Buy the book! www.giving-evidence.com/book
-
Recent Posts
- Why most ratings of charities are useless: the available information isn’t important and the important information isn’t available
- Webinar: intro to evidence, and the evidence about child abuse
- Many (many!) charities are too small to measure their own impact
- We don’t know how to get donors to use more evidence to improve their giving
- Royal patronages of charities don’t seem to help charities much
- How is philanthropy responding to Covid19? How should it respond?
- Identifying the Effects of Various Ways of Giving: Using the ‘Opportunity’ of the Covid19 Crisis
- Giving during COVID-19
- We tried to update our analysis of charities’ performance and their admin costs, and you won’t BELIEVE what happened next!
- Why I’ve joined a board of the Flemish Red Cross
- Do Royals help charities? We’re finding out
- Can people tell posh champagne from cava in a blind trial?? – an experiment
Categories
- Admin costs (11)
- Analysing giving (8)
- Books (7)
- Corporate philanthropy (6)
- Donor behaviour & giving stats (27)
- Effective giving (59)
- Fundraising (18)
- Great charities (20)
- Impact & evaluation (63)
- Mergers (2)
- meta-research (6)
- Promoting giving (5)
- Tax and governance (7)
- transparency (2)
- Uncategorized (114)
Category Archives: meta-research
What makes a helpful reporting & evaluation system? Learning from an outlier
Funders’ reporting and evaluation systems are rarely loved: they are more often regarded as compliance or ‘policing’. But not so for the Inter-American Foundation apparently: IAF received better feedback from its grantees on its reporting and evaluation system than have … Continue reading →
The Magic Impact Fairy will ensure that your research really changes something
Many charities’ theory of change is: ‘here’s that document you didn’t ask for’ I want to introduce you to someone: the Magic Impact Fairy. Her job is to take all the research that people do and the reports they write, … Continue reading →
How come this foundation’s grantees love its reporting process so much?
Most charities hate the reporting which funders make them do. Notionally a learning process, it’s often just compliance, box-ticking and a dead-weight cost. But not so apparently for the Inter-American Foundation, an independent US government agency which grant-funds citizen-led community … Continue reading →
Deworming: problems under re-analysis
A flawed study on deworming children—and new studies that expose its errors—reveal why activists and philanthropists alike need safeguards. The book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, of all things, offers a critically important message for people who work … Continue reading →
Posted in Effective giving, Great charities, Impact & evaluation, meta-research, transparency
|
Tagged deworming, science, worms
|
Leave a comment
Is grantee / beneficiary feedback a substitute for RCTs?
The short answer is no. At first sight, it seems that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and Constituent Voice (CV: a good way of gathering feedback from programme beneficiaries or grantees) could substitute for each other because they both seek to … Continue reading →
Non-publication of charities’ research: groundbreaking new project!
This was first published by our friends at Evidence Matters. It’s hard to make evidence-based decisions if much of the evidence is missing, ropey, unclear or you can’t find it. Charities produce masses of evidence about their effectiveness but Giving Evidence … Continue reading →
