The AIDS group submitted its materials to the corporation on Tuesday, ahead of the agency’s August 27 deadline.

Kandy Ferree, the fund’s president, told The Chronicle that her organization was crafting a response that highlighted its concerns about the agency’s decision to make the applications public, even though it did not say it would do that when it requested proposals.

You can read more about the controversy over the fund and the selection of New Profit in a Chronicle news article.

Read the entire Chronicle article on the controversy.

The effort was almost derailed over the past few days, he writes, but quick action by the Social Innovation Fund has got things back on the right track.

Now it is up to the unsuccessful applicants to keep things moving in the right direction, he says. They were promised that their applications would not be made public. But voluntarily doing so now, with the encouragement of the fund, will cement the Social Innovation Fund’s commitment to transparency and help it reach its goal of broadly sharing knowledge about what works, he writes.

Let us know what you think about the winners—and the federal agency’s response to the controversy over its openness about the grant-making process— by using the comment section below.

Questions about New Profit and the other winners were set off Thursday when Paul Light, a prominent nonprofit expert, said that when he was judging the first round of applications, his committee of reviewers gave a low rating to one of the eventual winners. Mr. Light did not disclose the name of the organization that received a bad review but he described it as a group that had lobbied for creation of the Social Innovation Fund.

In today’s New York Times, New Profit is identified as the target of Mr. Light’s criticism. New Profit says it was aware it would face questions of favoritism so worked especially hard to shape an application that would succeed fully on its merits.

On Friday, the Corporation for National and Community Service, which oversees the fund, said it would release the comments of reviewers and their ratings. It said it had planned the move before Mr. Light made his concerns public. It also said that all the winners went through more than one review process, so a bad rating in the initial round could be overcome later, and that all the winners received strong overall ratings.

To help shed light on the application process, The Chronicle has joined with Tactical Philanthropy, a blog written by the Chronicle columnist Sean Stannard-Stockton, to ask the winners and losers to allow us to post their applications online. We’ll post all we receive and encourage comments from readers.

If you would like to submit a proposal, send it to editor@philanthropy.com.