This is a super helpful perspective James. (And I'm not just saying that because you're a grantmaker ;)) It's given me a few ideas on how I can hone how we're measuring and communicating impact. Thanks
This is a really important piece - thank you for having written it.
Having been both a grantee and funder, I often find that, for an organization, getting funded is the easy part. Imnplementing the grant is where it can go south. I have seen grantees stumble in executing a grant (PI leaves, turnover with key external partner) and their response is they go into ostrich mode (head in sand) and they avoid communication with the funder at all costs. Such a wrong move!
Funders are accountable for their own results with respect to the effective use of the money they give out. Because funders are very cognizant of their ecosystem, I strongly urge grantees to get in touch with the funder when there is a fundamental issue at stake. Often they can facilitate connections if a key collaboration has dissolved or can provide strategic guidance that allows the grantee to then pivot for success.
I view funding as a bi-directional relationship. Lack of transparency by the grantee can doom a potentially solvable situation and leave both funder and grantee worse for the wear.
How many real friends do you need James? ;) On the more serious note, this resonates. You mentioned many aspects and I agree with most. Some good examples around the limitations that exist and what can be improved. As usual well written.
Thanks for the post, James. I liked it. Have you considered crossposting it to the EA Forum?
"Quick related request: I ask that people always check with both parties before making introductions! There is nothing more awkward than being introduced to someone because they need funding"
This makes sense. At the same time, I feel like a good alternative would be being happy not only with unsolicited intros, but also with summarily rejecting funding requests.
Hi James, great post! I strongly agree with the thrust, especially the two statements,
'If a nonprofit isn’t having a large social impact, they don’t necessarily face any tangible downside. As long as they can tell a compelling story to donors and fundraise, they keep going indefinitely,' and 'If something is actually that useful for the world, or making an impact, you should be able to measure it.'
There is a lot of inefficiency going on in the animal advocacy movement (as you may have seen, I wrote about WAI on the Forum as an example. They've made a meaningful effort to engage, but I didn't find their responses to be convincing), and somebody should get on that. I wonder if some kind of external watchdog would make sense at this point in the movement's development, to re-align incentives and reduce waste.
“How do we incentivise more of this honest self-reflection into the impact of our work? That is an open question for me, and something I would love some ideas on.”
Tldr: oof. Either a monopoly of funders forces the issue (imo probs with non-existent measurement tools for many types of programs); or the movement gets serious enough to do more cuts and handle them better (in the direction of… MLK was very prepared to lose his…job)
Misc thoughts, not very well edited:
-If you’re talking measurable impact, it’s honest and reflective, but note it’s a document or spreadsheet with technical structure as well. That’s more… incentivizable.
-Direct answer: add it to your funding rubric. Or restrict funding and pay directly for it. Challenge: incentives probably won’t outweigh the pain of cuts for most.
-The above takes this question quite literally. Continuing in that vein…. “incentives” may need more precise framing. “Incentive” may be defined as (a) “thing that motivates or encourages one to do something” OR (b) “payment or concession to stimulate greater output or investment”. For (a) you generally will need something that matters so much people will lay off their friends - which I can’t imagine leading to any conclusion other than it’s gotta be the animals and that needs a social fabric in the movement that can support that somehow. For (b), basically we’re just talking about leverage above and beyond your rubric/restrict options.
Side note - is there a common app for funding in the movement? If there’s a critical mass of funders who won’t fund orgs that don’t show signs of more impact driven internal budgeting, then you might be able to get “incentives” strong enough. Gates Fdn was able to do this in Int’l Dev because they’re half the entire sector so everyone knows a ton’s at stake so better measure stuff. Conversely if measurement-required funding is a small fraction, it won’t overcome the challenges (or costs of execution). Unfortunately… I’m not sure this doesn’t mean it’s not achievable without a sea change in the animal movement. (And def if folks were to “threaten” witholding measurability would need to be stronger in the movement such that it’s easier than just foregoing that funding… )
Anyway it’s late and that was rambling.
Somehow the main thing (says the data guy) has gotta be discipline and deep commitment that beats the odds and incentives (or a realistic view of how money in professionalized nonprofits works, and the limitations).
