Vote for Glasspockets to Win a WEBBY Award!

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

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

Overheard: Julian Corner on Philanthropy’s Changing Landscape

“Pre-2008 the government had a lot of money to spend, which meant it could drive at social results which it could achieve within the length of a parliament. The model was to identify evidence-based practice and roll it out quickly. Foundations were part of the delivery chain. Now the model is bust because the money has gone. The ‘what works’ agenda no longer works – if it ever did. Rather, we need problem solving, and long-term, sophisticated models. Foundations have to take a step back and ask themselves if they want to be a part of it any more.”

-Julian Corner, CEO, Lankelly Chase Foundation, at the Alliance Breakfast Club held in London last summer.

Corner was joined by many other panelists during the July 25 conversation including Bharat Mehta, the Chief Executive of Trust for London, and Anthony Tomei, former director of the Nuffield Foundation and trustee of the Bell Foundation. Read the related Alliance article by Caroline Hartnell recapping the club’s debate about how philanthropy has changed in recent years in the United Kingdom.

[Editor's Note: We had this queued up months ago and it never posted; although it's late, it's still a very timely conversation.]

Aid Transparency Data is Growing (and Being Ranked!)


By Yinebon Iniya 
New York, NY

This blog was re-posted with permission from

In almost every corner of the philanthropic world, transparency appears to be the buzzword these days.  Foundations and donors often talk about their efforts to more strategically catalyze change and make an impact, however, while they have great stories to share, the quantifiable outcomes of their efforts are difficult to fully measure and further, in many cases, best practices that may potentially help others become more effective are not shared at all.

So what’s happening in the world of government aid, where there has also been a lot of transparency talk, especially around the looming Millennium Development Goals?

If you were at the Opening Up Aid: Better Data, Better Use forum at the Brookings Institute last week, then you already realize that aid transparency can be summed up in a four letter word.


International Aid Transparency Initiative
IATI stands for the International Aid Transparency Initiative, a bold undertaking that is in its fifth year and continues to push efforts to publish open data in a standard that allows government agencies to tell their story.

The forum was about promoting the progress that has been made during IATI’s five-year period and to display the 2013 Aid Transparency Index (ATI), an online index launched jointly by Oxfam America and Publish What You Fund that measures aid transparency from some of the world’s leading aid agencies in the form of a ranking system that demonstrates which organizations are most and least transparent.

The ATI is a colorful chart that displays the name of the donor and their score. Clicking on the chart brings up the donor profile information and its relevance to IATI. There is specific detail about the scoring, which contains data about what the donor has made available and its score there as well. Users can filter their searches by organization size, type, or initiative. This is all available online, and can be accessed by anyone for free.

Information published on a quarterly basis in extensible markup language (XML) format, is machine-readable and according to David Hall-Matthews, Managing Director of Publish What You Fund, the best format because it is the “only format that is both comparable and accessible.”

Hall-Matthews, who gave a rousing address about the importance and push for agencies to become more transparent, talked about a data revolution, clearly excited about the potential and commitment many of the groups are making to publish useful data on aid activities.

And the Highest Ranking Aid Transparency Agency is…
He also had the pleasure of announcing the top ranked agency so far, which happens to be the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), a U.S. based foreign aid agency that since 2004, has been providing assistance in the fight against global poverty. According to Publish What You Fund, which ranked 67 donor organizations, MCC, scored 88.9% overall, narrowly beating organizations like GAVI AllianceDepartment for International Development, and United Nations Development Program which also scored high marks. The scoring was based on organizations that are providing “large amounts of accessible, timely, comparable, and comprehensive information about their aid”.

This information is useful to people like Hector Corrales, Director of International Cooperation at the Republic of Honduras’ Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation, who made a compelling case when he talked about mutual accountability; a coming together of donors and countries, and the need for the data to be published quarterly so that it could create a friendly competition among the agencies while also reminding them about the areas that need to be improved.

Honduras, an active member of IATI, recently launched an aid management platform, which contains information on all aid activity, including government data. Mr. Corrales praised IATI for its efforts while indicating it was imperative for the “long term transformation of development actors in the field”. After all, in order to be really effective and impactful, having good, searchable, timely, comprehensive data is not only important, it’s vital. He was pleased to announce that Honduras is committed to IATI and its standard.

Aid Transparency Advice and Best Practices
There was also a panel on transparency that featured a list of high-profile aid agencies that are involved in everything from capacity building, development planning, economic growth, political reform to budget and policy. The panel, moderated by Tessie San Martin, President and CEO of Plan USA, included Caroline Anstey, Managing Director of World Bank; Tony Pipa, Deputy Assistant for the U.S. Agency for International Development; Robert Goldberg, Director, Office of U.S. and Foreign Assistance Resources, U.S. Department of State; the aforementioned Hector Corrales; and Sheila Herrling, V.P., Department of Policy and Evaluation, Millennium Challenge Corporation.

