Given the current state of evaluators, it seems like a good initiative!
A related thought I had:
I wonder how it could be set up so that we do not end up in a “turtles all the way down” situation, where we have an infinite number of evaluators, evaluating other evaluators, evaluating other evaluators… ad infinitum.
At the end of the day, the public will need to TRUST one evaluator.
To address this, I think it’s important to look at the value each additional layer of evaluation provides. It seems (with the multitude of evaluators and fundraisers) we are now at a point where at least some work in the second layer is necessary/useful, but I don’t think a third layer would currently be justified (with 0-1 organisations active in the second layer).
Another way to see this is: the “turtles all the way down” concern already works for the first layer of evaluators (why do we need one if charities are already evaluating themselves and reporting on their impact? who is evaluating these evaluators?): the relevant question is whether the layer adds enough value, which this first layer clearly does (given how many charities and donors there are and the lack of public and independent information available on how they compare), and I argue above the second does as well.
FWIW I don’t think this second layer should be fully or forever centralised in GWWC, and I see some value in more fundraising organisations having at least some research capacity to determine their recommendations, but we need to start somewhere and there are diminishing returns to adding more. Relatedly, I should say that I don’t expect fundraising organisations to just “listen to whatever GWWC says”: we provide recommendations and guidance, and these organisations may use that to inform their choices (which is a significant improvement to having no guidance at all to choose among evaluators).
Given the current state of evaluators, it seems like a good initiative!
A related thought I had:
I wonder how it could be set up so that we do not end up in a “turtles all the way down” situation, where we have an infinite number of evaluators, evaluating other evaluators, evaluating other evaluators… ad infinitum.
At the end of the day, the public will need to TRUST one evaluator.
Thanks for your comment Hendrik!
To address this, I think it’s important to look at the value each additional layer of evaluation provides. It seems (with the multitude of evaluators and fundraisers) we are now at a point where at least some work in the second layer is necessary/useful, but I don’t think a third layer would currently be justified (with 0-1 organisations active in the second layer).
Another way to see this is: the “turtles all the way down” concern already works for the first layer of evaluators (why do we need one if charities are already evaluating themselves and reporting on their impact? who is evaluating these evaluators?): the relevant question is whether the layer adds enough value, which this first layer clearly does (given how many charities and donors there are and the lack of public and independent information available on how they compare), and I argue above the second does as well.
FWIW I don’t think this second layer should be fully or forever centralised in GWWC, and I see some value in more fundraising organisations having at least some research capacity to determine their recommendations, but we need to start somewhere and there are diminishing returns to adding more. Relatedly, I should say that I don’t expect fundraising organisations to just “listen to whatever GWWC says”: we provide recommendations and guidance, and these organisations may use that to inform their choices (which is a significant improvement to having no guidance at all to choose among evaluators).