Thanks for sharing Michael! Lots of interesting stuff in here. Will respond to a few points that stood out:
- We've added the quality of a group's M&E to our funding rubric and i know some others have too, which is a good start! But sadly, this is not uniform amongst donors and some people prioritise this less. We/others are also very much open to funding high-quality M&E, but we don't often get specific requests for this.
- I think you hit the nail on the head with the framing that it's pretty challenging to design incentives that make people make decisions that are drastic e.g. laying off good staff they really enjoy working with.
- I also am not sure if a monopoly of funders should be forcing it through either: a) because I think the M&E will just be done better if orgs are doing it for themselves/by their own choosing and b) funders often don't want to be very heavy-handed, due to the already reasonable amount of influence they have in a space.
On the common application: No there isn't. Granti is the closest thing for us but it's not quite the same. Interesting to know about Gates Foundation -how are they perceived in the int'l development space / was their intervention seen as positive? As I fear if any major funder tried that in the animal space, there would be a lot of backlash!
-Yeah going full ultimatum on measurement isn’t the move for so many reasons. More carrot than stick here.
-To add and to answer your Gates question… reception was fine but is highly managed. Details: I’ve heard many strong reasoned cases for their strong MEL emphasis… on the human side: and you wouldn’t really hear it if folk do object! And they’re also super careful to emphasize their role “this is what we believe and wanna fund” vs. “you’re wrong”. So somewhat positive. But also I’ll say there remains a gap between M&E and MEL last I knew - orgs still should take it to heart more. And they’re quite private so not always up to subjecting the details to generic scrutiny and criticism (arguably why “Open” Phil was called that, and why that was new)
-Room to get better at M&E. Including funding interest out there.
-Would you say Granti has a critical mass of attention and apps … or that it should?
I laughed at the closing joke FWIW, and am unlikely to be asking you for money anytime soon.
The sad thing is that the closing joke was added by my partner..turns out she is the funny one!
This is a super helpful perspective James. (And I'm not just saying that because you're a grantmaker ;)) It's given me a few ideas on how I can hone how we're measuring and communicating impact. Thanks
This is a really important piece - thank you for having written it.
Having been both a grantee and funder, I often find that, for an organization, getting funded is the easy part. Imnplementing the grant is where it can go south. I have seen grantees stumble in executing a grant (PI leaves, turnover with key external partner) and their response is they go into ostrich mode (head in sand) and they avoid communication with the funder at all costs. Such a wrong move!
Funders are accountable for their own results with respect to the effective use of the money they give out. Because funders are very cognizant of their ecosystem, I strongly urge grantees to get in touch with the funder when there is a fundamental issue at stake. Often they can facilitate connections if a key collaboration has dissolved or can provide strategic guidance that allows the grantee to then pivot for success.
I view funding as a bi-directional relationship. Lack of transparency by the grantee can doom a potentially solvable situation and leave both funder and grantee worse for the wear.
Thanks for listening!
Thanks for sharing these insights, grantmaking can often feel like a very opaque process, so this is refreshing :)
How many real friends do you need James? ;) On the more serious note, this resonates. You mentioned many aspects and I agree with most. Some good examples around the limitations that exist and what can be improved. As usual well written.
Thanks for the post, James. I liked it. Have you considered crossposting it to the EA Forum?
"Quick related request: I ask that people always check with both parties before making introductions! There is nothing more awkward than being introduced to someone because they need funding"
This makes sense. At the same time, I feel like a good alternative would be being happy not only with unsolicited intros, but also with summarily rejecting funding requests.
Hi James, great post! I strongly agree with the thrust, especially the two statements,
'If a nonprofit isn’t having a large social impact, they don’t necessarily face any tangible downside. As long as they can tell a compelling story to donors and fundraise, they keep going indefinitely,' and 'If something is actually that useful for the world, or making an impact, you should be able to measure it.'
There is a lot of inefficiency going on in the animal advocacy movement (as you may have seen, I wrote about WAI on the Forum as an example. They've made a meaningful effort to engage, but I didn't find their responses to be convincing), and somebody should get on that. I wonder if some kind of external watchdog would make sense at this point in the movement's development, to re-align incentives and reduce waste.
