The Casebook Blog

So far, we’ve reviewed watchdog sites’ standards, detailing indicators for a nonprofit’s success, and articulating metrics. What do all of these have in common? DATA! Ratings, program development, case-making…all are driven by a drumbeat of qualitative and quantitative data. How the public views your nonprofit matters. How you view your nonprofit matters.Just like in preschool, gold-stars matter. But what matters more is understanding what makes your program and operations better, and thus, what translates into heightened grant competitiveness. For example, you may have a program that reaches 100 young adults a year through life skills workshops, individual/family counseling, and resource fairs. The blend of in-depth support and one-off moments ultimately builds to a holistic solution for each participant. Some participants may grasp concepts and move towards independence through economic support and character building more quickly than other participants, however, on average you find that if an individual attends at least 5 counseling sessions, 2 resource fairs, and 3 life-skills workshops they have a higher rate of job attainment. As you evaluate, test, and grow your model, you identify that certain participants (let’s say under the age of 20) are more receptive to certain workshops and you adjust the curriculum to support achievement. Now, you’re in a better position to support these young adults sustain their livelihoods. Data drives your program’s growth. Data is key to your participant’s success. This is similar to how foundations view the world. How does a nonprofit know what is working? How are they using data to drive their program? How does data inform how they utilize resources? What does the external data (like watchdog sites) say about the nonprofit’s success and impact? Being able to articulate the evidence-based backing of your strategy supports your ratings on evaluation sites and ultimately translates into higher competitiveness for grants. But what tools are you using? How is your organization tracking efficacy? Keeping track of participant files? Managing the evaluation of your efforts? Tools like Casebook, are amazing because they allow for “dynamic fields” which enable you to track engagement and personalize reporting requirements. Dynamic Fields allow you to enter and compare unique data sets that may be specific to your organization, and the configurability is important because it allows users to really understand and tell a data-driven, responsive story beyond just a suite of generic data sets. Learn more about cb Engage, offered as part of Casebook—a key case management application that integrates data collection and distribution all via a remote platform. Think about how to pull, and display meaningful data. How many clients are applying to your program? How are you determining and adjusting eligibility? What are the key demographics in each household, beyond standard gender, race, and age? Think about what makes your population unique. What are your organization’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT tool here) in supporting this community? Utilize the data garnered from an effective platform tool to understand the main areas for support needed, and then convey these metrics to funders, to your community, to the world! Whatever platform you utilize, know that as you prioritize your organization’s resource growth and competitiveness in the eyes of funders they will begin to prioritize you. Data isn’t really magic. It’s a critical tool that you can leverage to build your resources and transform your nonprofit. The power of that change, that’s what’s truly magical. So far, we’ve reviewed watchdog sites’ standards, detailing indicators for a nonprofit’s success, and articulating metrics. What do all of these have in common? DATA! Ratings, program development, case-making…all are driven by a drumbeat of qualitative and quantitative data. How the public views your nonprofit matters. How you view your nonprofit matters.Just like in preschool, gold-stars matter. But what matters more is understanding what makes your program and operations better, and thus, what translates into heightened grant competitiveness. For example, you may have a program that reaches 100 young adults a year through life skills workshops, individual/family counseling, and resource fairs. The blend of in-depth support and one-off moments ultimately builds to a holistic solution for each participant. Some participants may grasp concepts and move towards independence through economic support and character building more quickly than other participants, however, on average you find that if an individual attends at least 5 counseling sessions, 2 resource fairs, and 3 life-skills workshops they have a higher rate of job attainment. As you evaluate, test, and grow your model, you identify that certain participants (let’s say under the age of 20) are more receptive to certain workshops and you adjust the curriculum to support achievement. Now, you’re in a better position to support these young adults sustain their livelihoods. Data drives your program’s growth. Data is key to your participant’s success. This is similar to how foundations view the world. How does a nonprofit know what is working? How are they using data to drive their program? How does data inform how they utilize resources? What does the external data (like watchdog sites) say about the nonprofit’s success and impact? Being able to articulate the evidence-based backing of your strategy supports your ratings on evaluation sites and ultimately translates into higher competitiveness for grants. But what tools are you using? How is your organization tracking efficacy? Keeping track of participant files? Managing the evaluation of your efforts? Tools like Casebook, are amazing because they allow for “dynamic fields” which enable you to track engagement and personalize reporting requirements. Dynamic Fields allow you to enter and compare unique data sets that may be specific to your organization, and the configurability is important because it allows users to really understand and tell a data-driven, responsive story beyond just a suite of generic data sets. Learn more about cb Engage, offered as part of Casebook—a key case management application that integrates data collection and distribution all via a remote platform. Think about how to pull, and display meaningful data. How many clients are applying to your program? How are you determining and adjusting eligibility? What are the key demographics in each household, beyond standard gender, race, and age? Think about what makes your population unique. What are your organization’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT tool here) in supporting this community? Utilize the data garnered from an effective platform tool to understand the main areas for support needed, and then convey these metrics to funders, to your community, to the world! Whatever platform you utilize, know that as you prioritize your organization’s resource growth and competitiveness in the eyes of funders they will begin to prioritize you. Data isn’t really magic. It’s a critical tool that you can leverage to build your resources and transform your nonprofit. The power of that change, that’s what’s truly magical. So far, we’ve reviewed watchdog sites’ standards, detailing indicators for a nonprofit’s success, and articulating metrics. What do all of these have in common? DATA! Ratings, program development, case-making…all are driven by a drumbeat of qualitative and quantitative data. How the public views your nonprofit matters. How you view your nonprofit matters.Just like in preschool, gold-stars matter. But what matters more is understanding what makes your program and operations better, and thus, what translates into heightened grant competitiveness. For example, you may have a program that reaches 100 young adults a year through life skills workshops, individual/family counseling, and resource fairs. The blend of in-depth support and one-off moments ultimately builds to a holistic solution for each participant. Some participants may grasp concepts and move towards independence through economic support and character building more quickly than other participants, however, on average you find that if an individual attends at least 5 counseling sessions, 2 resource fairs, and 3 life-skills workshops they have a higher rate of job attainment. As you evaluate, test, and grow your model, you identify that certain participants (let’s say under the age of 20) are more receptive to certain workshops and you adjust the curriculum to support achievement. Now, you’re in a better position to support these young adults sustain their livelihoods. Data drives your program’s growth. Data is key to your participant’s success. This is similar to how foundations view the world. How does a nonprofit know what is working? How are they using data to drive their program? How does data inform how they utilize resources? What does the external data (like watchdog sites) say about the nonprofit’s success and impact? Being able to articulate the evidence-based backing of your strategy supports your ratings on evaluation sites and ultimately translates into higher competitiveness for grants. But what tools are you using? How is your organization tracking efficacy? Keeping track of participant files? Managing the evaluation of your efforts? Tools like Casebook, are amazing because they allow for “dynamic fields” which enable you to track engagement and personalize reporting requirements. Dynamic Fields allow you to enter and compare unique data sets that may be specific to your organization, and the configurability is important because it allows users to really understand and tell a data-driven, responsive story beyond just a suite of generic data sets. Learn more about cb Engage, offered as part of Casebook—a key case management application that integrates data collection and distribution all via a remote platform. Think about how to pull, and display meaningful data. How many clients are applying to your program? How are you determining and adjusting eligibility? What are the key demographics in each household, beyond standard gender, race, and age? Think about what makes your population unique. What are your organization’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT tool here) in supporting this community? Utilize the data garnered from an effective platform tool to understand the main areas for support needed, and then convey these metrics to funders, to your community, to the world! Whatever platform you utilize, know that as you prioritize your organization’s resource growth and competitiveness in the eyes of funders they will begin to prioritize you. Data isn’t really magic. It’s a critical tool that you can leverage to build your resources and transform your nonprofit. The power of that change, that’s what’s truly magical. So far, we’ve reviewed watchdog sites’ standards, detailing indicators for a nonprofit’s success, and articulating metrics. What do all of these have in common? DATA! Ratings, program development, case-making…all are driven by a drumbeat of qualitative and quantitative data. How the public views your nonprofit matters. How you view your nonprofit matters.Just like in preschool, gold-stars matter. But what matters more is understanding what makes your program and operations better, and thus, what translates into heightened grant competitiveness. For example, you may have a program that reaches 100 young adults a year through life skills workshops, individual/family counseling, and resource fairs. The blend of in-depth support and one-off moments ultimately builds to a holistic solution for each participant. Some participants may grasp concepts and move towards independence through economic support and character building more quickly than other participants, however, on average you find that if an individual attends at least 5 counseling sessions, 2 resource fairs, and 3 life-skills workshops they have a higher rate of job attainment. As you evaluate, test, and grow your model, you identify that certain participants (let’s say under the age of 20) are more receptive to certain workshops and you adjust the curriculum to support achievement. Now, you’re in a better position to support these young adults sustain their livelihoods. Data drives your program’s growth. Data is key to your participant’s success. This is similar to how foundations view the world. How does a nonprofit know what is working? How are they using data to drive their program? How does data inform how they utilize resources? What does the external data (like watchdog sites) say about the nonprofit’s success and impact? Being able to articulate the evidence-based backing of your strategy supports your ratings on evaluation sites and ultimately translates into higher competitiveness for grants. But what tools are you using? How is your organization tracking efficacy? Keeping track of participant files? Managing the evaluation of your efforts? Tools like Casebook, are amazing because they allow for “dynamic fields” which enable you to track engagement and personalize reporting requirements. Dynamic Fields allow you to enter and compare unique data sets that may be specific to your organization, and the configurability is important because it allows users to really understand and tell a data-driven, responsive story beyond just a suite of generic data sets. Learn more about cb Engage, offered as part of Casebook—a key case management application that integrates data collection and distribution all via a remote platform. Think about how to pull, and display meaningful data. How many clients are applying to your program? How are you determining and adjusting eligibility? What are the key demographics in each household, beyond standard gender, race, and age? Think about what makes your population unique. What are your organization’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT tool here) in supporting this community? Utilize the data garnered from an effective platform tool to understand the main areas for support needed, and then convey these metrics to funders, to your community, to the world! Whatever platform you utilize, know that as you prioritize your organization’s resource growth and competitiveness in the eyes of funders they will begin to prioritize you. Data isn’t really magic. It’s a critical tool that you can leverage to build your resources and transform your nonprofit. The power of that change, that’s what’s truly magical. So far, we’ve reviewed watchdog sites’ standards, detailing indicators for a nonprofit’s success, and articulating metrics. What do all of these have in common? DATA! Ratings, program development, case-making…all are driven by a drumbeat of qualitative and quantitative data. How the public views your nonprofit matters. How you view your nonprofit matters.Just like in preschool, gold-stars matter. But what matters more is understanding what makes your program and operations better, and thus, what translates into heightened grant competitiveness. For example, you may have a program that reaches 100 young adults a year through life skills workshops, individual/family counseling, and resource fairs. The blend of in-depth support and one-off moments ultimately builds to a holistic solution for each participant. Some participants may grasp concepts and move towards independence through economic support and character building more quickly than other participants, however, on average you find that if an individual attends at least 5 counseling sessions, 2 resource fairs, and 3 life-skills workshops they have a higher rate of job attainment. As you evaluate, test, and grow your model, you identify that certain participants (let’s say under the age of 20) are more receptive to certain workshops and you adjust the curriculum to support achievement. Now, you’re in a better position to support these young adults sustain their livelihoods. Data drives your program’s growth. Data is key to your participant’s success. This is similar to how foundations view the world. How does a nonprofit know what is working? How are they using data to drive their program? How does data inform how they utilize resources? What does the external data (like watchdog sites) say about the nonprofit’s success and impact? Being able to articulate the evidence-based backing of your strategy supports your ratings on evaluation sites and ultimately translates into higher competitiveness for grants. But what tools are you using? How is your organization tracking efficacy? Keeping track of participant files? Managing the evaluation of your efforts? Tools like Casebook, are amazing because they allow for “dynamic fields” which enable you to track engagement and personalize reporting requirements. Dynamic Fields allow you to enter and compare unique data sets that may be specific to your organization, and the configurability is important because it allows users to really understand and tell a data-driven, responsive story beyond just a suite of generic data sets. Learn more about cb Engage, offered as part of Casebook—a key case management application that integrates data collection and distribution all via a remote platform. Think about how to pull, and display meaningful data. How many clients are applying to your program? How are you determining and adjusting eligibility? What are the key demographics in each household, beyond standard gender, race, and age? Think about what makes your population unique. What are your organization’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT tool here) in supporting this community? Utilize the data garnered from an effective platform tool to understand the main areas for support needed, and then convey these metrics to funders, to your community, to the world! Whatever platform you utilize, know that as you prioritize your organization’s resource growth and competitiveness in the eyes of funders they will begin to prioritize you. Data isn’t really magic. It’s a critical tool that you can leverage to build your resources and transform your nonprofit. The power of that change, that’s what’s truly magical. So far, we’ve reviewed watchdog sites’ standards, detailing indicators for a nonprofit’s success, and articulating metrics. What do all of these have in common? DATA! Ratings, program development, case-making…all are driven by a drumbeat of qualitative and quantitative data. How the public views your nonprofit matters. How you view your nonprofit matters.Just like in preschool, gold-stars matter. But what matters more is understanding what makes your program and operations better, and thus, what translates into heightened grant competitiveness. For example, you may have a program that reaches 100 young adults a year through life skills workshops, individual/family counseling, and resource fairs. The blend of in-depth support and one-off moments ultimately builds to a holistic solution for each participant. Some participants may grasp concepts and move towards independence through economic support and character building more quickly than other participants, however, on average you find that if an individual attends at least 5 counseling sessions, 2 resource fairs, and 3 life-skills workshops they have a higher rate of job attainment. As you evaluate, test, and grow your model, you identify that certain participants (let’s say under the age of 20) are more receptive to certain workshops and you adjust the curriculum to support achievement. Now, you’re in a better position to support these young adults sustain their livelihoods. Data drives your program’s growth. Data is key to your participant’s success. This is similar to how foundations view the world. How does a nonprofit know what is working? How are they using data to drive their program? How does data inform how they utilize resources? What does the external data (like watchdog sites) say about the nonprofit’s success and impact? Being able to articulate the evidence-based backing of your strategy supports your ratings on evaluation sites and ultimately translates into higher competitiveness for grants. But what tools are you using? How is your organization tracking efficacy? Keeping track of participant files? Managing the evaluation of your efforts? Tools like Casebook, are amazing because they allow for “dynamic fields” which enable you to track engagement and personalize reporting requirements. Dynamic Fields allow you to enter and compare unique data sets that may be specific to your organization, and the configurability is important because it allows users to really understand and tell a data-driven, responsive story beyond just a suite of generic data sets. Learn more about cb Engage, offered as part of Casebook—a key case management application that integrates data collection and distribution all via a remote platform. Think about how to pull, and display meaningful data. How many clients are applying to your program? How are you determining and adjusting eligibility? What are the key demographics in each household, beyond standard gender, race, and age? Think about what makes your population unique. What are your organization’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT tool here) in supporting this community? Utilize the data garnered from an effective platform tool to understand the main areas for support needed, and then convey these metrics to funders, to your community, to the world! Whatever platform you utilize, know that as you prioritize your organization’s resource growth and competitiveness in the eyes of funders they will begin to prioritize you. Data isn’t really magic. It’s a critical tool that you can leverage to build your resources and transform your nonprofit. The power of that change, that’s what’s truly magical. So far, we’ve reviewed watchdog sites’ standards, detailing indicators for a nonprofit’s success, and articulating metrics. What do all of these have in common? DATA! Ratings, program development, case-making…all are driven by a drumbeat of qualitative and quantitative data. How the public views your nonprofit matters. How you view your nonprofit matters.Just like in preschool, gold-stars matter. But what matters more is understanding what makes your program and operations better, and thus, what translates into heightened grant competitiveness. For example, you may have a program that reaches 100 young adults a year through life skills workshops, individual/family counseling, and resource fairs. The blend of in-depth support and one-off moments ultimately builds to a holistic solution for each participant. Some participants may grasp concepts and move towards independence through economic support and character building more quickly than other participants, however, on average you find that if an individual attends at least 5 counseling sessions, 2 resource fairs, and 3 life-skills workshops they have a higher rate of job attainment. As you evaluate, test, and grow your model, you identify that certain participants (let’s say under the age of 20) are more receptive to certain workshops and you adjust the curriculum to support achievement. Now, you’re in a better position to support these young adults sustain their livelihoods. Data drives your program’s growth. Data is key to your participant’s success. This is similar to how foundations view the world. How does a nonprofit know what is working? How are they using data to drive their program? How does data inform how they utilize resources? What does the external data (like watchdog sites) say about the nonprofit’s success and impact? Being able to articulate the evidence-based backing of your strategy supports your ratings on evaluation sites and ultimately translates into higher competitiveness for grants. But what tools are you using? How is your organization tracking efficacy? Keeping track of participant files? Managing the evaluation of your efforts? Tools like Casebook, are amazing because they allow for “dynamic fields” which enable you to track engagement and personalize reporting requirements. Dynamic Fields allow you to enter and compare unique data sets that may be specific to your organization, and the configurability is important because it allows users to really understand and tell a data-driven, responsive story beyond just a suite of generic data sets. Learn more about cb Engage, offered as part of Casebook—a key case management application that integrates data collection and distribution all via a remote platform. Think about how to pull, and display meaningful data. How many clients are applying to your program? How are you determining and adjusting eligibility? What are the key demographics in each household, beyond standard gender, race, and age? Think about what makes your population unique. What are your organization’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT tool here) in supporting this community? Utilize the data garnered from an effective platform tool to understand the main areas for support needed, and then convey these metrics to funders, to your community, to the world! Whatever platform you utilize, know that as you prioritize your organization’s resource growth and competitiveness in the eyes of funders they will begin to prioritize you. Data isn’t really magic. It’s a critical tool that you can leverage to build your resources and transform your nonprofit. The power of that change, that’s what’s truly magical. So far, we’ve reviewed watchdog sites’ standards, detailing indicators for a nonprofit’s success, and articulating metrics. What do all of these have in common? DATA! Ratings, program development, case-making…all are driven by a drumbeat of qualitative and quantitative data. How the public views your nonprofit matters. How you view your nonprofit matters.Just like in preschool, gold-stars matter. But what matters more is understanding what makes your program and operations better, and thus, what translates into heightened grant competitiveness. For example, you may have a program that reaches 100 young adults a year through life skills workshops, individual/family counseling, and resource fairs. The blend of in-depth support and one-off moments ultimately builds to a holistic solution for each participant. Some participants may grasp concepts and move towards independence through economic support and character building more quickly than other participants, however, on average you find that if an individual attends at least 5 counseling sessions, 2 resource fairs, and 3 life-skills workshops they have a higher rate of job attainment. As you evaluate, test, and grow your model, you identify that certain participants (let’s say under the age of 20) are more receptive to certain workshops and you adjust the curriculum to support achievement. Now, you’re in a better position to support these young adults sustain their livelihoods. Data drives your program’s growth. Data is key to your participant’s success. This is similar to how foundations view the world. How does a nonprofit know what is working? How are they using data to drive their program? How does data inform how they utilize resources? What does the external data (like watchdog sites) say about the nonprofit’s success and impact? Being able to articulate the evidence-based backing of your strategy supports your ratings on evaluation sites and ultimately translates into higher competitiveness for grants. But what tools are you using? How is your organization tracking efficacy? Keeping track of participant files? Managing the evaluation of your efforts? Tools like Casebook, are amazing because they allow for “dynamic fields” which enable you to track engagement and personalize reporting requirements. Dynamic Fields allow you to enter and compare unique data sets that may be specific to your organization, and the configurability is important because it allows users to really understand and tell a data-driven, responsive story beyond just a suite of generic data sets. Learn more about cb Engage, offered as part of Casebook—a key case management application that integrates data collection and distribution all via a remote platform. Think about how to pull, and display meaningful data. How many clients are applying to your program? How are you determining and adjusting eligibility? What are the key demographics in each household, beyond standard gender, race, and age? Think about what makes your population unique. What are your organization’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT tool here) in supporting this community? Utilize the data garnered from an effective platform tool to understand the main areas for support needed, and then convey these metrics to funders, to your community, to the world! Whatever platform you utilize, know that as you prioritize your organization’s resource growth and competitiveness in the eyes of funders they will begin to prioritize you. Data isn’t really magic. It’s a critical tool that you can leverage to build your resources and transform your nonprofit. The power of that change, that’s what’s truly magical. So far, we’ve reviewed watchdog sites’ standards, detailing indicators for a nonprofit’s success, and articulating metrics. What do all of these have in common? DATA! Ratings, program development, case-making…all are driven by a drumbeat of qualitative and quantitative data. How the public views your nonprofit matters. How you view your nonprofit matters.Just like in preschool, gold-stars matter. But what matters more is understanding what makes your program and operations better, and thus, what translates into heightened grant competitiveness. For example, you may have a program that reaches 100 young adults a year through life skills workshops, individual/family counseling, and resource fairs. The blend of in-depth support and one-off moments ultimately builds to a holistic solution for each participant. Some participants may grasp concepts and move towards independence through economic support and character building more quickly than other participants, however, on average you find that if an individual attends at least 5 counseling sessions, 2 resource fairs, and 3 life-skills workshops they have a higher rate of job attainment. As you evaluate, test, and grow your model, you identify that certain participants (let’s say under the age of 20) are more receptive to certain workshops and you adjust the curriculum to support achievement. Now, you’re in a better position to support these young adults sustain their livelihoods. Data drives your program’s growth. Data is key to your participant’s success. This is similar to how foundations view the world. How does a nonprofit know what is working? How are they using data to drive their program? How does data inform how they utilize resources? What does the external data (like watchdog sites) say about the nonprofit’s success and impact? Being able to articulate the evidence-based backing of your strategy supports your ratings on evaluation sites and ultimately translates into higher competitiveness for grants. But what tools are you using? How is your organization tracking efficacy? Keeping track of participant files? Managing the evaluation of your efforts? Tools like Casebook, are amazing because they allow for “dynamic fields” which enable you to track engagement and personalize reporting requirements. Dynamic Fields allow you to enter and compare unique data sets that may be specific to your organization, and the configurability is important because it allows users to really understand and tell a data-driven, responsive story beyond just a suite of generic data sets. Learn more about cb Engage, offered as part of Casebook—a key case management application that integrates data collection and distribution all via a remote platform. Think about how to pull, and display meaningful data. How many clients are applying to your program? How are you determining and adjusting eligibility? What are the key demographics in each household, beyond standard gender, race, and age? Think about what makes your population unique. What are your organization’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT tool here) in supporting this community? Utilize the data garnered from an effective platform tool to understand the main areas for support needed, and then convey these metrics to funders, to your community, to the world! Whatever platform you utilize, know that as you prioritize your organization’s resource growth and competitiveness in the eyes of funders they will begin to prioritize you. Data isn’t really magic. It’s a critical tool that you can leverage to build your resources and transform your nonprofit. The power of that change, that’s what’s truly magical. So far, we’ve reviewed watchdog sites’ standards, detailing indicators for a nonprofit’s success, and articulating metrics. What do all of these have in common? DATA! Ratings, program development, case-making…all are driven by a drumbeat of qualitative and quantitative data. How the public views your nonprofit matters. How you view your nonprofit matters.Just like in preschool, gold-stars matter. But what matters more is understanding what makes your program and operations better, and thus, what translates into heightened grant competitiveness. For example, you may have a program that reaches 100 young adults a year through life skills workshops, individual/family counseling, and resource fairs. The blend of in-depth support and one-off moments ultimately builds to a holistic solution for each participant. Some participants may grasp concepts and move towards independence through economic support and character building more quickly than other participants, however, on average you find that if an individual attends at least 5 counseling sessions, 2 resource fairs, and 3 life-skills workshops they have a higher rate of job attainment. As you evaluate, test, and grow your model, you identify that certain participants (let’s say under the age of 20) are more receptive to certain workshops and you adjust the curriculum to support achievement. Now, you’re in a better position to support these young adults sustain their livelihoods. Data drives your program’s growth. Data is key to your participant’s success. This is similar to how foundations view the world. How does a nonprofit know what is working? How are they using data to drive their program? How does data inform how they utilize resources? What does the external data (like watchdog sites) say about the nonprofit’s success and impact? Being able to articulate the evidence-based backing of your strategy supports your ratings on evaluation sites and ultimately translates into higher competitiveness for grants. But what tools are you using? How is your organization tracking efficacy? Keeping track of participant files? Managing the evaluation of your efforts? Tools like Casebook, are amazing because they allow for “dynamic fields” which enable you to track engagement and personalize reporting requirements. Dynamic Fields allow you to enter and compare unique data sets that may be specific to your organization, and the configurability is important because it allows users to really understand and tell a data-driven, responsive story beyond just a suite of generic data sets. Learn more about cb Engage, offered as part of Casebook—a key case management application that integrates data collection and distribution all via a remote platform. Think about how to pull, and display meaningful data. How many clients are applying to your program? How are you determining and adjusting eligibility? What are the key demographics in each household, beyond standard gender, race, and age? Think about what makes your population unique. What are your organization’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT tool here) in supporting this community? Utilize the data garnered from an effective platform tool to understand the main areas for support needed, and then convey these metrics to funders, to your community, to the world! Whatever platform you utilize, know that as you prioritize your organization’s resource growth and competitiveness in the eyes of funders they will begin to prioritize you. Data isn’t really magic. It’s a critical tool that you can leverage to build your resources and transform your nonprofit. The power of that change, that’s what’s truly magical.

