Alliance September 2012 DATA

is philanthropy doing to take advantage of them?

Does philanthropy have a plan for building the kind

of knowledge base and knowledge tools that will al-

low it to identify areas of need, emerging trends, key

actors and institutions engaging in social investment

activities, patterns and gaps in the provision of aid and

other types of support, intervention strategies that

work and don’t work, and opportunities for collabora-

tion to improve on-the-ground impact?

The payoffs of having data

Collecting data on philanthropy around the world is

no small challenge. As European Foundation Centre

(EFC) chief executive Gerry Salole explains in another

article in this special feature (see p44), just trying to

count the total number of foundations in Europe is ‘an

impossible task given the level of differences that exist

between foundations within a given European coun-

try, not to mention across borders, and the constantly

mutating and changing contexts in which they oper-

ate’. Moreover, one might fairly ask, how does knowing

the total number of foundations in Europe help foun-

dations do their work anyway?

Supporting advocacy

While it may not be relevant to the work of any one

foundation, it is certainly relevant to foundations col-

lectively. A European Foundation Statute that has the

potential to facilitate the work of more than 100,000

foundations representing total annual expenditures

It is impossible to escape the notion that we have en-

tered the world of ‘Big Data’. The financial industry,

corporations, marketing firms, bilateral and multilat-

eral organizations, and even governments are moving

proactively to take advantage of information tech-

nology that allows data to be rapidly and efficiently

collected, processed, organized, accessed, and put into

the service of maximizing profits, gathering market

intelligence and optimizing the flow of international

aid, among other things. More than 300,000 business-

es currently subscribe to data services provided by New

York-based Bloomberg LP, which has captured a third

of what has become a $16 billion financial data market.

The OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation

and Development), whose stated objective is to pro-

duce analyses and policy recommendations that are

‘independent and evidence-based’, works with 34

member countries to collect and make publicly avail-

able real-time data on hundreds of economic, political

and social measures.

At the same time, calls for ‘opening’ existing propri-

etary data sets for public consumption have been

proliferating, on the theory that

independent software developers

will be able to build new applica-

tions that allow users to access the

data in ways that go far beyond any

possibilities originally envisioned

by the data collectors themselves.

In that spirit, the World Bank re-

cently opened up for public access

data on more than 8,000 indica-

tors from its massive statistical

database.

As these transformative de-

velopments in information

technology are taking place, what

Data for goodSo, on top of everything else, foundations are supposed to compile and maintain data on their activities? And share it with other foundations? And perhaps even make it public? And do all of this willingly, because it will make philanthropy more effective? It is up to foundations to decide whether or not to do this, but it is becoming clearer every day that the answer is being thrust upon them, whether foundations are ready or not.

Larry McGill is vice president for research at the Foundation Center and one of the guest editors for the Alliance special feature ‘What can data do for philanthropy?’ Email [email protected]

F O C U S O N . . .

What can data do for philanthropy?

Larry McGill

Alliance Volume 17 Number 3 September 2012 www.alliancemagazine.org

business world, though, this does not guarantee im-

pact. Nor does it eliminate risk. Minimizing risk is the

only thing that foundations have any power to control.

For monitoring and learning

Once funds have been expended, there is little that

foundations can do to further influence the course

that events will take. The ‘market’ will do as it will,

as the funds catalyse events, actions and reactions

among the constituencies that are touched by the

work. But what foundations can do once funds have

been released is monitor the work and learn from the

consequences generated by it. And that, once again,

calls for the collection of data.

Just as gathering ‘market intelligence’ on what has

been tried and what works is part of the due diligence

that foundations must do before developing and im-

plementing their intervention strategies, they owe it

to the field to collect and share data on how well their

own interventions actually worked, so others can do

their due diligence as well. There must be collective

learning as well as individual learning.

In short, the two most powerful tools foundations

have for maximizing the impact of their investments

are minimizing risk and drawing lessons from conse-

quences. And both of these require data.

Who is collecting data on philanthropy and why?

To solve global problems, foundations need global data.

Organizations such as the OECD, the World Bank, the

World Health Organization and the United Nations

have developed databases that can help foundations

better understand their potential constituencies and

their needs. But what kinds of information are avail-

able on the activities of foundations themselves?

While individual foundations may share some of this

information through annual reports, websites and

other means, it is impossible to understand the net

impact of the work of foundations without engaging

in systematic efforts to collect data across foundations

in general. The need for this kind of systematic data

on foundation activities has become increasingly sali-

ent to associations of foundations that seek to develop

services to meet their members’ needs.

There are more than 100 associations of foundations

around the world, most of them organized on a na-

tional or regional basis. Most have been around for

less than 15 years and are still discovering the best

ways to serve their members. Almost all are engaged

in collecting member data on a regular basis, some-

times annually, sometimes less often. What are they

of more than !50 billion (a back-of-the-envelope esti-

mate derived from published information on the EFC

website), is more likely to pass than a statute that has

the potential to facilitate the work of an unknown

number of foundations. The work of the EFC and the

recently formed Foundation Council of Europe can

harness the persuasive power of

large numbers only if the numbers

are known.

For market intelligence

For an individual foundation,

though, what is most important is

‘market intelligence’, to borrow a

phrase from business. That means

understanding potential constitu-

encies, unmet needs among those

constituencies, mechanisms for

meeting those needs, and the work

of other organizations operating in

that market.

Understanding potential constitu-

encies means compiling data on

who they are. Where do they live?

What do they look like demographically? How do they

fit into the larger social, cultural and economic envi-

ronment in which they are situated?

Understanding unmet needs among those constitu-

encies means compiling data on the scope of the

problems or issues that disproportionately affect

them. How are specific constituencies (eg women,

people of colour, rural populations and people with

disabilities) affected by these problems or issues?

Understanding mechanisms for meeting the needs

of constituencies means understanding what types

of intervention have been tried and with what levels

of success.

Understanding the work of other organizations oper-

ating in the same ‘market’ means compiling data on

the activities of other foundations, as well as bilateral

and multilateral organizations that are working on

these problems or issues. What are their theories of

change? What types of interventions are they engaged

in? What organizations on the ground do they work

with? How does the work of your foundation fit into

this picture?

Having access to data in each of these areas minimiz-

es the risk of making poor investment decisions. Put

another way, data give foundations their best shot at

making a difference through their work. Just as in the

For an individual foundation

what is most important

is ‘market intelligence’,

to borrow a phrase from

business. That means

understanding potential

constituencies, unmet needs

among those constituencies,

mechanisms for meeting

those needs, and the work

of other organizations

operating in that market.

focus on what c an data do for phil anthropy? p33


Chinese foundations, which can be viewed at http://

en.foundationcenter.org.cn.

And recently developed data-driven knowledge tools

are starting to transform the way foundations work

together. In October 2011, with support from the

Hilton Foundation, the Foundation Center launched

WASHfunders.org, a custom web portal that serves

as a hub of information and resources for funders

working around the world to improve water access,

sanitation and hygiene – commonly referred to as

‘WASH’. The site brings together and organizes data

from diverse sources, including foundations, the

World Bank and the OECD, so the community of

funders can more effectively, and collectively, meet

this urgent global challenge.

Through WASHfunders.org, foundations have free

and unrestricted access to a broad set of data-rich

resources including:

a mapping tool that enables users to interact

with data on international aid flows, foundation

funding, and key development indicators;

profiles documenting the WASH strategies of

leading foundations;

case studies that illustrate the successes and

challenges of WASH projects around the world;

tools and resources for assessing project

outcomes; and

a searchable archive of research reports

recommended by sector leaders.

Steven Hilton, president and CEO of the Conrad N

Hilton Foundation, a leading funder of water issues,

expects WASHfunders.org to ‘play a vital role in pro-

moting effectiveness, increasing collaboration, and

facilitating decision making within the donor com-

munity. [It] will help bring more visibility to the global

water crisis, attract new partners and funders, and

fill a key gap in the effort to meet the global WASH

challenges.’

Less than a year from the launch of WASHfunders.org,

its early success has spawned initiatives to develop

half a dozen new knowledge portals, on topics such as

media, sustainable arts organizations and funding

for black men and boys. Foundations are quickly dis-

covering that knowledge tools such as WASHfunders.

org allow them to be more strategic, enabling them

to make data-driven decisions and share peer-to-peer

insights much more effectively.

Improving data on philanthropy

If foundations are to participate fully in the data revo-

lution, they need to overcome the natural tendency to

collecting data on? Are they asking the same types

of question? Can we learn anything about the work

of philanthropy worldwide by merging the data col-

lected across associations?

As part of our work with the WINGS Philanthropy

Data Network (see p15), we looked at a sample of

seven surveys that foundation as-

sociations are using to collect data

from their members, in Australia,

Colombia, Mexico, Minnesota (US),

Spain, Ukraine and the UK. (We are

collecting additional surveys and

will extend this analysis further as

additional materials are received.)

The number of questions asked on

each survey ranged from 28 to 55.

Across these seven surveys, how

many questions were asked in com-

mon by all? The answer is one: what

geographic area(s) does your foun-

dation serve? Beyond this, six of the

seven surveys asked for the name

of the foundation and the founda-

tion’s areas of interest. Five asked

for the foundation’s establishment date, the size of its

staff, and ‘any other comments’.

Clearly, we are a long way from systematic global data

collection on foundation activities. We cannot yet

build a comprehensive picture of global philanthropy

based on current data collection efforts.

There are bright spots, however. In 2010, for exam-

ple, the China Foundation Center was established in

Beijing. In less than two years, the CFC has collected,

and made publicly available, data on more than 2,000

Across seven surveys, how

many questions were asked

in common by all? The answer

is one: what geographic

area(s) does your foundation

serve? . . . Clearly, we are a

long way from systematic

global data collection

on foundation activities.

We cannot yet build a

comprehensive picture of

global philanthropy based on

current data collection efforts.

p34


focus on what c an data do for phil anthropy?

Data for good

Charter, points out that ‘lack of data can lead to in-

effective or unsafe delivery of services, poor patient

choices and wasted resources. Effective management

of health data is a prerequisite to achieve individual

treatment and population health management goals,

along with those for overall health system perfor-

mance [emphasis added].’

The Global Health Data Charter articulates a simple

yet powerful vision for the development of health data

standards (‘Better health data for better health’); a set

of principles to guide the development of standards;

an action plan that describes the enablers required to

ensure the successful implementation of standards;

and a picture of the resulting value that data standards

will create.

A global philanthropy data charter?

As foundations and philanthropic associations grap-

ple with these same issues, perhaps it is time for

philanthropy to develop its own data charter, laying

out in clear terms the ‘vision, principles, enablers, and

resulting value’ that underlie a commitment to estab-

lishing common data standards for the field. At the

same time, the field needs to be aware that a number

of emerging models are already gaining traction (such

as IATI, the International Aid Transparency Initiative,

which has begun integrating data on the work of foun-

dations into its scheme), while many country-specific

initiatives are also moving forward at a brisk pace.

