Interesting question! I think we’ve learned a lot over the years, though this is still far from a science. I think the key factors that we now weigh more heavily than we used to are:
Organizational and intervention track record. We’ve always cared about this, but have come to care even more so as we’ve seen how often past performance predicts future success.
The presence of feedback loops, or our ability to create them. We’ve been surprised how how hard it can be to tell if a grant is actually achieving anything, especially if it has a long-term theory of change. As a result, we’re more excited about grants with clear feedback loops to measure if things are on track.
The clarity and realism of the grant goals. We’ve found that a lack of clear and realistic goals is often a sign of internal confusion within the grantee about what they’re trying to achieve. By contrast, groups with clear and achievable goals generally achieve more.
The presence of effective organizational governance. I traditionally ignored this one because we care about impact, not organizational form or practices. But we’ve seen how good governance—especially a good board—can help keep an organization on track and manage crises that could derail a group.
Good answers to specific questions, especially on track records and plans. The best groups are normally able to provide compelling answers to very specific questions about what they claim to have achieved and their plans to achieve more.
How has your strategy for assessing potential grants evolved over the years, and what key factors do you now consider that you didn’t before?
Interesting question! I think we’ve learned a lot over the years, though this is still far from a science. I think the key factors that we now weigh more heavily than we used to are:
Organizational and intervention track record. We’ve always cared about this, but have come to care even more so as we’ve seen how often past performance predicts future success.
The presence of feedback loops, or our ability to create them. We’ve been surprised how how hard it can be to tell if a grant is actually achieving anything, especially if it has a long-term theory of change. As a result, we’re more excited about grants with clear feedback loops to measure if things are on track.
The clarity and realism of the grant goals. We’ve found that a lack of clear and realistic goals is often a sign of internal confusion within the grantee about what they’re trying to achieve. By contrast, groups with clear and achievable goals generally achieve more.
The presence of effective organizational governance. I traditionally ignored this one because we care about impact, not organizational form or practices. But we’ve seen how good governance—especially a good board—can help keep an organization on track and manage crises that could derail a group.
Good answers to specific questions, especially on track records and plans. The best groups are normally able to provide compelling answers to very specific questions about what they claim to have achieved and their plans to achieve more.