One of the benefits of my job is that I’m continually introduced to organizations making a big impact in their corner of the world. Like a good parent says: "They are all my favorites." The truth is, some stand out more than others for their unique approaches or forgotten niches of the community that they reach. One of these organizations that left an indelible imprint on my mind was a particular nonprofit in the midwest that provides support to families who have a child who recently received an epilepsy diagnosis. This organization provided wraparound support services for the families and the individual children. Their goal was to meet families in the hospitals as soon as they received the epilepsy diagnosis and then give them a plan moving forward. Most of all, they gave the families hope and community that was desperately needed. These are the heroes we all need at different times in our lives. Before reaching out to Casebook, this organization was using a donor management platform to document their interactions with the families. This only partially worked the way they needed it. Eventually, it became clear that their current solution wasn’t going to cover all their needs, so they began the search for a case management solution. Whenever I have the opportunity to show someone the Casebook Platform, I make sure I understand a bit about the unique services that they’re providing for the community. I want to make sure that the Casebook I’m presenting most closely aligns with the Casebook they need. With our adaptive model, the Casebook platform is able to help multiple types of organizations serving diverse people groups. In studying this particular organization, I noticed that the individuals going into the hospitals to meet the families were trained volunteers. While these volunteers needed to document their visits with the hurting families, they most certainly did not need access to Casebook and the personal information the database houses. I was elated to show them that our product team has designed functionality for this specific need: email into case. Every case record that’s created has a unique email address automatically assigned to that particular record. If you give volunteers or external partnership organizations that unique email address, the content of that email will populate within the case notes section. This way, a group leader or a teacher may be able to update you, the caseworker, on notable aspects of the individual’s life that you otherwise would have no idea about. In regards to the Epilepsy Services organization, this supplied the perfect solution for a problem causing great consternation in their daily efforts. Now they are able to continue with their current model of outreach while not having to pay any extra subscription or functionality fees. It’s stories like this that remind me how grateful I am for the solutions we’re offering to help the helpers. Maybe your organization has been looking for a similar solution that allows collaboration on case records from individuals outside of your organization. In a normal circumstance, it would be impossible to allow this collaboration while still keeping data secure and HIPAA compliant. Now that solution exists, and it is in Casebook. Drew Pelletier Solutions Consultant andrew.pelletier@casebook.net One of the benefits of my job is that I’m continually introduced to organizations making a big impact in their corner of the world. Like a good parent says: "They are all my favorites." The truth is, some stand out more than others for their unique approaches or forgotten niches of the community that they reach. One of these organizations that left an indelible imprint on my mind was a particular nonprofit in the midwest that provides support to families who have a child who recently received an epilepsy diagnosis. This organization provided wraparound support services for the families and the individual children. Their goal was to meet families in the hospitals as soon as they received the epilepsy diagnosis and then give them a plan moving forward. Most of all, they gave the families hope and community that was desperately needed. These are the heroes we all need at different times in our lives. Before reaching out to Casebook, this organization was using a donor management platform to document their interactions with the families. This only partially worked the way they needed it. Eventually, it became clear that their current solution wasn’t going to cover all their needs, so they began the search for a case management solution. Whenever I have the opportunity to show someone the Casebook Platform, I make sure I understand a bit about the unique services that they’re providing for the community. I want to make sure that the Casebook I’m presenting most closely aligns with the Casebook they need. With our adaptive model, the Casebook platform is able to help multiple types of organizations serving diverse people groups. In studying this particular organization, I noticed that the individuals going into the hospitals to meet the families were trained volunteers. While these volunteers needed to document their visits with the hurting families, they most certainly did not need access to Casebook and the personal information the database houses. I was elated to show them that our product team has designed functionality for this specific need: email into case. Every case record that’s created has a unique email address automatically assigned to that particular record. If you give volunteers or external partnership organizations that unique email address, the content of that email will populate within the case notes section. This way, a group leader or a teacher may be able to update you, the caseworker, on notable aspects of the individual’s life that you otherwise would have no idea about. In regards to the Epilepsy Services organization, this supplied the perfect solution for a problem causing great consternation in their daily efforts. Now they are able to continue with their current model of outreach while not having to pay any extra subscription or functionality fees. It’s stories like this that remind me how grateful I am for the solutions we’re offering to help the helpers. Maybe your organization has been looking for a similar solution that allows collaboration on case records from individuals outside of your organization. In a normal circumstance, it would be impossible to allow this collaboration while still keeping data secure and HIPAA compliant. Now that solution exists, and it is in Casebook. Drew Pelletier Solutions Consultant andrew.pelletier@casebook.net One of the benefits of my job is that I’m continually introduced to organizations making a big impact in their corner of the world. Like a good parent says: "They are all my favorites." The truth is, some stand out more than others for their unique approaches or forgotten niches of the community that they reach. One of these organizations that left an indelible imprint on my mind was a particular nonprofit in the midwest that provides support to families who have a child who recently received an epilepsy diagnosis. This organization provided wraparound support services for the families and the individual children. Their goal was to meet families in the hospitals as soon as they received the epilepsy diagnosis and then give them a plan moving forward. Most of all, they gave the families hope and community that was desperately needed. These are the heroes we all need at different times in our lives. Before reaching out to Casebook, this organization was using a donor management platform to document their interactions with the families. This only partially worked the way they needed it. Eventually, it became clear that their current solution wasn’t going to cover all their needs, so they began the search for a case management solution. Whenever I have the opportunity to show someone the Casebook Platform, I make sure I understand a bit about the unique services that they’re providing for the community. I want to make sure that the Casebook I’m presenting most closely aligns with the Casebook they need. With our adaptive model, the Casebook platform is able to help multiple types of organizations serving diverse people groups. In studying this particular organization, I noticed that the individuals going into the hospitals to meet the families were trained volunteers. While these volunteers needed to document their visits with the hurting families, they most certainly did not need access to Casebook and the personal information the database houses. I was elated to show them that our product team has designed functionality for this specific need: email into case. Every case record that’s created has a unique email address automatically assigned to that particular record. If you give volunteers or external partnership organizations that unique email address, the content of that email will populate within the case notes section. This way, a group leader or a teacher may be able to update you, the caseworker, on notable aspects of the individual’s life that you otherwise would have no idea about. In regards to the Epilepsy Services organization, this supplied the perfect solution for a problem causing great consternation in their daily efforts. Now they are able to continue with their current model of outreach while not having to pay any extra subscription or functionality fees. It’s stories like this that remind me how grateful I am for the solutions we’re offering to help the helpers. Maybe your organization has been looking for a similar solution that allows collaboration on case records from individuals outside of your organization. In a normal circumstance, it would be impossible to allow this collaboration while still keeping data secure and HIPAA compliant. Now that solution exists, and it is in Casebook. Drew Pelletier Solutions Consultant andrew.pelletier@casebook.net One of the benefits of my job is that I’m continually introduced to organizations making a big impact in their corner of the world. Like a good parent says: "They are all my favorites." The truth is, some stand out more than others for their unique approaches or forgotten niches of the community that they reach. One of these organizations that left an indelible imprint on my mind was a particular nonprofit in the midwest that provides support to families who have a child who recently received an epilepsy diagnosis. This organization provided wraparound support services for the families and the individual children. Their goal was to meet families in the hospitals as soon as they received the epilepsy diagnosis and then give them a plan moving forward. Most of all, they gave the families hope and community that was desperately needed. These are the heroes we all need at different times in our lives. Before reaching out to Casebook, this organization was using a donor management platform to document their interactions with the families. This only partially worked the way they needed it. Eventually, it became clear that their current solution wasn’t going to cover all their needs, so they began the search for a case management solution. Whenever I have the opportunity to show someone the Casebook Platform, I make sure I understand a bit about the unique services that they’re providing for the community. I want to make sure that the Casebook I’m presenting most closely aligns with the Casebook they need. With our adaptive model, the Casebook platform is able to help multiple types of organizations serving diverse people groups. In studying this particular organization, I noticed that the individuals going into the hospitals to meet the families were trained volunteers. While these volunteers needed to document their visits with the hurting families, they most certainly did not need access to Casebook and the personal information the database houses. I was elated to show them that our product team has designed functionality for this specific need: email into case. Every case record that’s created has a unique email address automatically assigned to that particular record. If you give volunteers or external partnership organizations that unique email address, the content of that email will populate within the case notes section. This way, a group leader or a teacher may be able to update you, the caseworker, on notable aspects of the individual’s life that you otherwise would have no idea about. In regards to the Epilepsy Services organization, this supplied the perfect solution for a problem causing great consternation in their daily efforts. Now they are able to continue with their current model of outreach while not having to pay any extra subscription or functionality fees. It’s stories like this that remind me how grateful I am for the solutions we’re offering to help the helpers. Maybe your organization has been looking for a similar solution that allows collaboration on case records from individuals outside of your organization. In a normal circumstance, it would be impossible to allow this collaboration while still keeping data secure and HIPAA compliant. Now that solution exists, and it is in Casebook. Drew Pelletier Solutions Consultant andrew.pelletier@casebook.net One of the benefits of my job is that I’m continually introduced to organizations making a big impact in their corner of the world. Like a good parent says: "They are all my favorites." The truth is, some stand out more than others for their unique approaches or forgotten niches of the community that they reach. One of these organizations that left an indelible imprint on my mind was a particular nonprofit in the midwest that provides support to families who have a child who recently received an epilepsy diagnosis. This organization provided wraparound support services for the families and the individual children. Their goal was to meet families in the hospitals as soon as they received the epilepsy diagnosis and then give them a plan moving forward. Most of all, they gave the families hope and community that was desperately needed. These are the heroes we all need at different times in our lives. Before reaching out to Casebook, this organization was using a donor management platform to document their interactions with the families. This only partially worked the way they needed it. Eventually, it became clear that their current solution wasn’t going to cover all their needs, so they began the search for a case management solution. Whenever I have the opportunity to show someone the Casebook Platform, I make sure I understand a bit about the unique services that they’re providing for the community. I want to make sure that the Casebook I’m presenting most closely aligns with the Casebook they need. With our adaptive model, the Casebook platform is able to help multiple types of organizations serving diverse people groups. In studying this particular organization, I noticed that the individuals going into the hospitals to meet the families were trained volunteers. While these volunteers needed to document their visits with the hurting families, they most certainly did not need access to Casebook and the personal information the database houses. I was elated to show them that our product team has designed functionality for this specific need: email into case. Every case record that’s created has a unique email address automatically assigned to that particular record. If you give volunteers or external partnership organizations that unique email address, the content of that email will populate within the case notes section. This way, a group leader or a teacher may be able to update you, the caseworker, on notable aspects of the individual’s life that you otherwise would have no idea about. In regards to the Epilepsy Services organization, this supplied the perfect solution for a problem causing great consternation in their daily efforts. Now they are able to continue with their current model of outreach while not having to pay any extra subscription or functionality fees. It’s stories like this that remind me how grateful I am for the solutions we’re offering to help the helpers. Maybe your organization has been looking for a similar solution that allows collaboration on case records from individuals outside of your organization. In a normal circumstance, it would be impossible to allow this collaboration while still keeping data secure and HIPAA compliant. Now that solution exists, and it is in Casebook. Drew Pelletier Solutions Consultant andrew.pelletier@casebook.net One of the benefits of my job is that I’m continually introduced to organizations making a big impact in their corner of the world. Like a good parent says: "They are all my favorites." The truth is, some stand out more than others for their unique approaches or forgotten niches of the community that they reach. One of these organizations that left an indelible imprint on my mind was a particular nonprofit in the midwest that provides support to families who have a child who recently received an epilepsy diagnosis. This organization provided wraparound support services for the families and the individual children. Their goal was to meet families in the hospitals as soon as they received the epilepsy diagnosis and then give them a plan moving forward. Most of all, they gave the families hope and community that was desperately needed. These are the heroes we all need at different times in our lives. Before reaching out to Casebook, this organization was using a donor management platform to document their interactions with the families. This only partially worked the way they needed it. Eventually, it became clear that their current solution wasn’t going to cover all their needs, so they began the search for a case management solution. Whenever I have the opportunity to show someone the Casebook Platform, I make sure I understand a bit about the unique services that they’re providing for the community. I want to make sure that the Casebook I’m presenting most closely aligns with the Casebook they need. With our adaptive model, the Casebook platform is able to help multiple types of organizations serving diverse people groups. In studying this particular organization, I noticed that the individuals going into the hospitals to meet the families were trained volunteers. While these volunteers needed to document their visits with the hurting families, they most certainly did not need access to Casebook and the personal information the database houses. I was elated to show them that our product team has designed functionality for this specific need: email into case. Every case record that’s created has a unique email address automatically assigned to that particular record. If you give volunteers or external partnership organizations that unique email address, the content of that email will populate within the case notes section. This way, a group leader or a teacher may be able to update you, the caseworker, on notable aspects of the individual’s life that you otherwise would have no idea about. In regards to the Epilepsy Services organization, this supplied the perfect solution for a problem causing great consternation in their daily efforts. Now they are able to continue with their current model of outreach while not having to pay any extra subscription or functionality fees. It’s stories like this that remind me how grateful I am for the solutions we’re offering to help the helpers. Maybe your organization has been looking for a similar solution that allows collaboration on case records from individuals outside of your organization. In a normal circumstance, it would be impossible to allow this collaboration while still keeping data secure and HIPAA compliant. Now that solution exists, and it is in Casebook. Drew Pelletier Solutions Consultant andrew.pelletier@casebook.net One of the benefits of my job is that I’m continually introduced to organizations making a big impact in their corner of the world. Like a good parent says: "They are all my favorites." The truth is, some stand out more than others for their unique approaches or forgotten niches of the community that they reach. One of these organizations that left an indelible imprint on my mind was a particular nonprofit in the midwest that provides support to families who have a child who recently received an epilepsy diagnosis. This organization provided wraparound support services for the families and the individual children. Their goal was to meet families in the hospitals as soon as they received the epilepsy diagnosis and then give them a plan moving forward. Most of all, they gave the families hope and community that was desperately needed. These are the heroes we all need at different times in our lives. Before reaching out to Casebook, this organization was using a donor management platform to document their interactions with the families. This only partially worked the way they needed it. Eventually, it became clear that their current solution wasn’t going to cover all their needs, so they began the search for a case management solution. Whenever I have the opportunity to show someone the Casebook Platform, I make sure I understand a bit about the unique services that they’re providing for the community. I want to make sure that the Casebook I’m presenting most closely aligns with the Casebook they need. With our adaptive model, the Casebook platform is able to help multiple types of organizations serving diverse people groups. In studying this particular organization, I noticed that the individuals going into the hospitals to meet the families were trained volunteers. While these volunteers needed to document their visits with the hurting families, they most certainly did not need access to Casebook and the personal information the database houses. I was elated to show them that our product team has designed functionality for this specific need: email into case. Every case record that’s created has a unique email address automatically assigned to that particular record. If you give volunteers or external partnership organizations that unique email address, the content of that email will populate within the case notes section. This way, a group leader or a teacher may be able to update you, the caseworker, on notable aspects of the individual’s life that you otherwise would have no idea about. In regards to the Epilepsy Services organization, this supplied the perfect solution for a problem causing great consternation in their daily efforts. Now they are able to continue with their current model of outreach while not having to pay any extra subscription or functionality fees. It’s stories like this that remind me how grateful I am for the solutions we’re offering to help the helpers. Maybe your organization has been looking for a similar solution that allows collaboration on case records from individuals outside of your organization. In a normal circumstance, it would be impossible to allow this collaboration while still keeping data secure and HIPAA compliant. Now that solution exists, and it is in Casebook. Drew Pelletier Solutions Consultant andrew.pelletier@casebook.net One of the benefits of my job is that I’m continually introduced to organizations making a big impact in their corner of the world. Like a good parent says: "They are all my favorites." The truth is, some stand out more than others for their unique approaches or forgotten niches of the community that they reach. One of these organizations that left an indelible imprint on my mind was a particular nonprofit in the midwest that provides support to families who have a child who recently received an epilepsy diagnosis. This organization provided wraparound support services for the families and the individual children. Their goal was to meet families in the hospitals as soon as they received the epilepsy diagnosis and then give them a plan moving forward. Most of all, they gave the families hope and community that was desperately needed. These are the heroes we all need at different times in our lives. Before reaching out to Casebook, this organization was using a donor management platform to document their interactions with the families. This only partially worked the way they needed it. Eventually, it became clear that their current solution wasn’t going to cover all their needs, so they began the search for a case management solution. Whenever I have the opportunity to show someone the Casebook Platform, I make sure I understand a bit about the unique services that they’re providing for the community. I want to make sure that the Casebook I’m presenting most closely aligns with the Casebook they need. With our adaptive model, the Casebook platform is able to help multiple types of organizations serving diverse people groups. In studying this particular organization, I noticed that the individuals going into the hospitals to meet the families were trained volunteers. While these volunteers needed to document their visits with the hurting families, they most certainly did not need access to Casebook and the personal information the database houses. I was elated to show them that our product team has designed functionality for this specific need: email into case. Every case record that’s created has a unique email address automatically assigned to that particular record. If you give volunteers or external partnership organizations that unique email address, the content of that email will populate within the case notes section. This way, a group leader or a teacher may be able to update you, the caseworker, on notable aspects of the individual’s life that you otherwise would have no idea about. In regards to the Epilepsy Services organization, this supplied the perfect solution for a problem causing great consternation in their daily efforts. Now they are able to continue with their current model of outreach while not having to pay any extra subscription or functionality fees. It’s stories like this that remind me how grateful I am for the solutions we’re offering to help the helpers. Maybe your organization has been looking for a similar solution that allows collaboration on case records from individuals outside of your organization. In a normal circumstance, it would be impossible to allow this collaboration while still keeping data secure and HIPAA compliant. Now that solution exists, and it is in Casebook. Drew Pelletier Solutions Consultant andrew.pelletier@casebook.net One of the benefits of my job is that I’m continually introduced to organizations making a big impact in their corner of the world. Like a good parent says: "They are all my favorites." The truth is, some stand out more than others for their unique approaches or forgotten niches of the community that they reach. One of these organizations that left an indelible imprint on my mind was a particular nonprofit in the midwest that provides support to families who have a child who recently received an epilepsy diagnosis. This organization provided wraparound support services for the families and the individual children. Their goal was to meet families in the hospitals as soon as they received the epilepsy diagnosis and then give them a plan moving forward. Most of all, they gave the families hope and community that was desperately needed. These are the heroes we all need at different times in our lives. Before reaching out to Casebook, this organization was using a donor management platform to document their interactions with the families. This only partially worked the way they needed it. Eventually, it became clear that their current solution wasn’t going to cover all their needs, so they began the search for a case management solution. Whenever I have the opportunity to show someone the Casebook Platform, I make sure I understand a bit about the unique services that they’re providing for the community. I want to make sure that the Casebook I’m presenting most closely aligns with the Casebook they need. With our adaptive model, the Casebook platform is able to help multiple types of organizations serving diverse people groups. In studying this particular organization, I noticed that the individuals going into the hospitals to meet the families were trained volunteers. While these volunteers needed to document their visits with the hurting families, they most certainly did not need access to Casebook and the personal information the database houses. I was elated to show them that our product team has designed functionality for this specific need: email into case. Every case record that’s created has a unique email address automatically assigned to that particular record. If you give volunteers or external partnership organizations that unique email address, the content of that email will populate within the case notes section. This way, a group leader or a teacher may be able to update you, the caseworker, on notable aspects of the individual’s life that you otherwise would have no idea about. In regards to the Epilepsy Services organization, this supplied the perfect solution for a problem causing great consternation in their daily efforts. Now they are able to continue with their current model of outreach while not having to pay any extra subscription or functionality fees. It’s stories like this that remind me how grateful I am for the solutions we’re offering to help the helpers. Maybe your organization has been looking for a similar solution that allows collaboration on case records from individuals outside of your organization. In a normal circumstance, it would be impossible to allow this collaboration while still keeping data secure and HIPAA compliant. Now that solution exists, and it is in Casebook. Drew Pelletier Solutions Consultant andrew.pelletier@casebook.net One of the benefits of my job is that I’m continually introduced to organizations making a big impact in their corner of the world. Like a good parent says: "They are all my favorites." The truth is, some stand out more than others for their unique approaches or forgotten niches of the community that they reach. One of these organizations that left an indelible imprint on my mind was a particular nonprofit in the midwest that provides support to families who have a child who recently received an epilepsy diagnosis. This organization provided wraparound support services for the families and the individual children. Their goal was to meet families in the hospitals as soon as they received the epilepsy diagnosis and then give them a plan moving forward. Most of all, they gave the families hope and community that was desperately needed. These are the heroes we all need at different times in our lives. Before reaching out to Casebook, this organization was using a donor management platform to document their interactions with the families. This only partially worked the way they needed it. Eventually, it became clear that their current solution wasn’t going to cover all their needs, so they began the search for a case management solution. Whenever I have the opportunity to show someone the Casebook Platform, I make sure I understand a bit about the unique services that they’re providing for the community. I want to make sure that the Casebook I’m presenting most closely aligns with the Casebook they need. With our adaptive model, the Casebook platform is able to help multiple types of organizations serving diverse people groups. In studying this particular organization, I noticed that the individuals going into the hospitals to meet the families were trained volunteers. While these volunteers needed to document their visits with the hurting families, they most certainly did not need access to Casebook and the personal information the database houses. I was elated to show them that our product team has designed functionality for this specific need: email into case. Every case record that’s created has a unique email address automatically assigned to that particular record. If you give volunteers or external partnership organizations that unique email address, the content of that email will populate within the case notes section. This way, a group leader or a teacher may be able to update you, the caseworker, on notable aspects of the individual’s life that you otherwise would have no idea about. In regards to the Epilepsy Services organization, this supplied the perfect solution for a problem causing great consternation in their daily efforts. Now they are able to continue with their current model of outreach while not having to pay any extra subscription or functionality fees. It’s stories like this that remind me how grateful I am for the solutions we’re offering to help the helpers. Maybe your organization has been looking for a similar solution that allows collaboration on case records from individuals outside of your organization. In a normal circumstance, it would be impossible to allow this collaboration while still keeping data secure and HIPAA compliant. Now that solution exists, and it is in Casebook. Drew Pelletier Solutions Consultant andrew.pelletier@casebook.net

Intro Okay so you really want funders to love you, right? That makes sense! Getting funder buy-in often equates to higher levels of investments. So what drives a program officer (or other donor!) to rally behind your organization? Well, it all boils down to trust. And in order for a funder to trust you, they have to know you. Relationship-building efforts such as consistent communication and frequent outreach do help strengthen trust. But it takes more than just an emotional connection—you need data-driven proof points that ensure your organization’s ability to carry out the work that aligns with the funder’s driving mission. A solid way to verify your organization’s trustworthiness is through third-party validation sites. Simply put, third-party validation sites—also known as charity watchdog sites—develop public reviews of nonprofits. Compiled into a report, these websites allow both individual donors and grant program officers to better understand a nonprofit’s position; focusing on the following areas: Financials: everything from 990s, fundraising percentage expenses versus program expenses, audit filings, and the way your organization tracks spending/income Governance: this often focuses on information regarding the board, executive leadership, the organization’s structure and decision-making process including public policies, privacy, donor data, etc. Program/Impact: the way you implement programs, how you communicate your effectiveness (such as through annual reports), the footprint of your organization’s results Culture & Community: your reputation/what others say about you, your expertise, your diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. Focus areas and the weighted value of the categories above vary validator to validator. However, all of these reports come with specialized ratings (such as numerical, letter grades, or titles). Many of the watchdog sites pull from public data, such as your organization’s website, or IRS 990 form. This means that transparency is key. In fact, Candid (who recently merged with GuideStar) distributes Seals of Transparency. According to Guidestar/Candid the type of information a nonprofit provides determines which Seal it earns. The levels are: Bronze—basic information so your organization can be found Silver—program information and brand details Gold—financials and people information Platinum—goals and the difference you’re making However, Charity Navigator, the largest largest and most-utilized independent nonprofit evaluator, deeply focuses on the accessibility and type of data. This major player in the watch-dog field rates charities using over 27 metrics to evaluate them on a scale of one to four stars. Compiling everything from whistleblower policies to staff lists, and program financial expenses to performance metrics, Charity Navigator creates a complex grid of accountability weighing the organization’s transparency and capacity to maintain clear records of their impact. Many of these third-party sites typically auto-generate and pull baseline information from public records, and then allow you to submit documentation to correct or update the information. Other evaluation sites such as Give.org (affiliated with the Better Business Bureau) and GreatNonprofits operate active search engines that sync local charities right into potential donors based on their rankings and geographic locations. Regardless of whether you submit directly to these sites, knowing that baseline information will be pulled and categorized, your organization really has to prioritize public information. Financials should be on your website and easily accessible. Audits should be listed annually. Board members clearly posted and updated. Further, program impact such as reach and progress towards fulfilling your organization’s mission and purpose need to be clearly demonstrated through both qualitative and quantitative means. So what does this mean for you? The majority of US-based nonprofits go unrated or maintain low grades. If you can secure Platinum levels and 4 star ratings across the board, then that places you within an extremely competitive place for securing support. This means get your house in order! Invest in resources that ensure that you are tracking your data, understanding your program effectiveness, and measuring how your finances align with program impact. Having ratings, such as the Seal from Guidestar, often equate to a 53% increase in contributions. It’s time to get watch-dog ready! In the next two posts, we’ll review other standardized metrics and prepare your nonprofit to secure high ratings, which ultimately means you’re more competitive for grant awards and donations at large. Intro Okay so you really want funders to love you, right? That makes sense! Getting funder buy-in often equates to higher levels of investments. So what drives a program officer (or other donor!) to rally behind your organization? Well, it all boils down to trust. And in order for a funder to trust you, they have to know you. Relationship-building efforts such as consistent communication and frequent outreach do help strengthen trust. But it takes more than just an emotional connection—you need data-driven proof points that ensure your organization’s ability to carry out the work that aligns with the funder’s driving mission. A solid way to verify your organization’s trustworthiness is through third-party validation sites. Simply put, third-party validation sites—also known as charity watchdog sites—develop public reviews of nonprofits. Compiled into a report, these websites allow both individual donors and grant program officers to better understand a nonprofit’s position; focusing on the following areas: Financials: everything from 990s, fundraising percentage expenses versus program expenses, audit filings, and the way your organization tracks spending/income Governance: this often focuses on information regarding the board, executive leadership, the organization’s structure and decision-making process including public policies, privacy, donor data, etc. Program/Impact: the way you implement programs, how you communicate your effectiveness (such as through annual reports), the footprint of your organization’s results Culture & Community: your reputation/what others say about you, your expertise, your diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. Focus areas and the weighted value of the categories above vary validator to validator. However, all of these reports come with specialized ratings (such as numerical, letter grades, or titles). Many of the watchdog sites pull from public data, such as your organization’s website, or IRS 990 form. This means that transparency is key. In fact, Candid (who recently merged with GuideStar) distributes Seals of Transparency. According to Guidestar/Candid the type of information a nonprofit provides determines which Seal it