Foundation.

Winners will receive technical support to create a custom Knowledge Center for their foundation or for a grantee organization, as well as promotional support in knowledge dissemination. Knowledge Centers are a service of IssueLab that provides organizations with a simple way to manage and share knowledge on their own websites. By leveraging this tool, you can showcase your insight, promote analysis on your grantees, and feature learnings from network members. All documents that are uploaded to an IssueLab Knowledge Center are also made searchable and discoverable via systems like WorldCat, which serves more than 2,000 libraries worldwide, ensuring your knowledge can be found by researchers, regardless of their familiarity with your organization.

Why Choose Openness?

The #OpenForGood award is focused on inspiring foundations to use existing and emerging technologies to collectively improve the sector. Today, we live in a time when most expect to find the information they need on the go, via tablets, laptops, and mobile phones, just a swipe or click away. Despite this digital era reality today only 13 percent of foundations have websites, and even fewer share their reports publicly, indicating that the field has a long way to go to creating a culture of shared learning. With this award, we hope to change these practices. Rather than reinvent the wheel, this award and campaign encourages the sector to make it a priority to learn from one another, share content with a global audience, so that we can build smartly one another’s work and accelerate the change we want to see in the world. The more you share your foundation's work, the greater the opportunities to make all our efforts more effective and farther reaching.

Congratulations to our inaugural class of #OpenForGood Award Winners! What will you #OpenForGood?

--Janet Camarena

Transparency: One Small Step for Funders, One Giant Leap for Equity
May 9, 2019

Genevieve Boutilier is a Program Associate at the Peace and Security Funders Group.

This post also appears in the Alliance blog.

Genevieve




Genevieve Boutilier

In order to solve a problem, one must first identify its parameters. This applies, too, to the philanthropic sector; to that end, many of us are pushing for greater transparency in our field. For example, Candid teamed up with a hundred foundations to make public their grants data, assets, policies, and procedures through the GlassPockets initiative, while our funder affinity group colleagues at PEAK Grantmaking and the Transparency and Accountability Initiative advocate for greater transparency with their members. At the Peace and Security Funders Group, we push for transparency through our Peace and Security Funding Index.

For the past five years, the Index has chronicled thousands of grants awarded by hundreds of peace and security funders to get a better sense of who and what gets funded in this sector. This data is useful for understanding the landscape of peace and security funding, including by identifying funding gaps and new funders; however, it has its limits. In the hot-off-the-press 2019 Index, we make the case for how improving this data benefits funders. But beyond benefitting funders, improving the data greatly benefits grantees and the communities they serve, which – in a virtuous cycle – increases funder effectiveness.

On the most basic level, better data gives grantseekers insight into a foundation’s priorities. This allows grantees to more easily identify foundations with similar missions, making space for grantees to spend less time fundraising and more time focusing on their missions – be it fighting for indigenous rights, preventing nuclear war, or helping child soldiers reintegrate into their communities. This opens the door for more open, honest, and equitable relationships between foundations and the grantees they support, which is essential for impactful grantmaking.

But simply understanding who and what gets funded is only the start of the conversation. It’s time to take the conversation to the next level.

By definition, peace and security funders decide who gets a chance at peace by how they award grants. They are the guardians of crucial resources and enormous wealth, and they get to decide how much, how, and when it’s allocated. This is an incredible amount of power. With this power comes the responsibility to engage in the work in ways that center the needs of communities on the frontlines of some of the globe’s greatest challenges.

With timely, more detailed data, this sector can start to answer the tough questions that experts like Edgar Villanueva and Vu Le have been asking: Why are certain regions, issues, and strategies underfunded? Why are certain populations prioritized over others? Why isn't awarding general operating support increasing, especially given the ample evidence that suggests that it’s a best practice? Why are certain kinds of grantees passed over for funding?

”We aren’t collecting data for data’s sake—we’re hoping to transform this sector for the better.”

For our part, we aren’t collecting data for data’s sake—we’re hoping to transform this sector for the better.

