Cu

mu

lati

ve g

ran

ts

Cumula

tive C

ontrib

utions

In its short life, PRW has granted more than one million dollars to social entrepreneurs to address the problems of global poverty

2005 2006

Project Redwood was born nine years ago

Cumula

tive C

ontrib

utions

Cu

mu

lati

ve g

ran

ts

325

650

975

1300•A 2005 “Giving Back” panel inspired Project Redwood

•In 2006, a structure and protocols were established:-Mission Statement, bylaws and governance procedures developed-Board of Directors formed-Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors appointed-Granting procedures written-Three on-going committees defined: Grant Review, Project Support, Partnership Participation

2007 2008

Participation and contributions were robust in 2007-2009

•Partnership grew and stabilized (120 classmates by 2008)

•The Board continued to refine governance:-Shared Values and Distinctive Differences statements were written-Conflict of Interest Policy was developed

•37 applications were submitted and 16 were funded ($334.4k)

•A relationship with Stanford’s Entrepreneurial Design for Extreme Affordability (EDEA) program was established in 2007; through 2009, 9 projects were funded ($33.7k)

•Classmates participated in many ways (meetings, voting, sponsoring, supporting)

2009

Initial subscription over $200,000

Cumula

tive C

ontrib

utions

Cu

mu

lati

ve g

ran

ts

Cycle 1 = $100k

Cycle 3 = $119.4k

Total contributions

exceed $600,000

325

650

975

1300

Cycle 2 = $148.7k

2010 2011

In the last four cycles, PRW has continued to refine its model•2010 Pay-to-Play basketball game

boosted participation and contributions (number of partners grew to 138 through 2012)

•46 applications were submitted and 27 were funded ($608k)

•Funds were also granted to 23 EDEA projects ($41.8k)

•New initiatives were undertaken:-Formal interim and final reporting-Cross-grantee (and applicant) synergies-Incubator-Impact assessment

•Cycle 7 funding is complete; partner contributions for future cycles are still coming in

2012

Cumulative

Contributio

ns

Total contributions

exceed $1,000,000!

2010 contributions = $264,000

Cycle 4 = $161.8k

2013

Cycle 5 = $147k

Cu

mu

lati

ve g

ran

ts

Cycle 6 = $185k

Cycle 7 = $155.8k

325

650

975

1300

2013 tbd

The record demonstrates our partners’ commitment and PRW’s consistency

Pro

ject

sPart

ner

sLe

aders

hip

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Applications 17 11 9 12 13 12 9

Projects Funded 5 6 5 7 6 8 6

Amount Funded

$100k

$130k

104k$150

k$137

k$175

$146k

Plus EDEA$18.7

k$15k

$11.8k

$10k $10k $15k

Partners 118 120 120 129 132 138 tbd

Contributions

$217k

$190$196

k$264

k$160

k$180

ktbd

Co-Chairs Carol Head and Ed Kaufmann

Ed Kaufman

n and Kristi Smith-

Hernandez

Kristi Smith-

Hernandez and

Beth Sawi

Beth Sawi and Phil

Jonckheer

Phil Jonckheer and Rick Jerdonek

PRW partners have been moved and amazed by the ideas and tenacity of the social entrepreneurs that we have

collectively funded

Village Health Works

Educate!

DIG

North AmericaCentral and South

America, Caribbean AfricaAsia and Oceania

Young

More

Matu

re Village Enterprise

CTI Nicaragua

Fam Ind Initiative

CTI Ethiopia

Frontier Housing

Nuru

Global Action

Foundation

Play Pumps

Rafode

Self Help Internat’l

Zambian Children’s

Fund

Internat’l Village Clinic

Hope Worldwide

Care to Help

Daraja Academy

Aid for Africa

BUILD

HEITitagya

Standard of Living

Health and Nutrition

Education

Project Focus

Circle size proportional to total PRW funding

Primary project locationO

rgan

izati

on

Matu

rity

Partners are drawn to Project Redwood for many reasons

Giving back

Stanfordfighting hunger

wiping out disease

educating promoting self

reliance

broadening horizons

Workingtogether

Going forward, we look to extend our reach and improve our effectiveness by learning from past observations and

challenges, and by looking to trends and opportunities to answer these questions:

•How can we increase our funds and participation?

•What might we do to source more projects in future grant cycles?

•How can we measure the impact of PRW projects and PRW overall?

•How can we provide additional support to our projects?