In short, the will to collect philanthropic data is

widespread, and time is short to develop and adopt

global data collection standards of maximum utility

to philanthropy.

But as the field works towards the development of

data standards, a final important concern needs to

be acknowledged. Standards must not be incompat-

ible with flexibility. Philanthropy, though similar in

many respects around the world, is not monolithic.

While many of its basic features can be described us-

ing standardized categories, it inevitably retains the

stamp of the individual organizations and cultures

from which it flows, as it should. Yes, this makes the

job of developing global data standards more difficult,

but it should not be used as an excuse for not building

standards or collecting data at all. Just as in the health

field, the stakes are much too high for philanthropy to

operate without having the best available information

at its disposal.

Conclusion

In a recent blog post, ‘Philanthropy’s Data Dilemma’,1

Foundation Center president Bradford Smith said:

build and work within systems that serve only their

internal needs. When 100 foundations are using 100

idiosyncratic methods to describe and monitor their

own work, it is impossible to share learnings across or-

ganizations efficiently. And the field as a whole cannot

become more effective.

Philanthropy is not the only field struggling with

these issues. In a domain where the stakes are arguably

even higher than in philanthropy, health organiza-

tions are coming to grips with the fact that accurate

health data are not always available when and where

they are needed. A recent manifesto published by the

World Economic Forum, called the Global Health Data

p35



Data for good

‘Getting foundations into the era of Big Data doesn’t

have to be a Herculean challenge. Technology is on

our side and stopping doing some things will free up

time and resources to do others.’ While he is speak-

ing primarily to an audience of US foundations, the

principles he articulates apply to all:

1 STOP trying to be unique.

2 START aligning your data with the outside world.

3 STOP developing custom grants

management systems.

4 START going beyond the minimum reporting

requirements of tax laws.

5 STOP thinking about data and communications

as two separate things.

6 START thinking about data as open.

There is a theory of change underlying the recommen-

dation that foundations join the ‘Big Data’ movement.

And like all theories of change relating to philanthro-

py, its goal is to maximize the impact of philanthropic

work. We don’t encourage the collection and use of

data for data’s sake or even as a way of improving

the efficiency of foundation practices, though these

goals are fine. At bottom, the ultimate beneficiaries of

improved data on philanthropy are, in fact, the very

people that foundations are trying to reach through

their charitable activities.

1 http://pndblog.typepad.com/pndblog/2012/07/philanthropys-data-dilemma.html

Receiving mobile phone updates on current market prices, weather forecasts, etc helps smallholder farmers to negotiate better prices and to decide when and where to take their products to market, and ultimately improves their incomes.

ES

OK

O

Latest from Alliance is a truly

international blog featuring a

diverse range of news, opinions

and reports.

Contributors representing all

corners of the globe

Comment on all aspects of the

sector

Reports from key conferences

Make sure you don’t miss out –

follow us on Twitter to get all the

latest updates

Stay up to date with Latest from Alliance News and comment on philanthropy and social investment around the world

@alliancemag

philanthropynews.alliancemagazine.org

p36



Data for good

year. This is the kind of data that the sector needs for

policy purposes, but do you think it’s sufficient?

RG I think this first attempt shows how much we have

to do still. We need data to make society, governments

and public administrations aware of the importance

of the sector, and to give them a realistic sense of

how much we can achieve, for instance in areas from

which the state is retreating. Data are also important

for the reputation of the sector; it is important that

society knows what foundations do.

BS I often cite that study to American audiences,

and they are amazed that the assets of European

foundations are equal to or greater than the assets

of American foundations, and that the amount they

spend is roughly equivalent. It impresses on them that

philanthropy is not just something made in the USA.

RG It’s interesting that you say that because I think

it has the same effect in Europe. People are often

unaware of the strength of the sector and think that

philanthropy is much stronger in the States. One of

the areas on which we have to work – and DAFNE and

the European Foundation Centre are trying to move

towards this – is to see European philanthropy as a

whole. Most of us have been looking at philanthropy

and the foundation sector nationally. If we are to have

a European Foundation Statute, if we want a Europe of

citizens, we have to be able to prove that philanthropy

has a presence and a significance at European level.

BS People in philanthropy sometimes think ‘our data

will never be good enough, the institutions are too

individualistic, the problems are too big, it costs too

much money’, so nothing gets collected. But even

very simple data like the volume of assets collectively

of foundations and the amount spent on their

programmes can be illuminating. We are seeing this

in other parts of the world too. The China Foundation

Centre, which started two years ago, has just begun

to collect data from government sources and directly

from Chinese foundations. They have collected

data on roughly 2,500 foundations. When you tell

people that there are 2,500 foundations in China,

they’re amazed, because people don’t think of any

foundations in China. Another interesting point: over

a third of those foundations have websites, whereas a

Foundation Center survey in the US found that only

26 per cent of US foundations have websites. If you

tell American foundations that, it makes them think

about their own sector, and that they need to improve.

RG What kind of data are available about the work of

US foundations and how is it collected?

How is data on philanthropy collected and analysed

on each side of the Atlantic? What is collected,

what isn’t and why isn’t it? Bradford Smith and

Rosa Gallego of Donors and Foundations Networks

in Europe (DAFNE) compared notes and pondered

the need for collaboration between countries and

regions in an era when foundations increasingly

work across borders.

Bradford Smith What is the state of data on

philanthropy in Europe, Rosa?

Rosa Gallego It’s quite uneven, and this is one of our

big challenges. Foundations do collect data, but they

often do it very much on an individual basis and

don’t think how it could be done collaboratively and

in a way that could maximize its use for the sector

in general. I am afraid that data collection is not yet

a major topic for the majority of the sector. There

could be various reasons for this. One is that it is not

seen as the tool that will allow foundations to do

their work better, but maybe more important is that

they see it as too expensive and time-consuming.

BS When the project to create the European

Foundation Statute was first conceived, the

European Union commissioned a study2 which,

among other things, had some very interesting

estimates of the assets of European foundations and

the amount they spend on their programmes every

A conversation Rosa Gallego and Bradford SmithIn his blog ‘Philanthropy’s Data Dilemma’1 Foundation Center president Bradford Smith argues: ‘The time has come for foundations to start thinking about everything they do as data.’ He goes on to argue that: ‘most of the (increasingly digitized) concept notes, project proposals, progress reports, evaluations, research, and strategy deliberations produced by foundations are unavailable for mining within individual foundations, across the field, or by anyone else interested in understanding philanthropy’s immense contribution to making a better world . . . If, and only if, foundations are willing to create the habits and systems needed to more freely share their information with each other and with others will the industry that is philanthropy fully be able to take advantage of the era of Big Data and all that it promises.’

Rosa Gallego is chair of DAFNE and deputy director of the Spanish Association of Foundations. Email [email protected]

Bradford Smith is president of the Foundation Center. Email [email protected]



BS In one way, it’s easier because the US is a single

country, not a union of countries like Europe. All US

foundations have to submit a tax document called a

990 PF (private foundation) and it has to be available for

public inspection. The Foundation Center gets these

documents in bulk from the Internal Revenue Service

and can produce data from them.

The downside is that this is a

compliance document, not a data

collection instrument, so it has its

weaknesses as a data source.

The other problem is that there’s

tremendous variation in the

way foundations complete this

document. In the US, everyone

thinks of the big professional

foundations – Ford, Rockefeller,

Mott, Gates. But in a survey we did of a representative

sample of 11,000 foundations, 76 per cent had four

staff or fewer, and, as I mentioned earlier, only

26 per cent had websites. There are thousands of

foundations that are simply a husband and wife and

an accountant. Some of these documents are filled out

in pencil, whereas the Gates Foundation is filing theirs

electronically.

Interestingly, the IRS sends these forms to us in image

form, requiring that they must all be converted into a

form which we can load into a database. Foundations

are supposed to attach a list of all the grants they make

– the organizations they made them to, the amount and

the purpose. Sometimes they don’t put the purpose, or

they misspell the name of the organization or put an

acronym instead; all this means that the data have to

be cleaned. But the fact remains that there is a basic

data source about the sector, which is a huge asset.

RG Absolutely. In Spain, one of the barriers is that,

although foundations have to submit their annual

accounts to the supervising authority, there is not yet

a standard form for providing that information – but

we are working on it and we hope there will be one

next year. However, it will not be in electronic form,

so we will have to do the same work that you do to

extract the data from the document, and we don’t have

enough resources for this. Perhaps because of that, we

only consider a small number of items, like income,

expenditure and assets. We don’t, for instance, try to

ascertain whether the source of the income is public or

private, or whether it’s regular. Another source of data

is to ask foundations directly, which we also do.

BS As you mentioned, philanthropic institutions are

all quite individualistic, and a field that is made up

of individualistic institutions often thinks of itself as

unique. People in philanthropy have this myth about

the private sector that everything is very organized

and efficient, but we’ve been talking with Bloomberg

LP and they tell us that they have similar challenges.

We have people actually sitting reading tax returns,

hand-copying information and keying in data, and

they have the same thing in the corporate sector! So

we shouldn’t let the obstacles be a reason not to do

things. The other thing is that technology is getting

better, so the problems of automatic scanning and

coding will gradually be solved, and it will become

cheaper to do this.

RG I think we as representative organizations have a

role in convincing our members about the importance

of data. How are we going to represent the sector if we

cannot tell society or governments what the sector

does and how it does it? If foundations have come

together in a platform, like the Spanish Association of

Foundations, or any other national or supranational

association, it is because they feel that working

together will make it easier to defend the interests of

the sector, but of course we can do that only if the data

are there. We can be very good at making proposals

on how to improve the legal environment or the

fiscal framework, but we will be able to achieve those

goals only if we can demonstrate the importance of

those changes.

BS It’s getting easier to show people the value of data

because of data visualization. Virtually everyone in

our sector uses some kind of mapping application on

their mobile device. They probably pick restaurants or

go to movies using software that rates and visualizes

things. There are vast amounts of data behind this,

but it is presented to them in a way that solves, very

simply, a need they have. I think we could do a lot

more with data visualization in our sector. Even

just by using an interactive map that shows where

foundations are located in a country, by province

or by city, and showing the assets, the volume of

programmes and the types of programmes. There are

ways in which we can make this data come to life so

that people will begin to see it as useful.

RG You are very much the avant garde in this respect,

and we all need to be thankful for the fact that the

Foundation Center has decided to reach out and

work in other areas of the world. And WINGS will

help to spread those advances in data collection, and

‘How are we going to

represent the sector if

we cannot tell society

or governments what

the sector does and how

it does it?’

Rosa Gallego

p38



A conversation: Rosa Gallego and Bradford Smith

particularly in data visualization, in other countries.