To this end, we encourage all funders to start asking the tough questions about their grantmaking, and to increase their knowledge and understanding of equity in the philanthropic sector. Funders can begin to do this in three straightforward ways. First, submit detailed data about your grantmaking to Candid. We at the Peace and Security Funders Group (PSFG) are encouraging our 59 members – who represent a vast majority of the funding in the peace and security field – to submit their detailed 2018 grants data by June 30, 2019, so that we can improve the utility of the Peace and Security Funding Index. Second, funders can join their peers – including a handful of PSFG members – in becoming members of the Justice Funders network; here, they can listen and learn from each other and experts. Finally, funders should assess their own grantmaking practices. Ask yourself, ‘How could I change grantmaking practices to become more transparent and more equitable?’

There are countless other resources to help funders engage, so if you’re stuck and not sure where to go, we at PSFG can try and point you in the right direction.

--Genevieve Boutilier

Don’t “Ghost” Declined Applicants: The Ins and Outs of Giving Applicant Feedback
April 4, 2019

Mandy Ellerton joined the [Archibald] Bush Foundation in 2011, where she created and now directs the Foundation's Community Innovation programs. The programs allow communities to develop and test new solutions to community problems, using approaches that are collaborative and inclusive of people who are most directly affected by the problem.

GlassPockets Road to 100

This post is part of our “Road to 100 & Beyond series, in which we are featuring the foundations that have helped GlassPockets reach the milestone of 100 published profiles by 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, promising practices in transparency, helpful examples, and lessons learned.

I’ve often thought that fundraising can be as bad as dating. (Kudos to you lucky few who have had great experiences dating!) Lots of dates, lots of dead ends, lots of frustrating encounters before you (maybe) find a match. All along the way you look for even the smallest sign to indicate that someone likes you. “They laughed at my joke!” or, in the case of fundraising, “they seemed really excited about page five of last year’s impact report!” Not to mention the endless time spent doing online searches for shreds of information that might be useful. This reality is part of the reason why Bush Foundation was proud to be among the first 100 foundations to participate in GlassPockets. We believe that transparency and opening lines of communication is critical to good grantmaking, because both in dating and in fundraising, it can be heartbreaking and crazymaking to try and sort out whether you have a connection or if someone’s “just not that into you.” If only there was a way to just “swipe left” or “swipe right” and make everything a little simpler.

“We believe that transparency and opening lines of communication is critical to good grantmaking.”

I’m not proposing a Tinder for grantmaking (nor should anyone, probably, although hat tip to Vu Le for messing with all of us and floating the idea on April Fool’s Day). But over the past several years, Bush Foundation’s Community Innovation program staff has used a system to provide feedback calls for declined applicants, in the hopes of making foundation fundraising a little less opaque and crazymaking. We use the calls to be transparent and explain why we made our funding decisions. The calls also help us live out our “Spread Optimism” value because they allow us to help and encourage applicants and potentially point them to other resources. This is all part of our larger engagement strategy, described in “No Moat Philanthropy.”

 

Ellertonmandy20152
Mandy Ellerton

How Feedback Calls Work

We use a systematic approach for feedback calls:

  • We proactively offer the opportunity to sign up for feedback calls in the email we send to declined applicants.
  • We use a scheduling tool (after trying a couple different options we’ve landed on Slotted, which is relatively cheap and easy to use) and offer a variety of times for feedback calls every week. Collectively five Community Innovation Team members hold about an hour a week for feedback calls. The calls typically last about 20 minutes. We’ve found this is about the right amount of time so that we can offer feedback calls to most of the declined applicants who want them.
  • We prepare for our feedback calls. We re-read the application and develop an outline for the call ahead of time.
  • During the call we offer a couple of reasons why we declined the application. We often discuss what an applicant could work on to strengthen their project and whether they ought to apply again.
  • We also spend a lot of time listening; sometimes these calls can understandably be emotional. Grant applications are a representation of someone’s hopes and dreams and sometimes your decline might feel like the end of the road for the applicant. But hang with them. Don’t get defensive. However hard it might feel for you, it’s a lot harder for the declined applicant. And ultimately, hard conversations can be transformative for everyone involved. I will say, however, that most of our feedback calls are really positive exchanges.
  • We use anonymous surveys to evaluate what people think of the feedback calls and during the feedback call we ask whether the applicant has any feedback for us to improve our programs/grantmaking process.
  • We train new staff on how to do feedback calls. We have a staff instruction manual on how to do feedback calls, but we also have new team members shadow more seasoned team members for a while before they do a feedback call alone.