“How do we incentivise more of this honest self-reflection into the impact of our work? That is an open question for me, and something I would love some ideas on.”
Tldr: oof. Either a monopoly of funders forces the issue (imo probs with non-existent measurement tools for many types of programs); or the movement gets serious enough to do more cuts and handle them better (in the direction of… MLK was very prepared to lose his…job)
Misc thoughts, not very well edited:
-If you’re talking measurable impact, it’s honest and reflective, but note it’s a document or spreadsheet with technical structure as well. That’s more… incentivizable.
-Direct answer: add it to your funding rubric. Or restrict funding and pay directly for it. Challenge: incentives probably won’t outweigh the pain of cuts for most.
-The above takes this question quite literally. Continuing in that vein…. “incentives” may need more precise framing. “Incentive” may be defined as (a) “thing that motivates or encourages one to do something” OR (b) “payment or concession to stimulate greater output or investment”. For (a) you generally will need something that matters so much people will lay off their friends - which I can’t imagine leading to any conclusion other than it’s gotta be the animals and that needs a social fabric in the movement that can support that somehow. For (b), basically we’re just talking about leverage above and beyond your rubric/restrict options.
Side note - is there a common app for funding in the movement? If there’s a critical mass of funders who won’t fund orgs that don’t show signs of more impact driven internal budgeting, then you might be able to get “incentives” strong enough. Gates Fdn was able to do this in Int’l Dev because they’re half the entire sector so everyone knows a ton’s at stake so better measure stuff. Conversely if measurement-required funding is a small fraction, it won’t overcome the challenges (or costs of execution). Unfortunately… I’m not sure this doesn’t mean it’s not achievable without a sea change in the animal movement. (And def if folks were to “threaten” witholding measurability would need to be stronger in the movement such that it’s easier than just foregoing that funding… )
Anyway it’s late and that was rambling.
Somehow the main thing (says the data guy) has gotta be discipline and deep commitment that beats the odds and incentives (or a realistic view of how money in professionalized nonprofits works, and the limitations).
Thanks for sharing Michael! Lots of interesting stuff in here. Will respond to a few points that stood out:
- We've added the quality of a group's M&E to our funding rubric and i know some others have too, which is a good start! But sadly, this is not uniform amongst donors and some people prioritise this less. We/others are also very much open to funding high-quality M&E, but we don't often get specific requests for this.
- I think you hit the nail on the head with the framing that it's pretty challenging to design incentives that make people make decisions that are drastic e.g. laying off good staff they really enjoy working with.
- I also am not sure if a monopoly of funders should be forcing it through either: a) because I think the M&E will just be done better if orgs are doing it for themselves/by their own choosing and b) funders often don't want to be very heavy-handed, due to the already reasonable amount of influence they have in a space.
On the common application: No there isn't. Granti is the closest thing for us but it's not quite the same. Interesting to know about Gates Foundation -how are they perceived in the int'l development space / was their intervention seen as positive? As I fear if any major funder tried that in the animal space, there would be a lot of backlash!
Thx for perspective. Sounds like largely…
-Yeah going full ultimatum on measurement isn’t the move for so many reasons. More carrot than stick here.
-To add and to answer your Gates question… reception was fine but is highly managed. Details: I’ve heard many strong reasoned cases for their strong MEL emphasis… on the human side: and you wouldn’t really hear it if folk do object! And they’re also super careful to emphasize their role “this is what we believe and wanna fund” vs. “you’re wrong”. So somewhat positive. But also I’ll say there remains a gap between M&E and MEL last I knew - orgs still should take it to heart more. And they’re quite private so not always up to subjecting the details to generic scrutiny and criticism (arguably why “Open” Phil was called that, and why that was new)
-Room to get better at M&E. Including funding interest out there.
-Would you say Granti has a critical mass of attention and apps … or that it should?
Thanks for sharing! Ties in well with https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yXLEcd9eixWucKGHg/the-seeker-s-game-vignettes-from-the-bay
James, I think your jokes are funny
finally, someone I can trust to be honest! Thank you Nithin