In partnership with Just Economics, we developed GiveShop’s framework for addressing our supported causes, and the tools we’ll use to vett projects and evaluate their impact over time.
- Vetting Process
- Ongoing Evaluation
GiveShop’s framework designed for each cause ensures an integrated approach that is integral to effectively addressing these complex problems.
It consists of five major routes in addressing each social cause in developed countries and in developing countries.
- Prevention - Interventions to stop the problem from arising
- Treatment - Interventions to support and solve for immediate needs
- Sustainability - Interventions to embed the solution and reduce recidivism
- Most Vulnerable Group - Interventions to support the neediest and most vulnerable groups, who in many cases are also the most underfunded
- Innovation - Interventions exploring new approaches
II. Vetting Process
With the framework in place, we identify top projects using our vetting process which consists of one application stream for projects who need solely volunteers, and another application stream for projects who need either solely funding or funding and volunteers.
The reasons for this is because the project supply needed for volunteering is different than the project supply needed for funding. For funding, we want a smaller project supply so that funds are converged to the top projects, and not distributed across so many projects to where no project receives enough funding. Therefore, we have a separate application stream that is more rigorous.
GiveShop’s evaluates projects following industry best practices (OECD/DAC criteria) and key areas that aim to better understand a project’s overall potential.
Detailed Evaluation Areas:
- Fraud/Background Check
- Alignment with GiveShop Framework (5 routes)
- Relevance (OECD/DAC) - Is the project doing the right things?
- Coherence (OECD/DAC) - How well does the intervention fit within the local context?
- Effectiveness (OECD/DAC) - Is the intervention achieving its objectives?
- Efficiency (OECD/DAC) - How well are resources being used?
- Impact (OECD/DAC) - What difference does the intervention make?
- Sustainability (OECD/DAC) - Will the benefit last?
- Project Roadmap/Execution Plan
- Core Team
- Financial Plan
The key areas relevant to each application stream is shown in this comparison table.
NOTE — The goal of our vetting process is not to reject projects, but to ensure showcased projects have thoroughly thought through critical questions. Therefore, if a project does not pass, we will share a report on the areas they can provide more info or further improve in order to pass.
III. Ongoing Evaluation
After a project is approved, a living storybook is created for a project, where collaborators can follow the project’s journey over time.
This grants them insight into:
- Project’s core indicators/metrics and how they are tracking over time
- Project progress through bite-sized updates
- Collaborator reviews, which provides more insight on project’s internal operations
For projects approved for funding, we are working out a process to distribute funds through milestones. This means that a project only receives necessary funds to hit the next milestone. Once they hit the milestone, they will unlock the funds necessary to hit the next milestone.
The benefits of milestone fund distribution are
- Keeps projects more accountable
- If a project stops or fails, remaining funds can be sent back to givers to redistribute to other GiveShop projects.
We are still working out the operational and legal pieces necessary to enable this process so stay tuned if you’re interested!
Our next step in developing this impact strategy is to pilot it with an initial cohort of projects. This will allow us to see where projects stand in our scoring system, and assess how we can further improve our strategy.