 

What’s Going Well

The feedback calls appear to be useful for both declined applicants and for us:

  • In our 2018 surveys, respondents (n=38) rated the feedback calls highly. They gave the calls an average rating of 6.1 (out of 7) for overall helpfulness, 95% said the calls added some value or a lot of value, and 81.2% said they had a somewhat better or much better understanding of the programs after the feedback call.
  • We’ve seen the number of applications for our Community Innovation Grant and Bush Prize for Community Innovation programs go down over time and we’ve seen the overall quality go up. We think that’s due, in part, to feedback calls that help applicants decide whether to apply again and that help applicants improve their projects to become a better fit for funding in the future.
  • I’d also like to think that doing feedback calls has made us better grantmakers. First, it shows up in our selection meetings. When you might have to talk to someone about why you made the funding decision you did, you’re going to be even more thoughtful in making the decision in the first place. You’re going to hew even closer to your stated criteria and treat the decision with care. We regularly discuss what feedback we plan to give to declined applicants in the actual selection meeting. Second, in a system that has inherently huge power differentials (foundations have all of it and applicants have virtually none of it), doing feedback calls forces you to come face to face with that reality. Never confronting the fact that your funding decisions impact real people with hopes and dreams is a part of what corrupts philanthropy. Feedback calls keep you a little more humble.

 

What We’re Working On

We still have room to improve our feedback calls:

  • We’ve heard from declined applicants that they sometimes get conflicting feedback from different team members when they apply (and get declined) multiple times; 15% of survey respondents said their feedback was inconsistent with prior feedback from us. Cringe. That definitely makes fundraising more crazymaking. We’re working on how to have more staff continuity with applicants who have applied multiple times.
  • We sometimes struggle to determine how long to keep encouraging a declined applicant to improve their project for future applications versus saying more definitively that the project is not a fit. Yes, we want to “Spread Optimism,” but although it never feels good for anyone involved, sometimes the best course of action is to encourage an applicant to seek funding elsewhere.

I’m under no illusions that feedback calls are going to fix the structural issues with philanthropy and fundraising. I welcome that larger conversation, driven in large part by brave critiques of philanthropy emerging lately like Decolonizing Wealth, Just Giving and Winners Take All. In the meantime, fundraising, as with dating, is still going to have moments of heartache and uncertainty. When you apply for a grant, you have to be brave and vulnerable; you’re putting your hopes and dreams out into a really confusing and opaque system that’s going to judge them, perhaps support them, or perhaps dash them, and maybe even “ghost” them by never responding. Feedback calls are one way to treat those hopes and dreams with a bit more care.

--Mandy Ellerton

GlassPockets Announces New Transparency Levels: Leveling Up Your Practices
March 28, 2019

Janet Camarena is director of transparency initiatives at Candid.

6a00e54efc2f80883301b7c90b6cb7970b-150wi
Janet Camarena

It's an exciting moment for us here at GlassPockets, and for the field of philanthropy, as we’ve just reached the milestone of 100 foundations committing to work more transparently by participating and publicly sharing their “Who Has GlassPockets?” transparency self-assessment profiles on our website. Yesterday, the Walton Family Foundation (WFF) officially became our 100th participant. What you are seeing today is the result of a diligent process that started last summer, as WFF continually worked to improve the openness of its website. With clear pathways to connect directly with staff members, a knowledge center containing lessons learned as well as packaged “flashcards” containing easily shareable bits of information, and a new searchable grants database spanning its 31-year history, WFF is not starting small when it comes to openness. Transparency can be tricky territory for family foundation donors who may be more accustomed to privacy and anonymity when it comes to their giving, so it’s particularly exciting for us to reach the milestone of 100 published profiles thanks to a family foundation enthusiastically embracing a more transparent approach.

When we started with a handful of foundations and fewer than two dozen transparency indicators, it was more experiment than movement. Now that we’ve aggregated data on transparency trends among 100 participating foundations, it’s a good opportunity to pause and reflect on what we are learning from this data that could inform the way forward to a more transparent future for philanthropy.

Transparency Indicators Evolve

GlassPockets Road to 100

Earlier this year I observed that a promising trend we are seeing in the field is that more foundations are developing sections of their websites devoted to explaining how they work, what values they hold dear, and in some cases, how these values inform their work and operations. Among the 100 foundations that have taken and publicly shared their transparency assessments, 42 percent are now using their websites as a means to communicate values or policies that demonstrate an intentional commitment to transparency. As a result we recently added transparency values/policies as a formal indicator to our GlassPockets assessment. But once you have developed such a values or policy statement, how does a foundation live up to it?

