Powering Economic Opportunity Fund

Round 1 invested in a broad set of training-to-employment initiatives. Round 2 narrows the aperture to what Round 1 taught us matters most: employer-side job design and workplace practices that keep workers in careers and move them up — and the durable, non-philanthropic payer that will sustain those practices after the grant ends. Two practical differences for applicants:

• A named, active partnership with an employer, union, association, or industry partner is now a pass/fail threshold at concept note stage.

• Every proposal must identify the specific employer-side practice change it will test, and offer a credible hypothesis for who sustains it after the grant period.

We seek initiatives that convert today's economic transformation into lasting income gains for workers in renewable energy, infrastructure, and advanced manufacturing.

Successful projects should:

• Test a specific, employer-supported practice change — for example, wage progression tied to skill milestones, scheduling stability, supervisory and mentorship practice, employer-financed education, or supports (childcare, transportation, income stabilization) treated as retention infrastructure.

• Demonstrate potential to increase sustained employment, retention, and lifetime earnings — not only credentials or completions.

• Prioritize individuals earning below a living wage or excluded from high-quality employment, including first-time entrants, mid-career workers, and workers displaced by AI and other structural shifts.

• Include a named, active employer, union, association, or industry partnership (threshold requirement).

• Present a credible hypothesis for who pays for the practice after the grant — the "durable payer."

Philanthropic funding in this fund is catalytic, not permanent. A durable payer is the non-philanthropic source of money or authority that carries a practice forward after the grant ends. 

Candidate durable payers include:

• An employer sustaining a benefit or practice on its own business case (e.g., because it demonstrably reduces turnover cost);

• A collectively bargained provision embedded in contract structures;

• A multi-employer or association structure that spreads the cost across firms

• A public reimbursement or financing channel;

• Another sustainable financing structure the employer helps unlock.

We do not expect a finished financing model at concept note stage. We expect a credible hypothesis and a plan to test it — including a clear account of what evidence the payer would need to say yes.

In Round 2, they are required. All applicants must demonstrate an active, named partnership with an employer, a union, an association, or an industry partner. This is a pass/fail threshold at concept note review — applications without one will not advance. 

Qualifying partnership activities include hiring commitments, paid work-based learning, employer-recognized credentials, curriculum co-design, or employer co-investment, among others. Multi-employer arrangements, industry associations, and collectively bargained structures fully qualify.

No. The employer partnership threshold and your application structure are two separate things. 

Every application must demonstrate an active, named partnership with an employer, union, association, or industry partner — but that partner does not need to co-submit the application, share the budget, or serve as your fiscal sponsor. A named role, defined activities (e.g., hiring commitments, paid work-based learning, curriculum co-design, co-investment), and evidence the relationship is active are what reviewers assess. Joint applications are only necessary in specific cases — such as shared-budget initiatives or non-501(c)(3) entities (including social enterprises and associations) applying through a 501(c)(3) fiscal sponsor. In those cases, we will request an MOU at the final application stage. 

In short: a partnership must exist; a joint application is optional.

Grant reporting will track performance milestones tied to employment outcomes — not only training outputs. Expect to report on:

• Employment outcomes: jobs attached to, placement, retention (including retention past the first-year cliff), and earnings gains;

• Leverage: non-philanthropic capital or authority unlocked by the grant — employer co-investment, public funding, bargained provisions, or follow-on investment;

• Replicability: evidence that the practice can be adopted by other employers, sectors, or geographies;

• Learning agenda: participation in cohort learning on which practice components actually drive durable labor-market attachment and earnings growth.

Applicants should design their data systems with these categories in mind from the outset; the concept note asks about them directly.

Investments projected to increase participants' lifetime earnings by at least $100 for every $1 the Foundation spends will be prioritized. We do not expect you to complete the ROI analysis - GitLab Foundation will complete the ROI analysis with the information you submit (wage increases, number of people engaged, etc.)

• Gains are measured against a counterfactual — what participants would likely have earned without the initiative — not against zero.

• Persistence matters. A wage step that disappears when a worker quits in month six does not compound; this is why retention is central to the fund's design.

• Reasonable assumptions beat aggressive ones. Reviewers assess whether your reach, wage-gain, and persistence assumptions are grounded in your own data or credible sector benchmarks. See the North Star overview in our handbook.