Full Contact Philanthropy - Latest Comments

Re: Philanthropy does not stand for anything

thepowell — Thu, 03 Mar 2016 14:25:33 -0000

Progressive activism is inherently political. For a child rights, or homeless rights, or [whatever X] rights organisation to stand back under the pretense of being 'apolitical' is disingenuous and a disservice to the communities such groups are supposed to support.

Re: Please stop developing websites that list nonprofits

Karsten Aichholz — Tue, 16 Feb 2016 00:01:42 -0000

I think GiveWell's approach to limiting the number of charities to evaluate is based on a pre-selection that defines a certain range of interventions that were shown to have a good track record. After that they then seek out the top charities carrying out those interventions.

The very strict moral framework is indeed interesting and probably not very much apparent to the supporters of the approach (including myself). The focus on numbers and a seemingly universal measurement (e.g. DALYs) sounds very issue-agnostic, but as you pointed out, it is in fact a very strong issue: That of increasing life spans.

I feel the argument becomes more apparent when looking at political organizations. From a purely DALY-focused point of view, the choice between donating to a 'pro life' or a 'pro choice' organization would seem a no-brainer. That alone already says a lot about the 'hidden' value system in something as neutral sounding as a DALY.

It might be a tad philosophical, but in the end it might mean there simply isn't such a thing as 'morally agnostic' when talking about results-oriented metrics.

Re: Please stop developing websites that list nonprofits

David Henderson — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 11:42:23 -0000

Hey Karsten - thanks for the comment. You make a good point that doing a deep dive on a few organizations worth recommending ultimately provides more value back to donors than providing a shallow analysis of every nonprofit under the sun. The problems are:

1. How do you determine what that shortlist is? In order to get to the shortlist you presumably need to conduct a lighter analysis on a wide range of charities unless...
2. You provide the deep dives with a very strict moral framework (which is what GiveWell does).

The strict moral framework angle (in GiveWell's case effective altruism) works well for effective altruists, but doesn't particularly matter for anyone else.

A reasonable counter argument of course is "so what?". GiveWell certainly has been able to push the needle with their approach, and since giving is always framed through some moral framework, perhaps it is foolhardy to try to develop a rating platform that is morally agnostic.

Re: Please stop developing websites that list nonprofits

Karsten Aichholz — Tue, 02 Feb 2016 03:01:01 -0000

Enjoy reading your thoughts on giving (and especially on the blogging angle for organizations). My own stance is very analytical, so it's probably not a surprise, that I'm a very big fan of GiveWell.

"The problem of course is that the deeper analytic approach is research intensive, and does not scale."

I would argue that the opposite is true. As long as you can identify enough room for additional funding, you can get by with very, very few deep analysis and recommendations.

Take a look at tripadvisor: They aren't great because every place is rated, they are great because it's easy to find the top recommendations in each category. My hown town, Bangkok, has 8,339 restaurants listed. I care about the top ones in a few categories and districts, and that's about it. For a 'buyer' selecting purely based on metrics, you only need to get reliable top recommendations, rather than evaluate every alternative.

Re: Philanthropy does not stand for anything

Michael Barrick — Thu, 21 Jan 2016 06:08:39 -0000

You may be right. But, I am so tired of politicians. Our system needs someone with business knowledge & balls to tackle our nation's biggest problems.

Re: Goodbye Idealistics

David Henderson — Mon, 24 Jun 2013 15:20:52 -0000

Thanks Mike - I must say your work with 100K Homes played a part in inspiring me to take this step. There is definitely strength in numbers, hopefully I'll be able to find the right team.

Re: Goodbye Idealistics

Michael Shore — Sat, 22 Jun 2013 19:28:17 -0000

It takes a lot of courage for you to make this kind of decision, sir, and I am certain that your passion, talents and dedication will be a huge "get" for some lucky team out there. I'll be anxious to hear how that match-making goes and am hear for you if I can be helpful.

Re: Goodbye Idealistics

David Henderson — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 14:32:36 -0000

Thanks San!

Re: Goodbye Idealistics

San Rin — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:49:37 -0000

Thank you for your thought-provoking and well written posts, David. I've learned a lot, and wish you the best on your next endeavor. It's very hard to let go of something that one has poured so much heart and treasure into, but it sounds like the right step, in terms of increasing your impact on the community. I'm glad that you will be continuing your blog!

Re: Goodbye Idealistics

David Henderson — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 17:06:50 -0000

Thanks Marguerite, I appreciate the support!

Re: Goodbye Idealistics

Marguerite Womack — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:15:55 -0000

Thank you for your work, your dedication and your guidance throughout the years. I fully intend to stay in touch and continue to benefit from your expertise.

Re: Data does not make decisions

David Henderson — Mon, 01 Apr 2013 16:18:14 -0000

Justin - you make a number of good points, the first of which is that models tend to tell us about "the average" person, which is interesting on the aggregate but not always instructive on a case-by-case basis.