Herrling, who was thrilled that MCC climbed from a 9th place ranking to the top of the standings shared how they were able to accomplish the feat along with some best practices:

  1. Declare that you’re going to be transparent and have the political will to be able to overcome fear because you have to be willing to answer questions about your own data and that takes time.
  2. MCC uses data to make decisions on everything so the realization they could not access their own data, coupled with a push from external audiences asking for better data made their decision to publish better information an easy one.
  3. The learning that can be made possible by the volume of data that can be shared in the information space is an important element.

Most of the guests on the panel shared their best practice of having a good group of technical and policy teams working together and agreed that political will and the hunger to see transparency of aid data improve are all important aspects of keeping this movement alive and growing.

To sum this all up in the words of the Senior Fellow of Brookings and the introductory speaker, George Ingram, “This is a small but important element in the data revolution.”

Yinebon Iniya is manager of international data relations at the Foundation Center.

New Resource: Smart Chart 3.0

smartchartA new resource has been added to the GrantCraft knowledge center! Smart Chart 3.0® is a planning tool, designed by Spitfire Strategies, to aid nonprofits in developing strategic communications plans. The tool is also useful for funders in developing their own communications strategies and in their collaboration with grantees. Smart Chart is particularly useful for project managers without a formal communications background, and in completing its step-by-step approach, users will come away with a focused communications strategy for their organization, initiative, or campaign.

Smart Chart takes users through six major strategic decision sections. The process challenges participants to think critically and concretely about their organization’s decision-making process, the context the program is operating in, and the intended target audience. Once those aspects are defined, the communications strategy begins to come together as participants develop a timeline and budget and define measures of success before testing the strategy in the final step. This resource is the organizational workbook to fill out, and the interactive format is available at

Smart Chart was originally featured by GrantCraft in its Communicating for Impact  guide. Communicating for Impact provides further resources for funders interested in leveraging their communications strategy towards effective grantmaking.

The GrantCraft knowledge center is powered by IssueLab, a service of the Foundation Center. IssueLab serves as an online repository for knowledge on the social sector, providing thousands of case studies, evaluations, white papers, and issue briefs addressing some of the world’s most pressing social problems. And, like, GrantCraft, it’s free.


Editors Note: This post was written by Davis Winslow, a new intern with GrantCraft at the Foundation Center. Please join me in welcoming Davis to our team!

5 Questions for…Rise Wilson, Director of Philanthropy, Robert Rauschenberg Foundation

By Mitch Nauffts
New York, NY

This blog was re-posted with permission from Philanthropy News Digest

Recently, PND chatted by e-mail with Rise Wilson, who joined the Robert Rauschenberg Foundation as its first director of philanthropy in August, about the foundation’s SEED program, which provides unrestricted operating capital to “boundary-pushing” arts organizations in their earliest stages, allowing them to build the capacity and programming.

Philanthropy News Digest: You and your colleagues have just announced a second round of SEED grants — $30,000 in unrestricted operating capital to start-up arts organizations around the country. Why start-up organizations?

Rise Wilson: Before I speak to the choice to focus on start-ups, I should clarify that these particular early stage organizations were selected because they were choosing different operating models, pushing the boundaries of their medium, working in an interdisciplinary way, or in some other fashion “nurturing the new.” Nominators were encouraged to identify organizations who were exemplary in their efforts to experiment, take risks, and support emerging artists. So the program is not just about start-ups for start-ups’ sake but the importance of investing in new and untested models.

What we know from the legacy of our founder, Robert Rauschenberg, who invested in artists at the earliest stages of their careers, is how catalyzing this kind of support can be. Early investment validates that artists — and, in the case of the SEED program, organizations – are on the right path. It shores up their financial and logistical capacity to pursue their vision, and it can provide more space to test out ideas — rather than choosing the safest, most “fund-able” projects to develop.

There is a marked absence of risk capital in arts and culture. Traditional philanthropy still seems to be operating with the tacit expectation that organizations should have at least three years of bootstrapping before receiving institutional support. Though there is wisdom in assessing a potential grantee’s capacity to carry out its vision, there are a great many flaws in this metric of grant-worthiness. The ability to bootstrap is often tied to access to wealth, which is not evenly distributed — geographically, demographically, or culturally. So there is a justice component that is available in the decision to invest in early stage work. To be clear, this justice element was not a core feature in the design of the SEED program, but it’s available — and in my new post at the foundation, it’s one I plan to underline.

So there is a justice component, and on a really basic and fundamental level, there is the the fact that we need to figure out how to fund good ideas. Our sector is literally filled with creative thinkers. We are in the business of creativity and creative problem-solving, yet early stage funding is so tenuous it can kill great ideas, through neglect, before they’ve had a chance to take root. How do you prototype and pilot when funds are only available to proven, tested programs? We have an opportunity to apply lessons and strategies from the social-enterprise sector and impact philanthropy — to encourage innovation, which by its nature often involves untested ideas, uncertain models, and starting from scratch.

