Thank you for raising this question, Emre! We value transparency and recognize how outcome data helps potential donors make informed decisions. We would like to move more toward that direction, but there are some limitations to that. First, we could only present the result in aggregation potentially with individual data for successful grants/work. Publishing individual grant outcomes, particularly unsuccessful ones, could discourage grantee candor and lead others to draw overly broad conclusions about interventions or grantee capabilities. That’s why we lean toward aggregate reporting—for example, sharing overall success rates or highlighting particularly impactful grants that make up the bulk of the impact. The second limitation is our capacity. Even after I joined the fund in greater capacity, we still only have 1.3 FTE, most of which goes toward grant sourcing, evaluation, decisions, and internal impact tracking. While we’re planning to expand our team soon, we need to carefully balance any new initiatives with other strategic priorities. Therefore, even though we would be excited to increase the amount of public grant outcome reporting, we’re still assessing the extent to which we can implement it while balancing other goals. We hope that the steps we are taking right now, like regularly publishing payout reports, and annual reports like the one above, will already help supporters assess our work until we could do more on that front.
Thank you for raising this question, Emre! We value transparency and recognize how outcome data helps potential donors make informed decisions. We would like to move more toward that direction, but there are some limitations to that.
First, we could only present the result in aggregation potentially with individual data for successful grants/work. Publishing individual grant outcomes, particularly unsuccessful ones, could discourage grantee candor and lead others to draw overly broad conclusions about interventions or grantee capabilities. That’s why we lean toward aggregate reporting—for example, sharing overall success rates or highlighting particularly impactful grants that make up the bulk of the impact.
The second limitation is our capacity. Even after I joined the fund in greater capacity, we still only have 1.3 FTE, most of which goes toward grant sourcing, evaluation, decisions, and internal impact tracking. While we’re planning to expand our team soon, we need to carefully balance any new initiatives with other strategic priorities. Therefore, even though we would be excited to increase the amount of public grant outcome reporting, we’re still assessing the extent to which we can implement it while balancing other goals.
We hope that the steps we are taking right now, like regularly publishing payout reports, and annual reports like the one above, will already help supporters assess our work until we could do more on that front.