As to the question of organizations making hasty correlations, I do think that this is a concern, although I'm not sure it is necessarily isolated just to the nonprofit sector as data-literacy tends to be low societally.

I think there are really two issues you raise here, one referring to data integrity and the other having to with analysis of data, assuming data integrity. To that first issue, in my experience organizations tend to try to collect way too many indicators, which leads to poor data quality, something I have written about before:

http://idealistics.org/fcp/...

To the second issue of sound data analysis, I tend to think it is just as important to illustrate what our data does not say as much as it is to highlight what it does. Without understanding error bounds around findings and other diagnostic metrics, it is easy to conclude that models provide more precision than they actually do, which can lead to spurious conclusions.

Re: Data does not make decisions

Justin Dove — Mon, 01 Apr 2013 15:59:41 -0000

This is an interesting point. I find that it's important to emphasize that while predictive analysis may not work well on the individual level (meaning, trying to predict whether person A will take a certain future action), it does have significant benefits for organizations trying to narrow their focus to those who are more likely to benefit from their services.

Also, are you concerned that non-profit organizations, in an attempt to jump on the big data bandwagon and predictive analysis, will make hasty correlations thus guiding them toward wayward strategic decisions? Of the pitfalls that I've read recently regarding non-profit organizations and data analysis, not much of has focused on making sure that organizations are collecting quality, valid data (or at least enough data to make valued predictions). Am I over-thinking that this might be a significant concern?

Re: If you had to choose between an evaluator or a marketer

Betsy — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 12:32:02 -0000

David, I think your argument does short shrift to helping people understand there are many purposes to evaluation beyond proving impact. There's a long cycle in programs to get to impact, and sometimes evaluation is part of that process. And I by no means am implying that "lower cost" evaluations are the aim - but the reality is that evaluation can be prohibitively expensive to be done well.

Re: If you had to choose between an evaluator or a marketer

David Henderson — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 12:23:51 -0000

Hi Betsy, I'm afraid you have misconstrued my argument. Choosing marketing over evaluation is rational only if your decision calculus assumes that the only value of evaluation is to disprove one's prior assumptions of impact. This is a calculus perpetuated by a misunderstanding of the real value of evaluative metrics.

To that end, I'm not sure lower cost evaluations would necessarily get the result you and I both desire. If the only reason agencies do not invest in evaluation is cost, then sure, but such thinking ignores the evidence, which suggests evaluation is a relatively low priority, especially if one assumes evaluation bears more risk than reward.

Re: If you had to choose between an evaluator or a marketer

Betsy — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 12:15:38 -0000

Do nonprofits really hire evaluators to answer a question to which they don't already know the answer? Yes, sometimes evaluations help nonprofit programs answer tough, critical questions - but I think more and more nonprofits are asking them, and their boards are, too.

Most importantly, more and more funders are requiring nonprofits to ask and answer these questions. So I'm not sure I agree that choosing marketing is a rational choice anymore. I can think of a couple of explanations.
Maybe it is a choice based on cost? Evaluation done well, I suspect, is more expensive than a small marketing campaign. How would the sector look if evaluations were similarly priced to a marketing campaign? Or if resources to do evaluation were less scarce? Maybe it is the assumption that evaluations are only done to judge the worth of a program? Your perspective assumes that the only role that evaluation plays is to be judgmental of the intervention, when in fact there are whole branches of evaluation that focus on developing programs, improving processes and informing the growth and impact that an organization can have. It's unfortunate to see evaluation portrayed in your light - it's a challenge I find myself fighting every day, especially as an internal evaluator. The evaluation firms with which I am best acquainted promote the right approach for the organization and where it is developmentally. At least we agree that evaluation is about investing in your product, making sure we are as true as we can be in touting our benefits int he social sector.

Re: Too many indicators means a whole lot of nothing

David Henderson — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 12:20:10 -0000

Great point Prentice. Idealistics's first undertaking when we started the company was developing a web-based client management system. Not too far in we realized we had essentially developed a digital dumpster, organizations were easily putting information in but didn't have the skills (and sometimes interest) to pull it out in a meaningful way.

That's why we shifted our focus to the question of what do you do with the data once you have it, and how do you pair down what you collect so you only get what you need. Building data storage systems is pretty trivial, making sense of it all and turning that into investment decisions or program change is the hard part, but it's also the real value of data oriented thought.

Re: Too many indicators means a whole lot of nothing

Prentice Zinn — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 07:45:54 -0000

We work with over 30 foundations that receive over 2000 proposals from nonprofit organizations a year.

The good news is that most collect some form of monitoring and evaluation data.

The bad news is 90% of the data sits in a pile.

We don't call it evaluation, we call it data accumulation.

Very rarely is it used to tell a story, raise questions, increase learning, or influence management or planning.

It is as if the sector as built this giant data vacuum cleaner, but nobody wants to empty the bag or build the organization systems to make use of it.