earns. The levels are: Bronze—basic information so your organization can be found Silver—program information and brand details Gold—financials and people information Platinum—goals and the difference you’re making However, Charity Navigator, the largest largest and most-utilized independent nonprofit evaluator, deeply focuses on the accessibility and type of data. This major player in the watch-dog field rates charities using over 27 metrics to evaluate them on a scale of one to four stars. Compiling everything from whistleblower policies to staff lists, and program financial expenses to performance metrics, Charity Navigator creates a complex grid of accountability weighing the organization’s transparency and capacity to maintain clear records of their impact. Many of these third-party sites typically auto-generate and pull baseline information from public records, and then allow you to submit documentation to correct or update the information. Other evaluation sites such as Give.org (affiliated with the Better Business Bureau) and GreatNonprofits operate active search engines that sync local charities right into potential donors based on their rankings and geographic locations. Regardless of whether you submit directly to these sites, knowing that baseline information will be pulled and categorized, your organization really has to prioritize public information. Financials should be on your website and easily accessible. Audits should be listed annually. Board members clearly posted and updated. Further, program impact such as reach and progress towards fulfilling your organization’s mission and purpose need to be clearly demonstrated through both qualitative and quantitative means. So what does this mean for you? The majority of US-based nonprofits go unrated or maintain low grades. If you can secure Platinum levels and 4 star ratings across the board, then that places you within an extremely competitive place for securing support. This means get your house in order! Invest in resources that ensure that you are tracking your data, understanding your program effectiveness, and measuring how your finances align with program impact. Having ratings, such as the Seal from Guidestar, often equate to a 53% increase in contributions. It’s time to get watch-dog ready! In the next two posts, we’ll review other standardized metrics and prepare your nonprofit to secure high ratings, which ultimately means you’re more competitive for grant awards and donations at large. Intro Okay so you really want funders to love you, right? That makes sense! Getting funder buy-in often equates to higher levels of investments. So what drives a program officer (or other donor!) to rally behind your organization? Well, it all boils down to trust. And in order for a funder to trust you, they have to know you. Relationship-building efforts such as consistent communication and frequent outreach do help strengthen trust. But it takes more than just an emotional connection—you need data-driven proof points that ensure your organization’s ability to carry out the work that aligns with the funder’s driving mission. A solid way to verify your organization’s trustworthiness is through third-party validation sites. Simply put, third-party validation sites—also known as charity watchdog sites—develop public reviews of nonprofits. Compiled into a report, these websites allow both individual donors and grant program officers to better understand a nonprofit’s position; focusing on the following areas: Financials: everything from 990s, fundraising percentage expenses versus program expenses, audit filings, and the way your organization tracks spending/income Governance: this often focuses on information regarding the board, executive leadership, the organization’s structure and decision-making process including public policies, privacy, donor data, etc. Program/Impact: the way you implement programs, how you communicate your effectiveness (such as through annual reports), the footprint of your organization’s results Culture & Community: your reputation/what others say about you, your expertise, your diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. Focus areas and the weighted value of the categories above vary validator to validator. However, all of these reports come with specialized ratings (such as numerical, letter grades, or titles). Many of the watchdog sites pull from public data, such as your organization’s website, or IRS 990 form. This means that transparency is key. In fact, Candid (who recently merged with GuideStar) distributes Seals of Transparency. According to Guidestar/Candid the type of information a nonprofit provides determines which Seal it earns. The levels are: Bronze—basic information so your organization can be found Silver—program information and brand details Gold—financials and people information Platinum—goals and the difference you’re making However, Charity Navigator, the largest largest and most-utilized independent nonprofit evaluator, deeply focuses on the accessibility and type of data. This major player in the watch-dog field rates charities using over 27 metrics to evaluate them on a scale of one to four stars. Compiling everything from whistleblower policies to staff lists, and program financial expenses to performance metrics, Charity Navigator creates a complex grid of accountability weighing the organization’s transparency and capacity to maintain clear records of their impact. Many of these third-party sites typically auto-generate and pull baseline information from public records, and then allow you to submit documentation to correct or update the information. Other evaluation sites such as Give.org (affiliated with the Better Business Bureau) and GreatNonprofits operate active search engines that sync local charities right into potential donors based on their rankings and geographic locations. Regardless of whether you submit directly to these sites, knowing that baseline information will be pulled and categorized, your organization really has to prioritize public information. Financials should be on your website and easily accessible. Audits should be listed annually. Board members clearly posted and updated. Further, program impact such as reach and progress towards fulfilling your organization’s mission and purpose need to be clearly demonstrated through both qualitative and quantitative means. So what does this mean for you? The majority of US-based nonprofits go unrated or maintain low grades. If you can secure Platinum levels and 4 star ratings across the board, then that places you within an extremely competitive place for securing support. This means get your house in order! Invest in resources that ensure that you are tracking your data, understanding your program effectiveness, and measuring how your finances align with program impact. Having ratings, such as the Seal from Guidestar, often equate to a 53% increase in contributions. It’s time to get watch-dog ready! In the next two posts, we’ll review other standardized metrics and prepare your nonprofit to secure high ratings, which ultimately means you’re more competitive for grant awards and donations at large. Intro Okay so you really want funders to love you, right? That makes sense! Getting funder buy-in often equates to higher levels of investments. So what drives a program officer (or other donor!) to rally behind your organization? Well, it all boils down to trust. And in order for a funder to trust you, they have to know you. Relationship-building efforts such as consistent communication and frequent outreach do help strengthen trust. But it takes more than just an emotional connection—you need data-driven proof points that ensure your organization’s ability to carry out the work that aligns with the funder’s driving mission. A solid way to verify your organization’s trustworthiness is through third-party validation sites. Simply put, third-party validation sites—also known as charity watchdog sites—develop public reviews of nonprofits. Compiled into a report, these websites allow both individual donors and grant program officers to better understand a nonprofit’s position; focusing on the following areas: Financials: everything from 990s, fundraising percentage expenses versus program expenses, audit filings, and the way your organization tracks spending/income Governance: this often focuses on information regarding the board, executive leadership, the organization’s structure and decision-making process including public policies, privacy, donor data, etc. Program/Impact: the way you implement programs, how you communicate your effectiveness (such as through annual reports), the footprint of your organization’s results Culture & Community: your reputation/what others say about you, your expertise, your diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. Focus areas and the weighted value of the categories above vary validator to validator. However, all of these reports come with specialized ratings (such as numerical, letter grades, or titles). Many of the watchdog sites pull from public data, such as your organization’s website, or IRS 990 form. This means that transparency is key. In fact, Candid (who recently merged with GuideStar) distributes Seals of Transparency. According to Guidestar/Candid the type of information a nonprofit provides determines which Seal it earns. The levels are: Bronze—basic information so your organization can be found Silver—program information and brand details Gold—financials and people information Platinum—goals and the difference you’re making However, Charity Navigator, the largest largest and most-utilized independent nonprofit evaluator, deeply focuses on the accessibility and type of data. This major player in the watch-dog field rates charities using over 27 metrics to evaluate them on a scale of one to four stars. Compiling everything from whistleblower policies to staff lists, and program financial expenses to performance metrics, Charity Navigator creates a complex grid of accountability weighing the organization’s transparency and capacity to maintain clear records of their impact. Many of these third-party sites typically auto-generate and pull baseline information from public records, and then allow you to submit documentation to correct or update the information. Other evaluation sites such as Give.org (affiliated with the Better Business Bureau) and GreatNonprofits operate active search engines that sync local charities right into potential donors based on their rankings and geographic locations. Regardless of whether you submit directly to these sites, knowing that baseline information will be pulled and categorized, your organization really has to prioritize public information. Financials should be on your website and easily accessible. Audits should be listed annually. Board members clearly posted and updated. Further, program impact such as reach and progress towards fulfilling your organization’s mission and purpose need to be clearly demonstrated through both qualitative and quantitative means. So what does this mean for you? The majority of US-based nonprofits go unrated or maintain low grades. If you can secure Platinum levels and 4 star ratings across the board, then that places you within an extremely competitive place for securing support. This means get your house in order! Invest in resources that ensure that you are tracking your data, understanding your program effectiveness, and measuring how your finances align with program impact. Having ratings, such as the Seal from Guidestar, often equate to a 53% increase in contributions. It’s time to get watch-dog ready! In the next two posts, we’ll review other standardized metrics and prepare your nonprofit to secure high ratings, which ultimately means you’re more competitive for grant awards and donations at large. Intro Okay so you really want funders to love you, right? That makes sense! Getting funder buy-in often equates to higher levels of investments. So what drives a program officer (or other donor!) to rally behind your organization? Well, it all boils down to trust. And in order for a funder to trust you, they have to know you. Relationship-building efforts such as consistent communication and frequent outreach do help strengthen trust. But it takes more than just an emotional connection—you need data-driven proof points that ensure your organization’s ability to carry out the work that aligns with the funder’s driving mission. A solid way to verify your organization’s trustworthiness is through third-party validation sites. Simply put, third-party validation sites—also known as charity watchdog sites—develop public reviews of nonprofits. Compiled into a report, these websites allow both individual donors and grant program officers to better understand a nonprofit’s position; focusing on the following areas: Financials: everything from 990s, fundraising percentage expenses versus program expenses, audit filings, and the way your organization tracks spending/income Governance: this often focuses on information regarding the board, executive leadership, the organization’s structure and decision-making process including public policies, privacy, donor data, etc. Program/Impact: the way you implement programs, how you communicate your effectiveness (such as through annual reports), the footprint of your organization’s results Culture & Community: your reputation/what others say about you, your expertise, your diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. Focus areas and the weighted value of the categories above vary validator to validator. However, all of these reports come with specialized ratings (such as numerical, letter grades, or titles). Many of the watchdog sites pull from public data, such as your organization’s website, or IRS 990 form. This means that transparency is key. In fact, Candid (who recently merged with GuideStar) distributes Seals of Transparency. According to Guidestar/Candid the type of information a nonprofit provides determines which Seal it earns. The levels are: Bronze—basic information so your organization can be found Silver—program information and brand details Gold—financials and people information Platinum—goals and the difference you’re making However, Charity Navigator, the largest largest and most-utilized independent nonprofit evaluator, deeply focuses on the accessibility and type of data. This major player in the watch-dog field rates charities using over 27 metrics to evaluate them on a scale of one to four stars. Compiling everything from whistleblower policies to staff lists, and program financial expenses to performance metrics, Charity Navigator creates a complex grid of accountability weighing the organization’s transparency and capacity to maintain clear records of their impact. Many of these third-party sites typically auto-generate and pull baseline information from public records, and then allow you to submit documentation to correct or update the information. Other evaluation sites such as Give.org (affiliated with the Better Business Bureau) and GreatNonprofits operate active search engines that sync local charities right into potential donors based on their rankings and geographic locations. Regardless of whether you submit directly to these sites, knowing that baseline information will be pulled and categorized, your organization really has to prioritize public information. Financials should be on your website and easily accessible. Audits should be listed annually. Board members clearly posted and updated. Further, program impact such as reach and progress towards fulfilling your organization’s mission and purpose need to be clearly demonstrated through both qualitative and quantitative means. So what does this mean for you? The majority of US-based nonprofits go unrated or maintain low grades. If you can secure Platinum levels and 4 star ratings across the board, then that places you within an extremely competitive place for securing support. This means get your house in order! Invest in resources that ensure that you are tracking your data, understanding your program effectiveness, and measuring how your finances align with program impact. Having ratings, such as the Seal from Guidestar, often equate to a 53% increase in contributions. It’s time to get watch-dog ready! In the next two posts, we’ll review other standardized metrics and prepare your nonprofit to secure high ratings, which ultimately means you’re more competitive for grant awards and donations at large. Intro Okay so you really want funders to love you, right? That makes sense! Getting funder buy-in often equates to higher levels of investments. So what drives a program officer (or other donor!) to rally behind your organization? Well, it all boils down to trust. And in order for a funder to trust you, they have to know you. Relationship-building efforts such as consistent communication and frequent outreach do help strengthen trust. But it takes more than just an emotional connection—you need data-driven proof points that ensure your organization’s ability to carry out the work that aligns with the funder’s driving mission. A solid way to verify your organization’s trustworthiness is through third-party validation sites. Simply put, third-party validation sites—also known as charity watchdog sites—develop public reviews of nonprofits. Compiled into a report, these websites allow both individual donors and grant program officers to better understand a nonprofit’s position; focusing on the following areas: Financials: everything from 990s, fundraising percentage expenses versus program expenses, audit filings, and the way your organization tracks spending/income Governance: this often focuses on information regarding the board, executive leadership, the organization’s structure and decision-making process including public policies, privacy, donor data, etc. Program/Impact: the way you implement programs, how you communicate your effectiveness (such as through annual reports), the footprint of your organization’s results Culture & Community: your reputation/what others say about you, your expertise, your diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. Focus areas and the weighted value of the categories above vary validator to validator. However, all of these reports come with specialized ratings (such as numerical, letter grades, or titles). Many of the watchdog sites pull from public data, such as your organization’s website, or IRS 990 form. This means that transparency is key. In fact, Candid (who recently merged with GuideStar) distributes Seals of Transparency. According to Guidestar/Candid the type of information a nonprofit provides determines which Seal it earns. The levels are: Bronze—basic information so your organization can be found Silver—program information and brand details Gold—financials and people information Platinum—goals and the difference you’re making However, Charity Navigator, the largest largest and most-utilized independent nonprofit evaluator, deeply focuses on the accessibility and type of data. This major player in the watch-dog field rates charities using over 27 metrics to evaluate them on a scale of one to four stars. Compiling everything from whistleblower policies to staff lists, and program financial expenses to performance metrics, Charity Navigator creates a complex grid of accountability weighing the organization’s transparency and capacity to maintain clear records of their impact. Many of these third-party sites typically auto-generate and pull baseline information from public records, and then allow you to submit documentation to correct or update the information. Other evaluation sites such as Give.org (affiliated with the Better Business Bureau) and GreatNonprofits operate active search engines that sync local charities right into potential donors based on their rankings and geographic locations. Regardless of whether you submit directly to these sites, knowing that baseline information will be pulled and categorized, your organization really has to prioritize public information. Financials should be on your website and easily accessible. Audits should be listed annually. Board members clearly posted and updated. Further, program impact such as reach and progress towards fulfilling your organization’s mission and purpose need to be clearly demonstrated through both qualitative and quantitative means. So what does this mean for you? The majority of US-based nonprofits go unrated or maintain low grades. If you can secure Platinum levels and 4 star ratings across the board, then that places you within an extremely competitive place for securing support. This means get your house in order! Invest in resources that ensure that you are tracking your data, understanding your program effectiveness, and measuring how your finances align with program impact. Having ratings, such as the Seal from Guidestar, often equate to a 53% increase in contributions. It’s time to get watch-dog ready! In the next two posts, we’ll review other standardized metrics and prepare your nonprofit to secure high ratings, which ultimately means you’re more competitive for grant awards and donations at large. Intro Okay so you really want funders to love you, right? That makes sense! Getting funder buy-in often equates to higher levels of investments. So what drives a program officer (or other donor!) to rally behind your organization? Well, it all boils down to trust. And in order for a funder to trust you, they have to know you. Relationship-building efforts such as consistent communication and frequent outreach do help strengthen trust. But it takes more than just an emotional connection—you need data-driven proof points that ensure your organization’s ability to carry out the work that aligns with the funder’s driving mission. A solid way to verify your organization’s trustworthiness is through third-party validation sites. Simply put, third-party validation sites—also known as charity watchdog sites—develop public reviews of nonprofits. Compiled into a report, these websites allow both individual donors and grant program officers to better understand a nonprofit’s position; focusing on the following areas: Financials: everything from 990s, fundraising percentage expenses versus program expenses, audit filings, and the way your organization tracks spending/income Governance: this often focuses on information regarding the board, executive leadership, the organization’s structure and decision-making process including public policies, privacy, donor data, etc. Program/Impact: the way you implement programs, how you communicate your effectiveness (such as through annual reports), the footprint of your organization’s results Culture & Community: your reputation/what others say about you, your expertise, your diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. Focus areas and the weighted value of the categories above vary validator to validator. However, all of these reports come with specialized ratings (such as numerical, letter grades, or titles). Many of the watchdog sites pull from public data, such as your organization’s website, or IRS 990 form. This means that transparency is key. In fact, Candid (who recently merged with GuideStar) distributes Seals of Transparency. According to Guidestar/Candid the type of information a nonprofit provides determines which Seal it earns. The levels are: Bronze—basic information so your organization can be found Silver—program information and brand details Gold—financials and people information Platinum—goals and the difference you’re making However, Charity Navigator, the largest largest and most-utilized independent nonprofit evaluator, deeply focuses on the accessibility and type of data. This major player in the watch-dog field rates charities using over 27 metrics to evaluate them on a scale of one to four stars. Compiling everything from whistleblower policies to staff lists, and program financial expenses to performance metrics, Charity Navigator creates a complex grid of accountability weighing the organization’s transparency and capacity to maintain clear records of their impact. Many of these third-party sites typically auto-generate and pull baseline information from public records, and then allow you to submit documentation to correct or update the information. Other evaluation sites such as Give.org (affiliated with the Better Business Bureau) and GreatNonprofits operate active search engines that sync local charities right into potential donors based on their rankings and geographic locations. Regardless of whether you submit directly to these sites, knowing that baseline information will be pulled and categorized, your organization really has to prioritize public information. Financials should be on your website and easily accessible. Audits should be listed annually. Board members clearly posted and updated. Further, program impact such as reach and progress towards fulfilling your organization’s mission and purpose need to be clearly demonstrated through both qualitative and quantitative means. So what does this mean for you? The majority of US-based nonprofits go unrated or maintain low grades. If you can secure Platinum levels and 4 star ratings across the board, then that places you within an extremely competitive place for securing support. This means get your house in order! Invest in resources that ensure that you are tracking your data, understanding your program effectiveness, and measuring how your finances align with program impact. Having ratings, such as the Seal from Guidestar, often equate to a 53% increase in contributions. It’s time to get watch-dog ready! In the next two posts, we’ll review other standardized metrics and prepare your nonprofit to secure high ratings, which ultimately means you’re more competitive for grant awards and donations at large. Intro Okay so you really want funders to love you, right? That makes sense! Getting funder buy-in often equates to higher levels of investments. So what drives a program officer (or other donor!) to rally behind your organization? Well, it all boils down to trust. And in order for a funder to trust you, they have to know you. Relationship-building efforts such as consistent communication and frequent outreach do help strengthen trust. But it takes more than just an emotional connection—you need data-driven proof points that ensure your organization’s ability to carry out the work that aligns with the funder’s driving mission. A solid way to verify your organization’s trustworthiness is through third-party validation sites. Simply put, third-party validation sites—also known as charity watchdog sites—develop public reviews of nonprofits. Compiled into a report, these websites allow both individual donors and grant program officers to better understand a nonprofit’s position; focusing on the following areas: Financials: everything from 990s, fundraising percentage expenses versus program expenses, audit filings, and the way your organization tracks spending/income Governance: this often focuses on information regarding the board, executive leadership, the organization’s structure and decision-making process including public policies, privacy, donor data, etc. Program/Impact: the way you implement programs, how you communicate your effectiveness (such as through annual reports), the footprint of your organization’s results Culture & Community: your reputation/what others say about you, your expertise, your diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. Focus areas and the weighted value of the categories above vary validator to validator. However, all of these reports come with specialized ratings (such as numerical, letter grades, or titles). Many of the watchdog sites pull from public data, such as your organization’s website, or IRS 990 form. This means that transparency is key. In fact, Candid (who recently merged with GuideStar) distributes Seals of Transparency. According to Guidestar/Candid the type of information a nonprofit provides determines which Seal it earns. The levels are: Bronze—basic information so your organization can be found Silver—program information and brand details Gold—financials and people information Platinum—goals and the difference you’re making However, Charity Navigator, the largest largest and most-utilized independent nonprofit evaluator, deeply focuses on the accessibility and type of data. This major player in the watch-dog field rates charities using over 27 metrics to evaluate them on a scale of one to four stars. Compiling everything from whistleblower policies to staff lists, and program financial expenses to performance metrics, Charity Navigator creates a complex grid of accountability weighing the organization’s transparency and capacity to maintain clear records of their impact. Many of these third-party sites typically auto-generate and pull baseline information from public records, and then allow you to submit documentation to correct or update the information. Other evaluation sites such as Give.org (affiliated with the Better Business Bureau) and GreatNonprofits operate active search engines that sync local charities right into potential donors based on their rankings and geographic locations. Regardless of whether you submit directly to these sites, knowing that baseline information will be pulled and categorized, your organization really has to prioritize public information. Financials should be on your website and easily accessible. Audits should be listed annually. Board members clearly posted and updated. Further, program impact such as reach and progress towards fulfilling your organization’s mission and purpose need to be clearly demonstrated through both qualitative and quantitative means. So what does this mean for you? The majority of US-based nonprofits go unrated or maintain low grades. If you can secure Platinum levels and 4 star ratings across the board, then that places you within an extremely competitive place for securing support. This means get your house in order! Invest in resources that ensure that you are tracking your data, understanding your program effectiveness, and measuring how your finances align with program impact. Having ratings, such as the Seal from Guidestar, often equate to a 53% increase in contributions. It’s time to get watch-dog ready! In the next two posts, we’ll review other standardized metrics and prepare your nonprofit to secure high ratings, which ultimately means you’re more competitive for grant awards and donations at large. Intro Okay so you really want funders to love you, right? That makes sense! Getting funder buy-in often equates to higher levels of investments. So what drives a program officer (or other donor!) to rally behind your organization? Well, it all boils down to trust. And in order for a funder to trust you, they have to know you. Relationship-building efforts such as consistent communication and frequent outreach do help strengthen trust. But it takes more than just an emotional connection—you need data-driven proof points that ensure your organization’s ability to carry out the work that aligns with the funder’s driving mission. A solid way to verify your organization’s trustworthiness is through third-party validation sites. Simply put, third-party validation sites—also known as charity watchdog sites—develop public reviews of nonprofits. Compiled into a report, these websites allow both individual donors and grant program officers to better understand a nonprofit’s position; focusing on the following areas: Financials: everything from 990s, fundraising percentage expenses versus program expenses, audit filings, and the way your organization tracks spending/income Governance: this often focuses on information regarding the board, executive leadership, the organization’s structure and decision-making process including public policies, privacy, donor data, etc. Program/Impact: the way you implement programs, how you communicate your effectiveness (such as through annual reports), the footprint of your organization’s results Culture & Community: your reputation/what others say about you, your expertise, your diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. Focus areas and the weighted value of the categories above vary validator to validator. However, all of these reports come with specialized ratings (such as numerical, letter grades, or titles). Many of the watchdog sites pull from public data, such as your organization’s website, or IRS 990 form. This means that transparency is key. In fact, Candid (who recently merged with GuideStar) distributes Seals of Transparency. According to Guidestar/Candid the type of information a nonprofit provides determines which Seal it earns. The levels are: Bronze—basic information so your organization can be found Silver—program information and brand details Gold—financials and people information Platinum—goals and the difference you’re making However, Charity Navigator, the largest largest and most-utilized independent nonprofit evaluator, deeply focuses on the accessibility and type of data. This major player in the watch-dog field rates charities using over 27 metrics to evaluate them on a scale of one to four stars. Compiling everything from whistleblower policies to staff lists, and program financial expenses to performance metrics, Charity Navigator creates a complex grid of accountability weighing the organization’s transparency and capacity to maintain clear records of their impact. Many of these third-party sites typically auto-generate and pull baseline information from public records, and then allow you to submit documentation to correct or update the information. Other evaluation sites such as Give.org (affiliated with the Better Business Bureau) and GreatNonprofits operate active search engines that sync local charities right into potential donors based on their rankings and geographic locations. Regardless of whether you submit directly to these sites, knowing that baseline information will be pulled and categorized, your organization really has to prioritize public information. Financials should be on your website and easily accessible. Audits should be listed annually. Board members clearly posted and updated. Further, program impact such as reach and progress towards fulfilling your organization’s mission and purpose need to be clearly demonstrated through both qualitative and quantitative means. So what does this mean for you? The majority of US-based nonprofits go unrated or maintain low grades. If you can secure Platinum levels and 4 star ratings across the board, then that places you within an extremely competitive place for securing support. This means get your house in order! Invest in resources that ensure that you are tracking your data, understanding your program effectiveness, and measuring how your finances align with program impact. Having ratings, such as the Seal from Guidestar, often equate to a 53% increase in contributions. It’s time to get watch-dog ready! In the next two posts, we’ll review other standardized metrics and prepare your nonprofit to secure high ratings, which ultimately means you’re more competitive for grant awards and donations at large. Intro Okay so you really want funders to love you, right? That makes sense! Getting funder buy-in often equates to higher levels of investments. So what drives a program officer (or other donor!) to rally behind your organization? Well, it all boils down to trust. And in order for a funder to trust you, they have to know you. Relationship-building efforts such as consistent communication and frequent outreach do help strengthen trust. But it takes more than just an emotional connection—you need data-driven proof points that ensure your organization’s ability to carry out the work that aligns with the funder’s driving mission. A solid way to verify your organization’s trustworthiness is through third-party validation sites. Simply put, third-party validation sites—also known as charity watchdog sites—develop public reviews of nonprofits. Compiled into a report, these websites allow both individual donors and grant program officers to better understand a nonprofit’s position; focusing on the following areas: Financials: everything from 990s, fundraising percentage expenses versus program expenses, audit filings, and the way your organization tracks spending/income Governance: this often focuses on information regarding the board, executive leadership, the organization’s structure and decision-making process including public policies, privacy, donor data, etc. Program/Impact: the way you implement programs, how you communicate your effectiveness (such as through annual reports), the footprint of your organization’s results Culture & Community: your reputation/what others say about you, your expertise, your diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. Focus areas and the weighted value of the categories above vary validator to validator. However, all of these reports come with specialized ratings (such as numerical, letter grades, or titles). Many of the watchdog sites pull from public data, such as your organization’s website, or IRS 990 form. This means that transparency is key. In fact, Candid (who recently merged with GuideStar) distributes Seals of Transparency. According to Guidestar/Candid the type of information a nonprofit provides determines which Seal it earns. The levels are: Bronze—basic information so your organization can be found Silver—program information and brand details Gold—financials and people information Platinum—goals and the difference you’re making However, Charity Navigator, the largest largest and most-utilized independent nonprofit evaluator, deeply focuses on the accessibility and type of data. This major player in the watch-dog field rates charities using over 27 metrics to evaluate them on a scale of one to four stars. Compiling everything from whistleblower policies to staff lists, and program financial expenses to performance metrics, Charity Navigator creates a complex grid of accountability weighing the organization’s transparency and capacity to maintain clear records of their impact. Many of these third-party sites typically auto-generate and pull baseline information from public records, and then allow you to submit documentation to correct or update the information. Other evaluation sites such as Give.org (affiliated with the Better Business Bureau) and GreatNonprofits operate active search engines that sync local charities right into potential donors based on their rankings and geographic locations. Regardless of whether you submit directly to these sites, knowing that baseline information will be pulled and categorized, your organization really has to prioritize public information. Financials should be on your website and easily accessible. Audits should be listed annually. Board members clearly posted and updated. Further, program impact such as reach and progress towards fulfilling your organization’s mission and purpose need to be clearly demonstrated through both qualitative and quantitative means. So what does this mean for you? The majority of US-based nonprofits go unrated or maintain low grades. If you can secure Platinum levels and 4 star ratings across the board, then that places you within an extremely competitive place for securing support. This means get your house in order! Invest in resources that ensure that you are tracking your data, understanding your program effectiveness, and measuring how your finances align with program impact. Having ratings, such as the Seal from Guidestar, often equate to a 53% increase in contributions. It’s time to get watch-dog ready! In the next two posts, we’ll review other standardized metrics and prepare your nonprofit to secure high ratings, which ultimately means you’re more competitive for grant awards and donations at large.

