Transparency is dynamic and evolving, and the weight given to various indicators of transparency is subjective. Our points system is designed to encourage and empower—not penalize—CSOs.
We evaluate our clients’ sites using a rigorous process based on the highest domestic (or local) transparency laws and universal best practices. As such, we use two evaluations:
1. At the country level, we assign and count transparency points according to CSO’s lived experience with government compliance. This shows a CSO’s alignment with transparency laws as they are currently applied by the government. It is thus a ranking that takes into account country context in practice. The points of each item can change depending on governments’ interpretation. This, in turn, would change the points we assign to that item.
2. At the global level, we count a CSO’s points by considering these official points as well as items we believe to be universally important for transparency and fundability. We combine these points as follows:
When a CSO becomes a client and publishes their website, they receive a stamp showing their transparency is ‘in progress.’
As they meet more transparency requirements, their points are recalculated and, when they hit the points thresholds of ‘good’ and ‘excellent,’ their stamp is automatically updated to reflect their new status.
Our Stamp is embedded on their site’s footer, and it links to CiSo’s site, where their ranking and profile is maintained on our ‘Cases’ page.
Brazilian CSOs must comply with the Public Ministry that recognizes Civil Society Organizations of Public Interest (OSCIP) and the Public Prosecutors’ Offices of several Brazilian States, including the metrics required by OSCIP to receive public money. The evaluation incorporates 43 detailed metrics in 13 categories, comprising individual and contextualized questions that determine:
Note: the credibility of the information provided by a CSO’s website comprises more than 60% of its success in raising funds from all sources and establishes trust between a CSO and its stakeholders. While we can evaluate online transparency, we cannot evaluate the accuracy of the content provided by a CSO, which can affect a CSO’s ability to establish credibility.