Re: Please stop developing websites that list nonprofits

Emmalane — Mon, 27 Aug 2012 18:10:11 -0000

Look at 'New Philanthropy Capital' - doing that analysis for the UK. Aim - better informed donors who give to orgs that are getting results.

Re: Please stop developing websites that list nonprofits

Clay Myers-Bowman — Mon, 27 Aug 2012 11:26:51 -0000

Great post. Well said.

Re: Please stop developing websites that list nonprofits

David Henderson — Thu, 23 Aug 2012 18:26:11 -0000

I'm such a buzzkill.

Re: Please stop developing websites that list nonprofits

Prentice Zinn — Thu, 23 Aug 2012 13:01:07 -0000

Ah, but David, how dare you scoff at the 477th effort to rationalize the so-called "nonprofit marketplace" with a one-stop-shop for the poor donor that is lost in a sea of choice.

Would you deprive them of another holy dashboard of magical unified set of metrics that will open their hearts and Pay-Pal accounts?

So what if is devoid of meaning, and reinforces the worst aspects of drive-by philanthropy and reductive thought.

Making philanthropy a transaction to be monetized, commoditized, and digitized is the wave of the future.

The sheer lunacy....your notion of making donors think critically.

It is scandalous. Scandalous.

Re: How to select measurable outcomes

Jennifer Banks-Doll — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:20:47 -0000

David, thanks for sharing an example, helped me to see if our thought paths were aligning or not. Looks like they are. "Safe neighbourhood" is a term used a lot here in Canada as well, great example! Another common one is "strong" as in the vision of an NP I worked with this year: "Strong Individuals, Strong Families, Strong Communities." In the spirit of sharing, I will share a bit about the work I did to help them to renew their strategic plan, and ultimately to help them to know whether they are making progress towards achieving their vision. It was definitely not easy, and I'm still far from satisfied that the “work” is done, although the contract has been completed. This NP places a high value on consultation and inclusion, so we did an extensive community consultation in preparation for strategic planning. We opened with a discussion that asked the following: “What is a strong individual? What is a strong family? What is a strong community?” Fascinating stuff! But figuring out what to do with it is going to be a long-term project, for whom, I’m not sure. We then discussed what they were doing well, and what needed improvement. This was more tangible and the themes were directly applicable to the strategic plan. Back to measurement. The Plan has 5 strategic outcomes, only 1 of which is related to programs and services, and directly connected back to the vision. That outcome is: “Individuals, Families and Communities are strengthened by programs and services that are of consistently high quality and that reflect the needs of the communities we serve.” The “strengthening” of individuals, families and communities is defined and measured by using pre/post surveys of clients and staff that track changes in awareness and behaviour by clients, and then rolling the data up into agency-wide averages. Because it is difficult (likely impossible based on this agency’s capacity) to measure attributable change at a family or community level, the assumption is made that positive change in individuals will translate into positive change at the family and community level. In summary, I think we took a “pie-in-the-sky”-like vision (which I think is appropriate) and translated it into a measurable outcome, kind of. I think they can realistically measure the strengthening of individuals. But I feel that making an assumption that the strengthening of individuals will automatically lead to the strengthening of families and communities is not good enough to be able to convincingly say that you are making progress towards the vision as a whole. But that’s where we’ve left it, for now. Hmmmm…

Re: Operationalize, optimize, then advertise your outcomes

David Henderson — Mon, 20 Aug 2012 18:27:33 -0000

Jennifer, thanks for the question and kind words. The problem above is one of unoperationalized goals. For example, "safety" is an abstract concept. So what an organization needs to do is define what these abstracted concepts mean.

"Safety" could be a mix of actual and perceived freedom from crime. In this case you might use two metrics to approximate safety; the crime rate in an area and a community survey of residents' perception of the safety of their neighborhood.

The next step is to determine some weighting on these indicators which approximate the goal of safety. Depending on your organization's utility, you might put more weight on how people "feel" in terms of their safety versus the crime rate. Indeed, the data might show that as crime rates go up that so does perceptions of safety, as more arrests might mean more police activity rather than more crime.

The point is to operationalize (make measurable) what it is that an organization intends to affect. A common misperception is for people to think that "measurable" necessarily means an indicator that is inherently numeric (like a crime rate).

Qualitative measures, like an opinion survey on perceptions of safety in an area are perfectly valid metrics when collected with care. While brainstorming about goals might begin up in the clouds, in order to really measure effectiveness (and thus improve and demonstrate outcomes) organizations need to do the work of defining precisely what success means to them and how to measure that success.

Re: Operationalize, optimize, then advertise your outcomes

Jennifer Banks-Doll — Mon, 20 Aug 2012 18:11:37 -0000

David, I really enjoy your blog and love the example you have given above about the unmeasurable outcome. So true and so common! But I feel like you've left us hanging...What kind of outcomes would you reccomend instead? Can you give us an example or two? Thanks!