Exploratory project

Exploring the Research Behind Philanthropy Decisions

A question that grew out of doing the work once: how much research sits behind a good giving or partnership decision, and who does that work when there is no large internal team?

Working hypothesis

It started with a real project

During a UCLA Anderson impact project, our team researched a large universe of organisations across multiple countries and built a structured way to narrow that field into a more focused set of potential partners.

The work was not simply about finding organisations. We had to define the questions that mattered, gather evidence from different sources, compare organisations that were not always easy to compare, identify where information was incomplete, and translate the analysis into a practical partnership strategy.

What stayed with me was less the scoring model itself and more the amount of research required before a useful decision could be made.

That led me to a new question: when people advising families on giving — or smaller family offices without a dedicated philanthropy research team — need to understand a cause, identify relevant organisations or prepare for deeper diligence, do they have enough research capacity?

What I am exploring

I am testing whether some of the research-heavy work underneath philanthropy advisory can be usefully supported without trying to replace the adviser, the donor, or direct conversations with nonprofits.

That could include:

  • mapping a cause or issue landscape;
  • building an initial universe of relevant organisations;
  • organising publicly available evidence and source material;
  • screening organisations against an explicit brief;
  • surfacing unanswered questions and information gaps;
  • preparing a smaller set for deeper diligence and discussion; and
  • turning the research into a concise brief an adviser or family can actually use.

The central question is not whether software can decide where someone should give. It is whether better research support can reduce the analytical load before that judgment is made.

Working prototype

Philanthropy Research Workspace

I am adapting parts of the original research workflow into a deliberately small prototype. The aim is to make the research process visible enough for practitioners to critique it.

1 · BriefWhat is the family or adviser trying to understand?
2 · LandscapeWhich organisations are relevant, and what evidence is available?
3 · ShortlistWhich organisations merit deeper work, and why?
4 · QuestionsWhat still needs to be verified or discussed before a decision?

Open the demonstration workspace →

What it is not: a nonprofit rating engine, an automated funding recommendation, or a substitute for professional judgment. The prototype is an exploration of research workflow and capacity.

The question I am trying to answer

Is research capacity itself a meaningful constraint for philanthropy advisers or smaller family offices?

And if it is, which parts of the work are genuinely useful to delegate — and which should remain firmly with the adviser or donor?

This is intentionally still a working hypothesis. I am speaking with people already doing this work before deciding whether it should become a service, a tool, or simply a useful research method.

← Back to Ideas in Practice