Add lens pov analysis API
1 unresolved thread
1 unresolved thread
Compare changes
Files
14
api/json-store/lenses.toml
0 → 100644
+ 288
− 0
[Provide your detailed reasoning here, citing specific examples from the proposal. Consider the depth and frequency of beneficiary involvement, how their perspectives are incorporated into various dimensions of the proposal (program design, implementation, evaluation), and whether there is a plan for developing proximal leadership. Be sure to reference specific parts of the proposal to support your assessment.]
Durability of Power refers to how well the solution ensures that any gains in power persist. Proposed solutions create durable power by enhancing the capacity of existing leaders and cultivating new ones from the intended beneficiary community. The overarching goal is that the need for the proposed solution will eventually become obsolete because those who historically have lacked access to power now have it.
Those who are already viewed as leaders in the beneficiary community are often referred to as “proximal” leaders. Their proximity means they recognize assets and risks that are often overlooked or misunderstood by outsiders. Such proximal leaders are instrumental in addressing structural inequality because they bring experience, relationships, data, and knowledge that are essential for solutions that have a lasting impact.
Under Durability of Power, the highest-scoring proposals (3-4) either have active proximal leadership, or a concrete plan for engaging and developing proximal leadership. A mid-range proposal (2) also communicates a plan for engaging and developing proximal leadership but is less clear on how beneficiaries will eventually exercise power. The lowest-scoring proposals (0-1) either do not incorporate proximal leadership at all, or it is incorporated so minimally that there is no feasible plan for beneficiaries to have increased power or agency for the long term.
While unpaid advisory groups and mentoring programs can contribute beneficiary insights and build proximal leaders, proposals with the greatest chance of reducing structural inequality have proximal leaders at all levels of decision-making, fully participating in the design, planning and implementation of solutions.
Inclusivity refers to how much beneficiaries — the people and communities may benefit who are intended either directly or indirectly from the proposed solution — are involved. Two dimensions of inclusivity are depth and frequency. Depth refers to how much the interests and perspectives of the intended beneficiaries are systematically incorporated and reflected in the proposal — from priority setting, planning, solution design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, to ongoing learning. Frequency refers to how often the organization proposing the solution interacts with members of the beneficiary community.
Inclusivity ensures rich and frequent beneficiary involvement in planning, leadership, program design, implementation, and evaluation. Such involvement helps to ensure the proposed solution is considered important and desirable by the affected community, reflects the relevant cultural norms needed for acceptance of the solution, and mitigates the risk of unintentional harm. Ongoing involvement builds trust and promotes knowledge sharing, both of which are important in creating greater equity and sustaining positive change. The most inclusive organizations are led and operated by members of the beneficiary community itself.
Under Durability of Power, the highest-scoring proposals (3-4) either have active proximal leadership, or a concrete plan for engaging and developing proximal leadership. A mid-range proposal (2) also communicates a plan for engaging and developing proximal leadership but is less clear on how beneficiaries will eventually exercise power. The lowest-scoring proposals (0-1) either do not incorporate proximal leadership at all, or it is incorporated so minimally that there is no feasible plan for beneficiaries to have increased power or agency for the long term.
While unpaid advisory groups and mentoring programs can contribute beneficiary insights and build proximal leaders, proposals with the greatest chance of reducing structural inequality have proximal leaders at all levels of decision-making, fully participating in the design, planning and implementation of solutions.
For example, a national nonprofit with affiliate partners in multiple cities and a track record of success in direct service and advocacy could be in an excellent position to shift policy in its home country and maybe even influence policy in others. On the other hand, a young, grass-roots organization in a country that lacks infrastructure may be expected to deliver services to a disadvantaged community that had previously lacked access to services. However, it would be unfair to hold that organization accountable for shifting national or regional policy.
If a proposal ranks high on all other elements of the rubric, resist eliminating it from funding decisions purely on the basis of limited existing organizational capacity. As mentioned in What Is Structural Inequality?, there is a well-documented historic underinvestment in organizations led by certain leaders. Philanthropic funding can help rectify this lack of investment and bring capacity to nonprofits with high potential that have previously been excluded.
The highest-scoring proposals (3-4) historically view their work as contributing to reducing structural inequality and have the appropriate level of staff and other organizational resources to successfully implement their solutions. A mid-range proposal (2) comes from an organization that may have addressed an element of structural inequality in the past, but whose resources may be slightly undermatched to the proposed solution. Low-scoring proposals (0-1) have no or minimal history of addressing structural inequality and whose limited resources make it implausible that its solution would succeed.
The Center for High Impact Philanthropy’s broad definition of evidence includes three sources of evidence for a more inclusive view that goes beyond traditional scientific, empirical evidence to include observations of stakeholders and the perspectives of those most directly affected. All of these sources of evidence inform a strong theory of change.
All three sources of evidence are valid, and each brings relative strengths and limitations (for more see Rethinking the E Word). The strongest case for success exists when all three sources of evidence point in the same direction. However, a strong, plausible, compelling case may be made for a solution even with limited evidence from the first category. There can be big differences in both the amount and type of relevant evidence, depending on the cause area the proposal addresses; the developmental stage of the organization; and whether the proposal is for research, direct service, or advocacy.
For example, a strong proposal for a needed but still untested program will have clear understanding of the root causes of the problem and evidence that the solution is promising, but it may not yet have empirical proof. In these cases, Strength of Evidence also refers to how strong the case is for the potential for the proposal to achieve its intended impact. A proposal for expanding a longstanding direct-service program that has already scaled to many states or countries would be expected to have available client-level evaluation results, whereas a new policy initiative for more equitable funding would not yet have any individual-level results. Instead that proposal would rely on data regarding existing disparities and a modeled analysis of how the new policy might close them.
When scoring for this element, consider whether the type and amount of evidence matches the specific proposal. The highest-scoring proposals (3-4) provide substantial, credible, compelling evidence that the proposed solution is thoughtful in its design; will be effective in its implementation; and is directly related to some aspect of structural inequality. A mid-scoring proposal (2) suggests a solution that is also directly related to an aspect of structural inequality, but the evidence presented may be only tangentially related and only meet the threshold of plausible. A low-scoring proposal (0-1) fails to address an aspect of structural inequality or addresses an aspect but presents minimal or weak evidence, rendering the success implausible.
A system is composed of multiple institutions. For example, the system for ensuring public health includes health agencies at every level of government, labs and hospitals, educational institutions, and private organizations. Meaningful shifts in a system require institutions to change their practices. For that reason, this category assesses the extent to which the proposed solution works with, leverages, and has the potential to shift the work of multiple stakeholders — other nonprofits, policymakers, and commercial interests.
4: The proposal makes substantial shifts in policies, institutions, or power structures; and fills a crucial gap in existing efforts. It catalyzes the work of other organizations throughout their field. The proposal outlines a specific strategy for scaling impact and adapting the solution to new contexts.
Highest-ranked solutions (3-4) demonstrate an ability to shift policies, institutions, or power structures. Such solutions often build on existing work, and outline strategies for scaling impact and adapting the solution to new contexts. Mid-range proposals (2) may demonstrate an ability to shift certain policies, institutions, or power structures, and have an established connection to existing efforts. However, plans for scaling impact are cursory. Low-scoring proposals (0-1) do not articulate an intended shift in policies, institutions, or power structures. Plans to scale are cursory or nonexistent.