In the information age, it’s no longer enough to state your social venture’s mission alongside some compelling photos and expect people to write you a check. With non-profit rating sites like Give Well and Charity Watch and the ability to learn about and give to so many more causes, we have entered into the age of metric based giving.
This is an area I’m very familiar with because
non-profit data analytics was a big part of my most recent job. Before coming
back to school, I worked as the Director of Engagement for a local non-profit
where we were part of a three year grant program. We were given money by a
foundation to test the effectiveness of some additional programs and staff
roles. After three years the foundation would decided whether or not to
continue funding the new programs and endow the new staff positions or not
based on…the data! Working with data was something I really enjoyed and one of
my goals in coming back to school for my master’s degree was to hone my data
analytics skills. Thus, I was very excited to discuss measuring social impact
in class this past week.
The idea of counting something and making it count
is discussed by Mike McCreless in his Forbes article “When Measuring Social Impact, We Need to Move Beyond Counting.”[1] “The
‘number of people reached’ metric is ultimately unsatisfying. What was the
impact on these people?” writes McCreless. This is exactly what our
organization was working on during my time there. We started not just measuring
how many students came to our events but how frequently they returned, what
types of events they were attending, and if they became student leaders or took
on special projects.
This article paired with our class discussion and
my previous work experience caused me to think more critically about two
aspects of working with data—how we use the data we collect and how our
competition uses data.
My former organization worked with University of
Pittsburgh students while another branch of our organization worked with
students at Penn State. Penn State’s
student population was over 2.5 times Pitt’s. Thus, if we, at Pitt, had an
event attended by 100 students that meant we engaged with 0.5% of the student population. If the Penn State branch had an event attended by 100 students they would have only
engaged with 0.2%. While saying something like, “We engaged with over 100
students at the crafting event!” may sound exciting, donors, now more than
ever, will be inclined to ask for more information. What’s the student population? How many
students have attended your other events? How many students attend other campus
organization events? You have to understand how your data will be perceived by
potential investors and what questions they might have. To properly utilize that attendance number, for example, we may need to pair it with previous years’ attendance for that same event or show it relative to the overall student body population.
This brings me to my second point. How does your
competition use their data? What data are they collecting and how are they
telling their story to donors? In the above example, Penn State may not want to
show the 0.2% figure, but Pitt may feel comfortable showing the 0.5%. Adding
that extra information will make you stand out to donors. Looking at your competition’s data also gives
you a baseline for what donors in your market are expecting to see. If
potential investors know that your competitor provides statistics about a
certain something and you don’t have that information, it could look like you
are trying to hide something or aren’t as savvy with collecting and displaying
your data.
NextGenDonors is doing interesting work in
examining the next generation of donors, and their website is definitely worth
exploring. In one of their articles, “What do the next generation of major
donors want?”[2]
an interviewee said, “I believe my parents give much more for the “feel good”
feeling that comes along with giving, whereas I am dead-set on maximizing the
impact of my philanthropic dollars.” This next generation of donors is all
about impact and we, as social entrepreneurs, need to be prepared to satisfy
that need.
As I am preparing for a pitch competition on April
25th, I have been finalizing the data story I am telling during the
presentation. While this data story doesn’t include information I’ve collected
about the effectiveness of my venture, as it is not up and running yet, the
same aforementioned rules apply. I found that when I add a new piece of
data, I often need to find another piece of data to pair with it to
explain its relevance or make it relative. With each bullet point I added to my
slides I asked, “Does the data I’m presenting support this?” You don’t want to
leave any room for potential investors to have doubts or confusion. When used properly, data can have
a truly powerful message and get you the investment you need to take your venture
to the next level. What data story are you
working to tell at your venture’s current stage? How do you plan on tracking
data in the early stages of your venture when data tracking software and staff time
might not be in the budget?
[1]
McCreless, Mike. "When Measuring Social Impact, We Need To Move Beyond
Counting."
Forbes. Skoll World Forum, 22 July 2013. Web. 22
Apr. 2017.
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/skollworldforum/2013/07/15/when-measuring-social-impact-we-need-to-move-beyond-counting/#48a356f266a1>.
Clark, Amy, Ben Eyre, Sharon Goldseker, and Michael
Moody. "What do the next generation of major donors want? | NextGenDonors
| Respecting Legacy, Revolutionizing Philanthropy." NextGenDonors. N.p.,
04 Dec. 2013. Web. 22 Apr. 2017.
<http://www.nextgendonors.org/next-generation-major-donors-want/>.
No comments:
Post a Comment