Apparently, 88.2% of statistics are made up on the spot. Lower? Higher? Whether or not you agree with Guinness, this nifty play on our scepticism as to the value of reported data did the brand’s popularity no harm. Changes within the not-for-profit funding sector towards a greater emphasis on flexible funding characterised by evidence focused on learning rather than compliance seem to align with the Irish brewer’s sentiments.
Numerous large foundations (including those committed to the Institute for Voluntary Action Research’s (IVAR) Open and Trusting vision) are increasingly moving away from pre-set KPIs and pre-determined templates towards application and reporting procedures which accept a much wider range of evidence.
A recognition of the diversity within the sector, shifts in hierarchies of power between funders and charities, and reductions in not-for-profits’ administrative burdens are all hugely positive steps. I’ve carried out a number of evaluations of funder-not-for-profit relationships and they all speak to the need to tackle these aspects of funding systems. As funders place less emphasis on charities’ use of formal frameworks and pre-determined analytics, however, we remain faced with a long-standing quandary: how can we ensure that not-for-profits, particularly the insufficiently resourced minority, benefit from the insights structured data gathering can provide?
Consider, for example, a small organisation working to support families dealing with poverty on a particular estate through its multi-purpose community centre. Its data gathering is likely to be limited to the number of food parcels it provides or the number of children attending its soft-play sessions.
Building connections
These measures reassure funders that their grants are being used as intended,and help the organisation plan its services. They miss, however, the conversations volunteers had with individuals which have boosted confidence, built connections, and led to lower rates of isolation and depression.
They also miss the times when volunteers couldn’t help individuals because they didn’t know enough about local services. The volunteers may recognise these effects and barriers, but often they don’t record them because they view data as a tool for measuring outputs and outcomes, rather than for recording impact and enabling learning and improvement.
The outcome/impact divide is well-debated, but understanding the difference an intervention or initiative makes beyond what is easily measurable is critical. This can reveal the multiple layers of a not-for-profit’s success, including showing the ripples of change spreading out beyond a particular individual, or opportunities for further action and impact. It can also be used to show the challenges and stumbling blocks facing charities, helping them discover previously unrecognised impacts, areas of weakness and emerging needs. It can also enable the not-for-profit to better support its workers, as it becomes more aware of the full extent of their practice.
Such understanding requires a certain amount of structured data gathering, since spotting patterns and trends can only be done when there are multiple, comparable data points. As funding and reporting requirements slowly shift to becoming less prescriptive, not-for-profits must therefore be careful that they retain a healthy level of curiosity as to what they are achieving and how.
They need to ensure that they develop and embed approaches to data through which they can learn and develop. This requires practical action, building data considerations into all aspects of projects, setting aside time at key points to learn from findings, and ensuring that any tools retain their ability to support practice.
Developing the right skills
I firmly believe that charities of all shapes and sizes are able to learn these skills, and that their ability to be tailored to individual requirements means they do not need to increase workload. It does, however, demand complementary and supplementary shifts in wider organisational culture. Individual workers or teams can achieve little if they lack the resources and structures they need to effectively use data.
They also require a wider framework in which this is valued, and to work with strategies which consider the best use of data from the very start. Moreover, findings are both more comprehensive and more accurate (leading to better organisational learning and improvement) when everyone in the organisation is appropriately skilled and encouraged to get involved.
The move towards more relaxed funding brings many benefits. We must, however, ensure that these do not inadvertently lead to not-for-profits’ failing to reap the positives that more structured data collection can offer. The shift must not lead us to conclude that data matters less. Rather, it should prompt us to encourage and support charities to develop cultures which recognise the value of curiosity and to ask questions beyond those posed by funders.
The punchline of the Guinness ad I mentioned at the start is: “Not everything in black and white makes sense.” Maybe not, but enough does to make using data effectively valuable. We now just need to make sure that not-for-profits believe this too, even as funders continue to ask fewer questions.
Dr Katy Adams is a research fellow at the University of Hull