That’s where we hope our “Who Has GlassPockets?” assessment will continue to help foundations create a roadmap to transparency. The assessment is not static and has evolved with the field. When we started in 2010, there were 23 transparency indicators based on an inventory of thousands of foundation websites. As we continue to observe website transparency trends, the assessment has now grown to 27 indicators. Aside from the newest indicator for transparency values/policies, based on the kinds of information that foundations are now starting to share, some other new indicators we added since inception are strategic plans, open licensing policies, and use of the Sustainable Development Goals framework(SDGs). And we expect that as the field continues to evolve, this list of indicators will grow as well.

As the list has grown longer, foundations frequently ask us which indicators are the right ones to start with. Some also tell us that they want to participate, but not until they have at least half or even three-quarters of the indicators on the list. Though we applaud striving to be more transparent, the intent of GlassPockets was never that it be considered a “one-size-fits-all” approach, or that we expected that a majority of the indicators be in place to participate. Rather, that the GlassPockets exercise would serve to surface it as a priority, help the foundation evolve its transparency over time, and ideally would be a process the institution revisits on a regular basis, updating the GlassPockets profile with more and more indicators as transparency improves.

New Transparency Levels and Badges

So to help foundations better understand how to get started and how to grow transparency practices over time, we analyzed the data we have been collecting, and some patterns about how transparency evolves in philanthropy are now becoming clearer. We also conducted advisor interviews with a number of GlassPockets participants to better understand what would be most motivational and helpful in this regard. After reviewing everything we’ve learned so far, we have identified three levels through which foundations pass as they chart their course to greater transparency – these represent core, advanced, and champion-level transparency practices that you can view on this chart.

Explore how the Transparency Indicators relate to each level

Core-level transparency practices represent data most commonly shared by participating foundations and are the best place for new participants to begin. Advanced-level transparency practices open up the way you work to the world and represent information shared by about 50 to 70 percent of participating foundations. Champion-level transparency practices, in place at fewer than half of participating foundations, represent information-sharing that is pushing existing boundaries of foundation transparency.

These new levels represent an optional guide that can be helpful to follow but it is not intended to be viewed as a formal set of requirements. As has always been the case, any foundation at any stage of its transparency journey is welcome to participate and chart its own course. However, to motivate participation and progress, GlassPockets will begin awarding Transparency Badges based on the transparency level attained. These badges will appear on the GlassPockets profile, and will also be made available for use on the foundation’s website. Since it is not a one-size-fits-all, all participating foundations will automatically receive the Core GlassPockets transparency badge, and those who attain Advanced (10-18 indicators) or Champion level (19 or more indicators) will receive a badge denoting the appropriate designation.

Learn About the Transparency Badges

On the Level

Based on the new levels described above, GlassPockets will soon be adding the new Transparency Badges to each profile. So, if it’s been awhile since you reviewed your “Who Has GlassPockets?” profile, or if you’re looking for motivation to improve your transparency, now’s the time to review your existing profile, or submit a new one to see how your foundation stacks up. For existing GlassPockets participants, May 28th is the deadline to review your profile and get any updates or changes in to us before we start making the transparency levels and badges visible on the GlassPockets website the week of June 3rd. To update your profile, you can fill out any new links or corrections on this submission form, or simply email me your changes. As always, new profiles can be added at any time and you can learn more about that process here.

And last, but certainly not least, big thanks and cheers to our existing GlassPockets participants for helping us reach this milestone, and a big welcome to those who will help us reach the next one!

-- Janet Camarena

A New Year, a New Transparency Indicator: Coming Soon—Transparency Values & Policies
January 3, 2019

Janet Camarena is director of transparency initiatives at Foundation Center.

Janet Camarena PhotoWhen GlassPockets started nine years ago, it was rare to find any reference to transparency in relation to philanthropy or foundations. The focus of most references to transparency at the time were in relation to nonprofits or governments, but seldom to philanthropy. When we set out to create a framework to assess foundation transparency, the “Who Has GlassPockets?” criteria were based on an inventory of current foundation practices meaning there were no indicators on the list that were not being shared somewhere by at least a few foundations. Not surprisingly, given the lack of emphasis on foundation transparency, there were few mentions of it as a policy or even as a value in the websites we reviewed, so it didn’t make sense at the time to include it as a formal indicator.