We are not as advanced as you, and we never will be,

because it is not our main activity, but by cooperating

with you and WINGS, we will benefit from your work

and tools, and it will be easier to show foundations

in the different European countries the importance

of data.

BS As is often said, we live

in a networked world and

organizations need to develop

a networked style of thinking.

Basically we work across

borders and across fields, using

the comparative advantages

and strengths of different

organizations to contribute to the social good. The

relationship that the Foundation Center has with

WINGS, and the relationship that WINGS has with

DAFNE and DAFNE’s members, for example, mark

the beginning of thinking more like a network and

adding up the strengths and capabilities of our

different organizations. The Foundation Center

is not a membership organization, so we aren’t

representative in the way that you are. What we’re

good at is data collection and data visualization.

WINGS was a tremendously visionary idea, created

before anyone imagined that something like it

would be necessary. It was based on the idea that

philanthropy is global, that there are support

organizations everywhere that make it better

and defend the sector, and that these support

organizations could achieve a lot by sharing their

experience and building on each other’s strengths.

The challenge now is how to take advantage of

this wonderful organization and help it to live

up to its potential, especially in this area of data.

WINGS has the structure and the potential to

talk to organizations like the World Bank and the

International Monetary Fund and say ‘here’s what

philanthropy is doing in Asia, or globally’, because

increasingly people want to know.

RG This is a bit like what I was talking about before,

in Europe. We need to have a picture of philanthropy

at European level and in each of our countries,

because we want to be able to show the strength of

the whole continent in philanthropy.

BS You mentioned that some foundations are

collecting data in a given sector or on a given issue.

It’s important to recognize that there are groups

of foundations that have decided to work together

on issues like immigration, or disability rights,

or whatever, that have engaged in collecting and

sharing information.

RG Yes, these are good examples of the importance

of collecting data. It is interesting to look back at the

work of some of these foundations and to recognize,

for instance, the improvements in legal status for

certain groups, like disability groups, that have been

achieved over the past few decades. When you talk

to them, they always cite the data that support those

improvements. These examples also provide a way

to encourage foundations to work towards policies

beside the individual projects they might be working

on.

BS Examples of this are occurring across borders in

Europe. There is a project we have been involved in

with the International Human Rights Funders Group

and Ariadne, the European association of human

rights funders. Its aim is to collect data to understand

the level of human rights philanthropy and the trends

within it: by region, by different kinds of rights, by

sub-issues. It has been incredibly interesting. Both

European and American foundations, and some in

other parts of the world, have been very willing to

provide data because they want to be able to say ‘this

is what philanthropy is doing around the world for

human rights’ and to see the advances and changes.

I’d add one caution. When some foundations think of

data, they think of it as being provided by the people

they support rather than themselves. They need to

make sure they have the ability to use all the data

their partners collect, because collecting it is a lot of

work for them.

RG As a last word, I’d like to add that we at DAFNE

are very happy to be part of this pilot of cooperation

between the Foundation Center and WINGS. We

eagerly await some feedback on the information we

are passing on to you. We are always delighted to

see it presented it to us in a totally different form;

it makes us think in different ways. It is a very

interesting adventure!

BS Yes, the same goes for us. Transatlantic and global

collaboration is the future of our field. It’s a really

exciting time to be working in philanthropy and

research and data. When it comes to data, the glass is

half full.


2 http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/company/eufoundation/index_en.htm

See p15 for information about the WINGS Philanthropy Data Network, a new collaboration between the Foundation Center and WINGS.

‘It’s a really exciting time to

be working in philanthropy

and research and data.

When it comes to data, the

glass is half full.’

Bradford Smith

p39



A conversation: Rosa Gallego and Bradford Smith

what they present is a true reflection of a particular

aspect of the sector. Otherwise we run the risk of

being misunderstood or misinterpreted. I am not ad-

vocating secretiveness, but we should be conscious of

the audiences for which data are intended and frame

them accordingly.

I also think that data we produce for the public should

be simple and self-explanatory. We badly need more

of this kind of basic data for our own community too.

How many foundations are there? How much do they

give annually? How many people benefit from their

grants and programmes? Data like these can raise

public awareness and promote public debate about

philanthropy.

My experience is that the best way of collecting and

presenting data for this purpose is through indexes

and ratings. A fairly simple Charities Aid Foundation

World Giving Index produces more media referenc-

es than anything we have done in Russia in the last

18 years! I see three major benefits in such indexes:

they answer a basic framing question (how many

people give to charity in the world?), they present

very easy-to-read trends (our country is doing bet-

ter from year to year) and they are comparative (we

are doing better than our neighbours). This is attrac-

tive for the media and understandable to the public.

An additional value of indexes and ratings may be

in setting up targets for government policy. For ex-

ample, the Russian government has made strides to

improve Russia’s position in the World Bank’s Doing

Business index.

The great disadvantage of indexes is that they reduce

complex ideas to very basic figures, and their method-

ology is usually criticized by research specialists. But

they are good for giving vivid snapshots that invite

interpretation and discussion, and they provide an

opportunity to introduce details to the public that

they would otherwise not be prepared to digest.

Some philanthropy professionals badly need complex

data to facilitate professional exchange, partnerships,

learning and sharing. Many more people, including

foundations’ constituencies and regulators, need sim-

ple data that can help them to understand what our

sector is really about. If I had to choose how to deploy

my limited resources, I would go for the latter.

There is this widely known saying: ‘When you’ve seen

one foundation – you’ve seen one foundation.’ The greatest

difficulty for collecting data about foundations is that

they are all so different that generalizations hardly

work. I am part of a Russian Donors Forum working

group that is developing a framework for mapping

Russian foundations so as to have reliable data about

the philanthropic sector in Russia. To come up with

a universal questionnaire, we had to abandon a lot

of important details: either the questions were not

sufficiently widely applicable or we knew that foun-

dations would not be able to provide the information

for technical reasons or the information would not

be comparable. But details are important! So when

we collect data and present them in an aggregated

form or according to a general standard, we may end

up with ‘average temperature in a hospital’, losing

important details or losing the point altogether.

A classic example: there is no standard framework

for foundations’ financial management informa-

tion, so asking how much they spend on grants, their

own programmes and administration will produce

non-comparable data – foundations simply count dif-

ferently. And this is not just a Russian problem. I once

did a quick review of annual reports of a few large US

and European foundations with the same question

about their budgets in mind and ended up with lots

of line items and figures that were as different as ap-

ples and oranges.

We should be particularly aware of these limitations

where data are presented to the public. In many

countries, Russia included, public awareness about

philanthropy is limited and charities and founda-

tions are often not trusted. All too easily the public

may see in our data something completely different

from what we intended. Data for public use therefore

need a lot of context and interpretation to ensure that

Data for what?As I see it, the key tension when it comes to data is between the general desire to have data about everything in all possible detail and its ultimate usability. The most popular generic project idea in data development is creating a database and making it available online for everyone’s use. I come across projects like this in different philanthropy-related areas every other month. Their creators sincerely believe that a database will foster transparency and cooperation, help to avoid duplication, and generally solve pretty well all the problems of the sector. I am not so sure.

Maria Chertok is director of CAF Russia. Email [email protected]

Maria Chertok

focus on what c an data do for phil anthropy?p40


just at US grantmaking foundations and not operat-

ing foundations, whereas for European foundations

both were taken into account because there are no

legal distinctions in Europe between operating and

grantmaking foundations. This example shows that

focusing on global data can sometimes become an in-

tergalactic exercise and that the added value has to be

carefully looked at.

It is easy to talk of data-driven knowledge but knowl-

edge is not a construct of accumulated data. In systems

thinking, a distinction is made between soft and hard

approaches and both are relevant. The hard system

thinkers develop models of a part of the world. Soft

system thinkers are aware that an objective represen-

tation of reality is not possible and that the observer is

also a factor. Without making things too complicated,

it seems that pragmatically speaking one cannot rely

on only one approach.

‘Knowledge of what is does not open the door directly

to what should be’

Data gathering is a time-consuming and expensive

exercise and there is a risk that smaller charities and

foundations will be confronted with a kind of digital

divide because they do not have the staff or the budget

to compile and maintain data on their activities.

On top of that, some move too quickly from the idea of

data providing transparent information on charities

and foundations towards the idea of a tool for bench-

marking and labelling based on this data gathering.

As I’ve mentioned, reality is too complex to be based

on quantitative data only. People who want to use qual-

ity labels have of course their own value systems. To

make those quality labels and benchmarks credible,

it is essential that they are constructed involving all

the stakeholders, especially those who will be judged:

charities, foundations and associations. Foundations

and charities don’t exist in a vacuum; they are embed-

ded in a community, small or large.

In flying these warning flags, I don’t want to underplay

the importance of data gathering in the foundation

sector. Other warning flags could be added, too. This

should not stop us investing in this new ‘unnatural

resource’, but in dealing with our challenges, we have

to accept their complexity.

‘Perfection of the means and confusion of the ends

seem to characterize our age’

So that we don’t have more and more surveys dropping

into our mailbox, it is vital that we reflect in advance

on the use and added value of the data being gathered.

Data gathering is expensive in terms of both budget

and time allocation. It is important that everyone in

the sector grasps this and uses data gathering care-

fully, avoiding overdose and mindful of budgetary

trade-offs.

The danger is that surveys ask for too much data,

forgetting that in reality only a few are needed for ad-

vocacy and policy purposes. It is also easy to forget that

data are often relevant only if one can compare them

year by year. This means that data gathering needs to

be structurally embedded in an organization and that

the budget needs to be guaranteed for more than just

a one-off exercise.

Along the same lines, if one pleads for transparency

in the foundation sector, there should be an agree-

ment about what really matters in this debate. We

should avoid creating ‘transparency about trivial

matters’, as Phil Buchanan of the Center for Effective

Philanthropy has put it.

‘Information is not knowledge’

It is of course a no-brainer to say that using data can

simplify reality by looking at it through a specific lens.

This can of course be very useful as long as we remain

conscious of it. Data have to be put in a context and the

real story of foundations is in the details.

Some years ago a European Commission study stated

that European foundations were bigger in terms of

endowment and expenditure than their US counter-

parts. This made sense only because the study looked

Three cautions about dataAlliance’s making the issue of data central to this edition is very timely. Few people will doubt or question the importance of data in our professional context. I am sure this ‘new asset class’ will be in the centre of discussions in the philanthropic sector for the next few years. As is often the case, though, when a new item is put on the agenda, there is a danger of overpromising. Let me just counterbalance some of what is written here with three warning flags, each under the heading of a quote of Einstein.

Luc Tayart de Borms is managing director of King Baudouin Foundation. Email [email protected]

Luc Tayart de Borms



their ‘most emailed articles’. All of this is changing

not just business models but what gets written, what

gets read, and what gets talked about.

