I wish I had a more quantitative answer at this point. We have begun tracking grant impact, and forecasting its outcomes using a system that categorizes grants into four possibilities: successful as planned, successful pivot, unsuccessful due to theory of change, and unsuccessful due to execution. Once weāve collected more data through this system, weāll be able to provide more precise numbers. :)
For now, I can say that modifications to original outcomes happen fairly oftenāmy rough estimate is in about 30% of cases. These modifications can involve either scaling back to more modest goals or, in some cases, expanding to more ambitious ones.
Generally, we view pivots positively when grantees adapt their outcomes based on new information and the modified outcomes have led to (or are likely to lead to) meaningful impact. In these cases, we increase our confidence in the granteeās ability to execute this type of work while decreasing our confidence in the assumptions underlying the original theory of change. When grantees donāt deliver their planned outcomes, we look for evidence that theyāve learned valuable lessons that will help them either develop more realistic expectations and plans, or improve their tactics to better achieve their goals.
While we appreciate all the efforts that advocates undertake to improve the plights of animals, we do take track records into account when evaluating subsequent applications. Our tolerance for āmissesā before deciding not to fund a grantee depends on several factors, such as our priors about the effectiveness of their work, or the ambition of their undertakingātwo misses from a grantee that has been achieving significant impact for years but is now struggling with an ambitious campaign is different from a grantee who misses twice on their moderate goals and hasnāt had any positive track record before.
Ultimately, how we balance accountability versus flexibility is highly case-dependent, taking into account the full context of the granteeās work and circumstances.
I wish I had a more quantitative answer at this point. We have begun tracking grant impact, and forecasting its outcomes using a system that categorizes grants into four possibilities: successful as planned, successful pivot, unsuccessful due to theory of change, and unsuccessful due to execution. Once weāve collected more data through this system, weāll be able to provide more precise numbers. :)
For now, I can say that modifications to original outcomes happen fairly oftenāmy rough estimate is in about 30% of cases. These modifications can involve either scaling back to more modest goals or, in some cases, expanding to more ambitious ones.
Generally, we view pivots positively when grantees adapt their outcomes based on new information and the modified outcomes have led to (or are likely to lead to) meaningful impact. In these cases, we increase our confidence in the granteeās ability to execute this type of work while decreasing our confidence in the assumptions underlying the original theory of change. When grantees donāt deliver their planned outcomes, we look for evidence that theyāve learned valuable lessons that will help them either develop more realistic expectations and plans, or improve their tactics to better achieve their goals.
While we appreciate all the efforts that advocates undertake to improve the plights of animals, we do take track records into account when evaluating subsequent applications. Our tolerance for āmissesā before deciding not to fund a grantee depends on several factors, such as our priors about the effectiveness of their work, or the ambition of their undertakingātwo misses from a grantee that has been achieving significant impact for years but is now struggling with an ambitious campaign is different from a grantee who misses twice on their moderate goals and hasnāt had any positive track record before.
Ultimately, how we balance accountability versus flexibility is highly case-dependent, taking into account the full context of the granteeās work and circumstances.
Thank you Karolina for the detailed answer!