“75% of organizations say improving MEL is important or urgent, but only 18% would definitely pay for it.” That’s a rather upsetting finding. To turn MEL into an ongoing function rather than just a one-off deep dive you need structures in place, people with expertise, tools to collect data etc. It’s worth the investment, but funders/orgs definitely have to be willing to put money behind it.
Hi Laura. That finding also jumped out to me. I suspect orgs are less willing to improve MEL than suggested by that quote. “77% [of orgs] say funders rarely or never fund MEL (excl. n/a results)”, but I assume this refer to funding restricted to MEL, whereas what I think matters to assess orgs’ preferences is whether there are funds which can be used to improve MEL. I would be surprised if funders restricted funding to non-MEL activities. So I believe orgs could spend more on MEL if they wanted to.
“75% of organizations say improving MEL is important or urgent”, but I find it difficult to interpret this without knowing what orgs would say about other activities. Maybe the vast majority of orgs considers more important or urgent improving other activities, which could explain why “only 18% would definitely pay for it”.
The not wanting to “definitely pay for MEL”, is probably more related to hiring external MEL support. We didn’t investigate this, but based on my experience, I would say this is probably related to at least two things: the majority of organizations in the farmed animal movement are small and underfunded, and it’s pretty common that services are provided for free. Looking at it that way, I’m actually not unhappy with the 18% at this point in time.
About funders rarely funding MEL: It’s indeed more about organizations budgeting for and allocating resources to MEL than funders restricting funds to non-MEL activities. If organizations start adding budget lines for MEL staff time, I expect (and hope) this will not lead to objections from funders.
“75% of organizations say improving MEL is important or urgent, but only 18% would definitely pay for it.”
That’s a rather upsetting finding. To turn MEL into an ongoing function rather than just a one-off deep dive you need structures in place, people with expertise, tools to collect data etc. It’s worth the investment, but funders/orgs definitely have to be willing to put money behind it.
Looking forward to seeing what you produce!
Hi Laura. That finding also jumped out to me. I suspect orgs are less willing to improve MEL than suggested by that quote. “77% [of orgs] say funders rarely or never fund MEL (excl. n/a results)”, but I assume this refer to funding restricted to MEL, whereas what I think matters to assess orgs’ preferences is whether there are funds which can be used to improve MEL. I would be surprised if funders restricted funding to non-MEL activities. So I believe orgs could spend more on MEL if they wanted to.
“75% of organizations say improving MEL is important or urgent”, but I find it difficult to interpret this without knowing what orgs would say about other activities. Maybe the vast majority of orgs considers more important or urgent improving other activities, which could explain why “only 18% would definitely pay for it”.
Thanks Laura and Vasco,
The not wanting to “definitely pay for MEL”, is probably more related to hiring external MEL support. We didn’t investigate this, but based on my experience, I would say this is probably related to at least two things: the majority of organizations in the farmed animal movement are small and underfunded, and it’s pretty common that services are provided for free. Looking at it that way, I’m actually not unhappy with the 18% at this point in time.
About funders rarely funding MEL: It’s indeed more about organizations budgeting for and allocating resources to MEL than funders restricting funds to non-MEL activities. If organizations start adding budget lines for MEL staff time, I expect (and hope) this will not lead to objections from funders.