Interview with Fay Twersky

http://www.alliancemagazine.org/online/html/aonov07a.html

Here is a link to a Fay Twersky interview from November 2007. It discusses some key issues related to impact measurement. Ms. Twersky is Director of Impact Planning and Improvement at the Gates Foundation and has great insight on the topic.

Allowing for Growing Pains

Some preliminary feedback on our reports suggests that we may need to make two forms of reports, one for HNIs and one for corporate donors. The HNI reports need to be shorter and more anecdotal. The corporate reports need to be closer to financial disclosures.

We have generally leaned toward the corporate model, shying away from photos and anecdotes because we don’t want to encourage that type of behavior. Also, it is difficult to verify such stories unless we actually listen and make a record of those stories. It would be great if we could, but given our resource limitations, we are trying to figure how to “humanize” our reports without having to reply on the NGOs for their stories because we can not be 100% certain that they are correct.

One of the dangers in measuring the effectiveness is that it might dissuade the innovativeness of the projects funders are prepared to support. Measures if not tailored correctly will be overly harsh on new groups as they test out new interventions and approaches to solving problems. If this is calculated without some leniency for such innovativeness these organizations will look worse and donors may shy away from them.

Thus, measurement standards must strike the right balance between innovation and effectiveness. This means that means that measurement frameworks, especially in the beginning of an organization’s life, must to be tailored to allow for innovation. As a organization grows and matures, more stringent measurement criteria can be applied.

The key point is that a “one-size-fits-all” approach will not work.

Tailoring Reports for Different Donors

Some preliminary feedback on our reports suggests that we may need to make two forms of reports, one for HNIs and one for corporate donors. The HNI reports need to be shorter and more anecdotal. The corporate reports need to be closer to financial disclosures.

We have generally leaned toward the corporate model, shying away from photos and anecdotes because we don’t want to encourage that type of behavior. Also, it is difficult to verify such stories unless we actually listen and make a record of those stories. It would be great if we could, but given our resource limitations, we are trying to figure how to “humanize” our reports without having to reply on the NGOs for their stories because we can not be 100% certain that they are correct.

Good idea but maybe think about what people actually need?

I was on Facebook today when a pop up add came up with a picture of a young Indian girl and said "24 Hour Famine". So I googled it and it turns out that World Vision is asking people to get sponsored "to go go without for 24 hours, so that someone else doesn’t have to." The idea is to raise funds and awareness for a new project they are doing for street children in Chennai.

While I applaud their efforts -- which are laudable -- it is proper nutrition rather than starvation that is an issue in India. I point this story out only as an example of what we have seen with foreign organizations in India. They often intervene with the best of intentions but with preconceived notions of what should be done. And those preconceptions often are incorrect and therefore lead the organization astray.

This is why it is not only important to consult with experts but also with stakeholders and beneficiaries. They will give you a better picture of the problem and correct misconceptions.

NY Times Article on Education Highlights Major Issues

Here is a NY Times article on education in India. It points out some of the issues we have seen in India: (1) mistrust of public education; (2) consumer driven culture; (3) increase in the cost of living; (4) lack of attention to the rural problems; and (5) middle class resentment of helping the poor.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/06/world/asia/06school.html?_r=1&oref=

Donors' Level of Engagment Is Crucial to the Success of Unrestricted Funding

“If it happens without intermediation, our experience shows that it rarely succeeds because donors don't have that kind of time to engage in detailed discussions[.]”

That is a quote from one of the groups we trust the most. We asked them whether from the beginning we would be able to go for unrestricted funding and what he thought of the concept. Their belief was that it would only be possible if the donors were willing to take up a lot of the monitoring role and be actively involved because otherwise it would be very hard for the donor to judge success at some future point in time. Their point was that they believed that the donor would not be satisfied with a report one year later detailing the use of his or her money if there wasn’t some predetermined way to measure the use through a project or target.

This comes from a respected group so we are taking it very seriously. However, our belief is that we can get donors to understand that they are funding social change and are part of this process of change. This process requires flexibility and non-project based funding to target a range of conditions. And through our discussions and reports, we hope to encourage such a system/relationship.

We do believe we can get donors to be satisfied with such reports one year later, but the concern expressed in the quote is valid. For this to work, donors are going to have to have the time to engage. What we need to do is make that time as little of a burden as possible.

Additional Concerns about Unrestricted Funding

Here are two other concerns that were passed on to us:

(1) Because most donors do not proactively ask for the full set of the NGOs accounts, they are unlikely to be able to identify duplicate allocations. We need to make sure that donors understand this problem and ask for the information. But because they probably do not have enough time to look over many records, either we will have to do it to provide assurance or train them how to do so. Ideally, we would like them to do it because it fosters a closer and more involved relationship, but practically, I don’t think it will happen until further into the relationship.

2) NGOs sometimes fail to utilize their funds at all if they are not tied to a specific project. For example, when NGOs raise money through fundraising efforts that yield unrestricted funds (like from marathon sponsorship), they often hold on to that money in a corpus account or try to spread it over the course of the year. While it may be necessary in certain cases, we do want to encourage funds to be used and not sat upon. There is always a chance of misuse or underuse when funds sit for a while.