GlassPockets Road to 100A lot has changed in nine years, and it’s clear now from reviewing philanthropy journals, conferences, and yes, even foundation websites that awareness about the importance of philanthropic transparency is on the rise. Among the nearly 100 foundations that have taken and publicly shared “Who Has GlassPockets?” transparency assessments, more than 40 percent are now using their websites as a means to communicate values or policies that aim to demonstrate an intentional commitment to transparency. And demonstrating that how the work is done is as important as what is done, another encouraging signal is that in many cases there are articulated statements on new “How We Work” pages outlining not just what these foundations do, but an emphasis on sharing how they aim to go about it. These statements can be found among funders of all types, including large, small, family, and independent foundations.

We want to encourage this intentionality around transparency, so in 2019 we are adding a new transparency indicator asking whether participating foundations have publicly shared values or policies committing themselves to working openly and transparently. In late January the “Who Has GlassPockets?” self-assessment and profiles will be updated reflecting the new addition. Does your foundation’s website have stated values or policies about its commitment to transparency? If not, below are some samples we have found that may serve as inspiration for others:

  • The Barr Foundation’s “How We Work" page leads with an ethos stating “We strive to be transparent, foster open communication, and build constructive relationships.” And elaborates further about field-building potential: “We aim to be open and transparent about our work and to contribute to broader efforts that promote and advance the field of philanthropy.”

  • The Samuel N. and Mary Castle Foundation’s Mission and Core Values page articulates a long list of values that “emerge from the Foundation’s long history,” including a commitment to forming strategic alliances, working honestly, “showing compassion and mutual respect among grantmakers and grantees,” and ties its focus on transparency to a commitment to high standards and quality: “The Foundation strives for high quality in everything it does so that the Foundation is synonymous with quality, transparency and responsiveness.”

  • The Ford Foundation’s statement connects its transparency focus to culture, values around debate and collaboration, and a commitment to accountability: “Our culture is driven by trust, constructive debate, and leadership that empowers innovation and excellence. We strive to listen and learn and to model openness and transparency. We are accountable to each other at the foundation, to our charter, to our sector, to the organizations we support, and to society at large—as well as to the laws that govern our nonprofit status.”

  • An excerpt from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s “Information Sharing Approach” page emphasizes collaboration, peer learning, and offers an appropriately global view: “Around the world, institutions are maximizing their impact by becoming increasingly transparent. This follows a fundamental truth: that access to information and data fosters effective collaboration. At the foundation, we are embracing this reality through a continued commitment to search for opportunities that will help others understand our priorities better and what supports our decision making. The foundation is also committed to helping the philanthropic sector develop the tools that will increase confidence in our collective ability to address tough challenges around the world…..We will continually refine our approach to information sharing by regularly exploring how we increase access to important information within the foundation, while studying other institutional efforts at transparency to learn lessons from our partners and peers.”

  • The Walter and Elise Haas Fund connects its transparency focus to its mission statement, and its transparency-related activities to greater effectiveness: “Our ongoing commitment to transparency is a reflection of our mission — to build a healthy, just, and vibrant society in which people feel connected to and responsible for their community. The Walter & Elise Haas Fund shares real-time grants data and champions cross-sector work and community cooperation. Our grantmaking leverages partnerships and collaborations to produce results that no single actor could accomplish alone.”

  • The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation’s statement emphasizes the importance of transparency in creating a culture of learning: “The foundation is committed to openness, transparency and learning. While individually important, our commitments to openness, transparency, and learning jointly express values that are vital to our work. Because our operations—both internal and external—are situated in complex institutional and cultural environments, we cannot achieve our goals without being an adaptive, learning organization. And we cannot be such an organization unless we are open and transparent: willing to encourage debate and dissent, both within and without the foundation; ready to share what we learn with the field and broader public; eager to hear from and listen to others. These qualities of openness to learning and willingness to adjust are equally important for both external grantmaking and internal administration.”

These are just a few of the examples GlassPockets will have available when the new indicator is added later this month. Keep an eye on our Twitter feed for updates.

Happy New Year, Happy New Transparency Indicator!

--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