In considering the work being proposed we try to assess the importance of the goals and objectives being pursued, the viability of the strategy being employed, the appropriateness of the tactics being implemented, and the concreteness and verifiability of the evaluation or assessment measures being presented.
In considering the organization we try to assess the qualifications and experience of the leadership and relevant staff and the organizational track record in performing similar work and achieving similar objectives. We are also interested in the organization's overall fiscal and structural soundness, as well as its reputation for integrity, collegiality, and competence.
In considering the appropriateness of the work and the organization as investments for us, we try to assess: the alignment between the proposed goals and objectives and our own programmatic and geographic priorities; the compatibility between the proposed work and our existing investments; and the meaningfulness of the contribution that we might make to this work relative to the meaningfulness that that contribution might have if made to other work.
We make these assessments by engaging in dialogue with the applicant and by soliciting input from a variety of other relevant sources. These other sources include other funders, other civil society groups, and, sometimes, independent academic or government agency personnel. In considering this outside input we try to be as sensitive as possible to conflict of interest issues and other potential sources of bias.
Once we have decided to recommend that our Board support an organization we have to determine the level at which we think support should be provided. We make this determination with reference to the amount that is being requested, the amount that we have tended to grant for similar work, the degree of access that the applicant appears to have to other funding, and the amount of money that we have available to support organizations on the current docket.