At the moment the standard doesn’t accommodate re-granting - meaning a grant that is given to other organisations to re-grant. This can accumulate in double counting. However, not all re-grants are easy to track, for example, the national government can give money for a local authority to re-grant to any purpose.
As a start, do we want to add a boolean field named “re-grant” that allows publishers to mark re-grants?
Sounds like a good idea. Would need clear guidance to publishers as to when to use the field to ensure consistent use. If the top level grantor and the grantee both flagged their awards used it, funds could be under-counted.
I do not have an issue with adding the field but I cannot envisage a grant that we would award that would really come into this category.
But community foundations do get grants from trust and foundations to re-grant, no? See this case - http://grantnav.threesixtygiving.org/grant/360G-DevonCF-A406616
Yes - an example for us would be a grant from the OPCC to match #iwill monies or some Corporate Foundations which report their fund with us as a grant.
Agreed but we do not award grants to other grant-making organisations hence me thinking we would not populate the field but our Funders might (Henry Smith is the best example for us). Who would tag the grant as a re-grant? Us or Henry Smith?
The funding received from Henry Smith does form part of our income and grants expenditure so I would still want re-grants included in our totals.
Instead of a boolean field, would a “regranted-from” field be viable, which allowed a grantmaker to specify which upstream grant they were regranting from? It would act as a boolean (if the value is supplied, you know it’s using a regrant), and would allow the extra detail for traceability applications, as well as allowing for more accurate inclusion or exclusion of regrants.
Is that sort of information usually available? It’d be a fantastic example of joined-up data if it was!
My concern with a simple boolean is that any analysis will still be distorted if either the grantmaker or the grantee don’t publish using the 360Giving standard.
I think there’s a couple of different options discussed here for how to implement this field (which I think is a good idea btw). It comes down to whether we want to show that a particular grant will be re-granted (ie the re-grant flag is at the top level granter level), or that a particular grant was made with money from another funder.
For me the former makes a lot more sense. There would be only a small number of grants meeting this criteria, so it would fairly easy to help publishers find those grants, and it wouldn’t need smaller publishers making re-grants to show where the money for all their grants has come from.
One thing that would be interesting to look into is the extent to which this is already shown in the data - eg could it be worked out by looking at those grants where the recipient is also a 360Giving publisher?