Andrew Wolk

Data – Collecting, Reporting, and Using it!

Posted on 03. Mar, 2009 in Social Impact Measurement, Social Innovation

Good news: The Aspen Institute will host a series of gatherings to help the soon-to-be-established White House Office of Social Innovation engage in discussion about how best to proceed. This is a testament to Jane Wales, the Director of the Aspen Institute’s Program on Philanthropy and Social Innovation. Aspen has always been a great convener, so it is not surprising that they are taking a leadership role to help move the social innovation agenda forward. Last April, I co-published a report with Aspen providing recommendations for how government can advance social innovation and entrepreneurship. At that time, we also held a panel on the subject at Aspen.

Along those lines, a short time ago, Aspen invited me to a convening entitled “Barriers to Impact and Innovation: The Power of Statistical Data on the Nonprofit Sector.” I believe data may be the most critical issue for the Office of Social Innovation to prioritize.  If we are going to strive to advance a social innovation agenda…if we are going to invest in what works…we need to get a better handle on data − how we collect it, how we report it, and how we use it. Unfortunately, after attending the Aspen convening, I am more convinced than ever that we are not very good at any of these aspects of data right now.

The  Mott Foundation sponsored the recent Aspen gathering, which brought together an  excellent cross-section of people to discuss data. They included: Lester Salamon from Johns Hopkins University, who has been reporting on nonprofit data for decades; Rick Clayton and David Hiles from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; Darin McKeever from the Gates Foundation; Richard McGahey from the Ford Foundation; and Bob Ottenhoff, President and CEO of Guidestar, to name a few.

The discussion brought forth a mix of opinions about what the real data issues are. Clearly, more questions than answers exist.  My own conclusion for the near-term  is that we should break down the data issue into two fundamental challenges that we should tackle separately and collectively.

The “first challenge” is the better use of current data, including how and what we collect − something about which Lester Salamon and people from the Bureau of Labor Statistics had much to say. A great deal of data already exists from various agencies and surveys conducted, including the census. This data is waiting to be analyzed and reported, but we need the will to tap it. While it is no small task in terms of labor, it actually is not that complicated − at least according to Salamon.

The far more complex “second challenge” is the need to develop some type of taxonomy that lets us drive performance based on agreed-upon indicators for different social issues. Currently, we are judging performance based primarily on financial data, often reported on the IRS form 990. But this has no direct connection to the mission for which an organization originally applied to receive its 501c3 tax designation. All too often,  financial reporting is just “funny accounting” to make an organization look as though a majority of its money is going into direct programs.  Such a taxonomy does exist for the private sector. In fact, representatives of the private sector financial market have been meeting for almost a decade on developing a taxonomy standard in a consortium called RIXML.

If we are going to make real progress on the many societal challenges we face, it will be essential to work on both of these challenges. Without such progress, how will we ever know what really works?

Photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/myklroventine/ / CC BY 2.0

Tags: aspen institute, bureau of labor statistics, data, ford foundation, gates foundation, guidestar, jane wales, lester salamon, mott foundation, rixml, what works