Do you have any thoughts on whether AWF, LTFF and Longview’s Emerging Challenges Fund (ECF) should publish more information about the rationale behind their grants?
The AWF has a section on Grantmaking and Impact on its website in which it lists several past grantees and their type of work, but it doesn’t go into detail on what these organisations achieved or what they achieved with the grants they received from the AWF in particular. We don’t think it would be worth it for the AWF to do a follow-up impact evaluation on each grant it makes, but we think it could at least provide a few more detailed examples of successful past grants, to illustrate to donors what their donations may lead to.
I agree doing follow-up impact evaluations of all grants is not needed, but I also think it would be useful to know about the cases for the grants at the time they were made. You note LTFF shares such cases, but only for a tiny minority of the grants, and follow-up impact evaluations are essentially absent too.
ECF has grant write-ups of a few paragraphs, but you note “Longview has solid grantmaking processes in place to find highly cost-effective funding opportunities”, so maybe it could share more without much more additional work?
Hi,
Do you have any thoughts on whether AWF, LTFF and Longview’s Emerging Challenges Fund (ECF) should publish more information about the rationale behind their grants?
With respect to AWF, you say:
I agree doing follow-up impact evaluations of all grants is not needed, but I also think it would be useful to know about the cases for the grants at the time they were made. You note LTFF shares such cases, but only for a tiny minority of the grants, and follow-up impact evaluations are essentially absent too.
ECF has grant write-ups of a few paragraphs, but you note “Longview has solid grantmaking processes in place to find highly cost-effective funding opportunities”, so maybe it could share more without much more additional work?