What it looks like
If an unsuccessful program is reported without its lessons, another group may repeat the same mistakes. That is the proposed mechanism. The source below is an example of sharing failure, not a survey of what the sector leaves unpublished.
Why it happens
Publishing an unsuccessful result can help later teams learn. Charitology’s hypothesis is that concern about funding can discourage such disclosure. The size and direction of any funding effect still need evidence; medicine also faces selective publication.
A few organizations have pushed the other way. Engineers Without Borders Canada published failure reports and started Admitting Failure, a site where people in development share what went wrong. Charitology’s Failure Archive exists for the same reason.
No one is to blame
Public disclosure can be difficult, especially when staff and services depend on continued support. The proposed incentive deserves testing without drawing conclusions about people’s motives.
What we don’t know yet
What incentives would get charities to publish failures, and what happens to their funding when they do? That is Open Problem 9, the Failure Commons.
Failure reports are normal and rewarded. A charity that says what didn’t work is trusted more, and the field learns each lesson once.