In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic and the great resignation, businesses across many industries have experienced an uptick in employee turnover. This trend has been especially prominent in the nonprofit sector, where limited budgets and resources often make it difficult for organizations to retain their top talent. Previously we reviewed standardized metrics from third-party validator sites that funders and donors often use to determine a nonprofit’s viability for funding. However, it’s not just third-party sites that maintain metric benchmarks for nonprofits. Institutional funders often have their own internal evaluation sites and standardized metrics. In addition to sharing the core points that watchdog sites review (such as financials and governance), major institutions like the government’s Children’s Bureau and affluent foundations like the Ford Foundation also maintain their own evaluation system. These metrics serve as indicators of a nonprofit’s likelihood to be successful with their grant allocation and produce impact aligned with the institution’s mandate. For Ford, and many foundation funders, an organization’s “readiness” is indicative of their ability to have a few core organizational strengths. They believe in assessments so much, that they have a public open-source tool to support nonprofits identify and prioritize their organizational strengthening needs. Within this Organizational Mapping Tool (OMT), they focus on 14 categories. We won’t dive into each one, but to illustrate a few top lines consider the focus areas as follows: Mission & Strategy - do you have clear, inspiring and compelling public commitments with formal goals, outcomes and a strategic plan? Field Engagement - is there a strong sense of mutual power and collaboration within your organization? Is your organization considered an active leader in networks, has a strong voice in the community and has a visibly strong reputation in the field? Administration - outside of maintaining legal obligations and an effective organizational leadership structure, what do your administrative policies look like? How do you leverage technology and information systems to ensure that the organization functions optimally? This last one is so important. Is your organization tracking your data? What do your participant files include? Are you simply collecting demographics or measuring outputs against long-term impacts? Systems are so vital to your success as a nonprofit. And for many funders, it’s 50% of their considerations. For example, major government institution distributed grants (like NY state’s Block Grant) also have their version of self-assessment tools. Their tools focus almost entirely on the data. They are focused on not just what information your organization is capable of tracking, but the use of that information to inform programming & services. There are also capacity-building programs that some funders operate to support nonprofits as they work towards securing grants from high-level funders. Robin Hood operates a workshop series entitled GRIT (Grant-Ready Insights and Training) project. Again, the bulk of the focus is on evaluation models and data tracking. What tools and software are you using to bolster your readiness? In addition to the tools, program officers each often have their own way of identifying an organizations’ readiness. Much of their determining factors are a cross between relationship-building, visibility of the organization (how well you’re known within the community), and the data-driven proof points that underline your organization’s efficacy. These readiness tools and self-evaluations can support your prioritization as you work towards becoming ready for that break-through grant your organization needs to thrive. In the next section we’ll discuss how technology tools and softwares like Casebook serve as a viable solution for metric traction and grant competitiveness. In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic and the great resignation, businesses across many industries have experienced an uptick in employee turnover. This trend has been especially prominent in the nonprofit sector, where limited budgets and resources often make it difficult for organizations to retain their top talent. Previously we reviewed standardized metrics from third-party validator sites that funders and donors often use to determine a nonprofit’s viability for funding. However, it’s not just third-party sites that maintain metric benchmarks for nonprofits. Institutional funders often have their own internal evaluation sites and standardized metrics. In addition to sharing the core points that watchdog sites review (such as financials and governance), major institutions like the government’s Children’s Bureau and affluent foundations like the Ford Foundation also maintain their own evaluation system. These metrics serve as indicators of a nonprofit’s likelihood to be successful with their grant allocation and produce impact aligned with the institution’s mandate. For Ford, and many foundation funders, an organization’s “readiness” is indicative of their ability to have a few core organizational strengths. They believe in assessments so much, that they have a public open-source tool to support nonprofits identify and prioritize their organizational strengthening needs. Within this Organizational Mapping Tool (OMT), they focus on 14 categories. We won’t dive into each one, but to illustrate a few top lines consider the focus areas as follows: Mission & Strategy - do you have clear, inspiring and compelling public commitments with formal goals, outcomes and a strategic plan? Field Engagement - is there a strong sense of mutual power and collaboration within your organization? Is your organization considered an active leader in networks, has a strong voice in the community and has a visibly strong reputation in the field? Administration - outside of maintaining legal obligations and an effective organizational leadership structure, what do your administrative policies look like? How do you leverage technology and information systems to ensure that the organization functions optimally? This last one is so important. Is your organization tracking your data? What do your participant files include? Are you simply collecting demographics or measuring outputs against long-term impacts? Systems are so vital to your success as a nonprofit. And for many funders, it’s 50% of their considerations. For example, major government institution distributed grants (like NY state’s Block Grant) also have their version of self-assessment tools. Their tools focus almost entirely on the data. They are focused on not just what information your organization is capable of tracking, but the use of that information to inform programming & services. There are also capacity-building programs that some funders operate to support nonprofits as they work towards securing grants from high-level funders. Robin Hood operates a workshop series entitled GRIT (Grant-Ready Insights and Training) project. Again, the bulk of the focus is on evaluation models and data tracking. What tools and software are you using to bolster your readiness? In addition to the tools, program officers each often have their own way of identifying an organizations’ readiness. Much of their determining factors are a cross between relationship-building, visibility of the organization (how well you’re known within the community), and the data-driven proof points that underline your organization’s efficacy. These readiness tools and self-evaluations can support your prioritization as you work towards becoming ready for that break-through grant your organization needs to thrive. In the next section we’ll discuss how technology tools and softwares like Casebook serve as a viable solution for metric traction and grant competitiveness. In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic and the great resignation, businesses across many industries have experienced an uptick in employee turnover. This trend has been especially prominent in the nonprofit sector, where limited budgets and resources often make it difficult for organizations to retain their top talent. Previously we reviewed standardized metrics from third-party validator sites that funders and donors often use to determine a nonprofit’s viability for funding. However, it’s not just third-party sites that maintain metric benchmarks for nonprofits. Institutional funders often have their own internal evaluation sites and standardized metrics. In addition to sharing the core points that watchdog sites review (such as financials and governance), major institutions like the government’s Children’s Bureau and affluent foundations like the Ford Foundation also maintain their own evaluation system. These metrics serve as indicators of a nonprofit’s likelihood to be successful with their grant allocation and produce impact aligned with the institution’s mandate. For Ford, and many foundation funders, an organization’s “readiness” is indicative of their ability to have a few core organizational strengths. They believe in assessments so much, that they have a public open-source tool to support nonprofits identify and prioritize their organizational strengthening needs. Within this Organizational Mapping Tool (OMT), they focus on 14 categories. We won’t dive into each one, but to illustrate a few top lines consider the focus areas as follows: Mission & Strategy - do you have clear, inspiring and compelling public commitments with formal goals, outcomes and a strategic plan? Field Engagement - is there a strong sense of mutual power and collaboration within your organization? Is your organization considered an active leader in networks, has a strong voice in the community and has a visibly strong reputation in the field? Administration - outside of maintaining legal obligations and an effective organizational leadership structure, what do your administrative policies look like? How do you leverage technology and information systems to ensure that the organization functions optimally? This last one is so important. Is your organization tracking your data? What do your participant files include? Are you simply collecting demographics or measuring outputs against long-term impacts? Systems are so vital to your success as a nonprofit. And for many funders, it’s 50% of their considerations. For example, major government institution distributed grants (like NY state’s Block Grant) also have their version of self-assessment tools. Their tools focus almost entirely on the data. They are focused on not just what information your organization is capable of tracking, but the use of that information to inform programming & services. There are also capacity-building programs that some funders operate to support nonprofits as they work towards securing grants from high-level funders. Robin Hood operates a workshop series entitled GRIT (Grant-Ready Insights and Training) project. Again, the bulk of the focus is on evaluation models and data tracking. What tools and software are you using to bolster your readiness? In addition to the tools, program officers each often have their own way of identifying an organizations’ readiness. Much of their determining factors are a cross between relationship-building, visibility of the organization (how well you’re known within the community), and the data-driven proof points that underline your organization’s efficacy. These readiness tools and self-evaluations can support your prioritization as you work towards becoming ready for that break-through grant your organization needs to thrive. In the next section we’ll discuss how technology tools and softwares like Casebook serve as a viable solution for metric traction and grant competitiveness. In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic and the great resignation, businesses across many industries have experienced an uptick in employee turnover. This trend has been especially prominent in the nonprofit sector, where limited budgets and resources often make it difficult for organizations to retain their top talent. Previously we reviewed standardized metrics from third-party validator sites that funders and donors often use to determine a nonprofit’s viability for funding. However, it’s not just third-party sites that maintain metric benchmarks for nonprofits. Institutional funders often have their own internal evaluation sites and standardized metrics. In addition to sharing the core points that watchdog sites review (such as financials and governance), major institutions like the government’s Children’s Bureau and affluent foundations like the Ford Foundation also maintain their own evaluation system. These metrics serve as indicators of a nonprofit’s likelihood to be successful with their grant allocation and produce impact aligned with the institution’s mandate. For Ford, and many foundation funders, an organization’s “readiness” is indicative of their ability to have a few core organizational strengths. They believe in assessments so much, that they have a public open-source tool to support nonprofits identify and prioritize their organizational strengthening needs. Within this Organizational Mapping Tool (OMT), they focus on 14 categories. We won’t dive into each one, but to illustrate a few top lines consider the focus areas as follows: Mission & Strategy - do you have clear, inspiring and compelling public commitments with formal goals, outcomes and a strategic plan? Field Engagement - is there a strong sense of mutual power and collaboration within your organization? Is your organization considered an active leader in networks, has a strong voice in the community and has a visibly strong reputation in the field? Administration - outside of maintaining legal obligations and an effective organizational leadership structure, what do your administrative policies look like? How do you leverage technology and information systems to ensure that the organization functions optimally? This last one is so important. Is your organization tracking your data? What do your participant files include? Are you simply collecting demographics or measuring outputs against long-term impacts? Systems are so vital to your success as a nonprofit. And for many funders, it’s 50% of their considerations. For example, major government institution distributed grants (like NY state’s Block Grant) also have their version of self-assessment tools. Their tools focus almost entirely on the data. They are focused on not just what information your organization is capable of tracking, but the use of that information to inform programming & services. There are also capacity-building programs that some funders operate to support nonprofits as they work towards securing grants from high-level funders. Robin Hood operates a workshop series entitled GRIT (Grant-Ready Insights and Training) project. Again, the bulk of the focus is on evaluation models and data tracking. What tools and software are you using to bolster your readiness? In addition to the tools, program officers each often have their own way of identifying an organizations’ readiness. Much of their determining factors are a cross between relationship-building, visibility of the organization (how well you’re known within the community), and the data-driven proof points that underline your organization’s efficacy. These readiness tools and self-evaluations can support your prioritization as you work towards becoming ready for that break-through grant your organization needs to thrive. In the next section we’ll discuss how technology tools and softwares like Casebook serve as a viable solution for metric traction and grant competitiveness. In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic and the great resignation, businesses across many industries have experienced an uptick in employee turnover. This trend has been especially prominent in the nonprofit sector, where limited budgets and resources often make it difficult for organizations to retain their top talent. Previously we reviewed standardized metrics from third-party validator sites that funders and donors often use to determine a nonprofit’s viability for funding. However, it’s not just third-party sites that maintain metric benchmarks for nonprofits. Institutional funders often have their own internal evaluation sites and standardized metrics. In addition to sharing the core points that watchdog sites review (such as financials and governance), major institutions like the government’s Children’s Bureau and affluent foundations like the Ford Foundation also maintain their own evaluation system. These metrics serve as indicators of a nonprofit’s likelihood to be successful with their grant allocation and produce impact aligned with the institution’s mandate. For Ford, and many foundation funders, an organization’s “readiness” is indicative of their ability to have a few core organizational strengths. They believe in assessments so much, that they have a public open-source tool to support nonprofits identify and prioritize their organizational strengthening needs. Within this Organizational Mapping Tool (OMT), they focus on 14 categories. We won’t dive into each one, but to illustrate a few top lines consider the focus areas as follows: Mission & Strategy - do you have clear, inspiring and compelling public commitments with formal goals, outcomes and a strategic plan? Field Engagement - is there a strong sense of mutual power and collaboration within your organization? Is your organization considered an active leader in networks, has a strong voice in the community and has a visibly strong reputation in the field? Administration - outside of maintaining legal obligations and an effective organizational leadership structure, what do your administrative policies look like? How do you leverage technology and information systems to ensure that the organization functions optimally? This last one is so important. Is your organization tracking your data? What do your participant files include? Are you simply collecting demographics or measuring outputs against long-term impacts? Systems are so vital to your success as a nonprofit. And for many funders, it’s 50% of their considerations. For example, major government institution distributed grants (like NY state’s Block Grant) also have their version of self-assessment tools. Their tools focus almost entirely on the data. They are focused on not just what information your organization is capable of tracking, but the use of that information to inform programming & services. There are also capacity-building programs that some funders operate to support nonprofits as they work towards securing grants from high-level funders. Robin Hood operates a workshop series entitled GRIT (Grant-Ready Insights and Training) project. Again, the bulk of the focus is on evaluation models and data tracking. What tools and software are you using to bolster your readiness? In addition to the tools, program officers each often have their own way of identifying an organizations’ readiness. Much of their determining factors are a cross between relationship-building, visibility of the organization (how well you’re known within the community), and the data-driven proof points that underline your organization’s efficacy. These readiness tools and self-evaluations can support your prioritization as you work towards becoming ready for that break-through grant your organization needs to thrive. In the next section we’ll discuss how technology tools and softwares like Casebook serve as a viable solution for metric traction and grant competitiveness. In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic and the great resignation, businesses across many industries have experienced an uptick in employee turnover. This trend has been especially prominent in the nonprofit sector, where limited budgets and resources often make it difficult for organizations to retain their top talent. Previously we reviewed standardized metrics from third-party validator sites that funders and donors often use to determine a nonprofit’s viability for funding. However, it’s not just third-party sites that maintain metric benchmarks for nonprofits. Institutional funders often have their own internal evaluation sites and standardized metrics. In addition to sharing the core points that watchdog sites review (such as financials and governance), major institutions like the government’s Children’s Bureau and affluent foundations like the Ford Foundation also maintain their own evaluation system. These metrics serve as indicators of a nonprofit’s likelihood to be successful with their grant allocation and produce impact aligned with the institution’s mandate. For Ford, and many foundation funders, an organization’s “readiness” is indicative of their ability to have a few core organizational strengths. They believe in assessments so much, that they have a public open-source tool to support nonprofits identify and prioritize their organizational strengthening needs. Within this Organizational Mapping Tool (OMT), they focus on 14 categories. We won’t dive into each one, but to illustrate a few top lines consider the focus areas as follows: Mission & Strategy - do you have clear, inspiring and compelling public commitments with formal goals, outcomes and a strategic plan? Field Engagement - is there a strong sense of mutual power and collaboration within your organization? Is your organization considered an active leader in networks, has a strong voice in the community and has a visibly strong reputation in the field? Administration - outside of maintaining legal obligations and an effective organizational leadership structure, what do your administrative policies look like? How do you leverage technology and information systems to ensure that the organization functions optimally? This last one is so important. Is your organization tracking your data? What do your participant files include? Are you simply collecting demographics or measuring outputs against long-term impacts? Systems are so vital to your success as a nonprofit. And for many funders, it’s 50% of their considerations. For example, major government institution distributed grants (like NY state’s Block Grant) also have their version of self-assessment tools. Their tools focus almost entirely on the data. They are focused on not just what information your organization is capable of tracking, but the use of that information to inform programming & services. There are also capacity-building programs that some funders operate to support nonprofits as they work towards securing grants from high-level funders. Robin Hood operates a workshop series entitled GRIT (Grant-Ready Insights and Training) project. Again, the bulk of the focus is on evaluation models and data tracking. What tools and software are you using to bolster your readiness? In addition to the tools, program officers each often have their own way of identifying an organizations’ readiness. Much of their determining factors are a cross between relationship-building, visibility of the organization (how well you’re known within the community), and the data-driven proof points that underline your organization’s efficacy. These readiness tools and self-evaluations can support your prioritization as you work towards becoming ready for that break-through grant your organization needs to thrive. In the next section we’ll discuss how technology tools and softwares like Casebook serve as a viable solution for metric traction and grant competitiveness. In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic and the great resignation, businesses across many industries have experienced an uptick in employee turnover. This trend has been especially prominent in the nonprofit sector, where limited budgets and resources often make it difficult for organizations to retain their top talent. Previously we reviewed standardized metrics from third-party validator sites that funders and donors often use to determine a nonprofit’s viability for funding. However, it’s not just third-party sites that maintain metric benchmarks for nonprofits. Institutional funders often have their own internal evaluation sites and standardized metrics. In addition to sharing the core points that watchdog sites review (such as financials and governance), major institutions like the government’s Children’s Bureau and affluent foundations like the Ford Foundation also maintain their own evaluation system. These metrics serve as indicators of a nonprofit’s likelihood to be successful with their grant allocation and produce impact aligned with the institution’s mandate. For Ford, and many foundation funders, an organization’s “readiness” is indicative of their ability to have a few core organizational strengths. They believe in assessments so much, that they have a public open-source tool to support nonprofits identify and prioritize their organizational strengthening needs. Within this Organizational Mapping Tool (OMT), they focus on 14 categories. We won’t dive into each one, but to illustrate a few top lines consider the focus areas as follows: Mission & Strategy - do you have clear, inspiring and compelling public commitments with formal goals, outcomes and a strategic plan? Field Engagement - is there a strong sense of mutual power and collaboration within your organization? Is your organization considered an active leader in networks, has a strong voice in the community and has a visibly strong reputation in the field? Administration - outside of maintaining legal obligations and an effective organizational leadership structure, what do your administrative policies look like? How do you leverage technology and information systems to ensure that the organization functions optimally? This last one is so important. Is your organization tracking your data? What do your participant files include? Are you simply collecting demographics or measuring outputs against long-term impacts? Systems are so vital to your success as a nonprofit. And for many funders, it’s 50% of their considerations. For example, major government institution distributed grants (like NY state’s Block Grant) also have their version of self-assessment tools. Their tools focus almost entirely on the data. They are focused on not just what information your organization is capable of tracking, but the use of that information to inform programming & services. There are also capacity-building programs that some funders operate to support nonprofits as they work towards securing grants from high-level funders. Robin Hood operates a workshop series entitled GRIT (Grant-Ready Insights and Training) project. Again, the bulk of the focus is on evaluation models and data tracking. What tools and software are you using to bolster your readiness? In addition to the tools, program officers each often have their own way of identifying an organizations’ readiness. Much of their determining factors are a cross between relationship-building, visibility of the organization (how well you’re known within the community), and the data-driven proof points that underline your organization’s efficacy. These readiness tools and self-evaluations can support your prioritization as you work towards becoming ready for that break-through grant your organization needs to thrive. In the next section we’ll discuss how technology tools and softwares like Casebook serve as a viable solution for metric traction and grant competitiveness. In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic and the great resignation, businesses across many industries have experienced an uptick in employee turnover. This trend has been especially prominent in the nonprofit sector, where limited budgets and resources often make it difficult for organizations to retain their top talent. Previously we reviewed standardized metrics from third-party validator sites that funders and donors often use to determine a nonprofit’s viability for funding. However, it’s not just third-party sites that maintain metric benchmarks for nonprofits. Institutional funders often have their own internal evaluation sites and standardized metrics. In addition to sharing the core points that watchdog sites review (such as financials and governance), major institutions like the government’s Children’s Bureau and affluent foundations like the Ford Foundation also maintain their own evaluation system. These metrics serve as indicators of a nonprofit’s likelihood to be successful with their grant allocation and produce impact aligned with the institution’s mandate. For Ford, and many foundation funders, an organization’s “readiness” is indicative of their ability to have a few core organizational strengths. They believe in assessments so much, that they have a public open-source tool to support nonprofits identify and prioritize their organizational strengthening needs. Within this Organizational Mapping Tool (OMT), they focus on 14 categories. We won’t dive into each one, but to illustrate a few top lines consider the focus areas as follows: Mission & Strategy - do you have clear, inspiring and compelling public commitments with formal goals, outcomes and a strategic plan? Field Engagement - is there a strong sense of mutual power and collaboration within your organization? Is your organization considered an active leader in networks, has a strong voice in the community and has a visibly strong reputation in the field? Administration - outside of maintaining legal obligations and an effective organizational leadership structure, what do your administrative policies look like? How do you leverage technology and information systems to ensure that the organization functions optimally? This last one is so important. Is your organization tracking your data? What do your participant files include? Are you simply collecting demographics or measuring outputs against long-term impacts? Systems are so vital to your success as a nonprofit. And for many funders, it’s 50% of their considerations. For example, major government institution distributed grants (like NY state’s Block Grant) also have their version of self-assessment tools. Their tools focus almost entirely on the data. They are focused on not just what information your organization is capable of tracking, but the use of that information to inform programming & services. There are also capacity-building programs that some funders operate to support nonprofits as they work towards securing grants from high-level funders. Robin Hood operates a workshop series entitled GRIT (Grant-Ready Insights and Training) project. Again, the bulk of the focus is on evaluation models and data tracking. What tools and software are you using to bolster your readiness? In addition to the tools, program officers each often have their own way of identifying an organizations’ readiness. Much of their determining factors are a cross between relationship-building, visibility of the organization (how well you’re known within the community), and the data-driven proof points that underline your organization’s efficacy. These readiness tools and self-evaluations can support your prioritization as you work towards becoming ready for that break-through grant your organization needs to thrive. In the next section we’ll discuss how technology tools and softwares like Casebook serve as a viable solution for metric traction and grant competitiveness. In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic and the great resignation, businesses across many industries have experienced an uptick in employee turnover. This trend has been especially prominent in the nonprofit sector, where limited budgets and resources often make it difficult for organizations to retain their top talent. Previously we reviewed standardized metrics from third-party validator sites that funders and donors often use to determine a nonprofit’s viability for funding. However, it’s not just third-party sites that maintain metric benchmarks for nonprofits. Institutional funders often have their own internal evaluation sites and standardized metrics. In addition to sharing the core points that watchdog sites review (such as financials and governance), major institutions like the government’s Children’s Bureau and affluent foundations like the Ford Foundation also maintain their own evaluation system. These metrics serve as indicators of a nonprofit’s likelihood to be successful with their grant allocation and produce impact aligned with the institution’s mandate. For Ford, and many foundation funders, an organization’s “readiness” is indicative of their ability to have a few core organizational strengths. They believe in assessments so much, that they have a public open-source tool to support nonprofits identify and prioritize their organizational strengthening needs. Within this Organizational Mapping Tool (OMT), they focus on 14 categories. We won’t dive into each one, but to illustrate a few top lines consider the focus areas as follows: Mission & Strategy - do you have clear, inspiring and compelling public commitments with formal goals, outcomes and a strategic plan? Field Engagement - is there a strong sense of mutual power and collaboration within your organization? Is your organization considered an active leader in networks, has a strong voice in the community and has a visibly strong reputation in the field? Administration - outside of maintaining legal obligations and an effective organizational leadership structure, what do your administrative policies look like? How do you leverage technology and information systems to ensure that the organization functions optimally? This last one is so important. Is your organization tracking your data? What do your participant files include? Are you simply collecting demographics or measuring outputs against long-term impacts? Systems are so vital to your success as a nonprofit. And for many funders, it’s 50% of their considerations. For example, major government institution distributed grants (like NY state’s Block Grant) also have their version of self-assessment tools. Their tools focus almost entirely on the data. They are focused on not just what information your organization is capable of tracking, but the use of that information to inform programming & services. There are also capacity-building programs that some funders operate to support nonprofits as they work towards securing grants from high-level funders. Robin Hood operates a workshop series entitled GRIT (Grant-Ready Insights and Training) project. Again, the bulk of the focus is on evaluation models and data tracking. What tools and software are you using to bolster your readiness? In addition to the tools, program officers each often have their own way of identifying an organizations’ readiness. Much of their determining factors are a cross between relationship-building, visibility of the organization (how well you’re known within the community), and the data-driven proof points that underline your organization’s efficacy. These readiness tools and self-evaluations can support your prioritization as you work towards becoming ready for that break-through grant your organization needs to thrive. In the next section we’ll discuss how technology tools and softwares like Casebook serve as a viable solution for metric traction and grant competitiveness. In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic and the great resignation, businesses across many industries have experienced an uptick in employee turnover. This trend has been especially prominent in the nonprofit sector, where limited budgets and resources often make it difficult for organizations to retain their top talent. Previously we reviewed standardized metrics from third-party validator sites that funders and donors often use to determine a nonprofit’s viability for funding. However, it’s not just third-party sites that maintain metric benchmarks for nonprofits. Institutional funders often have their own internal evaluation sites and standardized metrics. In addition to sharing the core points that watchdog sites review (such as financials and governance), major institutions like the government’s Children’s Bureau and affluent foundations like the Ford Foundation also maintain their own evaluation system. These metrics serve as indicators of a nonprofit’s likelihood to be successful with their grant allocation and produce impact aligned with the institution’s mandate. For Ford, and many foundation funders, an organization’s “readiness” is indicative of their ability to have a few core organizational strengths. They believe in assessments so much, that they have a public open-source tool to support nonprofits identify and prioritize their organizational strengthening needs. Within this Organizational Mapping Tool (OMT), they focus on 14 categories. We won’t dive into each one, but to illustrate a few top lines consider the focus areas as follows: Mission & Strategy - do you have clear, inspiring and compelling public commitments with formal goals, outcomes and a strategic plan? Field Engagement - is there a strong sense of mutual power and collaboration within your organization? Is your organization considered an active leader in networks, has a strong voice in the community and has a visibly strong reputation in the field? Administration - outside of maintaining legal obligations and an effective organizational leadership structure, what do your administrative policies look like? How do you leverage technology and information systems to ensure that the organization functions optimally? This last one is so important. Is your organization tracking your data? What do your participant files include? Are you simply collecting demographics or measuring outputs against long-term impacts? Systems are so vital to your success as a nonprofit. And for many funders, it’s 50% of their considerations. For example, major government institution distributed grants (like NY state’s Block Grant) also have their version of self-assessment tools. Their tools focus almost entirely on the data. They are focused on not just what information your organization is capable of tracking, but the use of that information to inform programming & services. There are also capacity-building programs that some funders operate to support nonprofits as they work towards securing grants from high-level funders. Robin Hood operates a workshop series entitled GRIT (Grant-Ready Insights and Training) project. Again, the bulk of the focus is on evaluation models and data tracking. What tools and software are you using to bolster your readiness? In addition to the tools, program officers each often have their own way of identifying an organizations’ readiness. Much of their determining factors are a cross between relationship-building, visibility of the organization (how well you’re known within the community), and the data-driven proof points that underline your organization’s efficacy. These readiness tools and self-evaluations can support your prioritization as you work towards becoming ready for that break-through grant your organization needs to thrive. In the next section we’ll discuss how technology tools and softwares like Casebook serve as a viable solution for metric traction and grant competitiveness.

