Why do the big foundations demand so much data before they make grants to non-profits? A few reasons, to be sure. One? They want to go beyond one discreet project. They want to know what worked and what didn’t work.
They may occasionally indulge in risky ventures under the heading of creative experiment. No one wants to fail. But if you do, good record keeping might show why – and strengthen future efforts. And save money.
You want to avoid failure entirely if you can. Data will help. Failure, said the late mayor and governor William Donald Schafer, leaves a residue. The funders will be much less likely to help again. You have to give it your best shot at the start.
I share these musings in the context of the James Rouse experiment at Sandtown –Winchester. At least $130 million was spent there by one of the most insightful developers ever in this country. But unaccountably he seems to have left insufficient footprints.
No one can say now why the project failed – as appears to be the case. Depends surely on your definition of failure. The neighborhood remains one of the most toxic in Baltimore.
Schaefer’s idea about the residue of failure could not be clearer here. Who wants to spend another $130 million without more good answers about the Rouse effort.
"I can’t say if I think the money was well-spent," said one of the researchers. "I think it was well-intentioned."
Not good enough, of course. The residue of failure here means you can’t get new investments. Some argue that the Rouse effort was not a failure because it eased the pain. It made life at least marginally better. We can applaud that result. But we would offer a standing O if the work led to real, fundamental change and repeatable duplication.