Moving to defuse a brewing controversy over how it awarded $50-million in Social Innovation Fund grants last month, the federal government has posted online the applications of the organizations that won the money, along with the ratings and comments they received from reviewers.
Separately, one of the candidates whose selection raised some eyebrows, New Profit Inc., has posted its unedited application on its own Web site, along with a statement saying it was confident it had won a grant “based on our 12-year track record funding and growing the impact of more than 20 innovative nonprofit organizations.”
Both moves came after Paul Light, a prominent nonprofit expert who served as a reviewer for the grants, last week accused the Corporation for National and Community Service, which manages the social-innovation money, of “stonewalling” about the selection process. He also questioned how an organization that had lobbied to create the new fund had won a grant after his panel gave it a weak rating.
Mr. Light confirmed today that he was referring to New Profit, an organization in Cambridge, Mass., that manages America Forward, a coalition of nonprofit groups that pushed the Obama administration to create the Social Innovation Fund. New Profit, which provides money to promising nonprofit organizations, won $5-million to help several youth groups expand their programs to help low-income young people move from high school to college or jobs.
Edited Proposals
The corporation, which gave the winners a chance to hide proprietary information, posted 10 of the 11 winning applications on its Web site over the weekend. One applicant, the National AIDS Fund, has not returned its application yet, said Ashley Etienne, a corporation spokeswoman.
Kandy Ferree, president of the AIDS group, said the organization plans to submit its materials before the August 27 deadline set by the corporation, probably tomorrow or Wednesday—and that the agency had agreed to clarify that groups had until that date to comply with its request.
Ms. Etienne said the move was part of the agency’s “evolution to become more transparent,” but it follows criticism both by Mr. Light, on his Washington Post blog, and by The Nonprofit Quarterly, which said the corporation’s reluctance to release more information about how it awarded the grants contradicted the Obama administration’s promises to run a more open government.
While awarding only $50-million, the Social Innovation Fund has a high profile in the philanthropic world because it promises a new approach to grant making that seeks out nonprofit groups that have proven they can help solve pressing social problems and helps them expand their efforts.
Ruth McCambridge, Nonprofit Quarterly’s editor, praised the corporation’s steps as “a move in the right direction,” adding, “The ball has started rolling and basically what we will see is an increased understanding that the [nonprofit] sector deserves more transparency about major initiatives like this.”
She said she would like the agency to take one more step, however, and release the names of the people who reviewed the grant applications.
Mr. Light, for his part, said that by posting the information over the weekend, the corporation proved it could move quickly.
“Why were they stalling on all this?” he asked.
He said he is not entirely satisfied, however, arguing that the agency should post additional information about the applicants that did not win grants, or at least the 31 groups that made it to the second round, so people can compare how they all were rated.
The corporation has said consistently that it cannot release information about the non-winning applications because it promised applicants it would not make unsuccessful bids public. It said it is considering making changes to the process next year, however.
Critics contrast that stance with that of the Education Department, which has taken a more open approach to its $650-million Investing in Innovation grant program to help nonprofit groups and others expand projects to improve public schools.
The department has posted the names of the nearly 1,700 applicants that vied for the money, and abstracts of their proposals, along with the comments by reviewers of the 49 finalists that were announced this month. The department also plans to post the names of the reviewers as well as those of a “second tier” of applicants—those with relatively high scores that did not make it to the final phase—along with additional information about their applications, though details are still being worked out, said Sandra Abrevaya, a spokeswoman.
Avoiding 'Rash’ Decisions
Corporation officials say the decision to post the 11 winning applications is a first for the agency, which also awards grants for national-service programs like AmeriCorps.
“All this is a process,” said Ms. Etienne when asked if the corporation would take further steps, like posting the reviewers’ names. “You can’t make these rash decisions overnight.”
Ms. Ferree of the National AIDS Fund said that her group is concerned because the corporation changed "the rules of engagement" by deciding to post the applications of grant winners, something it did not say it would do when it requested proposals. She said the group plans to explain when it submits its own application that such a move has implications for all federal grant making.
"We want to be very thoughtful in providing our response to the corporation, even if we choose not to redact anything," she said.
Kim Syman, managing partner at New Profit, said the group knew from the start that concerns might be raised about its application, both because of its work with America Forward and because Paul Carttar, who was named director of the Social Innovation Fund in April, had been an executive partner at New Profit. (He did not take part in discussions involving New Profit or in the final selection of winners.)
But, she added, “We feel absolutely clear that we are really competitive for this and that ultimately we won on the merits.” In fact, she added, “if anything, we felt we were going to be potentially at a disadvantage.”
