Our grantmaking process varies based on the characteristics of the grant or project. Below is a table summarizing the primary types of grants that make up our portfolio, and the corresponding characteristics of the review of that grant type.

Benefits of this approach include:

1. Rightsizing our evaluation to improve our ability to move quickly and reduce paperwork burden on applicants while still being able to evaluate and develop project-related insights formative to our future grantmaking, other grantees, and the field at large.
2. Supporting high potential but earlier stage projects in creating outcome evidence and project traction, helping them build a more informed roadmap for execution and scaling (or pivoting). This improves our ability to take risks on early stage ideas.
3. Recognizing the complexity of systems change grants, and setting aside specific time and resources to ensure adequate partnership plans, multiple funder engagements, outcome evidence capacity and other project components that we believe improve success rates.

| A collaborative and iterative design approach increases staff time and slows time to approval (<3 month review cycle). | Volume of assumptions, risks and stakeholders increases time to co-develop (~6 month review cycle). | | Project Term | Project purpose (as noted above) should be achieved in less than one year, though grant contract will be one year. | One to two year term expected, though one year terms will be the norm. | Multi-year term expected | | Grant Size (See example distribution below) | Smaller grant sizes with lower impact evidence requirements (up to $250,000 depending on market.) | Mid-sized grants with higher evidence requirements (up to $500,000 depending on market) | Larger size grants, often multi-year, with very high evidence requirements (up to $1M/per year depending on market) | | Organizational Capacity & Program Assessment | Self-assessment completed by applicant as part of application process. | Completed both by applicant (self-assessment) and GitLab Foundation staff. | Completed both by applicant (self-assessment) and GitLab Foundation staff. | | Impact Evidence Assessment | Completed by GitLab Foundation staff. | Completed both by applicant (self-assessment) and GitLab Foundation staff. | Completed both by applicant (self-assessment) and GitLab Foundation staff. | | Impact Evidence Expectations | Limited preexisting impact evidence is acceptable but progress on impact evidence and learning required during grant period | Moderate to strong preexisting impact evidence required. Progress on impact evidence and learning required during grant period | Strong preexisting impact evidence required. Progress on impact evidence and learning required during the grant period and the post grant period | | Risk Mitigation & Management Plan (RMMP) | Optional, not common. | Expected - proposed by GitLab Foundation staff. | Mandatory - developed in partnership with applicant. | | Reporting | Quick cycle iterative learning & reporting expected. Publicly shared documentation on learning is expected. | Progress on impact evidence and learning required during grant period. Publicly shared documentation on learning is expected. | Both grant reporting and external stakeholder engagement is mandatory. Publicly shared documentation on learning is expected. | | Reference checks from other funders and/or partners. | Optional | Expected | Mandatory | | In-Person Site Visit | Optional | Optional | Expected prior to approval. |

Example grant distribution based on a hypothetical $10 million grantmaking budget.

Note: This is an example to share approximate ranges, and specific grant sizes will vary from these figures.