How we could can impact measurement more useful

This article first published in Civil Society Magazine

Most of the impact data charities gather does not help raise funds or improve performance

This opinion piece is a response to an article titled How do you measure the value of impact measurement? by David Ainsworth.

David’s article is actually mis-titled. It’s not a discussion of methods for measuring the

You don't fatten a pig by weighing it every day

You don’t fatten a pig by weighing it every day

value of impact measurement, but rather stating a view that there may be none, which may explain why nobody seems interested in measuring it. I broadly agree with that. His article raises many points, so we’ll go carefully through them.

First, let’s be clear that “impact measurement” has two completely different purposes: first, helping to raise funds, and second, improving performance. Let’s consider them separately. Continue reading

Posted in Effective giving, Impact & evaluation | Leave a comment

What makes philanthropy succeed? – potentially revealing analysis

Remarkably little is known reliably about how to do philanthropy well – how to use it to achieve particular aims – despite philanthropy’s long and varied history. Giving Evidence (and others) is trying to fix this – to create reliable data and insight about which ways of giving work best in particular situations. And we have a new analysis underway to that end.

Donors choose (often unwittingly) between various ways of giving, e.g.,

  • being hands-on vs. hands-off
  • working solo vs. with other donors
  • whether to make many small grants vs. few larger ones
  • how and whether the grant is tracked
  • whether the donor gives, lends or invests
  • how grantees are chosen – how prospective grantees are sourced, the selection criteria, the application process, who’s involved in the selection process
  • and so on.

Probably some grants work out better than others. It would be useful to know which types of grant work out best in which circumstances. {We have now heard two stories of funders whose application processes are no better than random in terms of predicting grantee success, and one where one stage of the application process reduces the accuracy of predictions of grantee success. It’s worth knowing how to judge applications!} Continue reading

Posted in Effective giving | 1 Comment

When charitable donations cost more than they give

Popularity contests for funding waste time and resources

This article first published in the Financial Times.

Some charitable donors are a net drain: they cost organisations they seek to help more than they contribute. Others come pretty close, costing nearly as much as they give. 

When I was a charity chief executive myself, I personally handled a gift from a foundation. Dealing with it before and after we received the money cost us 90 per cent of amount it gave us.

Aviva’s Community Fund may be another salutary example. It has recently been inviting “community projects” to apply for a share of £1.75m, and says it will fund “at least 800” of them. We’ll return to the question of whether splitting funds into numerous small grants is a good idea. For now, let’s focus on the fact that Aviva’s applicants must get loads of people to vote for them in an online poll. This is partly a popularity contest; nearly 4,000 organisations have registered.

Continue reading

Posted in Effective giving, Impact & evaluation | Leave a comment

Creating a sector-wide research agenda: Industrial Farm Animal Production

Ask an important question an answer it reliably’ is a central tenet of medical research. Yet  much ‘impact research’ in the charity and social sectors (including monitoring and evaluation’) isn’t like that. Instead, we ask lots of questions, and answer them somewhat unreliably because resources won’t stretch to answering them all properly. The selection of questions which get answered is often driven by funders, rather than by what’s important operationally or unknown.

Giving Evidence has thought for a while that it would be better if sectors identified their key unanswered questions, prioritised them, and then systematically worked down the list, corralling the available research resource to answer each important question reliably. That is, if we used sector-wide research agendas – rather than answering badly loads of ad hoc monitoring and evaluation questions.

Continue reading

Posted in Impact & evaluation | Leave a comment

What is evidence-based giving and why does it matter?

Interview with Caroline Fiennes, Director of Giving Evidence (16 mins):

 

This interview was made possible by the Skoll Foundation. It was recorded in Oxford in April 2015, in a single take and with no notice of the questions.

More videos & radio interviews are right here!

Posted in Impact & evaluation, Promoting giving | Leave a comment

Avoiding waste in medical research

This article first published in the Financial Times.

The news that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla are putting $3bn towards “ending all disease” has renewed the spotlight on the giving of Silicon Valley’s wealthiest. They are not alone in their enthusiasm for medical research: it is also the most popular target of charitable giving in the UK. 

There is a problem, however: about 85 per cent of medical research is wasted. That’s equivalent to 22 of the 26 miles which people run in marathons to raise funds for research into cancer and other conditions. Globally, that waste costs around $170bn every year. Perhaps many of us suffer with conditions which could have been cured if those funds had been spent more productively.

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

What would have happened otherwise?

First published in the FT.

Did the charity make it happen, or would it have happened anyway?

The purpose of a charity’s work — and your support for it — is to create a benefit beyond what would have happened anyway. This, of course, sounds obvious but (as my home discipline of physics powerfully attests) it’s fine to state the obvious as it can throw up some unexpected insights.

Charities are under considerable pressure to “demonstrate their impact”, yet few examine or recount what would have happened without them. “What difference does your work make beyond what would have happened anyway?” is perhaps the single most useful question that donors or trustees can ask.

Continue reading

Posted in Impact & evaluation | Leave a comment

The evidence system in the mental health charity sector

UK non-profits delivering mental health services are not great at producing or using scientific evidence.

This is the main finding of a new study by Giving Evidence. We interviewed 12 such organisations to understand their ‘evidence system’, i.e., how evidence is:

  • Produced
  • Synthesized
  • Shared, both ‘outbound’ from them and ‘inbound’ to them – and stored.

Screen Shot 2016-07-08 at 14.19.59

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Why do so few charities have their meetings in public?

All charities and charitable foundations exist to serve the public good. Most of them are Open Meetings coversubsidised by the public, through various tax breaks. Whereas any company must have a meeting at least annually at which the directors are held to account to the people whose capital they deploy, in over 15 years in this ‘industry’, we’d only encountered two charities /foundations which have meetings at which the people whose capital they deploy – the public – or the intended beneficiaries can what goes on. The 800-year-old City Bridge Trust lets anybody observe its decision-making meetings, and Global Giving UK has an AGM at which anybody can ask anything. Why don’t more?

It’s hard to be accountable to people, or to hear from people, if they’re not in the room. So we wondered how many charities and foundations have public meetings.

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Be a flexible friend

This article first published in the FT.

Toilet roll seems an unlikely emblem of effective philanthropy. Yet I’ve heard of a donor
who specifically funds loo rolls in London museums and galleries on the simple grounds that this kind of donation is both necessary and tough to fund.

Many donors want to fund the glamorous stuff: front-line programmes, identifiable projects and new buildings being prime examples. To do so, many “restrict” their gifts to those items. The main problem with this approach is that donors generally all want to fund the same things — none of which include loos, core staff or rent.

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment