Our selection standard
We fund a small number of projects, and only after each clears five questions. We don't make open-ended grants. We don't fund proposals. The criteria are public — because accountability starts before the check is written.
Each criterion is a gate, not a score. A project that fails on trust doesn't get partial credit.
We fund real work on the ground, not proposals or plans. Before we commit, we need to see an operating institution, an active team, or a specific project that has already begun. Early-stage commitments are possible — but only when we have evidence the foundation is real.
We look at founder integrity, track record, and basic transparency. Have they done this before? Do they report honestly — including setbacks? Are their financials accessible? The quality of the people behind a project is often the best predictor of what happens to the money.
We require a clear, bounded purpose with a defined before-and-after. "Support the school" is not enough. "Fund three faculty positions and two lab setups, enabling the first cohort of 60 students" is. Specificity is what makes accountability possible.
Capital has to solve a real bottleneck. If the project would succeed or fail with or without our funding, it's not the right fit. We ask: what does the money unlock that otherwise wouldn't happen — or wouldn't happen as soon?
The project must be aligned with our mission — education, healthcare, or livelihoods in West Bengal — and we need to believe we add value beyond the check. Our network, our diligence, our reporting: can they help this project succeed?
Not every project is all-or-nothing. Here's how we respond to different situations.
We fund it
The project is underway, the people are trusted, the use of funds is specific, the capital will move outcomes, and it fits our mission. We commit.
We pilot first
The project is promising but hasn't established enough track record on one or two criteria. We fund a small, defined pilot — then evaluate before scaling.
We revisit later
The potential is real, but the timing or evidence isn't right. We document why and return when the situation changes.
Donors support the Nagarik Samaj USA mission and may express a preference for a featured project. But funding decisions rest with our independent board, applying this five-point standard.
This is both a legal requirement and a design choice. Independent judgment — not donor earmarking — is how we maintain the integrity of the giving model, and how gifts remain tax-deductible under US law.
The UHHS School of Computing, AI & Data Science — evaluated against each of the five points.