A new decade is starting, which is a good time for us all to reflect on the world we had a decade ago and the world we will have a decade from now. The iPad, streaming services like Netflix, on-demand services like Uber, drones, and AIs like Siri and Alexa, all things that did not exist at the dawn of the last decade, but are now deeply embedded into our culture. In such a dynamic environment, I am often asked how we build for the future. Casebook tends to stay on top of the significant trends and deliver software that seems either the right thing at the right time or feels ahead of the rest of the world. To do so, we had to think through every facet of our business, and configure an organization that ensures our customers are always on the cutting edge of progress in human services. So today I’d like to say a few words about our technology, something we don’t always bring front and center when we talk to customers. Because the pace of technology accelerates with every passing decade, building for flexibility is key to building long term solutions. With as broad a mission as helping the front-line protect the most vulnerable members of society through software, we have been forced to think through that flexibility. Internally, this has taken the shape of a microservices architectures based on Kubernetes and exposed to the outside world through open APIs using a modern design system. Kubernetes is a container technology that allows us to build software that is self-healing and self-growing: what this means is that we ensure high levels of redundancy across every aspect of our security and quality management so that customers can safely run their operations without having to worry about the impact of new deployments or external hackers. Our systems stay up 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, no matter what. Thanks to this, we’ve had military experts test our security and fail at achieving any critical impact. Microservices are the type of software architecture the new world is built on. By breaking applications down to simple, highly maintainable and testable services, this type of architecture is giving us the greatest flexibility to adapt to any future technology requirements. This approach, which is the one taken by the likes of Netflix, Amazon, Uber, and many others, represents a considerable change to the way software is built and allows us to develop at a much faster pace without interrupting the existing functionality of applications while they are running. Because each discreet service is right-sized, it can be distributed across a variety of platforms, whether it is through a web browser, mobile device, audio channel, or bot service. I suspect that the next decade will bring new forms of interactions in human services through augmented reality and virtual reality, and our software will be there with you when those new distribution channels achieve greater maturity. In today’s world, thinking through modern applications also means thinking through the interaction users have with the applications. But as you know, the interaction you have with a mobile device is different from the interaction you have with a computer or tablet. We call each of those channels. To ensure the best experience across all channels and drive consistency across business apps and channels, we have created a Design System, ensuring a consistent user experience on all of our applications. Companies like Apple, Google, and Microsoft follow this model to ensure consistency across different channels. The Casebook Design System allows for our applications to evolve and incorporate the latest design trends into our offerings, ensuring that you will always get the best experience with our software. We live in an increasingly connected world and software like ours doesn’t operate in a bubble, and as such we have a set of open APIs, which can be used to lower the disruption and cost of integration. We’ve made connecting Casebook apps with your other systems seamless. These open APIs allow software developers to create added solutions on top of our systems. We expect to make more announcements around this in the future, as our offerings grow, and third parties start offering new apps that leverage these APIs. We’ve focused on ensuring that our technology does not stand in the way of your future. We are looking forward to future collaborations in this new decade. A new decade is starting, which is a good time for us all to reflect on the world we had a decade ago and the world we will have a decade from now. The iPad, streaming services like Netflix, on-demand services like Uber, drones, and AIs like Siri and Alexa, all things that did not exist at the dawn of the last decade, but are now deeply embedded into our culture. In such a dynamic environment, I am often asked how we build for the future. Casebook tends to stay on top of the significant trends and deliver software that seems either the right thing at the right time or feels ahead of the rest of the world. To do so, we had to think through every facet of our business, and configure an organization that ensures our customers are always on the cutting edge of progress in human services. So today I’d like to say a few words about our technology, something we don’t always bring front and center when we talk to customers. Because the pace of technology accelerates with every passing decade, building for flexibility is key to building long term solutions. With as broad a mission as helping the front-line protect the most vulnerable members of society through software, we have been forced to think through that flexibility. Internally, this has taken the shape of a microservices architectures based on Kubernetes and exposed to the outside world through open APIs using a modern design system. Kubernetes is a container technology that allows us to build software that is self-healing and self-growing: what this means is that we ensure high levels of redundancy across every aspect of our security and quality management so that customers can safely run their operations without having to worry about the impact of new deployments or external hackers. Our systems stay up 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, no matter what. Thanks to this, we’ve had military experts test our security and fail at achieving any critical impact. Microservices are the type of software architecture the new world is built on. By breaking applications down to simple, highly maintainable and testable services, this type of architecture is giving us the greatest flexibility to adapt to any future technology requirements. This approach, which is the one taken by the likes of Netflix, Amazon, Uber, and many others, represents a considerable change to the way software is built and allows us to develop at a much faster pace without interrupting the existing functionality of applications while they are running. Because each discreet service is right-sized, it can be distributed across a variety of platforms, whether it is through a web browser, mobile device, audio channel, or bot service. I suspect that the next decade will bring new forms of interactions in human services through augmented reality and virtual reality, and our software will be there with you when those new distribution channels achieve greater maturity. In today’s world, thinking through modern applications also means thinking through the interaction users have with the applications. But as you know, the interaction you have with a mobile device is different from the interaction you have with a computer or tablet. We call each of those channels. To ensure the best experience across all channels and drive consistency across business apps and channels, we have created a Design System, ensuring a consistent user experience on all of our applications. Companies like Apple, Google, and Microsoft follow this model to ensure consistency across different channels. The Casebook Design System allows for our applications to evolve and incorporate the latest design trends into our offerings, ensuring that you will always get the best experience with our software. We live in an increasingly connected world and software like ours doesn’t operate in a bubble, and as such we have a set of open APIs, which can be used to lower the disruption and cost of integration. We’ve made connecting Casebook apps with your other systems seamless. These open APIs allow software developers to create added solutions on top of our systems. We expect to make more announcements around this in the future, as our offerings grow, and third parties start offering new apps that leverage these APIs. We’ve focused on ensuring that our technology does not stand in the way of your future. We are looking forward to future collaborations in this new decade. A new decade is starting, which is a good time for us all to reflect on the world we had a decade ago and the world we will have a decade from now. The iPad, streaming services like Netflix, on-demand services like Uber, drones, and AIs like Siri and Alexa, all things that did not exist at the dawn of the last decade, but are now deeply embedded into our culture. In such a dynamic environment, I am often asked how we build for the future. Casebook tends to stay on top of the significant trends and deliver software that seems either the right thing at the right time or feels ahead of the rest of the world. To do so, we had to think through every facet of our business, and configure an organization that ensures our customers are always on the cutting edge of progress in human services. So today I’d like to say a few words about our technology, something we don’t always bring front and center when we talk to customers. Because the pace of technology accelerates with every passing decade, building for flexibility is key to building long term solutions. With as broad a mission as helping the front-line protect the most vulnerable members of society through software, we have been forced to think through that flexibility. Internally, this has taken the shape of a microservices architectures based on Kubernetes and exposed to the outside world through open APIs using a modern design system. Kubernetes is a container technology that allows us to build software that is self-healing and self-growing: what this means is that we ensure high levels of redundancy across every aspect of our security and quality management so that customers can safely run their operations without having to worry about the impact of new deployments or external hackers. Our systems stay up 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, no matter what. Thanks to this, we’ve had military experts test our security and fail at achieving any critical impact. Microservices are the type of software architecture the new world is built on. By breaking applications down to simple, highly maintainable and testable services, this type of architecture is giving us the greatest flexibility to adapt to any future technology requirements. This approach, which is the one taken by the likes of Netflix, Amazon, Uber, and many others, represents a considerable change to the way software is built and allows us to develop at a much faster pace without interrupting the existing functionality of applications while they are running. Because each discreet service is right-sized, it can be distributed across a variety of platforms, whether it is through a web browser, mobile device, audio channel, or bot service. I suspect that the next decade will bring new forms of interactions in human services through augmented reality and virtual reality, and our software will be there with you when those new distribution channels achieve greater maturity. In today’s world, thinking through modern applications also means thinking through the interaction users have with the applications. But as you know, the interaction you have with a mobile device is different from the interaction you have with a computer or tablet. We call each of those channels. To ensure the best experience across all channels and drive consistency across business apps and channels, we have created a Design System, ensuring a consistent user experience on all of our applications. Companies like Apple, Google, and Microsoft follow this model to ensure consistency across different channels. The Casebook Design System allows for our applications to evolve and incorporate the latest design trends into our offerings, ensuring that you will always get the best experience with our software. We live in an increasingly connected world and software like ours doesn’t operate in a bubble, and as such we have a set of open APIs, which can be used to lower the disruption and cost of integration. We’ve made connecting Casebook apps with your other systems seamless. These open APIs allow software developers to create added solutions on top of our systems. We expect to make more announcements around this in the future, as our offerings grow, and third parties start offering new apps that leverage these APIs. We’ve focused on ensuring that our technology does not stand in the way of your future. We are looking forward to future collaborations in this new decade. A new decade is starting, which is a good time for us all to reflect on the world we had a decade ago and the world we will have a decade from now. The iPad, streaming services like Netflix, on-demand services like Uber, drones, and AIs like Siri and Alexa, all things that did not exist at the dawn of the last decade, but are now deeply embedded into our culture. In such a dynamic environment, I am often asked how we build for the future. Casebook tends to stay on top of the significant trends and deliver software that seems either the right thing at the right time or feels ahead of the rest of the world. To do so, we had to think through every facet of our business, and configure an organization that ensures our customers are always on the cutting edge of progress in human services. So today I’d like to say a few words about our technology, something we don’t always bring front and center when we talk to customers. Because the pace of technology accelerates with every passing decade, building for flexibility is key to building long term solutions. With as broad a mission as helping the front-line protect the most vulnerable members of society through software, we have been forced to think through that flexibility. Internally, this has taken the shape of a microservices architectures based on Kubernetes and exposed to the outside world through open APIs using a modern design system. Kubernetes is a container technology that allows us to build software that is self-healing and self-growing: what this means is that we ensure high levels of redundancy across every aspect of our security and quality management so that customers can safely run their operations without having to worry about the impact of new deployments or external hackers. Our systems stay up 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, no matter what. Thanks to this, we’ve had military experts test our security and fail at achieving any critical impact. Microservices are the type of software architecture the new world is built on. By breaking applications down to simple, highly maintainable and testable services, this type of architecture is giving us the greatest flexibility to adapt to any future technology requirements. This approach, which is the one taken by the likes of Netflix, Amazon, Uber, and many others, represents a considerable change to the way software is built and allows us to develop at a much faster pace without interrupting the existing functionality of applications while they are running. Because each discreet service is right-sized, it can be distributed across a variety of platforms, whether it is through a web browser, mobile device, audio channel, or bot service. I suspect that the next decade will bring new forms of interactions in human services through augmented reality and virtual reality, and our software will be there with you when those new distribution channels achieve greater maturity. In today’s world, thinking through modern applications also means thinking through the interaction users have with the applications. But as you know, the interaction you have with a mobile device is different from the interaction you have with a computer or tablet. We call each of those channels. To ensure the best experience across all channels and drive consistency across business apps and channels, we have created a Design System, ensuring a consistent user experience on all of our applications. Companies like Apple, Google, and Microsoft follow this model to ensure consistency across different channels. The Casebook Design System allows for our applications to evolve and incorporate the latest design trends into our offerings, ensuring that you will always get the best experience with our software. We live in an increasingly connected world and software like ours doesn’t operate in a bubble, and as such we have a set of open APIs, which can be used to lower the disruption and cost of integration. We’ve made connecting Casebook apps with your other systems seamless. These open APIs allow software developers to create added solutions on top of our systems. We expect to make more announcements around this in the future, as our offerings grow, and third parties start offering new apps that leverage these APIs. We’ve focused on ensuring that our technology does not stand in the way of your future. We are looking forward to future collaborations in this new decade. A new decade is starting, which is a good time for us all to reflect on the world we had a decade ago and the world we will have a decade from now. The iPad, streaming services like Netflix, on-demand services like Uber, drones, and AIs like Siri and Alexa, all things that did not exist at the dawn of the last decade, but are now deeply embedded into our culture. In such a dynamic environment, I am often asked how we build for the future. Casebook tends to stay on top of the significant trends and deliver software that seems either the right thing at the right time or feels ahead of the rest of the world. To do so, we had to think through every facet of our business, and configure an organization that ensures our customers are always on the cutting edge of progress in human services. So today I’d like to say a few words about our technology, something we don’t always bring front and center when we talk to customers. Because the pace of technology accelerates with every passing decade, building for flexibility is key to building long term solutions. With as broad a mission as helping the front-line protect the most vulnerable members of society through software, we have been forced to think through that flexibility. Internally, this has taken the shape of a microservices architectures based on Kubernetes and exposed to the outside world through open APIs using a modern design system. Kubernetes is a container technology that allows us to build software that is self-healing and self-growing: what this means is that we ensure high levels of redundancy across every aspect of our security and quality management so that customers can safely run their operations without having to worry about the impact of new deployments or external hackers. Our systems stay up 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, no matter what. Thanks to this, we’ve had military experts test our security and fail at achieving any critical impact. Microservices are the type of software architecture the new world is built on. By breaking applications down to simple, highly maintainable and testable services, this type of architecture is giving us the greatest flexibility to adapt to any future technology requirements. This approach, which is the one taken by the likes of Netflix, Amazon, Uber, and many others, represents a considerable change to the way software is built and allows us to develop at a much faster pace without interrupting the existing functionality of applications while they are running. Because each discreet service is right-sized, it can be distributed across a variety of platforms, whether it is through a web browser, mobile device, audio channel, or bot service. I suspect that the next decade will bring new forms of interactions in human services through augmented reality and virtual reality, and our software will be there with you when those new distribution channels achieve greater maturity. In today’s world, thinking through modern applications also means thinking through the interaction users have with the applications. But as you know, the interaction you have with a mobile device is different from the interaction you have with a computer or tablet. We call each of those channels. To ensure the best experience across all channels and drive consistency across business apps and channels, we have created a Design System, ensuring a consistent user experience on all of our applications. Companies like Apple, Google, and Microsoft follow this model to ensure consistency across different channels. The Casebook Design System allows for our applications to evolve and incorporate the latest design trends into our offerings, ensuring that you will always get the best experience with our software. We live in an increasingly connected world and software like ours doesn’t operate in a bubble, and as such we have a set of open APIs, which can be used to lower the disruption and cost of integration. We’ve made connecting Casebook apps with your other systems seamless. These open APIs allow software developers to create added solutions on top of our systems. We expect to make more announcements around this in the future, as our offerings grow, and third parties start offering new apps that leverage these APIs. We’ve focused on ensuring that our technology does not stand in the way of your future. We are looking forward to future collaborations in this new decade. A new decade is starting, which is a good time for us all to reflect on the world we had a decade ago and the world we will have a decade from now. The iPad, streaming services like Netflix, on-demand services like Uber, drones, and AIs like Siri and Alexa, all things that did not exist at the dawn of the last decade, but are now deeply embedded into our culture. In such a dynamic environment, I am often asked how we build for the future. Casebook tends to stay on top of the significant trends and deliver software that seems either the right thing at the right time or feels ahead of the rest of the world. To do so, we had to think through every facet of our business, and configure an organization that ensures our customers are always on the cutting edge of progress in human services. So today I’d like to say a few words about our technology, something we don’t always bring front and center when we talk to customers. Because the pace of technology accelerates with every passing decade, building for flexibility is key to building long term solutions. With as broad a mission as helping the front-line protect the most vulnerable members of society through software, we have been forced to think through that flexibility. Internally, this has taken the shape of a microservices architectures based on Kubernetes and exposed to the outside world through open APIs using a modern design system. Kubernetes is a container technology that allows us to build software that is self-healing and self-growing: what this means is that we ensure high levels of redundancy across every aspect of our security and quality management so that customers can safely run their operations without having to worry about the impact of new deployments or external hackers. Our systems stay up 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, no matter what. Thanks to this, we’ve had military experts test our security and fail at achieving any critical impact. Microservices are the type of software architecture the new world is built on. By breaking applications down to simple, highly maintainable and testable services, this type of architecture is giving us the greatest flexibility to adapt to any future technology requirements. This approach, which is the one taken by the likes of Netflix, Amazon, Uber, and many others, represents a considerable change to the way software is built and allows us to develop at a much faster pace without interrupting the existing functionality of applications while they are running. Because each discreet service is right-sized, it can be distributed across a variety of platforms, whether it is through a web browser, mobile device, audio channel, or bot service. I suspect that the next decade will bring new forms of interactions in human services through augmented reality and virtual reality, and our software will be there with you when those new distribution channels achieve greater maturity. In today’s world, thinking through modern applications also means thinking through the interaction users have with the applications. But as you know, the interaction you have with a mobile device is different from the interaction you have with a computer or tablet. We call each of those channels. To ensure the best experience across all channels and drive consistency across business apps and channels, we have created a Design System, ensuring a consistent user experience on all of our applications. Companies like Apple, Google, and Microsoft follow this model to ensure consistency across different channels. The Casebook Design System allows for our applications to evolve and incorporate the latest design trends into our offerings, ensuring that you will always get the best experience with our software. We live in an increasingly connected world and software like ours doesn’t operate in a bubble, and as such we have a set of open APIs, which can be used to lower the disruption and cost of integration. We’ve made connecting Casebook apps with your other systems seamless. These open APIs allow software developers to create added solutions on top of our systems. We expect to make more announcements around this in the future, as our offerings grow, and third parties start offering new apps that leverage these APIs. We’ve focused on ensuring that our technology does not stand in the way of your future. We are looking forward to future collaborations in this new decade. A new decade is starting, which is a good time for us all to reflect on the world we had a decade ago and the world we will have a decade from now. The iPad, streaming services like Netflix, on-demand services like Uber, drones, and AIs like Siri and Alexa, all things that did not exist at the dawn of the last decade, but are now deeply embedded into our culture. In such a dynamic environment, I am often asked how we build for the future. Casebook tends to stay on top of the significant trends and deliver software that seems either the right thing at the right time or feels ahead of the rest of the world. To do so, we had to think through every facet of our business, and configure an organization that ensures our customers are always on the cutting edge of progress in human services. So today I’d like to say a few words about our technology, something we don’t always bring front and center when we talk to customers. Because the pace of technology accelerates with every passing decade, building for flexibility is key to building long term solutions. With as broad a mission as helping the front-line protect the most vulnerable members of society through software, we have been forced to think through that flexibility. Internally, this has taken the shape of a microservices architectures based on Kubernetes and exposed to the outside world through open APIs using a modern design system. Kubernetes is a container technology that allows us to build software that is self-healing and self-growing: what this means is that we ensure high levels of redundancy across every aspect of our security and quality management so that customers can safely run their operations without having to worry about the impact of new deployments or external hackers. Our systems stay up 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, no matter what. Thanks to this, we’ve had military experts test our security and fail at achieving any critical impact. Microservices are the type of software architecture the new world is built on. By breaking applications down to simple, highly maintainable and testable services, this type of architecture is giving us the greatest flexibility to adapt to any future technology requirements. This approach, which is the one taken by the likes of Netflix, Amazon, Uber, and many others, represents a considerable change to the way software is built and allows us to develop at a much faster pace without interrupting the existing functionality of applications while they are running. Because each discreet service is right-sized, it can be distributed across a variety of platforms, whether it is through a web browser, mobile device, audio channel, or bot service. I suspect that the next decade will bring new forms of interactions in human services through augmented reality and virtual reality, and our software will be there with you when those new distribution channels achieve greater maturity. In today’s world, thinking through modern applications also means thinking through the interaction users have with the applications. But as you know, the interaction you have with a mobile device is different from the interaction you have with a computer or tablet. We call each of those channels. To ensure the best experience across all channels and drive consistency across business apps and channels, we have created a Design System, ensuring a consistent user experience on all of our applications. Companies like Apple, Google, and Microsoft follow this model to ensure consistency across different channels. The Casebook Design System allows for our applications to evolve and incorporate the latest design trends into our offerings, ensuring that you will always get the best experience with our software. We live in an increasingly connected world and software like ours doesn’t operate in a bubble, and as such we have a set of open APIs, which can be used to lower the disruption and cost of integration. We’ve made connecting Casebook apps with your other systems seamless. These open APIs allow software developers to create added solutions on top of our systems. We expect to make more announcements around this in the future, as our offerings grow, and third parties start offering new apps that leverage these APIs. We’ve focused on ensuring that our technology does not stand in the way of your future. We are looking forward to future collaborations in this new decade. A new decade is starting, which is a good time for us all to reflect on the world we had a decade ago and the world we will have a decade from now. The iPad, streaming services like Netflix, on-demand services like Uber, drones, and AIs like Siri and Alexa, all things that did not exist at the dawn of the last decade, but are now deeply embedded into our culture. In such a dynamic environment, I am often asked how we build for the future. Casebook tends to stay on top of the significant trends and deliver software that seems either the right thing at the right time or feels ahead of the rest of the world. To do so, we had to think through every facet of our business, and configure an organization that ensures our customers are always on the cutting edge of progress in human services. So today I’d like to say a few words about our technology, something we don’t always bring front and center when we talk to customers. Because the pace of technology accelerates with every passing decade, building for flexibility is key to building long term solutions. With as broad a mission as helping the front-line protect the most vulnerable members of society through software, we have been forced to think through that flexibility. Internally, this has taken the shape of a microservices architectures based on Kubernetes and exposed to the outside world through open APIs using a modern design system. Kubernetes is a container technology that allows us to build software that is self-healing and self-growing: what this means is that we ensure high levels of redundancy across every aspect of our security and quality management so that customers can safely run their operations without having to worry about the impact of new deployments or external hackers. Our systems stay up 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, no matter what. Thanks to this, we’ve had military experts test our security and fail at achieving any critical impact. Microservices are the type of software architecture the new world is built on. By breaking applications down to simple, highly maintainable and testable services, this type of architecture is giving us the greatest flexibility to adapt to any future technology requirements. This approach, which is the one taken by the likes of Netflix, Amazon, Uber, and many others, represents a considerable change to the way software is built and allows us to develop at a much faster pace without interrupting the existing functionality of applications while they are running. Because each discreet service is right-sized, it can be distributed across a variety of platforms, whether it is through a web browser, mobile device, audio channel, or bot service. I suspect that the next decade will bring new forms of interactions in human services through augmented reality and virtual reality, and our software will be there with you when those new distribution channels achieve greater maturity. In today’s world, thinking through modern applications also means thinking through the interaction users have with the applications. But as you know, the interaction you have with a mobile device is different from the interaction you have with a computer or tablet. We call each of those channels. To ensure the best experience across all channels and drive consistency across business apps and channels, we have created a Design System, ensuring a consistent user experience on all of our applications. Companies like Apple, Google, and Microsoft follow this model to ensure consistency across different channels. The Casebook Design System allows for our applications to evolve and incorporate the latest design trends into our offerings, ensuring that you will always get the best experience with our software. We live in an increasingly connected world and software like ours doesn’t operate in a bubble, and as such we have a set of open APIs, which can be used to lower the disruption and cost of integration. We’ve made connecting Casebook apps with your other systems seamless. These open APIs allow software developers to create added solutions on top of our systems. We expect to make more announcements around this in the future, as our offerings grow, and third parties start offering new apps that leverage these APIs. We’ve focused on ensuring that our technology does not stand in the way of your future. We are looking forward to future collaborations in this new decade. A new decade is starting, which is a good time for us all to reflect on the world we had a decade ago and the world we will have a decade from now. The iPad, streaming services like Netflix, on-demand services like Uber, drones, and AIs like Siri and Alexa, all things that did not exist at the dawn of the last decade, but are now deeply embedded into our culture. In such a dynamic environment, I am often asked how we build for the future. Casebook tends to stay on top of the significant trends and deliver software that seems either the right thing at the right time or feels ahead of the rest of the world. To do so, we had to think through every facet of our business, and configure an organization that ensures our customers are always on the cutting edge of progress in human services. So today I’d like to say a few words about our technology, something we don’t always bring front and center when we talk to customers. Because the pace of technology accelerates with every passing decade, building for flexibility is key to building long term solutions. With as broad a mission as helping the front-line protect the most vulnerable members of society through software, we have been forced to think through that flexibility. Internally, this has taken the shape of a microservices architectures based on Kubernetes and exposed to the outside world through open APIs using a modern design system. Kubernetes is a container technology that allows us to build software that is self-healing and self-growing: what this means is that we ensure high levels of redundancy across every aspect of our security and quality management so that customers can safely run their operations without having to worry about the impact of new deployments or external hackers. Our systems stay up 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, no matter what. Thanks to this, we’ve had military experts test our security and fail at achieving any critical impact. Microservices are the type of software architecture the new world is built on. By breaking applications down to simple, highly maintainable and testable services, this type of architecture is giving us the greatest flexibility to adapt to any future technology requirements. This approach, which is the one taken by the likes of Netflix, Amazon, Uber, and many others, represents a considerable change to the way software is built and allows us to develop at a much faster pace without interrupting the existing functionality of applications while they are running. Because each discreet service is right-sized, it can be distributed across a variety of platforms, whether it is through a web browser, mobile device, audio channel, or bot service. I suspect that the next decade will bring new forms of interactions in human services through augmented reality and virtual reality, and our software will be there with you when those new distribution channels achieve greater maturity. In today’s world, thinking through modern applications also means thinking through the interaction users have with the applications. But as you know, the interaction you have with a mobile device is different from the interaction you have with a computer or tablet. We call each of those channels. To ensure the best experience across all channels and drive consistency across business apps and channels, we have created a Design System, ensuring a consistent user experience on all of our applications. Companies like Apple, Google, and Microsoft follow this model to ensure consistency across different channels. The Casebook Design System allows for our applications to evolve and incorporate the latest design trends into our offerings, ensuring that you will always get the best experience with our software. We live in an increasingly connected world and software like ours doesn’t operate in a bubble, and as such we have a set of open APIs, which can be used to lower the disruption and cost of integration. We’ve made connecting Casebook apps with your other systems seamless. These open APIs allow software developers to create added solutions on top of our systems. We expect to make more announcements around this in the future, as our offerings grow, and third parties start offering new apps that leverage these APIs. We’ve focused on ensuring that our technology does not stand in the way of your future. We are looking forward to future collaborations in this new decade. A new decade is starting, which is a good time for us all to reflect on the world we had a decade ago and the world we will have a decade from now. The iPad, streaming services like Netflix, on-demand services like Uber, drones, and AIs like Siri and Alexa, all things that did not exist at the dawn of the last decade, but are now deeply embedded into our culture. In such a dynamic environment, I am often asked how we build for the future. Casebook tends to stay on top of the significant trends and deliver software that seems either the right thing at the right time or feels ahead of the rest of the world. To do so, we had to think through every facet of our business, and configure an organization that ensures our customers are always on the cutting edge of progress in human services. So today I’d like to say a few words about our technology, something we don’t always bring front and center when we talk to customers. Because the pace of technology accelerates with every passing decade, building for flexibility is key to building long term solutions. With as broad a mission as helping the front-line protect the most vulnerable members of society through software, we have been forced to think through that flexibility. Internally, this has taken the shape of a microservices architectures based on Kubernetes and exposed to the outside world through open APIs using a modern design system. Kubernetes is a container technology that allows us to build software that is self-healing and self-growing: what this means is that we ensure high levels of redundancy across every aspect of our security and quality management so that customers can safely run their operations without having to worry about the impact of new deployments or external hackers. Our systems stay up 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, no matter what. Thanks to this, we’ve had military experts test our security and fail at achieving any critical impact. Microservices are the type of software architecture the new world is built on. By breaking applications down to simple, highly maintainable and testable services, this type of architecture is giving us the greatest flexibility to adapt to any future technology requirements. This approach, which is the one taken by the likes of Netflix, Amazon, Uber, and many others, represents a considerable change to the way software is built and allows us to develop at a much faster pace without interrupting the existing functionality of applications while they are running. Because each discreet service is right-sized, it can be distributed across a variety of platforms, whether it is through a web browser, mobile device, audio channel, or bot service. I suspect that the next decade will bring new forms of interactions in human services through augmented reality and virtual reality, and our software will be there with you when those new distribution channels achieve greater maturity. In today’s world, thinking through modern applications also means thinking through the interaction users have with the applications. But as you know, the interaction you have with a mobile device is different from the interaction you have with a computer or tablet. We call each of those channels. To ensure the best experience across all channels and drive consistency across business apps and channels, we have created a Design System, ensuring a consistent user experience on all of our applications. Companies like Apple, Google, and Microsoft follow this model to ensure consistency across different channels. The Casebook Design System allows for our applications to evolve and incorporate the latest design trends into our offerings, ensuring that you will always get the best experience with our software. We live in an increasingly connected world and software like ours doesn’t operate in a bubble, and as such we have a set of open APIs, which can be used to lower the disruption and cost of integration. We’ve made connecting Casebook apps with your other systems seamless. These open APIs allow software developers to create added solutions on top of our systems. We expect to make more announcements around this in the future, as our offerings grow, and third parties start offering new apps that leverage these APIs. We’ve focused on ensuring that our technology does not stand in the way of your future. We are looking forward to future collaborations in this new decade.

