Is there ever a situation where using evidence is unhelpful?
We’ve already made the case for the importance of evidence. However, there may be times when evidence may not be of much use or there simply isn’t any.
As Rhodri puts it, you could argue that the ‘sweet spot’ for philanthropy is to test and catalyse new ideas that can then be applied at scale if they work. In this case, evidence won’t exist because it’s a new idea or intervention. He went as far as saying that the emphasis on data and impact has hindered funding to crucial but harder-to-measure systemic issues.
Matthew adds that there is a growing shift away from funding specific ‘things’ such as charities or interventions, and instead toward people and ideas, and concurred that data is unlikely to be helpful here.
Putting this into context, the percentage of philanthropic capital that gets allocated to systemic change or to bold individuals with bold ideas is negligible. This is less to do with impact, and more to do with donors’ desire to reach beneficiaries directly and to be more small scale or local in their giving. If this is your view of philanthropy and what you support, then evidence still has a very important role to play. And while there is absolutely a role for catalytic philanthropy, Caroline points out that you also do have to be building the evidence base for the programme as you trial it, otherwise you can’t know if it worked, and therefore whether it should be scaled-up.