Iโd guess itโs actually often worth it to do both in the same places and actually doubly protect many people, despite the trickiness of accounting for both. You can use or check with more conservative assumptions to avoid overestimating impact. Otherwise you might miss out on a lot of impact by avoiding overlap.
Im sure its worth it to do in two at once, but if either org only has the resources to do their distributions in half the places which might have similar impact, why not split it up? Politically and practically there might be issues here but in theory it could work....
Thanks Nick!
Iโd guess itโs actually often worth it to do both in the same places and actually doubly protect many people, despite the trickiness of accounting for both. You can use or check with more conservative assumptions to avoid overestimating impact. Otherwise you might miss out on a lot of impact by avoiding overlap.
Im sure its worth it to do in two at once, but if either org only has the resources to do their distributions in half the places which might have similar impact, why not split it up? Politically and practically there might be issues here but in theory it could work....