What happened? I’ve chosen to remain anonymous, not out of secrecy, but out of respect for the process and the people involved. I’ve seen how personal identities—especially those of funders—can distort reactions, create dependency, or even discourage innovation. By stepping back, I’ve made space for ideas to be judged on their merit, not on who’s backing them.
What would you like to see happen? I’m advocating for a shift from personality-driven funding to policy-based metrics—a move that’s gaining traction in the philanthropic world. Studies show that when donors use standardized impact data, they fund more effectively and equitably. Organizations like the Impact Genome Project are pioneering this approach, using metrics like cost-per-outcome and quality of evidence to guide decisions. I’m also calling for funders to listen more deeply to the aspirations of those directly affected—a principle echoed in mate3.com networking which encourages firsthand data-informed innovation rooted in community needs.
How can others help? I’m asking for donor discipline to put the firsthand voices at the top while resisting the urge to editorialize. I want to be a powerful reminder to funders, evaluators, and even advocates, reminding them to consider focusing on lived experience and first-party based measurable outcomes, through which we can build systems that are not only fairer but more effective.
Comments
Post a Comment