Why we publish what did not work

Every project report we publish carries a section on what did not work. We wrote that rule before we had a single report to write, which was deliberate: it is a much easier promise to make in advance than after something has gone badly.

The argument for it is simple. Nonprofit reporting is a genre with one plot. Money was raised, people were served, lives were changed, here is a photograph. Read enough of them and you learn nothing, because you cannot distinguish the organizations that are working from the ones that are writing well.

A report that says "the second venue fell through and we lost half a day" or "we over-ordered on supplies and under-budgeted on translation" tells you something the success story cannot: that someone was paying attention, and that the next budget will be better because of it.

There is a practical benefit too. Sector knowledge about what fails is mostly private, traded between people who happen to know each other. Publishing it is a small contribution to a common pool that a small organization can actually afford to make.

Donors sometimes worry this will scare people off. Our bet is the opposite, and it is easy to test: you are reading it. If the honest version made you less likely to give, we would rather know that than raise money on a version we do not believe.