Medical research is another example. For centuries

we’ve relied on the ‘scientific method’ of hypothesis

– experiment – analysis – hypothesis. Now, massive

data sets of diagnostic information, chemical trials,

tissue registries and patients’ testimonies are being

combined and mined and algorithms are being used

to search for patterns before any kind of hypothesis is

generated. Drugs designed for one disease may fail dis-

mally in their original sphere but be a breakthrough

success in an otherwise unrelated field. Not only are

the resulting pharmaceutical protocols different, the

whole scientific method is changing.

Drawing from and contributing to a common store

When we try to imagine what data will mean for phi-

lanthropy, we need to switch the order of things. We’re

coming from an age in which discrete philanthropic

preferences have trumped shared action. In the age of

data, collective sets of information will come first and

individual philanthropists will tap into it. In the fu-

ture there will be treasure troves of accessible, usable

data on everything from poverty to illness, cultural

performance to environmental indicators, child wel-

fare to human rights, commodities prices to market

locations. Anyone with a mobile phone will be able

to tap into these. Individuals will be able to use this

information to find opportunities for volunteering,

giving or investing. They will contribute to these data

Some of us might impose our own preferences on the

GPS, setting it to avoid highways or stay off private

roads. Others will simply ignore part of the directions,

allowing ‘her’ to keep ‘recalculating route’ until we

get past the part of the trip where we already know

how we want to go. Fewer and fewer of us are actually

unfolding a map, tracing different possibilities with

our fingers, and pulling over to the side of the road

to choose an alternative route when the scenery gets

boring.

That’s what data have done to driving. We’ve subtly

shifted our role from route planner to direction fol-

lower. Most of us are happy with this change – we get

where we wanted to go with fewer headaches (and we

never have to try to refold the map).

When data become the GPS of our philanthropy . . .

Imagine what philanthropy and social investing

will look like when they really get built around data.

There’s been great discussion and progress made in

using data in philanthropy, and this edition of Alliance

gives plenty of examples, tools and discussion about

the pros and cons. But we’re still at the stage of adding

data to existing practices. We haven’t yet started to

see new practices emerge out of existing data. When

that starts to happen, when data become the GPS of

our philanthropy, we’ll see some big changes just as

we have in other fields.

Here are two quick analogies. Publishing is being re-

made by data. Authors are going straight to readers

via online publishing platforms that focus on search

engine optimization, integrate video and audio into

texts, re-size long articles and publish them as ‘singles’.

Stories sell for 99 cents. Online sales offer incredible

data on readers, where and who they are, how they

found the article, where they went next. News organi-

zations and other online publishers proudly promote

Data-first philanthropyOnce upon a time we used paper maps to plan our road trips. Then came GPS systems, which were at first installed only in the most expensive cars. Then GPS became commonplace and even came in our phones. Now, many of us enter an address, get behind the wheel, and follow turn-by-turn directions presented to us by an ever-patient, automated voice coming from the dashboard.

Lucy Bernholz is managing director of Arabella Advisors and author of the award-winning blog philanthropy2173.com. She is a guest editor for the Alliance special feature ‘What can data do for philanthropy?’ Email [email protected]

Lucy Bernholz

DA

VV

I CH

RZ

AS

TE

K



sets with location-based check-ins and social network

status updates. Institutions will be able to combine

and visualize subsets of these data according to their

own stated interests, slicing, dicing, recombining and

contributing their findings back to the shared store-

houses. From within these commonly shared, curated

and cleaned, and constantly up-

dated storehouses of bits and bytes,

philanthropic institutions will

pull down what they need, query

and model according to their inter-

ests, and automatically share again

for others to consume.

Similarly, data on impact investing,

public funding, corporate social

responsibility contributions and

philanthropic giving will be avail-

able, comparable and mixable.

Mapping revenue flows by issue,

geography, intent and source will

be an easy first step before plan-

ning one’s resource allocation.

Even before this has happened we can see how readily

available data ease the creation of shared metrics and

thus make possible the comparisons and exchanges

necessary for impact investing. What will happen

when turning to data first is the natural first step in

all private resource allocation? When working from

shared data becomes as much second nature as typ-

ing an address into the GPS, we will start to see real

change in philanthropic practice.

In the world of online data

Passion and personal interests won’t disappear –

they will just operate in a different environment.

Abundant, accessible and meaningful data aren’t

going to change human nature, but they may well

change reporting requirements, expectations of suc-

cess and ease of joint action. Which may well, in time,

shift patterns of human behaviour about giving time,

money and expertise.

In the world of online data, information and money

take the same form (electronic bits) so it’s easier to im-

agine individual donors piggybacking on the research

of big funders while also crowdfunding discrete pro-

jects as a habit, not just as a special event. Flash mobs

of ‘doers’ and ‘donors’ who can find each other and

the information they need with their mobile phones

(which now outnumber people on the planet) will

come together, make something happen, and move

on to the next network. We may make institutions of

these kinds of relationships and invent new forms of

governance to demonstrate their reliability or hold

others accountable. Privacy concerns about personal

data will have already changed laws and corporate

practice so that each of us knows we own our data

in the same way we own our clothes. We might lend

the data on a one-time basis for economic research

or donate it in perpetuity to science, making data a

philanthropic asset as well as an input and output.

Finally, we may recognize the public value of philan-

thropically funded data, and change our regulations

to value the data and access to them. No longer will

we discuss philanthropy first and foremost in terms

of dollars donated but we will also consider wisdom

and knowledge generated.

The discussions philanthropy needs to have

Not everything about the digital data future is good or

even better than what we have now. Nor will data, any

more than any other technological innovation, be dis-

tributed evenly or be free from abuse. The challenges

and problems of big data are as big as the data them-

selves. And so too are the opportunities. The truth is,

we don’t know what it means to live in a world where

information about us, in ever finer particles, is stored

for ever longer periods of times by ever more distant

enterprises.

I don’t know when this future will come but I do know

this – people who have grown up with digital data –

massive, connected, searchable, mixable, always

available data – are going to shape the philanthropic

fortunes and practices of this century. The discus-

sions about ownership, privacy, governance, borders,

security and innovation that are taking place now in

industries like publishing, at multilateral organiza-

tions like the World Bank, and among governments

from Brazil to Kenya, are the very same ones that

philanthropy needs to have.

Imagine what philanthropy

and social investing will look

like when they really get built

around data. We haven’t yet

started to see new practices

emerge out of existing data.

When that starts to happen,

when data become the GPS

of our philanthropy, we’ll see

some big changes just as we

have in other fields.



Gerry Salole at the European Foundation Centre

(EFC) notes a change over the last years in the kinds

of information the EFC collects. ‘In the past, our focus

was putting a figure on the size, scope and financial

footprint of the sector in Europe, while also collecting

anecdotal examples of the type of projects and pro-

grammes our members were supporting.’ Given the

state of data on the field at the time, he says, that was

entirely appropriate. Now he sees two changes which

betoken for him the European foundation sector’s

coming of age. One is a trend towards ‘a deeper un-

derstanding of foundations’ contribution in specific

thematic areas’. In this regard he cites recent studies

on supporting women’s issues, commissioned by Mama

Cash, and on the environment, commissioned by the

European Environmental Funders’ Group. The second

sign of maturity is ‘the growing interest in qualitative

data and in better understanding the practices under-

lying the work of our community’.

By contrast, Noshir Dadrawala notes that very little

data is collected in India, which means that most of the

figures produced about the sector are speculative and

often unreliable. ‘NGOs in India are believed [our italics]

to raise Rs 40,000–Rs 80,000 crores [US$7 billion–US$14

billion] per annum,’ he says. He cites the data produced

by the Central Statistical Institute of India suggesting

that the country has ‘3.3 million NGOs or almost one

NGO for every 400 Indians. Of course,’ he says, ‘this data

is quite flawed.’ The Ministry of Home Affairs collects

data on foreign contributions, the World Bank has data

on remittances sent home to India from the diaspora,

and Bain & Co has been collecting and publishing some

data on individual giving over the past couple of years,

but there is no single source of information on the in-

flows and outflows of money to the Indian non-profit

sector.

What’s missing?

In most cases, it is unclear where foundation or

non-profit money comes from and where it goes. For

Dadrawala, what’s lacking in India for both HNWIs

Who collects what and why?

On the face of it, the organizations represented by

the various respondents already collect a formidable

amount of information. WINGS, says Helena Monteiro,

collects data on grantmaker support organizations

and community foundations worldwide. The Africa

Grantmakers Affinity Group (AGAG), says Niamani

Mutima, collects ‘basic information about the Africa

funding portfolio of our members and other Africa

grantmakers’. The information is used ‘in various

ways to elevate Africa’s profile within the philanthrop-

ic community. On a broad level, it is used to paint a

snapshot of the landscape of grantmaking by private

foundations.’

The Council on Foundations in the US, says Mark

Bolgiano, ‘collects data on what connects people and

organizations in topical, local, regional, national and

global networks so that we can bring them together to

do great things collectively that would be difficult or

impossible to do individually.’ This already gives a clue

to one virtue of data which most of our respondents

cited: its use in facilitating collaboration – of which

more below.

It’s not just what you know, it’s how you use it As part of the special feature on data, Alliance convened a virtual roundtable of philanthropy associations and support groups from around the world to get an idea of what information the sector collects about itself in different places. What do we know and what don’t we know? What could more or better information enable us to do? And, if we aren’t collecting and sharing the data we need, what’s stopping us?

Andrew Milner is Alliance associate editor. Email [email protected]

Mark Bolgiano, chief information officer, Council on Foundations, USA

Noshir Dadrawala, CEO, Centre for Advancement of Philanthropy, India

Helena Monteiro, executive director, Worldwide Initiatives for Grantmaker Support (WINGS), Brazil

Niamani Mutima, executive director, Africa Grantmakers Affinity Group (AGAG), USA

Fernando Rossetti, secretary general, Grupo de Institutos, Fundacoes e Empresas (GIFE), Brazil

Nicanor Sabula, CEO, East African Association of Grantmakers (EAAG), Kenya

Gerry Salole, chief executive, European Foundation Centre (EFC), Belgium

Andrew Milner

Alliance would like to thank the following for their contributions:



and ordinary Indians is information on who gives,

how much and to whom. Niamani Mutima makes a

similar point. ‘While the focus is often on the amount

of money being spent,’ she says, ‘I am not so sure the

amount is as important as why and how.’ For instance,

‘when a foundation or group of foundations have put

significant investment in organiza-

tions in a country and been a part

of building the field in an area and

then decide to stop, I really do want

to know more about why they made

that decision.’ The rationale for

such changes, she feels, is often re-

stricted to ‘corridor conversations

or informal telephone calls’ and is

seldom made public.