New Profit won mixed reviews in the first phase of the process, with one panel calling its application “weak and unresponsive” and another “excellent.” The corporation moved any application that won at least one “excellent” to the second phase.
The “negative” panel said: “The proposed budget projects a level of overhead that was in excess of what seemed reasonable to manage the proposed project.”
It also said the group did not have the ability to manage the program without hiring extra people and had no experience managing federal grants.
The “positive” panel said: “We were impressed by the applicant’s past experience investing in youth development-focused social innovators, commitment to data-driven decision-making, and prolific private fund raising to date.”
The disparate views show that “it’s entirely possible for two different people to look at the same data and come to two different conclusions,” Ms. Syman said.
Some observers of the Social Innovation Fund, or SIF, have expressed sympathy for the corporation.
“It’s important to remember that first-time efforts are often messy and imperfect,” Geri Stengel, a nonprofit consultant and teacher who served as a SIF reviewer, wrote on her blog. “That’s okay as long as improvements are made as the program continues. It sounds like SIF is headed in that direction.”
Get more great stories about the nonprofit world delivered to your inbox every weekday. 
Comments
1. geri_stengel - August 23, 2010 at 07:20 pm
I just want to echo Paul Light in asking for more information about the semi-finalists. Many extraordinary programs may not have made the final cut because they were not a perfect fit for the Social Innovation Fund criteria. That doesn't mean they are bad programs. By publicizing their applications, SIF gives other funders an opportunity to review what could be great fits for other programs. This is why it was so important to publicize information about the applicants: One size doesn't fit all.
2. wjfreeman - August 24, 2010 at 03:43 pm
In the above article, Geri Stengel, a "nonprofit consultant and teacher" states: "I speak from first-hand experience; I was one of the SIF reviewers. Evaluating applications is not scientific. My team gave a 'mediocre' rating to one of the winning applicants." Follow the link to her blog for further comments.
I find the fact that Ms. Stengel revealed that she was a SIF reviewer and wrote about deliberation decisions to be highly inappropriate and, I believe, a violation of the spirit if not the intent of the agreement that she signed with the federal government.
And I "speak from experience." Last month, I was a reviewer for funding applications for Health and Human Services' Administration of Children and Families. Over the past 20 years, I have probably reviewed 100 funding applications. It is just unprofessional to comment on the review process outside of the team meetings. That's why the government requires that we return (by priority mail) all materials -- including any and all notes that we might have written to ourselves to assist us in the review process.
I'd think that Ms. Stengel, as "a nonprofit consultant and teacher," would hold herself up to a higher standard.
3. mfulop - August 24, 2010 at 04:45 pm
Let's be honest. There are thousands of grants awarded by Federal agencies where non-funded proposals never see the light of day. I personally don't believe that the non-profit sector or philanthropy community would benefit much from having literally thousands of applications open-sourced. So the question is why is the Social Innovation Fund (SIF) process different and why is the expectation for transparency becoming a point of controversy? In my opinion, the difference is in the name. Indeed, if innovation is the core of this process then the unfunded proposals are not the equivalent of "one of 800 unfunded $80,000 youth mentoring proposals rejected by a mentoring grant process." The proposals "rejected" by the SIF include millions of dollars of matching dollars pledged to fund the best and brightest ideas for dozens of intermediaries and intermediary foundations and corporations. By making all of the applications and reviews transparent then there is the potential of truly expanding innovation --apart from government funding. It feels like that is the source of frustration in the philanthropy community. Additionally the Federal resistance to transparently spawns suspicion of favoritism, influence and an unauthentic review. So the tale of frustration and controversy grow in the popular press, industry media and on the internet (in the form of dozens of blogs and twitter debates).
Mark Fulop, Portland Oregon
4. wjfreeman - August 24, 2010 at 05:45 pm
I would like to challenge Nonprofit Quarterly's editor, Ruth McCambridge's recommendation that the corporation should release the names of those who reviewed the applications. What, pray tell, are people to do with those names other than to harass and challenge reviewer assessments.
The federal review process is carefully managed with team members examining applications individually and with reviewers participating in team discussions. After individual scoring, team leaders summarize reviewer comments. The process provides the best of individual reviewers with the benefit of team input. Further, extensive comments are professionally written as a basis for scoring, and are available to all applicants (whether or not funded). A number of times when we were not funded, I found the reviewer comments very helpful for future applications Making reviewer names public is a sure way to guarantee less robust feedback.
There is no conceivable benefit for releasing the names of reviewers other than to create animus and distrust as well as dissuading individuals from agreeing to become future reviewers.