On June 2, 2016, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) issued a final Comprehensive Child Welfare Information System (CCWIS) rule to replace the Statewide and Tribal Automated Child Welfare Information Systems (S/TACWIS) rule, which for more than twenty years had been the vehicle through which states sought federal assistance for funding child welfare technology efforts. This brief provides our analysis of the final rule and its implications for states and tribes seeking to modernize their technology portfolios. Note: States should consult with ACF regarding definitive interpretations of the rule. CCWIS as a Force for Innovation A key purpose of the CCWIS rule is to specify how states and tribes may obtain federal financial participation (FFP) for a CCWIS project. As with S/TACWIS, ACF determines CCWIS compliance through review and approval of a state’s or tribe’s Advance Planning Document (APD) or a Notice of Intent (for projects below the APD threshold), as well as through periodic federal monitoring. The rule does not change the APD process or the FFP rate, which remains at 50% of project costs. CCWIS, like its predecessor, is optional for states and tribes. The nature of what qualifies as a “project,” however, has changed significantly with CCWIS. Under the old S/TACWIS rules, FFP was only available to a state or tribe that developed and operated a single, large system that all public and private child welfare workers used. Moreover, ACF mandated fifty-one distinct functions that any such monolithic S/TACWIS system had to support. Under the new CCWIS rule, ACF does not specify such functional requirements. Instead, IV-E agencies are encouraged to innovate in keeping with their individual needs and practices. For example, states and tribes may obtain FFP to build smaller, more modular subsets of functionality aligned with their practice models, or perhaps with an incremental legacy system replacement plan. They might choose to obtain certain types of data through automated integrations rather than collect it within the child welfare application itself. From an implementation perspective, they might opt for a project approach based on modern Agile software development techniques, as California and other states have done. The states’ early responses to CCWIS—as embodied in procurements issued around the time the final rule was released—have already shown an eagerness to experiment with such new approaches. On June 2, 2016, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) issued a final Comprehensive Child Welfare Information System (CCWIS) rule to replace the Statewide and Tribal Automated Child Welfare Information Systems (S/TACWIS) rule, which for more than twenty years had been the vehicle through which states sought federal assistance for funding child welfare technology efforts. This brief provides our analysis of the final rule and its implications for states and tribes seeking to modernize their technology portfolios. Note: States should consult with ACF regarding definitive interpretations of the rule. CCWIS as a Force for Innovation A key purpose of the CCWIS rule is to specify how states and tribes may obtain federal financial participation (FFP) for a CCWIS project. As with S/TACWIS, ACF determines CCWIS compliance through review and approval of a state’s or tribe’s Advance Planning Document (APD) or a Notice of Intent (for projects below the APD threshold), as well as through periodic federal monitoring. The rule does not change the APD process or the FFP rate, which remains at 50% of project costs. CCWIS, like its predecessor, is optional for states and tribes. The nature of what qualifies as a “project,” however, has changed significantly with CCWIS. Under the old S/TACWIS rules, FFP was only available to a state or tribe that developed and operated a single, large system that all public and private child welfare workers used. Moreover, ACF mandated fifty-one distinct functions that any such monolithic S/TACWIS system had to support. Under the new CCWIS rule, ACF does not specify such functional requirements. Instead, IV-E agencies are encouraged to innovate in keeping with their individual needs and practices. For example, states and tribes may obtain FFP to build smaller, more modular subsets of functionality aligned with their practice models, or perhaps with an incremental legacy system replacement plan. They might choose to obtain certain types of data through automated integrations rather than collect it within the child welfare application itself. From an implementation perspective, they might opt for a project approach based on modern Agile software development techniques, as California and other states have done. The states’ early responses to CCWIS—as embodied in procurements issued around the time the final rule was released—have already shown an eagerness to experiment with such new approaches. On June 2, 2016, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) issued a final Comprehensive Child Welfare Information System (CCWIS) rule to replace the Statewide and Tribal Automated Child Welfare Information Systems (S/TACWIS) rule, which for more than twenty years had been the vehicle through which states sought federal assistance for funding child welfare technology efforts. This brief provides our analysis of the final rule and its implications for states and tribes seeking to modernize their technology portfolios. Note: States should consult with ACF regarding definitive interpretations of the rule. CCWIS as a Force for Innovation A key purpose of the CCWIS rule is to specify how states and tribes may obtain federal financial participation (FFP) for a CCWIS project. As with S/TACWIS, ACF determines CCWIS compliance through review and approval of a state’s or tribe’s Advance Planning Document (APD) or a Notice of Intent (for projects below the APD threshold), as well as through periodic federal monitoring. The rule does not change the APD process or the FFP rate, which remains at 50% of project costs. CCWIS, like its predecessor, is optional for states and tribes. The nature of what qualifies as a “project,” however, has changed significantly with CCWIS. Under the old S/TACWIS rules, FFP was only available to a state or tribe that developed and operated a single, large system that all public and private child welfare workers used. Moreover, ACF mandated fifty-one distinct functions that any such monolithic S/TACWIS system had to support. Under the new CCWIS rule, ACF does not specify such functional requirements. Instead, IV-E agencies are encouraged to innovate in keeping with their individual needs and practices. For example, states and tribes may obtain FFP to build smaller, more modular subsets of functionality aligned with their practice models, or perhaps with an incremental legacy system replacement plan. They might choose to obtain certain types of data through automated integrations rather than collect it within the child welfare application itself. From an implementation perspective, they might opt for a project approach based on modern Agile software development techniques, as California and other states have done. The states’ early responses to CCWIS—as embodied in procurements issued around the time the final rule was released—have already shown an eagerness to experiment with such new approaches. On June 2, 2016, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) issued a final Comprehensive Child Welfare Information System (CCWIS) rule to replace the Statewide and Tribal Automated Child Welfare Information Systems (S/TACWIS) rule, which for more than twenty years had been the vehicle through which states sought federal assistance for funding child welfare technology efforts. This brief provides our analysis of the final rule and its implications for states and tribes seeking to modernize their technology portfolios. Note: States should consult with ACF regarding definitive interpretations of the rule. CCWIS as a Force for Innovation A key purpose of the CCWIS rule is to specify how states and tribes may obtain federal financial participation (FFP) for a CCWIS project. As with S/TACWIS, ACF determines CCWIS compliance through review and approval of a state’s or tribe’s Advance Planning Document (APD) or a Notice of Intent (for projects below the APD threshold), as well as through periodic federal monitoring. The rule does not change the APD process or the FFP rate, which remains at 50% of project costs. CCWIS, like its predecessor, is optional for states and tribes. The nature of what qualifies as a “project,” however, has changed significantly with CCWIS. Under the old S/TACWIS rules, FFP was only available to a state or tribe that developed and operated a single, large system that all public and private child welfare workers used. Moreover, ACF mandated fifty-one distinct functions that any such monolithic S/TACWIS system had to support. Under the new CCWIS rule, ACF does not specify such functional requirements. Instead, IV-E agencies are encouraged to innovate in keeping with their individual needs and practices. For example, states and tribes may obtain FFP to build smaller, more modular subsets of functionality aligned with their practice models, or perhaps with an incremental legacy system replacement plan. They might choose to obtain certain types of data through automated integrations rather than collect it within the child welfare application itself. From an implementation perspective, they might opt for a project approach based on modern Agile software development techniques, as California and other states have done. The states’ early responses to CCWIS—as embodied in procurements issued around the time the final rule was released—have already shown an eagerness to experiment with such new approaches. On June 2, 2016, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) issued a final Comprehensive Child Welfare Information System (CCWIS) rule to replace the Statewide and Tribal Automated Child Welfare Information Systems (S/TACWIS) rule, which for more than twenty years had been the vehicle through which states sought federal assistance for funding child welfare technology efforts. This brief provides our analysis of the final rule and its implications for states and tribes seeking to modernize their technology portfolios. Note: States should consult with ACF regarding definitive interpretations of the rule. CCWIS as a Force for Innovation A key purpose of the CCWIS rule is to specify how states and tribes may obtain federal financial participation (FFP) for a CCWIS project. As with S/TACWIS, ACF determines CCWIS compliance through review and approval of a state’s or tribe’s Advance Planning Document (APD) or a Notice of Intent (for projects below the APD threshold), as well as through periodic federal monitoring. The rule does not change the APD process or the FFP rate, which remains at 50% of project costs. CCWIS, like its predecessor, is optional for states and tribes. The nature of what qualifies as a “project,” however, has changed significantly with CCWIS. Under the old S/TACWIS rules, FFP was only available to a state or tribe that developed and operated a single, large system that all public and private child welfare workers used. Moreover, ACF mandated fifty-one distinct functions that any such monolithic S/TACWIS system had to support. Under the new CCWIS rule, ACF does not specify such functional requirements. Instead, IV-E agencies are encouraged to innovate in keeping with their individual needs and practices. For example, states and tribes may obtain FFP to build smaller, more modular subsets of functionality aligned with their practice models, or perhaps with an incremental legacy system replacement plan. They might choose to obtain certain types of data through automated integrations rather than collect it within the child welfare application itself. From an implementation perspective, they might opt for a project approach based on modern Agile software development techniques, as California and other states have done. The states’ early responses to CCWIS—as embodied in procurements issued around the time the final rule was released—have already shown an eagerness to experiment with such new approaches. On June 2, 2016, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) issued a final Comprehensive Child Welfare Information System (CCWIS) rule to replace the Statewide and Tribal Automated Child Welfare Information Systems (S/TACWIS) rule, which for more than twenty years had been the vehicle through which states sought federal assistance for funding child welfare technology efforts. This brief provides our analysis of the final rule and its implications for states and tribes seeking to modernize their technology portfolios. Note: States should consult with ACF regarding definitive interpretations of the rule. CCWIS as a Force for Innovation A key purpose of the CCWIS rule is to specify how states and tribes may obtain federal financial participation (FFP) for a CCWIS project. As with S/TACWIS, ACF determines CCWIS compliance through review and approval of a state’s or tribe’s Advance Planning Document (APD) or a Notice of Intent (for projects below the APD threshold), as well as through periodic federal monitoring. The rule does not change the APD process or the FFP rate, which remains at 50% of project costs. CCWIS, like its predecessor, is optional for states and tribes. The nature of what qualifies as a “project,” however, has changed significantly with CCWIS. Under the old S/TACWIS rules, FFP was only available to a state or tribe that developed and operated a single, large system that all public and private child welfare workers used. Moreover, ACF mandated fifty-one distinct functions that any such monolithic S/TACWIS system had to support. Under the new CCWIS rule, ACF does not specify such functional requirements. Instead, IV-E agencies are encouraged to innovate in keeping with their individual needs and practices. For example, states and tribes may obtain FFP to build smaller, more modular subsets of functionality aligned with their practice models, or perhaps with an incremental legacy system replacement plan. They might choose to obtain certain types of data through automated integrations rather than collect it within the child welfare application itself. From an implementation perspective, they might opt for a project approach based on modern Agile software development techniques, as California and other states have done. The states’ early responses to CCWIS—as embodied in procurements issued around the time the final rule was released—have already shown an eagerness to experiment with such new approaches. On June 2, 2016, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) issued a final Comprehensive Child Welfare Information System (CCWIS) rule to replace the Statewide and Tribal Automated Child Welfare Information Systems (S/TACWIS) rule, which for more than twenty years had been the vehicle through which states sought federal assistance for funding child welfare technology efforts. This brief provides our analysis of the final rule and its implications for states and tribes seeking to modernize their technology portfolios. Note: States should consult with ACF regarding definitive interpretations of the rule. CCWIS as a Force for Innovation A key purpose of the CCWIS rule is to specify how states and tribes may obtain federal financial participation (FFP) for a CCWIS project. As with S/TACWIS, ACF determines CCWIS compliance through review and approval of a state’s or tribe’s Advance Planning Document (APD) or a Notice of Intent (for projects below the APD threshold), as well as through periodic federal monitoring. The rule does not change the APD process or the FFP rate, which remains at 50% of project costs. CCWIS, like its predecessor, is optional for states and tribes. The nature of what qualifies as a “project,” however, has changed significantly with CCWIS. Under the old S/TACWIS rules, FFP was only available to a state or tribe that developed and operated a single, large system that all public and private child welfare workers used. Moreover, ACF mandated fifty-one distinct functions that any such monolithic S/TACWIS system had to support. Under the new CCWIS rule, ACF does not specify such functional requirements. Instead, IV-E agencies are encouraged to innovate in keeping with their individual needs and practices. For example, states and tribes may obtain FFP to build smaller, more modular subsets of functionality aligned with their practice models, or perhaps with an incremental legacy system replacement plan. They might choose to obtain certain types of data through automated integrations rather than collect it within the child welfare application itself. From an implementation perspective, they might opt for a project approach based on modern Agile software development techniques, as California and other states have done. The states’ early responses to CCWIS—as embodied in procurements issued around the time the final rule was released—have already shown an eagerness to experiment with such new approaches. On June 2, 2016, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) issued a final Comprehensive Child Welfare Information System (CCWIS) rule to replace the Statewide and Tribal Automated Child Welfare Information Systems (S/TACWIS) rule, which for more than twenty years had been the vehicle through which states sought federal assistance for funding child welfare technology efforts. This brief provides our analysis of the final rule and its implications for states and tribes seeking to modernize their technology portfolios. Note: States should consult with ACF regarding definitive interpretations of the rule. CCWIS as a Force for Innovation A key purpose of the CCWIS rule is to specify how states and tribes may obtain federal financial participation (FFP) for a CCWIS project. As with S/TACWIS, ACF determines CCWIS compliance through review and approval of a state’s or tribe’s Advance Planning Document (APD) or a Notice of Intent (for projects below the APD threshold), as well as through periodic federal monitoring. The rule does not change the APD process or the FFP rate, which remains at 50% of project costs. CCWIS, like its predecessor, is optional for states and tribes. The nature of what qualifies as a “project,” however, has changed significantly with CCWIS. Under the old S/TACWIS rules, FFP was only available to a state or tribe that developed and operated a single, large system that all public and private child welfare workers used. Moreover, ACF mandated fifty-one distinct functions that any such monolithic S/TACWIS system had to support. Under the new CCWIS rule, ACF does not specify such functional requirements. Instead, IV-E agencies are encouraged to innovate in keeping with their individual needs and practices. For example, states and tribes may obtain FFP to build smaller, more modular subsets of functionality aligned with their practice models, or perhaps with an incremental legacy system replacement plan. They might choose to obtain certain types of data through automated integrations rather than collect it within the child welfare application itself. From an implementation perspective, they might opt for a project approach based on modern Agile software development techniques, as California and other states have done. The states’ early responses to CCWIS—as embodied in procurements issued around the time the final rule was released—have already shown an eagerness to experiment with such new approaches. On June 2, 2016, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) issued a final Comprehensive Child Welfare Information System (CCWIS) rule to replace the Statewide and Tribal Automated Child Welfare Information Systems (S/TACWIS) rule, which for more than twenty years had been the vehicle through which states sought federal assistance for funding child welfare technology efforts. This brief provides our analysis of the final rule and its implications for states and tribes seeking to modernize their technology portfolios. Note: States should consult with ACF regarding definitive interpretations of the rule. CCWIS as a Force for Innovation A key purpose of the CCWIS rule is to specify how states and tribes may obtain federal financial participation (FFP) for a CCWIS project. As with S/TACWIS, ACF determines CCWIS compliance through review and approval of a state’s or tribe’s Advance Planning Document (APD) or a Notice of Intent (for projects below the APD threshold), as well as through periodic federal monitoring. The rule does not change the APD process or the FFP rate, which remains at 50% of project costs. CCWIS, like its predecessor, is optional for states and tribes. The nature of what qualifies as a “project,” however, has changed significantly with CCWIS. Under the old S/TACWIS rules, FFP was only available to a state or tribe that developed and operated a single, large system that all public and private child welfare workers used. Moreover, ACF mandated fifty-one distinct functions that any such monolithic S/TACWIS system had to support. Under the new CCWIS rule, ACF does not specify such functional requirements. Instead, IV-E agencies are encouraged to innovate in keeping with their individual needs and practices. For example, states and tribes may obtain FFP to build smaller, more modular subsets of functionality aligned with their practice models, or perhaps with an incremental legacy system replacement plan. They might choose to obtain certain types of data through automated integrations rather than collect it within the child welfare application itself. From an implementation perspective, they might opt for a project approach based on modern Agile software development techniques, as California and other states have done. The states’ early responses to CCWIS—as embodied in procurements issued around the time the final rule was released—have already shown an eagerness to experiment with such new approaches. On June 2, 2016, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) issued a final Comprehensive Child Welfare Information System (CCWIS) rule to replace the Statewide and Tribal Automated Child Welfare Information Systems (S/TACWIS) rule, which for more than twenty years had been the vehicle through which states sought federal assistance for funding child welfare technology efforts. This brief provides our analysis of the final rule and its implications for states and tribes seeking to modernize their technology portfolios. Note: States should consult with ACF regarding definitive interpretations of the rule. CCWIS as a Force for Innovation A key purpose of the CCWIS rule is to specify how states and tribes may obtain federal financial participation (FFP) for a CCWIS project. As with S/TACWIS, ACF determines CCWIS compliance through review and approval of a state’s or tribe’s Advance Planning Document (APD) or a Notice of Intent (for projects below the APD threshold), as well as through periodic federal monitoring. The rule does not change the APD process or the FFP rate, which remains at 50% of project costs. CCWIS, like its predecessor, is optional for states and tribes. The nature of what qualifies as a “project,” however, has changed significantly with CCWIS. Under the old S/TACWIS rules, FFP was only available to a state or tribe that developed and operated a single, large system that all public and private child welfare workers used. Moreover, ACF mandated fifty-one distinct functions that any such monolithic S/TACWIS system had to support. Under the new CCWIS rule, ACF does not specify such functional requirements. Instead, IV-E agencies are encouraged to innovate in keeping with their individual needs and practices. For example, states and tribes may obtain FFP to build smaller, more modular subsets of functionality aligned with their practice models, or perhaps with an incremental legacy system replacement plan. They might choose to obtain certain types of data through automated integrations rather than collect it within the child welfare application itself. From an implementation perspective, they might opt for a project approach based on modern Agile software development techniques, as California and other states have done. The states’ early responses to CCWIS—as embodied in procurements issued around the time the final rule was released—have already shown an eagerness to experiment with such new approaches.

Let’s face it, the world of grant writing can be daunting. With RFPs, FOAs, RFAs, LOIs, EDs, PDs...it feels like alphabet soup! However, all you need is a solid strategy and a clear voice—which really entails having a strong understanding of how to navigate the world of grantmaking and how your organization can best position itself for funding. First, let’s start with the basics - What is Grantmaking? Grantmaking, simply put, is when an institution distributes funds (an award - usually a check) to an organization. There are so many resources out there to tell you how to write a grant (...like this awesome one). What’s key -- is that you’re aware of the differences in these grantmaking institutions and how they fund/distribute awards. This way, you can decide on what institution might be the best to approach depending on the strength of your organization. Grant Institutions typically fall into 3 categories: Governments - Federal, state, or local (municipalities, school districts, counties) will often post calls for nonprofit/social good organizations to complete their desired work (such as community development projects, foster care coordination, in-school or out-of-school programs/implementation, human services, etc). These grants are sourced from public funds (through the government’s budget) and are highly competitive (but often have a high award amount ~500K+ depending on the project). Government grant-opportunities typically require extensive attachments, stakeholder letters of support, evidence-based data, and proof of prior success prior to applying. Think civic good and social impact, with data-heavy, evidence-based solutions. Foundations - Private foundations are institutions that aren’t funded with public dollars (like taxes), but more so single sources (such as wealthier individuals or affluent families). Their giving programs typically require far fewer attachments and have a simpler process, but on average, distribute far fewer funds than their government counterparts. Focus areas are wide and far-reaching (from funding programmatic support, capacity-development needs, and even technology supplies). Think impact and depth, long-term solutions; foundations are most likely to fund scaling and pilot initiatives. Corporations - Corporations (like Coca-Cola, State Farm, etc.) are also private institutions, that have set up philanthropic-arms that distribute grants from a percentage of their company’s earnings. Sometimes called “corporate responsibility giving” these grant making focus areas typically are concentrated in communities where the company’s employees work, and often prefer organization’s that have employee engagement (such as volunteering, or sitting on the org board). Think scope and reach, corporate funders are most likely to fund local and employee-engagement programs. Let’s face it, the world of grant writing can be daunting. With RFPs, FOAs, RFAs, LOIs, EDs, PDs...it feels like alphabet soup! However, all you need is a solid strategy and a clear voice—which really entails having a strong understanding of how to navigate the world of grantmaking and how your organization can best position itself for funding. First, let’s start with the basics - What is Grantmaking? Grantmaking, simply put, is when an institution distributes funds (an award - usually a check) to an organization. There are so many resources out there to tell you how to write a grant (...like this awesome one). What’s key -- is that you’re aware of the differences in these grantmaking institutions and how they fund/distribute awards. This way, you can decide on what institution might be the best to approach depending on the strength of your organization. Grant Institutions typically fall into 3 categories: Governments - Federal, state, or local (municipalities, school districts, counties) will often post calls for nonprofit/social good organizations to complete their desired work (such as community development projects, foster care coordination, in-school or out-of-school programs/implementation, human services, etc). These grants are sourced from public funds (through the government’s budget) and are highly competitive (but often have a high award amount ~500K+ depending on the project). Government grant-opportunities typically require extensive attachments, stakeholder letters of support, evidence-based data, and proof of prior success prior to applying. Think civic good and social impact, with data-heavy, evidence-based solutions. Foundations - Private foundations are institutions that aren’t funded with public dollars (like taxes), but more so single sources (such as wealthier individuals or affluent families). Their giving programs typically require far fewer attachments and have a simpler process, but on average, distribute far fewer funds than their government counterparts. Focus areas are wide and far-reaching (from funding programmatic support, capacity-development needs, and even technology supplies). Think impact and depth, long-term solutions; foundations are most likely to fund scaling and pilot initiatives. Corporations - Corporations (like Coca-Cola, State Farm, etc.) are also private institutions, that have set up philanthropic-arms that distribute grants from a percentage of their company’s earnings. Sometimes called “corporate responsibility giving” these grant making focus areas typically are concentrated in communities where the company’s employees work, and often prefer organization’s that have employee engagement (such as volunteering, or sitting on the org board). Think scope and reach, corporate funders are most likely to fund local and employee-engagement programs. Let’s face it, the world of grant writing can be daunting. With RFPs, FOAs, RFAs, LOIs, EDs, PDs...it feels like alphabet soup! However, all you need is a solid strategy and a clear voice—which really entails having a strong understanding of how to navigate the world of grantmaking and how your organization can best position itself for funding. First, let’s start with the basics - What is Grantmaking? Grantmaking, simply put, is when an institution distributes funds (an award - usually a check) to an organization. There are so many resources out there to tell you how to write a grant (...like this awesome one). What’s key -- is that you’re aware of the differences in these grantmaking institutions and how they fund/distribute awards. This way, you can decide on what institution might be the best to approach depending on the strength of your organization. Grant Institutions typically fall into 3 categories: Governments - Federal, state, or local (municipalities, school districts, counties) will often post calls for nonprofit/social good organizations to complete their desired work (such as community development projects, foster care coordination, in-school or out-of-school programs/implementation, human services, etc). These grants are sourced from public funds (through the government’s budget) and are highly competitive (but often have a high award amount ~500K+ depending on the project). Government grant-opportunities typically require extensive attachments, stakeholder letters of support, evidence-based data, and proof of prior success prior to applying. Think civic good and social impact, with data-heavy, evidence-based solutions. Foundations - Private foundations are institutions that aren’t funded with public dollars (like taxes), but more so single sources (such as wealthier individuals or affluent families). Their giving programs typically require far fewer attachments and have a simpler process, but on average, distribute far fewer funds than their government counterparts. Focus areas are wide and far-reaching (from funding programmatic support, capacity-development needs, and even technology supplies). Think impact and depth, long-term solutions; foundations are most likely to fund scaling and pilot initiatives. Corporations - Corporations (like Coca-Cola, State Farm, etc.) are also private institutions, that have set up philanthropic-arms that distribute grants from a percentage of their company’s earnings. Sometimes called “corporate responsibility giving” these grant making focus areas typically are concentrated in communities where the company’s employees work, and often prefer organization’s that have employee engagement (such as volunteering, or sitting on the org board). Think scope and reach, corporate funders are most likely to fund local and employee-engagement programs. Let’s face it, the world of grant writing can be daunting. With RFPs, FOAs, RFAs, LOIs, EDs, PDs...it feels like alphabet soup! However, all you need is a solid strategy and a clear voice—which really entails having a strong understanding of how to navigate the world of grantmaking and how your organization can best position itself for funding. First, let’s start with the basics - What is Grantmaking? Grantmaking, simply put, is when an institution distributes funds (an award - usually a check) to an organization. There are so many resources out there to tell you how to write a grant (...like this awesome one). What’s key -- is that you’re aware of the differences in these grantmaking institutions and how they fund/distribute awards. This way, you can decide on what institution might be the best to approach depending on the strength of your organization. Grant Institutions typically fall into 3 categories: Governments - Federal, state, or local (municipalities, school districts, counties) will often post calls for nonprofit/social good organizations to complete their desired work (such as community development projects, foster care coordination, in-school or out-of-school programs/implementation, human services, etc). These grants are sourced from public funds (through the government’s budget) and are highly competitive (but often have a high award amount ~500K+ depending on the project). Government grant-opportunities typically require extensive attachments, stakeholder letters of support, evidence-based data, and proof of prior success prior to applying. Think civic good and social impact, with data-heavy, evidence-based solutions. Foundations - Private foundations are institutions that aren’t funded with public dollars (like taxes), but more so single sources (such as wealthier individuals or affluent families). Their giving programs typically require far fewer attachments and have a simpler process, but on average, distribute far fewer funds than their government counterparts. Focus areas are wide and far-reaching (from funding programmatic support, capacity-development needs, and even technology supplies). Think impact and depth, long-term solutions; foundations are most likely to fund scaling and pilot initiatives. Corporations - Corporations (like Coca-Cola, State Farm, etc.) are also private institutions, that have set up philanthropic-arms that distribute grants from a percentage of their company’s earnings. Sometimes called “corporate responsibility giving” these grant making focus areas typically are concentrated in communities where the company’s employees work, and often prefer organization’s that have employee engagement (such as volunteering, or sitting on the org board). Think scope and reach, corporate funders are most likely to fund local and employee-engagement programs. Let’s face it, the world of grant writing can be daunting. With RFPs, FOAs, RFAs, LOIs, EDs, PDs...it feels like alphabet soup! However, all you need is a solid strategy and a clear voice—which really entails having a strong understanding of how to navigate the world of grantmaking and how your organization can best position itself for funding. First, let’s start with the basics - What is Grantmaking? Grantmaking, simply put, is when an institution distributes funds (an award - usually a check) to an organization. There are so many resources out there to tell you how to write a grant (...like this awesome one). What’s key -- is that you’re aware of the differences in these grantmaking institutions and how they fund/distribute awards. This way, you can decide on what institution might be the best to approach depending on the strength of your organization. Grant Institutions typically fall into 3 categories: Governments - Federal, state, or local (municipalities, school districts, counties) will often post calls for nonprofit/social good organizations to complete their desired work (such as community development projects, foster care coordination, in-school or out-of-school programs/implementation, human services, etc). These grants are sourced from public funds (through the government’s budget) and are highly competitive (but often have a high award amount ~500K+ depending on the project). Government grant-opportunities typically require extensive attachments, stakeholder letters of support, evidence-based data, and proof of prior success prior to applying. Think civic good and social impact, with data-heavy, evidence-based solutions. Foundations - Private foundations are institutions that aren’t funded with public dollars (like taxes), but more so single sources (such as wealthier individuals or affluent families). Their giving programs typically require far fewer attachments and have a simpler process, but on average, distribute far fewer funds than their government counterparts. Focus areas are wide and far-reaching (from funding programmatic support, capacity-development needs, and even technology supplies). Think impact and depth, long-term solutions; foundations are most likely to fund scaling and pilot initiatives. Corporations - Corporations (like Coca-Cola, State Farm, etc.) are also private institutions, that have set up philanthropic-arms that distribute grants from a percentage of their company’s earnings. Sometimes called “corporate responsibility giving” these grant making focus areas typically are concentrated in communities where the company’s employees work, and often prefer organization’s that have employee engagement (such as volunteering, or sitting on the org board). Think scope and reach, corporate funders are most likely to fund local and employee-engagement programs. Let’s face it, the world of grant writing can be daunting. With RFPs, FOAs, RFAs, LOIs, EDs, PDs...it feels like alphabet soup! However, all you need is a solid strategy and a clear voice—which really entails having a strong understanding of how to navigate the world of grantmaking and how your organization can best position itself for funding. First, let’s start with the basics - What is Grantmaking? Grantmaking, simply put, is when an institution distributes funds (an award - usually a check) to an organization. There are so many resources out there to tell you how to write a grant (...like this awesome one). What’s key -- is that you’re aware of the differences in these grantmaking institutions and how they fund/distribute awards. This way, you can decide on what institution might be the best to approach depending on the strength of your organization. Grant Institutions typically fall into 3 categories: Governments - Federal, state, or local (municipalities, school districts, counties) will often post calls for nonprofit/social good organizations to complete their desired work (such as community development projects, foster care coordination, in-school or out-of-school programs/implementation, human services, etc). These grants are sourced from public funds (through the government’s budget) and are highly competitive (but often have a high award amount ~500K+ depending on the project). Government grant-opportunities typically require extensive attachments, stakeholder letters of support, evidence-based data, and proof of prior success prior to applying. Think civic good and social impact, with data-heavy, evidence-based solutions. Foundations - Private foundations are institutions that aren’t funded with public dollars (like taxes), but more so single sources (such as wealthier individuals or affluent families). Their giving programs typically require far fewer attachments and have a simpler process, but on average, distribute far fewer funds than their government counterparts. Focus areas are wide and far-reaching (from funding programmatic support, capacity-development needs, and even technology supplies). Think impact and depth, long-term solutions; foundations are most likely to fund scaling and pilot initiatives. Corporations - Corporations (like Coca-Cola, State Farm, etc.) are also private institutions, that have set up philanthropic-arms that distribute grants from a percentage of their company’s earnings. Sometimes called “corporate responsibility giving” these grant making focus areas typically are concentrated in communities where the company’s employees work, and often prefer organization’s that have employee engagement (such as volunteering, or sitting on the org board). Think scope and reach, corporate funders are most likely to fund local and employee-engagement programs. Let’s face it, the world of grant writing can be daunting. With RFPs, FOAs, RFAs, LOIs, EDs, PDs...it feels like alphabet soup! However, all you need is a solid strategy and a clear voice—which really entails having a strong understanding of how to navigate the world of grantmaking and how your organization can best position itself for funding. First, let’s start with the basics - What is Grantmaking? Grantmaking, simply put, is when an institution distributes funds (an award - usually a check) to an organization. There are so many resources out there to tell you how to write a grant (...like this awesome one). What’s key -- is that you’re aware of the differences in these grantmaking institutions and how they fund/distribute awards. This way, you can decide on what institution might be the best to approach depending on the strength of your organization. Grant Institutions typically fall into 3 categories: Governments - Federal, state, or local (municipalities, school districts, counties) will often post calls for nonprofit/social good organizations to complete their desired work (such as community development projects, foster care coordination, in-school or out-of-school programs/implementation, human services, etc). These grants are sourced from public funds (through the government’s budget) and are highly competitive (but often have a high award amount ~500K+ depending on the project). Government grant-opportunities typically require extensive attachments, stakeholder letters of support, evidence-based data, and proof of prior success prior to applying. Think civic good and social impact, with data-heavy, evidence-based solutions. Foundations - Private foundations are institutions that aren’t funded with public dollars (like taxes), but more so single sources (such as wealthier individuals or affluent families). Their giving programs typically require far fewer attachments and have a simpler process, but on average, distribute far fewer funds than their government counterparts. Focus areas are wide and far-reaching (from funding programmatic support, capacity-development needs, and even technology supplies). Think impact and depth, long-term solutions; foundations are most likely to fund scaling and pilot initiatives. Corporations - Corporations (like Coca-Cola, State Farm, etc.) are also private institutions, that have set up philanthropic-arms that distribute grants from a percentage of their company’s earnings. Sometimes called “corporate responsibility giving” these grant making focus areas typically are concentrated in communities where the company’s employees work, and often prefer organization’s that have employee engagement (such as volunteering, or sitting on the org board). Think scope and reach, corporate funders are most likely to fund local and employee-engagement programs. Let’s face it, the world of grant writing can be daunting. With RFPs, FOAs, RFAs, LOIs, EDs, PDs...it feels like alphabet soup! However, all you need is a solid strategy and a clear voice—which really entails having a strong understanding of how to navigate the world of grantmaking and how your organization can best position itself for funding. First, let’s start with the basics - What is Grantmaking? Grantmaking, simply put, is when an institution distributes funds (an award - usually a check) to an organization. There are so many resources out there to tell you how to write a grant (...like this awesome one). What’s key -- is that you’re aware of the differences in these grantmaking institutions and how they fund/distribute awards. This way, you can decide on what institution might be the best to approach depending on the strength of your organization. Grant Institutions typically fall into 3 categories: Governments - Federal, state, or local (municipalities, school districts, counties) will often post calls for nonprofit/social good organizations to complete their desired work (such as community development projects, foster care coordination, in-school or out-of-school programs/implementation, human services, etc). These grants are sourced from public funds (through the government’s budget) and are highly competitive (but often have a high award amount ~500K+ depending on the project). Government grant-opportunities typically require extensive attachments, stakeholder letters of support, evidence-based data, and proof of prior success prior to applying. Think civic good and social impact, with data-heavy, evidence-based solutions. Foundations - Private foundations are institutions that aren’t funded with public dollars (like taxes), but more so single sources (such as wealthier individuals or affluent families). Their giving programs typically require far fewer attachments and have a simpler process, but on average, distribute far fewer funds than their government counterparts. Focus areas are wide and far-reaching (from funding programmatic support, capacity-development needs, and even technology supplies). Think impact and depth, long-term solutions; foundations are most likely to fund scaling and pilot initiatives. Corporations - Corporations (like Coca-Cola, State Farm, etc.) are also private institutions, that have set up philanthropic-arms that distribute grants from a percentage of their company’s earnings. Sometimes called “corporate responsibility giving” these grant making focus areas typically are concentrated in communities where the company’s employees work, and often prefer organization’s that have employee engagement (such as volunteering, or sitting on the org board). Think scope and reach, corporate funders are most likely to fund local and employee-engagement programs. Let’s face it, the world of grant writing can be daunting. With RFPs, FOAs, RFAs, LOIs, EDs, PDs...it feels like alphabet soup! However, all you need is a solid strategy and a clear voice—which really entails having a strong understanding of how to navigate the world of grantmaking and how your organization can best position itself for funding. First, let’s start with the basics - What is Grantmaking? Grantmaking, simply put, is when an institution distributes funds (an award - usually a check) to an organization. There are so many resources out there to tell you how to write a grant (...like this awesome one). What’s key -- is that you’re aware of the differences in these grantmaking institutions and how they fund/distribute awards. This way, you can decide on what institution might be the best to approach depending on the strength of your organization. Grant Institutions typically fall into 3 categories: Governments - Federal, state, or local (municipalities, school districts, counties) will often post calls for nonprofit/social good organizations to complete their desired work (such as community development projects, foster care coordination, in-school or out-of-school programs/implementation, human services, etc). These grants are sourced from public funds (through the government’s budget) and are highly competitive (but often have a high award amount ~500K+ depending on the project). Government grant-opportunities typically require extensive attachments, stakeholder letters of support, evidence-based data, and proof of prior success prior to applying. Think civic good and social impact, with data-heavy, evidence-based solutions. Foundations - Private foundations are institutions that aren’t funded with public dollars (like taxes), but more so single sources (such as wealthier individuals or affluent families). Their giving programs typically require far fewer attachments and have a simpler process, but on average, distribute far fewer funds than their government counterparts. Focus areas are wide and far-reaching (from funding programmatic support, capacity-development needs, and even technology supplies). Think impact and depth, long-term solutions; foundations are most likely to fund scaling and pilot initiatives. Corporations - Corporations (like Coca-Cola, State Farm, etc.) are also private institutions, that have set up philanthropic-arms that distribute grants from a percentage of their company’s earnings. Sometimes called “corporate responsibility giving” these grant making focus areas typically are concentrated in communities where the company’s employees work, and often prefer organization’s that have employee engagement (such as volunteering, or sitting on the org board). Think scope and reach, corporate funders are most likely to fund local and employee-engagement programs. Let’s face it, the world of grant writing can be daunting. With RFPs, FOAs, RFAs, LOIs, EDs, PDs...it feels like alphabet soup! However, all you need is a solid strategy and a clear voice—which really entails having a strong understanding of how to navigate the world of grantmaking and how your organization can best position itself for funding. First, let’s start with the basics - What is Grantmaking? Grantmaking, simply put, is when an institution distributes funds (an award - usually a check) to an organization. There are so many resources out there to tell you how to write a grant (...like this awesome one). What’s key -- is that you’re aware of the differences in these grantmaking institutions and how they fund/distribute awards. This way, you can decide on what institution might be the best to approach depending on the strength of your organization. Grant Institutions typically fall into 3 categories: Governments - Federal, state, or local (municipalities, school districts, counties) will often post calls for nonprofit/social good organizations to complete their desired work (such as community development projects, foster care coordination, in-school or out-of-school programs/implementation, human services, etc). These grants are sourced from public funds (through the government’s budget) and are highly competitive (but often have a high award amount ~500K+ depending on the project). Government grant-opportunities typically require extensive attachments, stakeholder letters of support, evidence-based data, and proof of prior success prior to applying. Think civic good and social impact, with data-heavy, evidence-based solutions. Foundations - Private foundations are institutions that aren’t funded with public dollars (like taxes), but more so single sources (such as wealthier individuals or affluent families). Their giving programs typically require far fewer attachments and have a simpler process, but on average, distribute far fewer funds than their government counterparts. Focus areas are wide and far-reaching (from funding programmatic support, capacity-development needs, and even technology supplies). Think impact and depth, long-term solutions; foundations are most likely to fund scaling and pilot initiatives. Corporations - Corporations (like Coca-Cola, State Farm, etc.) are also private institutions, that have set up philanthropic-arms that distribute grants from a percentage of their company’s earnings. Sometimes called “corporate responsibility giving” these grant making focus areas typically are concentrated in communities where the company’s employees work, and often prefer organization’s that have employee engagement (such as volunteering, or sitting on the org board). Think scope and reach, corporate funders are most likely to fund local and employee-engagement programs.