Nicanor Sabula of the East African Association of

Grantmakers (EAAG) would also like to know the

amounts of money committed to philanthropy

annually in his region and the contribution of philan-

thropy to the GDP of the various East African countries.

Fernando Rossetti of Grupo de Institutos, Fundacoes

e Empresas (GIFE), speaking of Brazil, says that ‘the fi-

nancial information (where the money comes from and

where it goes) offered by foundations and the govern-

ment is still very “rough” and “dirty”’.

On the whole, the amounts contributed by philan-

thropy are less of an issue to those in Europe and the

US. For them perhaps a more significant question is

what effect the resources of the sector are having.

Niamani Mutima observes that

she would ‘like to know about what

philanthropy is learning’. There are

plenty of sources of information on

individual organizations, says Mark

Bolgiano, and that’s fine for looking

at them individually, but what’s

lacking for him is data ‘on the philanthropic sector in

the aggregate, which makes it difficult for those in the

sector to get data about its scope and impact’.

Gerry Salole doesn’t believe we need more information.

Instead, he argues, we need sharper thinking on ‘how

we can bring all this information together to inform

our work and provide a clearer understanding of the

sector’.

What is data needed for?

And not only for those in the sector. Good and reliable

data on philanthropy, says Noshir Dadrawala, could

help government set better policies while giving would

become better informed. ‘Our capacity to advocate and

to offer tools and services for the growth and develop-

ment of philanthropy worldwide is impaired due to

lack of data,’ believes Helena Monteiro.

Strategic planning would be enhanced with more and

better data, agrees Fernando Rossetti: ‘partnerships

would be facilitated; grantseekers would have an easier

time.’ Better information would enable East African

grantmakers to avoid duplication and mobilize their

resources more effectively, says Nicanor Sabula.

‘It would be great to have “real time” information

about the organizations currently being supported

as well as information about funding by individuals,’

says Niamani Mutima, with what she admits is opti-

mism. Back down on earth, though, better data, she

says, ‘might enable American philanthropy to be better

partners in African development’. More information

‘could help us to gain a better picture of how philan-

thropy is trying to fit into the development landscape

of Africa. In this way the story of philanthropy and

African development might not be so episodic and indi-

vidual.’ Finally, because members of AGAG often work

at a distance (many are based in the US), they want in-

formation about ‘the work being done by civil society

organizations because these are the ones really doing

the work’.

Improving transparency, facilitating collaboration

Another great virtue of data, believes Mark Bolgiano,

is that it makes organizations transparent. Fernando

Rossetti agrees that having the kinds of data that, say,

the US for-profit sector has would increase the ‘rel-

evance and social legitimacy’ of the philanthropic

sector in Brazil which, he says, has been prone to scan-

dals over corruption. Conversely, says Bolgiano, ‘lack of

data translates into lack of visibility across the sector.

This blindness results in missed opportunities to part-

ner with other people and organizations with natural

affinities.’

Most of the other participants agreed. Niamani Mutima

spoke of ‘lost opportunities for funders to complement

each other in their funding and possibly have a great

impact in a community or sector’. Likewise, Rossetti

believes that ‘some partnerships in territories or the-

matic fields do not occur due to the lack of information’.

Barriers to sharing information

The arguments in favour of better data seem over-

whelming and obvious. It seems equally obvious that

one way of getting a clearer picture of the sector overall

– whether globally, regionally or nationally – would be

through greater sharing of information by and among

‘The financial information (where the money comes from and where it goes) offered by foundations and the government is still very

“rough” and “dirty”.’ Fernando Rossetti

‘Our capacity to advocate and to offer tools and services for the growth and development of philanthropy worldwide is impaired due to lack of data.’ Helena Monteiro



information will discourage potential donors, who

may shy away from supporting a foundation that al-

ready receives a lot of money; or that their ideas and

innovations may be stolen by less creative organiza-

tions. But in some instances, he suggests, it could

simply be that ‘some foundations do not honestly have

documented information to share. Their knowledge is

resident in the heads of their leaders/founders.’

Fernando Rossetti cites a reason for the lack of informa-

tion sharing among family foundations which may be

particular to Brazil – ‘the fear of their members being

kidnapped’. However, he casts doubt on the sincerity

of this motive. ‘These individuals generally do not re-

frain from appearing in celebrity magazines,’ he notes.

A better reason why Brazilian foundations don’t share

information, he thinks, is that Brazilian philanthropy

tends to be dominated by corporate foundations. Their

use of their philanthropy to raise their business profile

tends to mean ‘the overstatement of some issues and

the absence of information on others’.

Gerry Salole sees signs of change towards greater open-

ness, however, and talks of ‘vastly improved access to

information through websites, annual reports and

other media. We really get a sense that there is a greater

willingness to share experiences both within the com-

munity and also more widely with other partners and

the public at large.’ He also mentions a ‘growing ap-

petite for cross-border conversations and for learning

opportunities about these diverse experiences’.

Barriers to collecting data

It might be useful to draw a distinction between pro-

ducing data and sharing data. In the second case, as

we have seen, the barriers tend to be cultural. In the

first, they are more likely to be technical or financial.

‘I think the cost of accessing data both in terms of

time and money,’ says Niamani Mutima, ‘is probably

the major barrier for us as an organization.’ In a sec-

tor where things change quickly, she reflects, keeping

information up to date can be a demanding exercise:

‘Foundations can change priorities or approaches rath-

er quickly. After a few years they might change their

strategy, approach or focus and they are not funding

in that country, sector and approach any more. So data

can get old very fast.’

Mark Bolgiano sees two technical barriers in the US to

accessing data: the lack of ‘a true public data utility’ – a

single provider of philanthropic data that makes that

data available at a low cost or free – and the lack of open

data standards, a standardized format that everyone

in or connected to the sector agrees to use. For these

foundations. Yet, as Niamani Mutima observes, ‘foun-

dations don’t seem to know a lot about what each other

is doing outside of their areas.’ Why not?

Noshir Dadrawala tells the following illuminating

story: ‘About a year ago an attempt was made to set up

an Indian Philanthropy Network. . . . The first meet-

ing was held in the office of the

Tata Trusts. At the second meeting,

held at EdelGive Foundation, just a

few turned up. It was decided to go

for teleconferences but not many

joined. Ultimately, after a year,

things just fizzled out. And this was

for just one reason. Foundations did

not find the time . . . because they

probably did not see much value

in networking. Each was way too

caught up with their own work.’

Where foundations do share infor-

mation, he feels, it is likely to be partial. ‘Most, if not

all, foundations only report success stories,’ he sug-

gests, and that unwillingness to admit failure limits

the information foundations are willing to divulge.

Niamani Mutima agrees: ‘I think there is an incredible

fear of talking candidly about failure or not getting

it right.’ She adds: ‘the decision-making process and

rationale for both the institutional

and individual philanthropist can

be based on such a wide range of

things. Sometimes, it only makes

sense in the internal context.’

Gerry Salole points to foundations’

unwillingness to open themselves

to scrutiny when he talks about the

need ‘to demystify the apprehen-

sion felt by some foundations about

communicating more information

about their work and operations’.

This is probably less to do with reluctance to admit

failure to peers, however, than with a general defen-

siveness foundations feel in response to what they see

as a sort of latent public resentment of their position

– they often enjoy exemption from taxation, they don’t

have to obey the behests of shareholders or voters, etc.

This defensiveness might be better grounded in some

cases than in others. Nicanor Sabula notes among East

African grantmakers ‘a fear of authorities, especial-

ly when it comes to taxation laws. Since the tax laws

are not well understood, some foundations fear ex-

posing themselves.’ They may also fear that sharing

‘About a year ago an attempt was made to set up an Indian Philanthropy Network. After a year, things just fizzled out. And this was for just one reason. Foundations did not find the time . . . because they probably did not see much value in networking. Each was way too caught up with their own work.’ Noshir Dadrawala

‘I think there is an incredible fear of talking candidly about failure or not getting it right. The decision-making process and rationale for both the institutional and individual philanthropist can be based on such a wide range of things. Sometimes, it only makes sense in the internal context.’ Niamani Mutima

p46



It’s not just what you know, it’s how you use it

And it’s not only a matter of analysing the data. Noshir

Dadrawala has already referred to the existence of

‘flawed data’. Niamani Mutima also raises the question

of the integrity of data – ‘who gathered it and to what

end?’ She cites a recent article in the UK’s Guardian

newspaper about the Failed State Index and its impact.

‘It raised the question of how useful the Foreign Policy

magazine annual index of failed states is and what it

means.’ The article she is referring to describes the

Failed States Index as ‘a high-profile attack on the coun-

tries that appear near the top of the list . . . which could

even exacerbate the instability it seeks to describe by

undermining citizens’ confidence in their country’s

ability to transform itself.’1

We need to build a common vision and shared prin-

ciples for global data on philanthropy, says Helena

Monteiro. How will the data collected be used? How

can we ensure data quality? ‘These are important ques-

tions that need to be discussed and agreed on.’

No growth without data

Gathering up the wisdom from those seated round

our virtual table, one of the first things that emerg-

es clearly is that, in terms of information, more isn’t

necessarily better. While data collection is important,

analysis is crucial. In the more developed countries, it

seems, much of the basic data that foundations and

non-profits might need already exists in one form or an-

other. The challenge is to access or to combine it in ways

that are both appropriate to needs and cheap enough

to be feasible. In developing countries, this might not

always be so. In all circumstances, though, a variety of

considerations, cultural, technical and financial, hin-

der the better collection and use of data. The technical

ones are likely to be resolved first; in many cases, they

are already on their way to solution. In some instances,

even the cultural ones are being overcome.

But whatever the state of information collection or

sharing in their respective worlds, all participants

agree that having access to the right kinds of data

would improve the sector’s efficiency, its standing with

both government and public, and ultimately its influ-

ence and impact. As Noshir Dadrawala points out, ‘all

growth is dependent on measure and if there are no

reliable data to benchmark against, measuring is dif-

ficult, if not impossible’.

two things, he’s convinced, ‘it’s not a question of if, it’s

now just a question of when. The Big Data movement

is overtaking commercial data services in all sectors

including those that sell public data to foundations.’

The need for standardization – beware the albatross!

We have seen elsewhere in this issue (see conversation

between Bradford Smith and Rosa

Gallego on p37) that data would

be easier to collect and interpret

if it were in a standardized form.

Helena Monteiro sees it as one of the

great challenges to standardize ‘in-

formation on who gives money, how

much, how, to which cause or issue,

who gets it/who benefits, what are the results’. She ad-

mits that ‘standardization is difficult because of the

complexity and diversity of philanthropy’. WINGS is

currently working in partnership with the Foundation

Center to develop a standardized way to collect data

from WINGS members (see p15).