As a foundation, risk-taking is one of our core values, so it is not only the kind of work we support but the way we approach our own. We want to remove barriers for creative thinkers to do good work, even when that means they are new, working with a fiscal sponsor, or have selected a for-profit structure as a way to advance their creative endeavors.

Read the full blog post on PhilanTopic here

Connect with us!

shutterstock_74262517 [Converted]

There’s a lot in store for GrantCraft this year, and we want you to be a part of it!

Our website will be getting a makeover this summer, and we’ll be offering many more ways for funders to share and benefit from one another’s wisdom. Make sure you’re tuned in to our latest updates about our free and unique knowledge platform for the philanthropic sector.

Connect with all things GrantCraft by staying in touch on Twitter, registering and subscribing to our email updates, or signing up to receive our blog in your inbox. Also, don’t forget that we’re a service of the Foundation Center, so you can check out other related content on

Coming in Q4 2014: .ngo and .ong, finally.

Nancy_Gofus (2)By Nancy Gofus
Washington, D.C.

What are .ngo and .ong?

.ngo stands for .Non-Governmental Organization (NGO), and .ong is the translated equivalent for regions of the world that speak romance languages (i.e. Spanish, French, Italian, Portuguese). These are new domains coming soon exclusively for NGOs all over the world!

If this video does not display please click here.

Why are these domains launching?

Historically, many of the world’s NGOs and nonprofits have utilized the .org domain to carry out their missions and achieve their goals. While .org has and continues to be a trusted online space, it’s open for anyone to register; contrary to the popular misconception that .org is closed, you do not have to be a nonprofit to operate your own .org domain name.

Read the rest of this entry »

Is this the #crowdfunding scandal I predicted?

lucy bernholz

By Lucy Bernholz

This blog was re-posted with permission from Philanthropy 2173

Oculus VR for $2 billion. This is a big payout for a company (Oculus) that got its product launched with Kickstarter support. And now those Kickstarter supporters are wondering why they’re not getting any return on their “investment.”

Because most Kickstarter support is not an investment. Indiegogo support may or may not be a charitable gift.  Crowdfunding on most platforms is a pre-purchase of a product – if you want it to be something else you have to choose carefully. Most crowdfunding support is not even a pre-purchase of the actual product, it’s  a purchase of a sticker or t-shirt that says “Hey, I thought this thing was cool and so I gave it $10.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Mapping DACA: New Tool Tracks Philanthropy’s Investments in Program for Immigrant Youth

This blog was re-posted with permission from PhilanTopic.

Felecia BartowBy Felecia Bartow
Sebastopol, CA

In June 2012, the Obama administration announced a new policy directive that provided the opportunity for nearly two million immigrant youth and young adults across the country to apply for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). This temporary form of relief offers eligible immigrants a possible reprieve from the threat of deportation and has the potential to encourage immigrant students to continue and/or complete their education and enter the formal economy.

As word of this historic opportunity spread, foundations from California to New York and Oregon to North Carolina responded. Despite differences in grantmaking and geographic priorities, these funders seized the opportunity to meet the pressing needs of DACA-eligible immigrants in communities across the country by supporting a wide range of implementation activities, including expanding outreach efforts and eligibility screenings, and helping applicants meet educational requirements and cover the cost of the $465 application fee.

Foundation Center and Grantmakers Concerned with Immigrants and Refugees are pleased to announce the launch of the DACA Grants Map, which provides the first-ever comprehensive overview of related investments. This tool offers information on the geographic areas served by DACA-related grants and grant details such as dollar amount, duration, date issued, strategies supported, and investment type.

DACA Map Screenshot_2

Read the rest of this entry »

April Fools! (or is it?)


In many countries, there’s a (silly, but rather enjoyable) tradition that April 1 is a national day of joking known as April Fools’ Day. At GrantCraft, we were delighted to see Larry Kramer from the Hewlett Foundation participate through his spot-on, sincerely funny blog post. An excerpt:

Speaking of strategic philanthropy (because we’re always speaking of strategic philanthropy around here), a recent evaluation that involved a robust randomized control trial suggests that our approach to grantmaking does no better than random chance. Before acting on this somewhat unexpected finding, I want to see if we can replicate it internally. So we’re going to take a portion of our grant making portfolio and throw darts at a dartboard to select a control group of grantees. We’ll be looking closely at these so-called “bullseye” grantees to see if they do better at achieving results than those we select through our normal rigorous strategic approach.  Fingers crossed everyone!

Bullseye grantmaking strips foundations of the need to spend days, weeks, and staff retreats planning for a strategic portfolio by putting efficiency first. And hey, the fingers crossed method of sustainable impact is probably not a bad idea either. But I have one hole to pick in this: if dart throwing is the best strategy, why is nobody doing it? Funders like Grant from Texas and Sophie from London have shared how thoughtful they and their foundations are with their grantmaking process; I find it hard to believe that throwing a dart would be smarter! And Hewlett’s own grantmaking in it’s current form, too, shows pretty top-notch grantees benefiting from well-formulated programs. That robust randomized control trial evaluation might be flawed after all…