Maryellen Hess Cameron spent over 25 years as the Executive Director of non-profit agencies in the social.... You might be one of those people who think a family is homeless just because it doesn’t have a place to live. Technically you are correct, but that doesn’t mean the family is eligible for housing for homeless people. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides the lion’s share of funding for homeless programs, making it the final arbiter of who counts as homeless. Before you read further let me clarify that homelessness is not an eligibility factor for Public Housing Authority housing and Housing Choice Vouchers. Every client you serve who is homeless or low-income may be eligible and benefit from it’s long term stability. But it can take years to move up the Housing Authority waiting lists. If you have clients who are literally homeless, they may qualify for another pool of money designed specifically for people who experience literal homelessness. The programs for literally homeless people flow through local Continuum of Care programs (CoC) to nonprofit housing agencies. That is, they are sleeping in places not meant for human habitation. That could be sleeping in their car, under a highway overpass or in an abandoned building. Residents of homeless shelters retain their homeless status. Sleeping under a bridge still might not be enough to get CoC help. HUD established a funding preference for people who have repeated or lengthy episodes of homelessness. If your client meets this criteria, they might just be homeless enough to qualify for this program and a relatively short waiting list. This article explains HUD’s definition of chronic homelessness, documentation you will need, and advice for collecting it in Casebook. Categories of Homelessness HUD has four categories of homelessness. Only Categories 1 and 4 are relevant to HUD programs for CoC funds for homeless people. Clients must fall into Category 1 if they are seeking long-term housing assistance. For example, they want a rent subsidy that will not expire for as long as they need it, (assuming they follow program guidelines.) Category 1: Literally Homeless Literal homeless, which is the most restrictive category for eligibility. Individuals or families enter one of the permanent programs if they are in at least one of the following situations: A homeless shelter designed to provide temporary living arrangements OR Living on the streets, in cars, abandoned buildings or other places not fit for human habitation Exceptions that don’t end their status as literally homeless: They entered an institution from the streets and leave within 90 days of entering it, and they will return to the streets or a shelter. Institutions include a jail, hospital or nursing home. They have a room in a motel room that is paid for by a non-profit or a government program. Maryellen Hess Cameron spent over 25 years as the Executive Director of non-profit agencies in the social.... You might be one of those people who think a family is homeless just because it doesn’t have a place to live. Technically you are correct, but that doesn’t mean the family is eligible for housing for homeless people. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides the lion’s share of funding for homeless programs, making it the final arbiter of who counts as homeless. Before you read further let me clarify that homelessness is not an eligibility factor for Public Housing Authority housing and Housing Choice Vouchers. Every client you serve who is homeless or low-income may be eligible and benefit from it’s long term stability. But it can take years to move up the Housing Authority waiting lists. If you have clients who are literally homeless, they may qualify for another pool of money designed specifically for people who experience literal homelessness. The programs for literally homeless people flow through local Continuum of Care programs (CoC) to nonprofit housing agencies. That is, they are sleeping in places not meant for human habitation. That could be sleeping in their car, under a highway overpass or in an abandoned building. Residents of homeless shelters retain their homeless status. Sleeping under a bridge still might not be enough to get CoC help. HUD established a funding preference for people who have repeated or lengthy episodes of homelessness. If your client meets this criteria, they might just be homeless enough to qualify for this program and a relatively short waiting list. This article explains HUD’s definition of chronic homelessness, documentation you will need, and advice for collecting it in Casebook. Categories of Homelessness HUD has four categories of homelessness. Only Categories 1 and 4 are relevant to HUD programs for CoC funds for homeless people. Clients must fall into Category 1 if they are seeking long-term housing assistance. For example, they want a rent subsidy that will not expire for as long as they need it, (assuming they follow program guidelines.) Category 1: Literally Homeless Literal homeless, which is the most restrictive category for eligibility. Individuals or families enter one of the permanent programs if they are in at least one of the following situations: A homeless shelter designed to provide temporary living arrangements OR Living on the streets, in cars, abandoned buildings or other places not fit for human habitation Exceptions that don’t end their status as literally homeless: They entered an institution from the streets and leave within 90 days of entering it, and they will return to the streets or a shelter. Institutions include a jail, hospital or nursing home. They have a room in a motel room that is paid for by a non-profit or a government program. Maryellen Hess Cameron spent over 25 years as the Executive Director of non-profit agencies in the social.... You might be one of those people who think a family is homeless just because it doesn’t have a place to live. Technically you are correct, but that doesn’t mean the family is eligible for housing for homeless people. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides the lion’s share of funding for homeless programs, making it the final arbiter of who counts as homeless. Before you read further let me clarify that homelessness is not an eligibility factor for Public Housing Authority housing and Housing Choice Vouchers. Every client you serve who is homeless or low-income may be eligible and benefit from it’s long term stability. But it can take years to move up the Housing Authority waiting lists. If you have clients who are literally homeless, they may qualify for another pool of money designed specifically for people who experience literal homelessness. The programs for literally homeless people flow through local Continuum of Care programs (CoC) to nonprofit housing agencies. That is, they are sleeping in places not meant for human habitation. That could be sleeping in their car, under a highway overpass or in an abandoned building. Residents of homeless shelters retain their homeless status. Sleeping under a bridge still might not be enough to get CoC help. HUD established a funding preference for people who have repeated or lengthy episodes of homelessness. If your client meets this criteria, they might just be homeless enough to qualify for this program and a relatively short waiting list. This article explains HUD’s definition of chronic homelessness, documentation you will need, and advice for collecting it in Casebook. Categories of Homelessness HUD has four categories of homelessness. Only Categories 1 and 4 are relevant to HUD programs for CoC funds for homeless people. Clients must fall into Category 1 if they are seeking long-term housing assistance. For example, they want a rent subsidy that will not expire for as long as they need it, (assuming they follow program guidelines.) Category 1: Literally Homeless Literal homeless, which is the most restrictive category for eligibility. Individuals or families enter one of the permanent programs if they are in at least one of the following situations: A homeless shelter designed to provide temporary living arrangements OR Living on the streets, in cars, abandoned buildings or other places not fit for human habitation Exceptions that don’t end their status as literally homeless: They entered an institution from the streets and leave within 90 days of entering it, and they will return to the streets or a shelter. Institutions include a jail, hospital or nursing home. They have a room in a motel room that is paid for by a non-profit or a government program. Maryellen Hess Cameron spent over 25 years as the Executive Director of non-profit agencies in the social.... You might be one of those people who think a family is homeless just because it doesn’t have a place to live. Technically you are correct, but that doesn’t mean the family is eligible for housing for homeless people. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides the lion’s share of funding for homeless programs, making it the final arbiter of who counts as homeless. Before you read further let me clarify that homelessness is not an eligibility factor for Public Housing Authority housing and Housing Choice Vouchers. Every client you serve who is homeless or low-income may be eligible and benefit from it’s long term stability. But it can take years to move up the Housing Authority waiting lists. If you have clients who are literally homeless, they may qualify for another pool of money designed specifically for people who experience literal homelessness. The programs for literally homeless people flow through local Continuum of Care programs (CoC) to nonprofit housing agencies. That is, they are sleeping in places not meant for human habitation. That could be sleeping in their car, under a highway overpass or in an abandoned building. Residents of homeless shelters retain their homeless status. Sleeping under a bridge still might not be enough to get CoC help. HUD established a funding preference for people who have repeated or lengthy episodes of homelessness. If your client meets this criteria, they might just be homeless enough to qualify for this program and a relatively short waiting list. This article explains HUD’s definition of chronic homelessness, documentation you will need, and advice for collecting it in Casebook. Categories of Homelessness HUD has four categories of homelessness. Only Categories 1 and 4 are relevant to HUD programs for CoC funds for homeless people. Clients must fall into Category 1 if they are seeking long-term housing assistance. For example, they want a rent subsidy that will not expire for as long as they need it, (assuming they follow program guidelines.) Category 1: Literally Homeless Literal homeless, which is the most restrictive category for eligibility. Individuals or families enter one of the permanent programs if they are in at least one of the following situations: A homeless shelter designed to provide temporary living arrangements OR Living on the streets, in cars, abandoned buildings or other places not fit for human habitation Exceptions that don’t end their status as literally homeless: They entered an institution from the streets and leave within 90 days of entering it, and they will return to the streets or a shelter. Institutions include a jail, hospital or nursing home. They have a room in a motel room that is paid for by a non-profit or a government program. Maryellen Hess Cameron spent over 25 years as the Executive Director of non-profit agencies in the social.... You might be one of those people who think a family is homeless just because it doesn’t have a place to live. Technically you are correct, but that doesn’t mean the family is eligible for housing for homeless people. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides the lion’s share of funding for homeless programs, making it the final arbiter of who counts as homeless. Before you read further let me clarify that homelessness is not an eligibility factor for Public Housing Authority housing and Housing Choice Vouchers. Every client you serve who is homeless or low-income may be eligible and benefit from it’s long term stability. But it can take years to move up the Housing Authority waiting lists. If you have clients who are literally homeless, they may qualify for another pool of money designed specifically for people who experience literal homelessness. The programs for literally homeless people flow through local Continuum of Care programs (CoC) to nonprofit housing agencies. That is, they are sleeping in places not meant for human habitation. That could be sleeping in their car, under a highway overpass or in an abandoned building. Residents of homeless shelters retain their homeless status. Sleeping under a bridge still might not be enough to get CoC help. HUD established a funding preference for people who have repeated or lengthy episodes of homelessness. If your client meets this criteria, they might just be homeless enough to qualify for this program and a relatively short waiting list. This article explains HUD’s definition of chronic homelessness, documentation you will need, and advice for collecting it in Casebook. Categories of Homelessness HUD has four categories of homelessness. Only Categories 1 and 4 are relevant to HUD programs for CoC funds for homeless people. Clients must fall into Category 1 if they are seeking long-term housing assistance. For example, they want a rent subsidy that will not expire for as long as they need it, (assuming they follow program guidelines.) Category 1: Literally Homeless Literal homeless, which is the most restrictive category for eligibility. Individuals or families enter one of the permanent programs if they are in at least one of the following situations: A homeless shelter designed to provide temporary living arrangements OR Living on the streets, in cars, abandoned buildings or other places not fit for human habitation Exceptions that don’t end their status as literally homeless: They entered an institution from the streets and leave within 90 days of entering it, and they will return to the streets or a shelter. Institutions include a jail, hospital or nursing home. They have a room in a motel room that is paid for by a non-profit or a government program. Maryellen Hess Cameron spent over 25 years as the Executive Director of non-profit agencies in the social.... You might be one of those people who think a family is homeless just because it doesn’t have a place to live. Technically you are correct, but that doesn’t mean the family is eligible for housing for homeless people. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides the lion’s share of funding for homeless programs, making it the final arbiter of who counts as homeless. Before you read further let me clarify that homelessness is not an eligibility factor for Public Housing Authority housing and Housing Choice Vouchers. Every client you serve who is homeless or low-income may be eligible and benefit from it’s long term stability. But it can take years to move up the Housing Authority waiting lists. If you have clients who are literally homeless, they may qualify for another pool of money designed specifically for people who experience literal homelessness. The programs for literally homeless people flow through local Continuum of Care programs (CoC) to nonprofit housing agencies. That is, they are sleeping in places not meant for human habitation. That could be sleeping in their car, under a highway overpass or in an abandoned building. Residents of homeless shelters retain their homeless status. Sleeping under a bridge still might not be enough to get CoC help. HUD established a funding preference for people who have repeated or lengthy episodes of homelessness. If your client meets this criteria, they might just be homeless enough to qualify for this program and a relatively short waiting list. This article explains HUD’s definition of chronic homelessness, documentation you will need, and advice for collecting it in Casebook. Categories of Homelessness HUD has four categories of homelessness. Only Categories 1 and 4 are relevant to HUD programs for CoC funds for homeless people. Clients must fall into Category 1 if they are seeking long-term housing assistance. For example, they want a rent subsidy that will not expire for as long as they need it, (assuming they follow program guidelines.) Category 1: Literally Homeless Literal homeless, which is the most restrictive category for eligibility. Individuals or families enter one of the permanent programs if they are in at least one of the following situations: A homeless shelter designed to provide temporary living arrangements OR Living on the streets, in cars, abandoned buildings or other places not fit for human habitation Exceptions that don’t end their status as literally homeless: They entered an institution from the streets and leave within 90 days of entering it, and they will return to the streets or a shelter. Institutions include a jail, hospital or nursing home. They have a room in a motel room that is paid for by a non-profit or a government program. Maryellen Hess Cameron spent over 25 years as the Executive Director of non-profit agencies in the social.... You might be one of those people who think a family is homeless just because it doesn’t have a place to live. Technically you are correct, but that doesn’t mean the family is eligible for housing for homeless people. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides the lion’s share of funding for homeless programs, making it the final arbiter of who counts as homeless. Before you read further let me clarify that homelessness is not an eligibility factor for Public Housing Authority housing and Housing Choice Vouchers. Every client you serve who is homeless or low-income may be eligible and benefit from it’s long term stability. But it can take years to move up the Housing Authority waiting lists. If you have clients who are literally homeless, they may qualify for another pool of money designed specifically for people who experience literal homelessness. The programs for literally homeless people flow through local Continuum of Care programs (CoC) to nonprofit housing agencies. That is, they are sleeping in places not meant for human habitation. That could be sleeping in their car, under a highway overpass or in an abandoned building. Residents of homeless shelters retain their homeless status. Sleeping under a bridge still might not be enough to get CoC help. HUD established a funding preference for people who have repeated or lengthy episodes of homelessness. If your client meets this criteria, they might just be homeless enough to qualify for this program and a relatively short waiting list. This article explains HUD’s definition of chronic homelessness, documentation you will need, and advice for collecting it in Casebook. Categories of Homelessness HUD has four categories of homelessness. Only Categories 1 and 4 are relevant to HUD programs for CoC funds for homeless people. Clients must fall into Category 1 if they are seeking long-term housing assistance. For example, they want a rent subsidy that will not expire for as long as they need it, (assuming they follow program guidelines.) Category 1: Literally Homeless Literal homeless, which is the most restrictive category for eligibility. Individuals or families enter one of the permanent programs if they are in at least one of the following situations: A homeless shelter designed to provide temporary living arrangements OR Living on the streets, in cars, abandoned buildings or other places not fit for human habitation Exceptions that don’t end their status as literally homeless: They entered an institution from the streets and leave within 90 days of entering it, and they will return to the streets or a shelter. Institutions include a jail, hospital or nursing home. They have a room in a motel room that is paid for by a non-profit or a government program. Maryellen Hess Cameron spent over 25 years as the Executive Director of non-profit agencies in the social.... You might be one of those people who think a family is homeless just because it doesn’t have a place to live. Technically you are correct, but that doesn’t mean the family is eligible for housing for homeless people. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides the lion’s share of funding for homeless programs, making it the final arbiter of who counts as homeless. Before you read further let me clarify that homelessness is not an eligibility factor for Public Housing Authority housing and Housing Choice Vouchers. Every client you serve who is homeless or low-income may be eligible and benefit from it’s long term stability. But it can take years to move up the Housing Authority waiting lists. If you have clients who are literally homeless, they may qualify for another pool of money designed specifically for people who experience literal homelessness. The programs for literally homeless people flow through local Continuum of Care programs (CoC) to nonprofit housing agencies. That is, they are sleeping in places not meant for human habitation. That could be sleeping in their car, under a highway overpass or in an abandoned building. Residents of homeless shelters retain their homeless status. Sleeping under a bridge still might not be enough to get CoC help. HUD established a funding preference for people who have repeated or lengthy episodes of homelessness. If your client meets this criteria, they might just be homeless enough to qualify for this program and a relatively short waiting list. This article explains HUD’s definition of chronic homelessness, documentation you will need, and advice for collecting it in Casebook. Categories of Homelessness HUD has four categories of homelessness. Only Categories 1 and 4 are relevant to HUD programs for CoC funds for homeless people. Clients must fall into Category 1 if they are seeking long-term housing assistance. For example, they want a rent subsidy that will not expire for as long as they need it, (assuming they follow program guidelines.) Category 1: Literally Homeless Literal homeless, which is the most restrictive category for eligibility. Individuals or families enter one of the permanent programs if they are in at least one of the following situations: A homeless shelter designed to provide temporary living arrangements OR Living on the streets, in cars, abandoned buildings or other places not fit for human habitation Exceptions that don’t end their status as literally homeless: They entered an institution from the streets and leave within 90 days of entering it, and they will return to the streets or a shelter. Institutions include a jail, hospital or nursing home. They have a room in a motel room that is paid for by a non-profit or a government program. Maryellen Hess Cameron spent over 25 years as the Executive Director of non-profit agencies in the social.... You might be one of those people who think a family is homeless just because it doesn’t have a place to live. Technically you are correct, but that doesn’t mean the family is eligible for housing for homeless people. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides the lion’s share of funding for homeless programs, making it the final arbiter of who counts as homeless. Before you read further let me clarify that homelessness is not an eligibility factor for Public Housing Authority housing and Housing Choice Vouchers. Every client you serve who is homeless or low-income may be eligible and benefit from it’s long term stability. But it can take years to move up the Housing Authority waiting lists. If you have clients who are literally homeless, they may qualify for another pool of money designed specifically for people who experience literal homelessness. The programs for literally homeless people flow through local Continuum of Care programs (CoC) to nonprofit housing agencies. That is, they are sleeping in places not meant for human habitation. That could be sleeping in their car, under a highway overpass or in an abandoned building. Residents of homeless shelters retain their homeless status. Sleeping under a bridge still might not be enough to get CoC help. HUD established a funding preference for people who have repeated or lengthy episodes of homelessness. If your client meets this criteria, they might just be homeless enough to qualify for this program and a relatively short waiting list. This article explains HUD’s definition of chronic homelessness, documentation you will need, and advice for collecting it in Casebook. Categories of Homelessness HUD has four categories of homelessness. Only Categories 1 and 4 are relevant to HUD programs for CoC funds for homeless people. Clients must fall into Category 1 if they are seeking long-term housing assistance. For example, they want a rent subsidy that will not expire for as long as they need it, (assuming they follow program guidelines.) Category 1: Literally Homeless Literal homeless, which is the most restrictive category for eligibility. Individuals or families enter one of the permanent programs if they are in at least one of the following situations: A homeless shelter designed to provide temporary living arrangements OR Living on the streets, in cars, abandoned buildings or other places not fit for human habitation Exceptions that don’t end their status as literally homeless: They entered an institution from the streets and leave within 90 days of entering it, and they will return to the streets or a shelter. Institutions include a jail, hospital or nursing home. They have a room in a motel room that is paid for by a non-profit or a government program. Maryellen Hess Cameron spent over 25 years as the Executive Director of non-profit agencies in the social.... You might be one of those people who think a family is homeless just because it doesn’t have a place to live. Technically you are correct, but that doesn’t mean the family is eligible for housing for homeless people. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides the lion’s share of funding for homeless programs, making it the final arbiter of who counts as homeless. Before you read further let me clarify that homelessness is not an eligibility factor for Public Housing Authority housing and Housing Choice Vouchers. Every client you serve who is homeless or low-income may be eligible and benefit from it’s long term stability. But it can take years to move up the Housing Authority waiting lists. If you have clients who are literally homeless, they may qualify for another pool of money designed specifically for people who experience literal homelessness. The programs for literally homeless people flow through local Continuum of Care programs (CoC) to nonprofit housing agencies. That is, they are sleeping in places not meant for human habitation. That could be sleeping in their car, under a highway overpass or in an abandoned building. Residents of homeless shelters retain their homeless status. Sleeping under a bridge still might not be enough to get CoC help. HUD established a funding preference for people who have repeated or lengthy episodes of homelessness. If your client meets this criteria, they might just be homeless enough to qualify for this program and a relatively short waiting list. This article explains HUD’s definition of chronic homelessness, documentation you will need, and advice for collecting it in Casebook. Categories of Homelessness HUD has four categories of homelessness. Only Categories 1 and 4 are relevant to HUD programs for CoC funds for homeless people. Clients must fall into Category 1 if they are seeking long-term housing assistance. For example, they want a rent subsidy that will not expire for as long as they need it, (assuming they follow program guidelines.) Category 1: Literally Homeless Literal homeless, which is the most restrictive category for eligibility. Individuals or families enter one of the permanent programs if they are in at least one of the following situations: A homeless shelter designed to provide temporary living arrangements OR Living on the streets, in cars, abandoned buildings or other places not fit for human habitation Exceptions that don’t end their status as literally homeless: They entered an institution from the streets and leave within 90 days of entering it, and they will return to the streets or a shelter. Institutions include a jail, hospital or nursing home. They have a room in a motel room that is paid for by a non-profit or a government program.

