We believe that by fundamentally transforming the way grant funding is accessed, we can preserve democracy and accelerate progress toward the UN SDGs.
The UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development outlines 17 major goals for the world. If you are unfamiliar, you can review the agenda here. As a uniquely risk-averse and impact-focused form of capital, grant funding will play a critical role in addressing these challenges. Over two trillion dollars in grants and aid are deployed around the world every year, many of which are intended to support at least one, if not multiple SDG’s.
It is well documented that about 30% of grant funding and foreign aid never reaches its intended target. Many other grant programs struggle with similar waste and abuse. This means that each year, 30% of two trillion ($600B USD) is misused or lost due to fraud, waste and abuse. Additionally, a lack of equitable access to grant funding often results in poorly developed solutions or, in some cases, communities that never receive any solution at all.
Grant funding is critically important capital within a democratic society that funds humanitarian efforts, science & innovation, and economic development. We cannot let it continue to flounder under a distribution ecosystem and infrastructure that promotes inefficiency and inequity. We must keep this capital operational and fully optimized at this critical moment in history.
We have seen the catalyzing power of capital when placed in the hands of people who have an effective solution in addition to the love and trust of their communities. We have also witnessed firsthand how no amount of capital can solve a lack of trust and understanding. Grant giving must no longer be about the grantor. It must become about the work of the recipient.
With all of the aforementioned in mind, our approach to impact runs along the following key points. We believe that by fundamentally transforming the way grant funding is accessed, we can preserve democracy and accelerate progress toward the UN SDGs. Outcomes driven from this change could look like this:
<aside> <img src="https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/secure.notion-static.com/b98f13fa-ed89-44a1-8c7a-93e09619d368/OpenGrants-icon-color_square.png" alt="https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/secure.notion-static.com/b98f13fa-ed89-44a1-8c7a-93e09619d368/OpenGrants-icon-color_square.png" width="40px" /> Ready to Join Us? Click Here!
</aside>
Foundations, government, and other grant giving entities were never designed to support grant recipients. Deploying, administering and managing grant funding is something that these groups have learned to do out of necessity.
Foundations were designed as a tax haven and/or means of creating legacy for rich people (once again nothing to do with the grant recipient). Government was created to uphold law and order. Neither of these entities were developed to deploy grants or support grant recipients with deep subject matter expertise and networks.
On the whole, it's fair to say that the government, foundations and other groups have done a good job deploying grants considering the tools and frameworks they were given. Grant giving itself is an incredibly altruistic act. Grantors should be applauded and lauded. However, there is a better way to deploy grants and a better way to evaluate how effective, and therefore praiseworthy, any grant program is.
Let's start with an assumption that Grant making is a tool for deploying capital which is focused on creating some proscribed impact. How then should the grant making process be designed?
Assuming the goal is creating a highly proscriptive impact, then any grant making process should support a few things.