Gerry Salole adds a caution about attempts at stand-

ardizing data. The EFC struggled for over a decade to

develop a typology for classifying

European foundations based on a

US template. ‘While serving as an

adequate starting point for a super-

ficial taxonomy of foundations,’ he

says, ‘the typology failed to take

into account new forms, trends, var-

iations and exceptions to the rule.

In truth,’ he concludes, ‘we had set

ourselves an impossible task.’ They finally decided to

abandon the attempt, ‘thus removing the albatross

from around our necks’. He concludes: ‘I think it is

important that we embrace and celebrate the diver-

sity of our sector. That is why we focus on capturing

a more situational snapshot of the foundation sector

in Europe, through documenting stories, case studies

and relationships.’

Examining the data

Having the data is one thing; using it to good effect

is another. Gerry Salole has already

suggested that what’s needed is

not more information but better

analysis of it. Niamani Mutima also

believes that it is often ‘more a mat-

ter of accurate and useful analysis

of the information than the infor-

mation itself’.

1 The Guardian, 2 July 2012, ‘Failed States Index belongs in the policy dustbin’: http://tinyurl.com/alliance78

‘There is a fear of authorities, especially when it comes to taxation laws. Since the tax laws are not well understood, some foundations fear exposing themselves.’ Nicanor Sabula

‘While serving as an adequate starting point for a superficial taxonomy of foundations, the typology failed to take into account new forms, trends, variations and exceptions to the rule. In truth, we had set ourselves an impossible task.’ Gerry Salole

‘It’s not a question of if, it’s now just a question of when. The Big Data movement is overtaking commercial data services in all sectors including those that sell public data to foundations.’ Mark Bolgiano

p47



It’s not just what you know, it’s how you use it

you want), using your data to serve you up more ex-

pensive products. In this way, Orbitz reportedly offers

Mac users more expensive hotels because they have

discovered that on average Mac users spend $20 to $30

more on hotels than their PC counterparts. Risky is

when you are part of a marginalized community and

thought you were organizing in a closed group, but

Facebook changes its settings, making everything

you thought was private become public. In these cir-

cumstances, our lack of control over our data puts our

communities and livelihoods, even our lives, at risk.

Whose data is it anyway?

This problem isn’t limited to our online socializing,

reading and buying. As we start to use online services

that do the work for us, for free, such as those that

help us publish our photographs or videos, we are not

only handing over the details of who we are, where we

are and what we like, but also our content. What we

gain in convenience, we lose in control. As we move

our data off our devices and into ‘the cloud’, this has

some serious consequences. We entrust our content to

companies who are themselves finding it hard to keep

on top of the fast pace of the digital world. Last year,

the popular file storage and transfer service Dropbox

experienced a security breach that made it possible for

anyone to use any account without any authentication.

It lasted only four hours, but the incident confirmed

that it is a fledgling environment and we should be

careful about giving up our control of information.

Who’s in control?

Service providers are companies in the real world, so

obviously, they will hand over information to govern-

ment agencies when requested. The Electronic Frontier

Foundation has done some interesting work on this.

When the government comes knocking, who has your back?

uses a star system to rate the main service providers,

if they publish information about requests for user

data or not, and if they defend users’ rights against

authorities. Some service providers clearly come out

better than others and some have been embarrassed

by taking censorship into their own hands and taking

down user content.

Despite the widespread coverage in the media of re-

pressive states leaning on technology companies for

information, evidence shows this is not restricted to

places where there is considered to be a lack of freedom

of expression. In July 2012, Twitter published its first

transparency report showing that the US government

made 679 requests for user data in the first half of the

year, more than all other governments combined. In

2011, Google reported that US government agencies

The effects of this digital shadow vary. They may be

useful, annoying or extremely dangerous. In all cases,

however, they have direct implications for privacy, civ-

il liberties, freedom of expression and human rights,

and therefore cannot be ignored by foundations con-

cerned with any of these issues.

How did we get here?

The recent Wall Street Journal series What They Know1

maps what data the 50 biggest websites and mobile

services are collecting on their users, what they do

with it, and if they give users the chance to opt out

or not. In parallel, tech activists and practitioners are

trying to empower users, lifting them out of unwitting

data slavery. Mozilla, for example, recently launched

a plug-in, Collusion, that allows you to track the data

others are collecting on you directly as you browse,

giving you some control of what you are giving away

and the ability to make better decisions about which

services you use.

Pesky or risky?

Looking at What They Know or using Collusion can

quickly make you quite paranoid. But the question is,

do we need to be? When is data collection and analysis

‘pesky’ and when is it ‘risky’? Pesky is what marketing

people call predictive analytics (that is, the analysis of

your behaviour in order supposedly to give you what

Data shadowsChallenges of a data-rich world‘Like the wallpaper sticks to the wall Like the seashore clings to the sea You’ll never get rid of your shadow You’ll never get rid of me’

These words, written in 1927, are the start of the well-known song ‘Me and My Shadow’. When we at Tactical Tech launched our project of the same name, 85 years later, we weren’t thinking of two inseparable friends but of the inseparable shadows each of us has grown in the digital realm – shadows formed by the personal details we’ve put on social networking sites or the times we’ve clicked yes or ‘bots’ passing on our user details to other ‘bots’. Whatever the shape of our digital shadow and however much of it we know or don’t know, we’re starting to realize that, just like the shadow in the song, it sticks to us ‘like the seashore clings to the sea’.

Stephanie Hankey is executive director of Tactical Tech. Email [email protected]

Stephanie Hankey



asked for Google users’ data 12,271 times. Twitter is

heralded as a carrier of revolutions; Google, along with

Facebook, is the biggest data repository in the world.

All three are American companies.

The control of our data is not entirely in US hands of

course. 27 January 2011 will no doubt go down in his-

tory as proof of this, as the world watched the Egyptian

government demonstrate that there was an internet

‘kill switch’ and they could press the button. During

2012, Wikileaks, Privacy International and the Wall Street

Journal published large amounts of data about what

they call the new ‘arms industry’ and the extent of

surveillance technologies being sold to governments

worldwide. The leaks showed how governments are

using technologies not only to protect and defend

but also to track huge amounts of data created and

exchanged by all their citizens.

Who ultimately controls the data we own, share and

use and who is responsible for it is currently being

fought out not only by users and companies, but also

by academics, policymakers, bilateral organizations

and government agencies, at conferences and interna-

tional forums from Sweden to Brazil. What was once

a technical issue for geeks has now become a major

global political issue.

What does this mean for journalists and activists?

This month, the United Nations Commission for

Human Rights (UNCHR) passed a resolution that rec-

ognizes that freedom of expression principles in the

real world should be mirrored in the online world.

The Arab uprisings have undoubtedly driven UNCHR

to this point. The internet was fundamental in ena-

bling expression and action during the Arab Spring,

but was also a major source of vulnerability, exposing

thousands of activists across the region. Thousands of

activists have been compromised through their use

of online social media networks and publishing plat-

forms in Syria. This has now reached such a level that

many high-profile activists use online platforms only

for broadcasting and publishing, not for mobilizing

and organizing, as the digital traces they leave behind

are far too great to take the risk. Nor is it only govern-

ments who are using these new means of surveillance.

In Uganda last year a gay rights activist was murdered

after a local tabloid published personal information

from Facebook. In Mexico the biggest threat to opinion-

ated young bloggers comes from drug cartels who are

monitoring the internet and then directly targeting

individuals and torturing or murdering them.

What now?

It is no longer possible to separate the issues of tech-

nology and data – traditionally the domain of IT or

communications departments – from the program-

matic work of foundations. The technologies and the

work they facilitate have become intertwined, the peo-

ple and their digital shadows have become inseparable.

The fact that the universe of things we can’t control

as users has become so large and so difficult to influ-

ence makes it even more important to start looking at

what can be done at a practical level and to focus on

what is within our control. This is doubly true for those

working on the frontline, for whom these issues have

switched from troubling to life-threatening.

We need to start helping users change their behaviour,

supporting them to better understand the services and

tools they are using, and continue to question what has

too quickly and easily become the norm. Technology

providers have a responsibility to treat users’ rights

with the same care as human rights. Privacy means

different things to different people. It can hinge on

your philosophical and political approach to society

and where you are and who you are. No doubt everyone

would agree, for example, that it is critical in extreme

cases like Syria, but in circumstances where data about

people’s political beliefs are less life-threatening, there

needs to be a respect for choice. The default position

should be that the user can opt in to sharing data, not

that they bear the responsibility for opting out.

Foundations should be supporting not only watchdogs

and policymakers to keep up the debate but also those

who help users understand and control their digital

shadows; they should support people to be playful, cre-

ative and subversive. Internet technology is still in the

age of prototyping. We as users should be challenging

and improving it.

Explore your own shadow http://myshadow.org Digital security toolkit https://security.ngoinabox.org Digital security tips https://onorobot.org Mobiles https://guardianproject.info Anonymity https://torproject.org Policy and legal aspects www.eff.org

Recommended and related links

1 http://blogs.wsj.com/wtk



create about themselves. This is going to be tough. In

general, philanthropy came late to communications

and foundations have labored to get beyond speech

writing to strategic communications. Now, just as the

messages are getting more sophisticated and soaring

through cyberspace on the wings of social media,

foundations will have to make sure their data sup-

ports their messages and vice versa.’1

In other words, foundations will need to become

data-literate. A quick real-world example, focusing

on the challenges of using data effectively for inter-

nal decision-making (a good place for foundations to

begin honing their data presentation skills), serves

to illustrate the importance of choosing the right

data presentation strategies to communicate about

foundation work.

I recall working with a client who wanted to frame a

discussion for their board about where to use unallo-

cated funds for the upcoming year. They shared with

me the visual presented at the bottom of the page.

Let’s analyse this graphic from the standpoint of using

data to tell a story. How would you score it with respect

to each of the following principles of good practice?

1 Keep your audience top of mind. Everything you’re do-

ing is for your audience, so keep who they are and their

needs in mind throughout the process: from figuring

out what you want to communicate, to determining

what data to show, to deciding how to show it, where to

draw attention, and what story to form with it. Make

it clear to your audience what you want them to know

and why they should care: what’s in it for them and

what you need them to do.

Does this graphic succeed in keeping its audience top of mind?

2 Choose a visual format that makes

sense. Line graphs are great for

showing trends over time and bar

charts are good for comparing cat-

egorical data. Pie charts (and area

charts in general) are hard for peo-

ple to read because our eyes don’t

do a good job measuring angles

and areas, so be cautious when

using them. When choosing be-

tween a common chart type like

a bar chart and something less

common, my recommendation is

generally for the common chart: it

means less of a learning curve for

your audience to face to get at the

information you are providing.

Bradford Smith, president of the Foundation Center,

tells a story that illustrates what is at stake.

‘Years ago, I was in a foundation meeting where an in-

dustrious staff member, who had analysed hundreds

of active grants, shocked the room by announcing we

were doing far less to help the poor than we believed.