Maryellen Hess Cameron spent over 25 years as the Executive Director of non-profit agencies in the social.... It’s difficult for some charities to ask for donations. They don’t have a history of it, they are shy about asking for money or maybe they don’t have the staff or board members with the right skills. Take heart! If your agency needs a strategy to build a donor base online, then donor education sites can be valuable partners. “Too often, we give not to the causes that are most effective, but rather to those that are best at asking for it.” Nicholas Kristoff, Year of Living Better Donor education sites give you a place to build donor trust in your organization as an effective, financially healthy nonprofit. After all, there is a high correlation between trust and financial support. A 2019 Give.org survey found that 70% of survey respondents believe that trust is the most important consideration when they are considering charitable donations, ranking trust a 9 on a 10 point scale. Articulating successful outcomes is the foundation of strong appeals for donations. Proof of impact and effective solicitation for resources is a powerful combination. The donor education platforms share your success to a broad audience. You can use them as tools to solidify your position with existing donors and introduce you to others that care about your mission. These sites have missions to provide donors with accurate information they can use for wise giving. They have established benchmarks that they use to assess agencies objectively. Most of them welcome input from individual nonprofits. You can provide the information to demonstrate you meet those standards. This article provides an understanding of donor education sites and how you can optimize their value to you. A follow-up article will build on that knowledge with more in-depth descriptions of five sites: Charity Navigator, GuideStar, BBB Wise Giving Alliance, Charity Watch and Great Nonprofits. What is a donor education service? It is an established resource donors can use to evaluate charities. There is a wealth of advice for donors – and educating them on making an informed choice is at the top of the list. This is true for donors already familiar with a particular agency. It is also true that donors use them to search for charities addressing an issue important to them, where they may give an unsolicited contribution. They also serve to prevent a misuse of scarce resources. Dishonest nonprofits target donors with emotional appeals that vacuum up donations that won’t be used as intended. Some are outright scams, using names that mislead donors into thinking their donations are going to organizations with good reputations. Other nonprofits seek donations for legitimate reasons but they do not achieve much for each dollar they receive. Given the need charities have for money, compared to resources available to them, donors need information about where their contributions will be used most effectively. There are multiple donor education sites with similar missions: to provide objective and detailed information about agencies that donors can use to evaluate their investments before making them. Remember, donations are investments. Donors care about causes and outcomes. They look for the organizations that will pay a good dividend, measured as an improved quality of life for its constituents. To be more explicit, the sites word their objectives a bit differently but each one strives to serve as a reliable source of information. Donors should be able to trust that an agency achieves the most impact per dollar possible and uses its funding with integrity. This information is clearly in demand. Donors make millions of visits to information sources about charities every year. The sites have another goal - to inspire people and organizations to begin making charitable contributions, if they have not done so in the past, or to increase their gifts if they have a history of giving. The sites bring together information in one place for ease of donor use. Not only does that reduce research time for donors, but it can also provide information they may not know how to find. Maryellen Hess Cameron spent over 25 years as the Executive Director of non-profit agencies in the social.... It’s difficult for some charities to ask for donations. They don’t have a history of it, they are shy about asking for money or maybe they don’t have the staff or board members with the right skills. Take heart! If your agency needs a strategy to build a donor base online, then donor education sites can be valuable partners. “Too often, we give not to the causes that are most effective, but rather to those that are best at asking for it.” Nicholas Kristoff, Year of Living Better Donor education sites give you a place to build donor trust in your organization as an effective, financially healthy nonprofit. After all, there is a high correlation between trust and financial support. A 2019 Give.org survey found that 70% of survey respondents believe that trust is the most important consideration when they are considering charitable donations, ranking trust a 9 on a 10 point scale. Articulating successful outcomes is the foundation of strong appeals for donations. Proof of impact and effective solicitation for resources is a powerful combination. The donor education platforms share your success to a broad audience. You can use them as tools to solidify your position with existing donors and introduce you to others that care about your mission. These sites have missions to provide donors with accurate information they can use for wise giving. They have established benchmarks that they use to assess agencies objectively. Most of them welcome input from individual nonprofits. You can provide the information to demonstrate you meet those standards. This article provides an understanding of donor education sites and how you can optimize their value to you. A follow-up article will build on that knowledge with more in-depth descriptions of five sites: Charity Navigator, GuideStar, BBB Wise Giving Alliance, Charity Watch and Great Nonprofits. What is a donor education service? It is an established resource donors can use to evaluate charities. There is a wealth of advice for donors – and educating them on making an informed choice is at the top of the list. This is true for donors already familiar with a particular agency. It is also true that donors use them to search for charities addressing an issue important to them, where they may give an unsolicited contribution. They also serve to prevent a misuse of scarce resources. Dishonest nonprofits target donors with emotional appeals that vacuum up donations that won’t be used as intended. Some are outright scams, using names that mislead donors into thinking their donations are going to organizations with good reputations. Other nonprofits seek donations for legitimate reasons but they do not achieve much for each dollar they receive. Given the need charities have for money, compared to resources available to them, donors need information about where their contributions will be used most effectively. There are multiple donor education sites with similar missions: to provide objective and detailed information about agencies that donors can use to evaluate their investments before making them. Remember, donations are investments. Donors care about causes and outcomes. They look for the organizations that will pay a good dividend, measured as an improved quality of life for its constituents. To be more explicit, the sites word their objectives a bit differently but each one strives to serve as a reliable source of information. Donors should be able to trust that an agency achieves the most impact per dollar possible and uses its funding with integrity. This information is clearly in demand. Donors make millions of visits to information sources about charities every year. The sites have another goal - to inspire people and organizations to begin making charitable contributions, if they have not done so in the past, or to increase their gifts if they have a history of giving. The sites bring together information in one place for ease of donor use. Not only does that reduce research time for donors, but it can also provide information they may not know how to find. Maryellen Hess Cameron spent over 25 years as the Executive Director of non-profit agencies in the social.... It’s difficult for some charities to ask for donations. They don’t have a history of it, they are shy about asking for money or maybe they don’t have the staff or board members with the right skills. Take heart! If your agency needs a strategy to build a donor base online, then donor education sites can be valuable partners. “Too often, we give not to the causes that are most effective, but rather to those that are best at asking for it.” Nicholas Kristoff, Year of Living Better Donor education sites give you a place to build donor trust in your organization as an effective, financially healthy nonprofit. After all, there is a high correlation between trust and financial support. A 2019 Give.org survey found that 70% of survey respondents believe that trust is the most important consideration when they are considering charitable donations, ranking trust a 9 on a 10 point scale. Articulating successful outcomes is the foundation of strong appeals for donations. Proof of impact and effective solicitation for resources is a powerful combination. The donor education platforms share your success to a broad audience. You can use them as tools to solidify your position with existing donors and introduce you to others that care about your mission. These sites have missions to provide donors with accurate information they can use for wise giving. They have established benchmarks that they use to assess agencies objectively. Most of them welcome input from individual nonprofits. You can provide the information to demonstrate you meet those standards. This article provides an understanding of donor education sites and how you can optimize their value to you. A follow-up article will build on that knowledge with more in-depth descriptions of five sites: Charity Navigator, GuideStar, BBB Wise Giving Alliance, Charity Watch and Great Nonprofits. What is a donor education service? It is an established resource donors can use to evaluate charities. There is a wealth of advice for donors – and educating them on making an informed choice is at the top of the list. This is true for donors already familiar with a particular agency. It is also true that donors use them to search for charities addressing an issue important to them, where they may give an unsolicited contribution. They also serve to prevent a misuse of scarce resources. Dishonest nonprofits target donors with emotional appeals that vacuum up donations that won’t be used as intended. Some are outright scams, using names that mislead donors into thinking their donations are going to organizations with good reputations. Other nonprofits seek donations for legitimate reasons but they do not achieve much for each dollar they receive. Given the need charities have for money, compared to resources available to them, donors need information about where their contributions will be used most effectively. There are multiple donor education sites with similar missions: to provide objective and detailed information about agencies that donors can use to evaluate their investments before making them. Remember, donations are investments. Donors care about causes and outcomes. They look for the organizations that will pay a good dividend, measured as an improved quality of life for its constituents. To be more explicit, the sites word their objectives a bit differently but each one strives to serve as a reliable source of information. Donors should be able to trust that an agency achieves the most impact per dollar possible and uses its funding with integrity. This information is clearly in demand. Donors make millions of visits to information sources about charities every year. The sites have another goal - to inspire people and organizations to begin making charitable contributions, if they have not done so in the past, or to increase their gifts if they have a history of giving. The sites bring together information in one place for ease of donor use. Not only does that reduce research time for donors, but it can also provide information they may not know how to find. Maryellen Hess Cameron spent over 25 years as the Executive Director of non-profit agencies in the social.... It’s difficult for some charities to ask for donations. They don’t have a history of it, they are shy about asking for money or maybe they don’t have the staff or board members with the right skills. Take heart! If your agency needs a strategy to build a donor base online, then donor education sites can be valuable partners. “Too often, we give not to the causes that are most effective, but rather to those that are best at asking for it.” Nicholas Kristoff, Year of Living Better Donor education sites give you a place to build donor trust in your organization as an effective, financially healthy nonprofit. After all, there is a high correlation between trust and financial support. A 2019 Give.org survey found that 70% of survey respondents believe that trust is the most important consideration when they are considering charitable donations, ranking trust a 9 on a 10 point scale. Articulating successful outcomes is the foundation of strong appeals for donations. Proof of impact and effective solicitation for resources is a powerful combination. The donor education platforms share your success to a broad audience. You can use them as tools to solidify your position with existing donors and introduce you to others that care about your mission. These sites have missions to provide donors with accurate information they can use for wise giving. They have established benchmarks that they use to assess agencies objectively. Most of them welcome input from individual nonprofits. You can provide the information to demonstrate you meet those standards. This article provides an understanding of donor education sites and how you can optimize their value to you. A follow-up article will build on that knowledge with more in-depth descriptions of five sites: Charity Navigator, GuideStar, BBB Wise Giving Alliance, Charity Watch and Great Nonprofits. What is a donor education service? It is an established resource donors can use to evaluate charities. There is a wealth of advice for donors – and educating them on making an informed choice is at the top of the list. This is true for donors already familiar with a particular agency. It is also true that donors use them to search for charities addressing an issue important to them, where they may give an unsolicited contribution. They also serve to prevent a misuse of scarce resources. Dishonest nonprofits target donors with emotional appeals that vacuum up donations that won’t be used as intended. Some are outright scams, using names that mislead donors into thinking their donations are going to organizations with good reputations. Other nonprofits seek donations for legitimate reasons but they do not achieve much for each dollar they receive. Given the need charities have for money, compared to resources available to them, donors need information about where their contributions will be used most effectively. There are multiple donor education sites with similar missions: to provide objective and detailed information about agencies that donors can use to evaluate their investments before making them. Remember, donations are investments. Donors care about causes and outcomes. They look for the organizations that will pay a good dividend, measured as an improved quality of life for its constituents. To be more explicit, the sites word their objectives a bit differently but each one strives to serve as a reliable source of information. Donors should be able to trust that an agency achieves the most impact per dollar possible and uses its funding with integrity. This information is clearly in demand. Donors make millions of visits to information sources about charities every year. The sites have another goal - to inspire people and organizations to begin making charitable contributions, if they have not done so in the past, or to increase their gifts if they have a history of giving. The sites bring together information in one place for ease of donor use. Not only does that reduce research time for donors, but it can also provide information they may not know how to find. Maryellen Hess Cameron spent over 25 years as the Executive Director of non-profit agencies in the social.... It’s difficult for some charities to ask for donations. They don’t have a history of it, they are shy about asking for money or maybe they don’t have the staff or board members with the right skills. Take heart! If your agency needs a strategy to build a donor base online, then donor education sites can be valuable partners. “Too often, we give not to the causes that are most effective, but rather to those that are best at asking for it.” Nicholas Kristoff, Year of Living Better Donor education sites give you a place to build donor trust in your organization as an effective, financially healthy nonprofit. After all, there is a high correlation between trust and financial support. A 2019 Give.org survey found that 70% of survey respondents believe that trust is the most important consideration when they are considering charitable donations, ranking trust a 9 on a 10 point scale. Articulating successful outcomes is the foundation of strong appeals for donations. Proof of impact and effective solicitation for resources is a powerful combination. The donor education platforms share your success to a broad audience. You can use them as tools to solidify your position with existing donors and introduce you to others that care about your mission. These sites have missions to provide donors with accurate information they can use for wise giving. They have established benchmarks that they use to assess agencies objectively. Most of them welcome input from individual nonprofits. You can provide the information to demonstrate you meet those standards. This article provides an understanding of donor education sites and how you can optimize their value to you. A follow-up article will build on that knowledge with more in-depth descriptions of five sites: Charity Navigator, GuideStar, BBB Wise Giving Alliance, Charity Watch and Great Nonprofits. What is a donor education service? It is an established resource donors can use to evaluate charities. There is a wealth of advice for donors – and educating them on making an informed choice is at the top of the list. This is true for donors already familiar with a particular agency. It is also true that donors use them to search for charities addressing an issue important to them, where they may give an unsolicited contribution. They also serve to prevent a misuse of scarce resources. Dishonest nonprofits target donors with emotional appeals that vacuum up donations that won’t be used as intended. Some are outright scams, using names that mislead donors into thinking their donations are going to organizations with good reputations. Other nonprofits seek donations for legitimate reasons but they do not achieve much for each dollar they receive. Given the need charities have for money, compared to resources available to them, donors need information about where their contributions will be used most effectively. There are multiple donor education sites with similar missions: to provide objective and detailed information about agencies that donors can use to evaluate their investments before making them. Remember, donations are investments. Donors care about causes and outcomes. They look for the organizations that will pay a good dividend, measured as an improved quality of life for its constituents. To be more explicit, the sites word their objectives a bit differently but each one strives to serve as a reliable source of information. Donors should be able to trust that an agency achieves the most impact per dollar possible and uses its funding with integrity. This information is clearly in demand. Donors make millions of visits to information sources about charities every year. The sites have another goal - to inspire people and organizations to begin making charitable contributions, if they have not done so in the past, or to increase their gifts if they have a history of giving. The sites bring together information in one place for ease of donor use. Not only does that reduce research time for donors, but it can also provide information they may not know how to find. Maryellen Hess Cameron spent over 25 years as the Executive Director of non-profit agencies in the social.... It’s difficult for some charities to ask for donations. They don’t have a history of it, they are shy about asking for money or maybe they don’t have the staff or board members with the right skills. Take heart! If your agency needs a strategy to build a donor base online, then donor education sites can be valuable partners. “Too often, we give not to the causes that are most effective, but rather to those that are best at asking for it.” Nicholas Kristoff, Year of Living Better Donor education sites give you a place to build donor trust in your organization as an effective, financially healthy nonprofit. After all, there is a high correlation between trust and financial support. A 2019 Give.org survey found that 70% of survey respondents believe that trust is the most important consideration when they are considering charitable donations, ranking trust a 9 on a 10 point scale. Articulating successful outcomes is the foundation of strong appeals for donations. Proof of impact and effective solicitation for resources is a powerful combination. The donor education platforms share your success to a broad audience. You can use them as tools to solidify your position with existing donors and introduce you to others that care about your mission. These sites have missions to provide donors with accurate information they can use for wise giving. They have established benchmarks that they use to assess agencies objectively. Most of them welcome input from individual nonprofits. You can provide the information to demonstrate you meet those standards. This article provides an understanding of donor education sites and how you can optimize their value to you. A follow-up article will build on that knowledge with more in-depth descriptions of five sites: Charity Navigator, GuideStar, BBB Wise Giving Alliance, Charity Watch and Great Nonprofits. What is a donor education service? It is an established resource donors can use to evaluate charities. There is a wealth of advice for donors – and educating them on making an informed choice is at the top of the list. This is true for donors already familiar with a particular agency. It is also true that donors use them to search for charities addressing an issue important to them, where they may give an unsolicited contribution. They also serve to prevent a misuse of scarce resources. Dishonest nonprofits target donors with emotional appeals that vacuum up donations that won’t be used as intended. Some are outright scams, using names that mislead donors into thinking their donations are going to organizations with good reputations. Other nonprofits seek donations for legitimate reasons but they do not achieve much for each dollar they receive. Given the need charities have for money, compared to resources available to them, donors need information about where their contributions will be used most effectively. There are multiple donor education sites with similar missions: to provide objective and detailed information about agencies that donors can use to evaluate their investments before making them. Remember, donations are investments. Donors care about causes and outcomes. They look for the organizations that will pay a good dividend, measured as an improved quality of life for its constituents. To be more explicit, the sites word their objectives a bit differently but each one strives to serve as a reliable source of information. Donors should be able to trust that an agency achieves the most impact per dollar possible and uses its funding with integrity. This information is clearly in demand. Donors make millions of visits to information sources about charities every year. The sites have another goal - to inspire people and organizations to begin making charitable contributions, if they have not done so in the past, or to increase their gifts if they have a history of giving. The sites bring together information in one place for ease of donor use. Not only does that reduce research time for donors, but it can also provide information they may not know how to find. Maryellen Hess Cameron spent over 25 years as the Executive Director of non-profit agencies in the social.... It’s difficult for some charities to ask for donations. They don’t have a history of it, they are shy about asking for money or maybe they don’t have the staff or board members with the right skills. Take heart! If your agency needs a strategy to build a donor base online, then donor education sites can be valuable partners. “Too often, we give not to the causes that are most effective, but rather to those that are best at asking for it.” Nicholas Kristoff, Year of Living Better Donor education sites give you a place to build donor trust in your organization as an effective, financially healthy nonprofit. After all, there is a high correlation between trust and financial support. A 2019 Give.org survey found that 70% of survey respondents believe that trust is the most important consideration when they are considering charitable donations, ranking trust a 9 on a 10 point scale. Articulating successful outcomes is the foundation of strong appeals for donations. Proof of impact and effective solicitation for resources is a powerful combination. The donor education platforms share your success to a broad audience. You can use them as tools to solidify your position with existing donors and introduce you to others that care about your mission. These sites have missions to provide donors with accurate information they can use for wise giving. They have established benchmarks that they use to assess agencies objectively. Most of them welcome input from individual nonprofits. You can provide the information to demonstrate you meet those standards. This article provides an understanding of donor education sites and how you can optimize their value to you. A follow-up article will build on that knowledge with more in-depth descriptions of five sites: Charity Navigator, GuideStar, BBB Wise Giving Alliance, Charity Watch and Great Nonprofits. What is a donor education service? It is an established resource donors can use to evaluate charities. There is a wealth of advice for donors – and educating them on making an informed choice is at the top of the list. This is true for donors already familiar with a particular agency. It is also true that donors use them to search for charities addressing an issue important to them, where they may give an unsolicited contribution. They also serve to prevent a misuse of scarce resources. Dishonest nonprofits target donors with emotional appeals that vacuum up donations that won’t be used as intended. Some are outright scams, using names that mislead donors into thinking their donations are going to organizations with good reputations. Other nonprofits seek donations for legitimate reasons but they do not achieve much for each dollar they receive. Given the need charities have for money, compared to resources available to them, donors need information about where their contributions will be used most effectively. There are multiple donor education sites with similar missions: to provide objective and detailed information about agencies that donors can use to evaluate their investments before making them. Remember, donations are investments. Donors care about causes and outcomes. They look for the organizations that will pay a good dividend, measured as an improved quality of life for its constituents. To be more explicit, the sites word their objectives a bit differently but each one strives to serve as a reliable source of information. Donors should be able to trust that an agency achieves the most impact per dollar possible and uses its funding with integrity. This information is clearly in demand. Donors make millions of visits to information sources about charities every year. The sites have another goal - to inspire people and organizations to begin making charitable contributions, if they have not done so in the past, or to increase their gifts if they have a history of giving. The sites bring together information in one place for ease of donor use. Not only does that reduce research time for donors, but it can also provide information they may not know how to find. Maryellen Hess Cameron spent over 25 years as the Executive Director of non-profit agencies in the social.... It’s difficult for some charities to ask for donations. They don’t have a history of it, they are shy about asking for money or maybe they don’t have the staff or board members with the right skills. Take heart! If your agency needs a strategy to build a donor base online, then donor education sites can be valuable partners. “Too often, we give not to the causes that are most effective, but rather to those that are best at asking for it.” Nicholas Kristoff, Year of Living Better Donor education sites give you a place to build donor trust in your organization as an effective, financially healthy nonprofit. After all, there is a high correlation between trust and financial support. A 2019 Give.org survey found that 70% of survey respondents believe that trust is the most important consideration when they are considering charitable donations, ranking trust a 9 on a 10 point scale. Articulating successful outcomes is the foundation of strong appeals for donations. Proof of impact and effective solicitation for resources is a powerful combination. The donor education platforms share your success to a broad audience. You can use them as tools to solidify your position with existing donors and introduce you to others that care about your mission. These sites have missions to provide donors with accurate information they can use for wise giving. They have established benchmarks that they use to assess agencies objectively. Most of them welcome input from individual nonprofits. You can provide the information to demonstrate you meet those standards. This article provides an understanding of donor education sites and how you can optimize their value to you. A follow-up article will build on that knowledge with more in-depth descriptions of five sites: Charity Navigator, GuideStar, BBB Wise Giving Alliance, Charity Watch and Great Nonprofits. What is a donor education service? It is an established resource donors can use to evaluate charities. There is a wealth of advice for donors – and educating them on making an informed choice is at the top of the list. This is true for donors already familiar with a particular agency. It is also true that donors use them to search for charities addressing an issue important to them, where they may give an unsolicited contribution. They also serve to prevent a misuse of scarce resources. Dishonest nonprofits target donors with emotional appeals that vacuum up donations that won’t be used as intended. Some are outright scams, using names that mislead donors into thinking their donations are going to organizations with good reputations. Other nonprofits seek donations for legitimate reasons but they do not achieve much for each dollar they receive. Given the need charities have for money, compared to resources available to them, donors need information about where their contributions will be used most effectively. There are multiple donor education sites with similar missions: to provide objective and detailed information about agencies that donors can use to evaluate their investments before making them. Remember, donations are investments. Donors care about causes and outcomes. They look for the organizations that will pay a good dividend, measured as an improved quality of life for its constituents. To be more explicit, the sites word their objectives a bit differently but each one strives to serve as a reliable source of information. Donors should be able to trust that an agency achieves the most impact per dollar possible and uses its funding with integrity. This information is clearly in demand. Donors make millions of visits to information sources about charities every year. The sites have another goal - to inspire people and organizations to begin making charitable contributions, if they have not done so in the past, or to increase their gifts if they have a history of giving. The sites bring together information in one place for ease of donor use. Not only does that reduce research time for donors, but it can also provide information they may not know how to find. Maryellen Hess Cameron spent over 25 years as the Executive Director of non-profit agencies in the social.... It’s difficult for some charities to ask for donations. They don’t have a history of it, they are shy about asking for money or maybe they don’t have the staff or board members with the right skills. Take heart! If your agency needs a strategy to build a donor base online, then donor education sites can be valuable partners. “Too often, we give not to the causes that are most effective, but rather to those that are best at asking for it.” Nicholas Kristoff, Year of Living Better Donor education sites give you a place to build donor trust in your organization as an effective, financially healthy nonprofit. After all, there is a high correlation between trust and financial support. A 2019 Give.org survey found that 70% of survey respondents believe that trust is the most important consideration when they are considering charitable donations, ranking trust a 9 on a 10 point scale. Articulating successful outcomes is the foundation of strong appeals for donations. Proof of impact and effective solicitation for resources is a powerful combination. The donor education platforms share your success to a broad audience. You can use them as tools to solidify your position with existing donors and introduce you to others that care about your mission. These sites have missions to provide donors with accurate information they can use for wise giving. They have established benchmarks that they use to assess agencies objectively. Most of them welcome input from individual nonprofits. You can provide the information to demonstrate you meet those standards. This article provides an understanding of donor education sites and how you can optimize their value to you. A follow-up article will build on that knowledge with more in-depth descriptions of five sites: Charity Navigator, GuideStar, BBB Wise Giving Alliance, Charity Watch and Great Nonprofits. What is a donor education service? It is an established resource donors can use to evaluate charities. There is a wealth of advice for donors – and educating them on making an informed choice is at the top of the list. This is true for donors already familiar with a particular agency. It is also true that donors use them to search for charities addressing an issue important to them, where they may give an unsolicited contribution. They also serve to prevent a misuse of scarce resources. Dishonest nonprofits target donors with emotional appeals that vacuum up donations that won’t be used as intended. Some are outright scams, using names that mislead donors into thinking their donations are going to organizations with good reputations. Other nonprofits seek donations for legitimate reasons but they do not achieve much for each dollar they receive. Given the need charities have for money, compared to resources available to them, donors need information about where their contributions will be used most effectively. There are multiple donor education sites with similar missions: to provide objective and detailed information about agencies that donors can use to evaluate their investments before making them. Remember, donations are investments. Donors care about causes and outcomes. They look for the organizations that will pay a good dividend, measured as an improved quality of life for its constituents. To be more explicit, the sites word their objectives a bit differently but each one strives to serve as a reliable source of information. Donors should be able to trust that an agency achieves the most impact per dollar possible and uses its funding with integrity. This information is clearly in demand. Donors make millions of visits to information sources about charities every year. The sites have another goal - to inspire people and organizations to begin making charitable contributions, if they have not done so in the past, or to increase their gifts if they have a history of giving. The sites bring together information in one place for ease of donor use. Not only does that reduce research time for donors, but it can also provide information they may not know how to find. Maryellen Hess Cameron spent over 25 years as the Executive Director of non-profit agencies in the social.... It’s difficult for some charities to ask for donations. They don’t have a history of it, they are shy about asking for money or maybe they don’t have the staff or board members with the right skills. Take heart! If your agency needs a strategy to build a donor base online, then donor education sites can be valuable partners. “Too often, we give not to the causes that are most effective, but rather to those that are best at asking for it.” Nicholas Kristoff, Year of Living Better Donor education sites give you a place to build donor trust in your organization as an effective, financially healthy nonprofit. After all, there is a high correlation between trust and financial support. A 2019 Give.org survey found that 70% of survey respondents believe that trust is the most important consideration when they are considering charitable donations, ranking trust a 9 on a 10 point scale. Articulating successful outcomes is the foundation of strong appeals for donations. Proof of impact and effective solicitation for resources is a powerful combination. The donor education platforms share your success to a broad audience. You can use them as tools to solidify your position with existing donors and introduce you to others that care about your mission. These sites have missions to provide donors with accurate information they can use for wise giving. They have established benchmarks that they use to assess agencies objectively. Most of them welcome input from individual nonprofits. You can provide the information to demonstrate you meet those standards. This article provides an understanding of donor education sites and how you can optimize their value to you. A follow-up article will build on that knowledge with more in-depth descriptions of five sites: Charity Navigator, GuideStar, BBB Wise Giving Alliance, Charity Watch and Great Nonprofits. What is a donor education service? It is an established resource donors can use to evaluate charities. There is a wealth of advice for donors – and educating them on making an informed choice is at the top of the list. This is true for donors already familiar with a particular agency. It is also true that donors use them to search for charities addressing an issue important to them, where they may give an unsolicited contribution. They also serve to prevent a misuse of scarce resources. Dishonest nonprofits target donors with emotional appeals that vacuum up donations that won’t be used as intended. Some are outright scams, using names that mislead donors into thinking their donations are going to organizations with good reputations. Other nonprofits seek donations for legitimate reasons but they do not achieve much for each dollar they receive. Given the need charities have for money, compared to resources available to them, donors need information about where their contributions will be used most effectively. There are multiple donor education sites with similar missions: to provide objective and detailed information about agencies that donors can use to evaluate their investments before making them. Remember, donations are investments. Donors care about causes and outcomes. They look for the organizations that will pay a good dividend, measured as an improved quality of life for its constituents. To be more explicit, the sites word their objectives a bit differently but each one strives to serve as a reliable source of information. Donors should be able to trust that an agency achieves the most impact per dollar possible and uses its funding with integrity. This information is clearly in demand. Donors make millions of visits to information sources about charities every year. The sites have another goal - to inspire people and organizations to begin making charitable contributions, if they have not done so in the past, or to increase their gifts if they have a history of giving. The sites bring together information in one place for ease of donor use. Not only does that reduce research time for donors, but it can also provide information they may not know how to find.