- The rank isn t determined systematically at this point. At this point, I m just trying to quickly flag charities that I want to go back to, so there s noMessage 1 of 3 , Mar 23 9:15 AMView SourceThe rank isn't determined systematically at this point. At this point, I'm just trying to quickly flag charities that I want to go back to, so there's no strong distinction between, for example, a "5" and a "25".It's roughly a combination of a) the degree of monitoring an organization has, b) their implementation of our priority programs, and c) other factors (e.g., publishing research on their website related to, but not directly monitoring, their programs). For example:
There are really 3 meaningful groups: (the additional detail was more for my own use so I could sort them in the order that I wanted to go when re-evaluating organizations)
1. < 25 = needs another close look
2. 26 - 100 = probably not going to work out, but possible
3. > 100 = out
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 5:43 PM, psteinx <psteinmeyer@...> wrote:
- MVP gets a high rank because I think there's enough information available on their website to do a relatively comprehensive evaluation of their program.
- The Global Alliance to Elimination Lymphatic Filariasis and Deworm the World get high ranks because they only implement one program, and both are high on our priority list.
without Borders is a) all health b) has some monitoring, and c)
publishes what they learn in peer-reviewed journals, but d) doesn't
provide comprehensive monitoring on their website, and d) doesn't
exclusively implement priority interventions.
How do you derive the rank?