That was then, and there was little concern that such

an insight might leave the building and go public.

Today foundations find themselves in a world where,

one way or another, the data they have designed for

internal purposes will increasingly be consumed by

others. And it may be used to tell stories that are differ-

ent from the carefully crafted ones that foundations

Visualizing philanthropyStorytelling with data

Of all the groups I have worked with, those in the philanthropic sector have some of the biggest opportunities to tell compelling stories with data. Yet the strategic advantage that can be gained through this is often missed: in some cases, no data are used when they could be incorporated to help make a stronger case, while in others the data that are included confuse more than they inform. And as data about foundations and their activities inevitably make their way into the public sphere, these communication challenges are heightened.

Cole Nussbaumer specializes in the effective display of quantitative information; she writes the popular blog storytellingwithdata.com. Email [email protected]

Cole Nussbaumer



the course of the organization, effectively incorporat-

ing data into your communication can enable faster,

better decision-making. The key is keeping the goal of

telling the story foremost in mind, even when data are

the means through which it is conveyed.

Does this graphic employ a visual format that makes sense?

3 Resist the temptation to dress up your data. 3D, mean-

ingless colour, background shading: these distract

from your data by adding clutter without informing.

When you’ve found the right angle – the right way to

make your data compelling for your audience – there’s

no need to dress it up, because the data itself becomes

inherently interesting.

Does this graphic unnecessarily dress up the data?

4 Draw attention to the important parts of your visual.

Colour, size and position on the page are some of the

easiest and most powerful ways to draw the audience’s

attention to different parts of your visual. Don’t use

colour to make things colourful, use it sparingly and

strategically to draw your audience’s attention to

where you want them to focus. If something is more

important, make it big and place it in higher priority

places on the page (since in Western cultures most peo-

ple read left to right and top to bottom, the top left of

the page is precious real estate: make it count!). Think

of using colour and size to create a visual hierarchy on

the page: this is a way to let your audience into your

head via visual cues so they know what is most impor-

tant and where to focus their attention first, what is

next most important, and so on.

Does this graphic draw attention to the important parts of

the visual?

5 Tell a story. Stories have a way of focusing your audi-

ence’s attention and helping them understand why

the data you are showing are relevant and important.

I think of stories in terms of plot, twists and ending,

where the plot is the context that is essential for your

audience to know, the twists are the findings and what

make your story compelling, and the ending is the call

to action: what you need your audience to know and

do. If you have a recommendation, state it clearly in

words in your communication.

Does this graphic tell a story?

When used well, data can add credibility where we

lack it, impart new knowledge, persuade people to

support your vision, demonstrate impact, or help

convince someone to take action. But it is not enough

simply to show data; we want to tell a story with data.

At the top of the page is a remake of what the 3D pie

chart could look like when we strive to tell a story with

the data.

Whether your audience is prospective donors decid-

ing whether to make a contribution to your cause or

foundation leaders looking for direction as they steer


Did you know you can buy single issues of Alliance?You can buy paper (£15) or PDF (£10) copies

of Alliance magazine, with large discounts

for bulk orders.

If you’re missing an issue from your

collection or would like extra copies on

a particular theme for colleagues, board

members or clients, then please email us at

[email protected]

@lliancewww.alliancemagazine.org

For philanthropy and social investment worldwide



defining experience for impact investors in a world

where financial return is easily measured and quan-

tifiable but social impact is harder to discern. Mark

van Wyk, portfolio manager of a GIIRS-rated fund at

Mergence Investment Managers, illustrates this point:

‘Data may not paint a complete picture of impact, but

the narrative, the experience of beneficiaries and

staff, provides another perspective and a clearer un-

derstanding of tangible and intangible impact.’

David Bonbright of Keystone Accountability helped

to develop IPAL, an impact reporting tool that values

feedback from constituents. Bonbright argues that the

voices of the beneficiaries of an impact investment are

the most overlooked and undervalued piece of the im-

pact reporting puzzle. The IPAL tool uses beneficiary

feedback to determine whether money spent is actu-

ally achieving the intended purpose. When you know

the questions to ask and get this sort of feedback, you

can predict where changes in intervention or service

delivery can take you. Thus, feedback from constitu-

ents today will correlate to impact achieved tomorrow.

Nexii, a social business that provides specialist

support and advisory services related to impact invest-

ment, manages the world’s first social stock exchange,

the iX, in collaboration with the Stock Exchange of

Mauritius. Our experience attests to the power of sto-

ries in understanding the real experience of impact

investments at a ground level. Take the case of a social

business, seeking to list with iX, that provides small

micro-loans to rural women to increase their enter-

prise activities. One beneficiary of this programme, a

woman on her fourth loan, had a significant growth

in turnover, clearly producing a positive financial re-

turn for her and for her investors. However, on the face

of it there was little evidence of any other significant

change in her life. The director of the organization

therefore decided to visit her. Noticing no specific

improvement in her living conditions, he turned to

the field officer, who pointed out that she had put up

a fence round her garden so that the goats were no

longer able to destroy her crops. That was the reason

for a tripling of her produce over the period. Unseen

perhaps to the data. Visible in the narrative.

Stories of impact and tools like IPAL go beyond cos-

metic reflections by incorporating the voice and value

of those who experience the impact. If data alone pro-

vide an incomplete and problematic understanding, a

combination of narrative and data is vital in reflecting

the true impact of an impact investment.

Producing the data to prove impact is tricky. To moti-

vate investment, social businesses need to show that

they have achieved a positive social or environmental

impact so that investors will gain a social return in

addition to their financial return. Numerous meas-

urement and reporting tools have been designed such

as GIIRS (Global Impact Investing Rating System) and

SROI (Social Return on Investment). However, the

sheer diversity of mission and impact that exists in

the impact investing sector makes recording compa-

rable data near impossible. Social business A may have

a greater environmental or social impact than social

business B, but because B’s outcomes are more easily

measured, it may be perceived as having a greater

impact.

The problem is that ‘hard’ data alone do not truth-

fully reflect reality. Furthermore, when you exclude

the narrative you may overlook issues such as relative

location, access or even urgency addressed by social

business A which would make its impact even more

compelling in the circumstances. Circumstances be-

come black holes without the narrative. These holes

in the data net are becoming increasingly obvious and

are problematic when it comes to using data to attract

resources.

Standardized, sanitized reporting removes the

uniqueness that stories and an understanding of the

beneficiaries’ experience provide. While impact in-

vestors want to ensure that their financial returns

will not be compromised, they want to be clear that

their investment has made a significant and positive

difference in people’s lives. These ‘stories’ ultimately

provide the narrative of impact and may well be the

The narrative of impact: it’s not just the numbersAs an emerging investment strategy, impact investing has had to work hard to gain the trust of actors both in the impact sector and in traditional financial markets. Data have played an immense role in creating the track record necessary to facilitate trust and persuade the initially not-so-convinced investors and funders that impact investing, although risky, can produce the goods. But data are not the be all and end all of reporting impact.

Kelly Notcutt is head of Strategic Communications at Nexii. Email [email protected]

Tamzin Ractliffe is the founder and CEO at Nexii. Email [email protected]

Kelly Notcutt and Tamzin Ractliffe



their initial view of communities collecting data is

that it is an unnecessary duplication.

However, we have been able to demonstrate that

communities can often collect better data about

themselves and use it more effectively than

professionals can. Not only would it be extremely

expensive to contract an organization, say, to

undertake interviews with the inhabitants of

200 informal settlements from all over Namibia,

or to map and produce profiles of 330 informal

settlements in Cuttack (India), but the professionals

would face formidable obstacles because of their

lack of local knowledge. They would be working in

areas with no maps, no lists of buildings, often no

street names or details of where the settlement’s

boundaries are. There would be pressure on

interviewers to work quickly. Furthermore, they

may not speak the language of those they interview,

which adds to the costs and to the difficulties of

getting accurate responses. They would also have

to contend with suspicion from people who feel

threatened by outsiders asking questions – for

instance, those who fear eviction, those engaged in

illegal activities, or illegal immigrants.

Through our advocacy over time, more and more

cities and government institutions have been

commissioning data gathering projects from

organizations of the poor and the NGOs that work

with them. They have seen that the organizations

that conventionally collect data don’t know how to

work in slums, and the results of community-driven

exercises have surprised them. In Old Fadama in

Accra, for example, the enumerations showed a

much larger population than local government

estimates; it also showed the scale of residents’

involvement with the local economy and the

extent of public infrastructure and services. This

documentation helped discourage successive

governments from their intention to evict. By

contrast, the enumerations in Joe Slovo in Cape

Town showed a smaller than expected population,

which made in situ upgrading, which locals had

been agitating for, more feasible.

These are just two examples of the sort of detailed

and accurate picture of informal settlements

that can emerge when the poor collect data about

themselves, and the uses to which this can be put.

SPARC and SDI use what we call ‘enumerations’ –

data about slums and their land and amenities

status, and data about households. We find that this

is a powerful tool. First, it creates the organizational

form of social movements: when everyone answers

the same questions about who they are, what

they do in the city, where they live and what their

challenges are, it produces an identity; it produces

solidarity and it forms the basis for developing a

consensus on collective priorities. It also forms

the basis for dialogue with the city or state, both

to legitimize data that the poor collect about

themselves and to define what the development

issues are and where investments should be

made. Because the data can be aggregated and

disaggregated, they can also become a benchmark

of impact and the value of investments.

In many cases, foundations have assisted us in

developing the infrastructure and capability to

design, collect and store data.

Often grantmakers need to see

the impact and value of slum

dwellers collecting information

before they become convinced

about financing the process.

Generally, they see the collection,

management and use of data

as activities for researchers,

academics and state agencies;

Supporting data collection by the poor

Data in the sphere of development has been effectively used for big picture questions like measuring levels of poverty and malnutrition or assessing the health and educational standards of a country or region’s population. For those of us who have been working on a smaller scale on issues like urban poverty, data about cities is very silent on issues related to poverty, slums and all forms of informality. Information is never accurate, it is always outdated, and it is seldom comprehensive. Often just a few informal settlements will be included. At the Society for the Promotion of Area Resource Centres (SPARC) and Slum Dwellers International (SDI), we have found that using the poor to collect and record data about themselves both develops their capabilities and produces better data.

Sheela Patel is director of SPARC and chair of SDI. Email [email protected]

Sheela Patel

www.iied.org/why-enumeration-counts-documenting-undocumented

For more information

SD

I

Measuring exercise at Joe Slovo in Cape Town.



fossil-fuel companies have fought so hard to prevent

the regulation of carbon dioxide . . . If you told Exxon

or Lukoil that, in order to avoid wrecking the climate,

they couldn’t pump out their reserves, the value of

their companies would plummet.’2

The paradox is that fossil fuel company valuations are

counting on future revenue streams to pay debts and

dividends, but these revenue streams are dependent

on the world continuing on a pathway to 6 degrees

of warming. The market does not currently factor

this into its financial models; the data it provides are

based on a business-as-usual scenario. The Carbon

Tracker Initiative is using its findings to challenge

the assumptions underlying the current financial

data. Producing an alternative analysis based on a

carbon-constrained world is one way of influencing

the data flow that allocates capital. ‘The regular

process of economic evolution is that businesses

are left with stranded assets all the time,’ says Nick

Robins, who runs HSBC’s Climate Change Centre.

