Author Archive

Connecting the Dots with Data

Friday, May 20th, 2011

This piece was originally posted on The Communications Network blog on May 17:

At last week’s Center for Effective Philanthropy Conference (CEP), it was refreshing to see the role of communications keep popping up during discussions that explored the links between data and foundation impact.

That’s not surprising, either, and for at least for two reasons.

For one, when CEP first began conducting surveys of grantees almost a decade ago, foundations primarily used those findings to learn what their grant recipients liked about doing business with them and what needed improvement.  In the years since, many foundations have seen great value in sharing grantee feedback from these surveys on their Web sites for the public to see.

Often times these postings include discussions about improvements foundations are making spurred by comments from their grantees.  As an example of how much more a foundation can make use of these findings, the James Irvine Foundation went one step further, and instead of just posting the 2010 Grantee Perception Report on its Web site, it recently created a page that invites people to comment on the findings.

Data But a second reason communications is a common topic these days during discussions about assessing impact is because the data that comes out of that work can tell important stories about foundation performance.

Or as CEP President Phil Buchanan puts it, “We see time and again the crucial connection between good data and analysis and good communication. Foundations need to be clear about what they’re trying to do, how they’re trying to do it, and what they’re learning along the way.”

The data, in other words, can be a helpful frame for those stories we want to tell about what foundations and their grantees are accomplishing, as well as how to frame the message about what went wrong and why, as does happen.

A lot of ideas were put forward over the course of the conference about how to use data, including to whom to share it and how. Those conversations, naturally, resonated with the many communications professionals in attendance.

For me, one of the more intriguing suggestions about how to combine data and storytelling, for example, was offered by Molly Martin, operations and learning officer for the Lumina Foundation for Education.  In a post she wrote for the CEP blog during the event, Martin offered this observation:

We all know the power of storytelling in philanthropy.  Stories can move our grantees to action, compel our colleagues to support important work, engage our policymakers, and convince our neighbors to help us build a movement for social change.  But what of stories without stats?  Without data to enrich the tales we tell about our work, how can we be sure we’re even telling the right story?

Martin goes on to say that if foundations want their work to be taken seriously by people they’re trying to influence and move to action, it will take more than anecdotes to make the sale.  She writes:

Emotional anecdotes are calls to react…not calls to action.

Martin illustrates her point by commenting on a discussion during the CEP conference that featured Debi Brooks, Co-Founder of The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research, and the actor-turned philanthropist himself.  As Martin notes,

If ever there were a foundation that could ride the tide of a compelling personality, it’s the Michael J. Fox Foundation.  Yet they choose to tell their story—to frame the invaluable currency they have in a beloved actor—by sharing the science…the Foundation chooses to train and arm their best asset with rich data.  Fox becomes more than a compelling personality: he becomes a compelling personality with a well-informed, actionable story to tell.

To Martin, the lesson from the Michael J. Fox Foundation is both clear and simple:

Train your poster children.  Arm your best ambassadors with your best data and let your story of impact unfold.

That comment reinforces a comment made earlier in her post:

Data equips your stakeholders with tools that enable them to become your envoys for the long-haul.  And if that data is couched in the form of a digestible, accessible story told by a beneficiary, it’s all the better.

What do you think? Can storytelling be more compelling with better and more thoughtful use of data?  Do you have experiences of your own to share?  Let us know.

Bruce Trachtenberg is executive director of The Communications Network.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Funder/Grantee Relationships | Comments Off

Does Transparency Make Foundations More Effective?

Wednesday, May 11th, 2011

The subject of foundation transparency – especially to whom and for what purpose – can sometimes be murky. While there’s no doubt that foundations should be transparent – and I can’t imagine anyone disagreeing with that – to me it’s not simply a question of whether transparency is a good thing. But rather, what additional benefits accrue to foundations that are transparent? Are they more effective? Are they better known? Are they better liked or is their work more appreciated?

Put another way, is the right starting point for a conversation about transparency a question like, “Does being transparent make foundations more effective?,” or should we be asking, “Is it possible to be an effective foundation without also being transparent?”

At a May 10th panel at the Center for Effective Philanthropy (CEP) conference, a group of wise and experienced foundation and nonprofit hands tackled the question on the role of transparency in foundation operations. The presenter, Brad Smith, president of Foundation Center, was ably backed up by commentators Paul Brest, president, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and Diana Aviv, president and CEO of Independent Sector, and moderator Stephen Heintz, president of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

There’s what might be called a moral imperative for foundations to be transparent. As Smith said, “Foundations are created to serve the public good, and they need to explain what they do in terms the public can understand.” That includes being clear about their purpose and demonstrating their performance. Notably, Paul Brest pointed out the risk to foundations that aren’t transparent. Only by being transparent can foundations get meaningful feedback about their work. Not surprisingly, Diana Aviv reminded the audience that one of the benefits of foundations behaving transparently is that it helps grantees understand their standing with the organizations that fund them, and can even be helpful in understanding the reasons why they get turned down for funding.

As a group, they did a valuable service by not limiting themselves to trying to answer that question exclusively about a link between transparency and effectiveness. Instead, in their comments – and in queries from the audience – the session raised many other companion questions that could themselves be individually debated in subsequent sessions. Those questions ranged from:

-          How do you define transparency?

-          What is the relationship between transparency and accountability?

-          Is transparency always the most effective strategy?

-          What are the costs as well as administrative burdens to transparent organizations?

-          Is there a role for foundation boards in setting parameters of transparency?

-          Whose job is it to ensure a foundation is transparent?

But at the heart of the conversation was an almost a priori belief that the more that foundations openly share information about their work with the public, policymakers, grantees, and other funders, etc., the better they are able to advance their missions.

The ultimate question – Does being more transparent make you a more effective organization? – is one that has to be viewed through the lens of what makes for an overall effective foundation strategy. In other words, transparency can’t be an end unto itself. But, instead, if there is an organizational commitment to behaving transparently and if foundations are willing to share what goes on inside, that can serve as the basis or starting point for all sorts of other activities that would be otherwise impossible without it.

For instance, it’s unlikely that motivation (not to mention the costs) in creating websites, publishing grant data, sharing CEP grantee perception reports, or tweeting, blogging or having a presence on Facebook – plus all the other means and methods that Foundation Center tracks on its Glasspockets website – is because a foundation decides it wants to be transparent. Rather, foundations that behave that way believe that the information they share (and how they share it) can contribute to advancing their work.

Stated another way, the path to effectiveness comes from a clear and thoughtful foundation strategy that includes the need to share information, communicate strategically, and be open to public scrutiny as an essential way of doing business.

At the outset, I said this topic can sometimes still be a murky one. That point was reinforced by Paul Brest who said his foundation, at times, sees the need to be less open about its strategies. For example, he maintains that there’s no benefit when working in areas such as climate change or family planning to let your opposition know your strategy so they can use it against you.  

Similarly, Diana Aviv noted that too much information – especially if it’s not categorized or presented in a useful way – can create confusion.

Once again, it all comes down to identifying your goal and the most effective strategy to get you there.

No harm being transparent about that.

Bruce Trachtenberg is the executive director of the Communications Network

Tags: ,
Posted in Managing Operations | Comments Off