‘Think of film cameras, or typewriters. The question is

not whether this will happen. It will. Pension systems

have been hit by the dot-com and credit crunch.

They’ll be hit by this.’

Given the threats to capital markets stability as well

as to climate stability, Christiana Figueres, the UN

head of climate, has called for more active valuations

of companies which factor in climate change risk.3

The markets haven’t spotted the problem yet – but

with some 20–30 per cent of the global value of

equity markets based on an assumption that all the

fossil fuel financed will get sold, how much of your

investment portfolio is based on climate-literate data?

The next phase of work for Carbon Tracker is to

challenge the way in which regulators govern the

disclosure of the fossil fuel intensity of the capital

markets (they currently don’t); the way accountants

treat the reserves of fossil fuel companies that can’t

be burned (what ‘haircut’ to valuations is required

to get all listed companies into a 2 degrees balance?);

and the way the banks calculate the valuations of the

companies they make investment recommendations

on (should the banks be changing their financial

models?). This is the next set of questions that Carbon

Tracker hopes to find answers for.

Three years earlier a paper by Nick Robins and Mark

Campanale for the Quality of Life Commission’s

website suggested that the markets had already

financed more coal and oil than could safely be

burned. But to turn this theory into robust data

required analysis. The first task was to evaluate the

balance sheets of some 200 of the world’s largest

listed coal, gas and oil companies to look at their

reserves – and then convert this data into CO2

emissions potential. This was an obvious piece of

data analysis, but it hadn’t been done before.

Based on this, the 2011 ‘Carbon Bubble report’

exposed the misalignment between the world’s

stock exchanges and the climate change agenda.1 In

essence, the levels of coal, oil and gas reserves being

financed by the capital markets – including investors

like foundations and endowments – are taking us

to 6 degrees of warming rather than the 2 degrees

target the world’s governments have agreed. The

2,795 gigatons they hold is five times higher than the

remaining ‘carbon budget’ climate scientists say we

have left to burn to stay below 2 degrees warming.

This misalignment has been a wake-up call for the

climate change community. Rather than counting

last year’s flows of carbon emissions, which have

already gone into the atmosphere, we need to look at

the stocks of carbon being built up.

As a recent article in Rolling Stone magazine has

pointed out, though ‘this coal and gas and oil is still

technically in the soil . . . it’s already economically

above ground – it’s figured into share prices,

companies are borrowing money against it, nations

are basing their budgets on the presumed returns

from their patrimony. It explains why the big

Six degrees of capitalizationDespite tightening climate regulations, the capital markets are becoming more fossil fuel intense, not less, with large fossil fuel companies raising big money on the world’s leading stock exchanges during the decade from 2000. The amount of carbon in the world’s proven fossil fuel stocks is some 2,795 gigatons – five times more than climate scientists say we can safely burn. Yet the owners of those stocks are already borrowing money and paying dividends on the basis of the 2,795 figure. Carbon Tracker was set up in 2010 to produce the data that uncovered this situation.

James Leaton is project director at Carbon Tracker. Email [email protected]

Mark Campanale is a director of Carbon Tracker. Email [email protected]

James Leaton and Mark Campanale

www.carbontracker.org For more information

1 www.carbontracker.org/carbonbubble

2 www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719

3 www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/10/climate-change-cost-companies-worth



of a nexus of risks derived from competing food,

energy and water demands in different countries.

Sustainability issues, it argues, will be increasingly

key in the economic and political stability of nations;

they therefore present a set of risks for those investing

in land-related assets and projects. But scarcity and

competition could also open up a new opportunity for

investments to focus on long-term value creation. How

to influence these investment decisions?

This is where data comes in. As the next step, the ESI

is developing the Land Security Index. The index will

provide an independent analysis of country data on

five trends that are not usually analysed together:

water limits, land degradation, food security, governance

and climate change. It will suggest how these data

might provide new insights into long-term country

risk metrics. ESI will continue to involve global

investors in working out how this information can

best be included in the investment decision cycle, the

ultimate aim being to demonstrate how considering

these sustainability metrics is in the interest of both

financial markets and governments.

pupils attain national proficiency levels in English.

Based on the success of the community assistants

programme in India, IPA partnered with the Ghanaian

government to design a programme for Ghana.

With support from the Children’s Investment Fund

Foundation, it was tested against several alternative

variations in 400 schools. To everyone’s surprise, the

original programme produced the best results.

IPA frequently finds that programmes assumed to

work don’t work, or don’t work as expected, even if

they have been running for a long time. The Ghanaian

government’s positive experience has strengthened

its commitment to testing policies and rigorously

evaluating their impact before implementing them.

Other countries where policymakers seem to be open to

the findings of rigorous research include Kenya, Zambia,

Mexico and even Liberia as it recovers from conflict.

As Richard Thaler, American co-author of the

best-selling book Nudge, points out: ‘Governments can’t

make evidence-based policy decisions unless they have

some evidence.’ Philanthropic money is uniquely well

placed to provide it.

The surge in farmland and commodities investments

is causing widespread concern about ‘land-grabbing’

and the accelerated loss of biodiversity, water

depletion, soil erosion and human rights abuses.

These investments are expected to grow substantially

over the next decade, given the growing global

demand for commodities and rising commodity

prices; natural resource limitations; and farmland

being a ‘real asset’ that offers diversification to

investors’ portfolios at a time of volatility in global

financial markets. The need to increase food

production in the next decade, against a backdrop of

pressures on land and water, puts the question of land

at the centre of a new security agenda.

In March 2012, a report by the Earth Security

Initiative (ESI) involved investors and activists in

exploring how to create new economic and political

incentives for sustainable land investments. The

report portrays land assets as being at the heart

‘We are a tiny, tiny little organization,’ says Bill Gates

about the largest foundation that the world has

ever seen. He’s right: the Gates Foundation’s annual

grantmaking is only a tiny fraction of governments’

budgets. But smart philanthropic money can act

like a tug, guiding tankers much bigger than itself

such as companies or governments. It does that by

identifying what works.

In India in 2005, a third of children in one study

couldn’t read even a short paragraph. As school

enrolment grew, even more students were falling

behind. Innovations for Poverty Action (IPA) –

which uses randomized control trials to evaluate

programmes which counter extreme poverty –

worked with an Indian NGO to evaluate a programme

using assistants drawn from the community to

teach basic skills to the lowest-performing students.

The trial found that the programme significantly

increased basic competency for the lowest achievers,

and cost only $2.25 per student. The government of

Ghana had a similar problem: it spends £450 million

a year on basic education but only 20 per cent of

Encouraging sustainable land investments

Moving the tanker

Alejandro Litovsky is founder and director of the Earth Security Initiative. Email [email protected]

Caroline Fiennes is director of Giving Evidence. Email [email protected]

Jeff Mosenkis is global outreach coordinator at IPA. Email [email protected]

Caroline Fiennes and Jeff Mosenkis

Alejandro Litovsky

www.poverty-action.orgFor more information

To find out more and to download The Land Security Agenda visit www.earthsecurity.org/projects/landsecurity

For more information



GLOSSARY

Big Data A term used to describe

data sets so large that they

become awkward to work

with using standard database

management tools. (Source:

Wikipedia) The 40 billion photos

handled by Facebook and the 1

million customer transactions

logged by Walmart every hour

are examples.

Cloud computing

Location-independent

computing in which shared

servers provide resources,

software and data to computers

and other devices on demand.

Typical cloud computing

providers deliver common

business applications that

are accessed from another

web service or software

like a web browser. (Source:

TheFreeDictionary.com)

Google’s online suite of office

productivity tools and webmail

(Hotmail, Yahoo Mail, Gmail) are

examples.

Data Factual information (as

measurements or statistics)

used as a basis for reasoning,

discussion or calculation;

information, typically in

numerical form, that can

be digitally transmitted or

processed. (Source: M-W.com)

Database A comprehensive

collection of related data

organized for convenient

access, generally in and

through a computer. (Source:

Dictionary.com) Amazon.com’s

recommendation system and the

Foundation Center’s Foundation

Directory Online are examples.

Data analysis The process of

studying and summarizing

data with the intent to extract

useful information and develop

conclusions. (Source: Wikipedia)

Data mining The automatic or

semi-automatic analysis of large

quantities of data to discover

and extract previously unknown

patterns. (Source: Wikipedia)

The classic, oft-cited example

involves Walmart, which

through data mining discovered

that a significant number of men

were coming into their stores in

the late afternoon and buying

just diapers and beer.1

Data visualization Any

technology that communicates

data clearly and effectively

through graphical means.

(Source: Wikipedia) See

p57 for links to sites that

offer wonderful examples

of state-of-the-art data

visualizations.

Open data The idea that

certain data should be freely

available to everyone to use and

republish as they wish, without

restrictions from copyright,

patents or other mechanisms

of control. (Source: Wikipedia.)

Data.gov, an initiative launched

by the Clinton administration

to increase the ability of the

public to find, download and

use datasets generated by the

US government, is probably the

best-known example.

1 www0.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/a.hunter/tradepress/dm.html

as a distinct field of philanthropy in Europe, as it is in

the US. More wealth managers and family offices are

including family foundation philanthropy in their

client advice, with examples including recent UBS

initiatives and a seminar by the Institute for Family

Business in the UK. The research has provided a

platform to bring philanthropists such as Tom Hunter,

Trevor Pears and the late Nigel Doughty together in

discussion, as happened at its 2011 launch at Cass

Business School. This has fostered donor networking

and experience sharing while also highlighting the

value of mutual learning among family donors, and

a potential role for philanthropy advisers in creating

appropriate networking opportunities. As one donor

said: ‘it was as if I had set sail without a rudder.’

All of this depended on the project’s pioneering work

in identifying family foundations and capturing data

from disparate and fragmented sources. Learning

from international comparison was limited because

few European countries have the information available

in the UK through the annual reports and accounts

submitted to the Charity Commission. An important

outcome, therefore, was highlighting the gaps in our

knowledge. More academic research on foundations

will become even more important as we move beyond

individual foundation stories to a more systematic

appreciation of the nature and impact of their work.

So what have the data revealed? That the largest

100 family foundations in the UK are responsible

for between 7 and 10 per cent of all charitable

giving; that giving through family foundations has

been relatively robust through recent economic

turbulence compared to individual and corporate

giving. Over time, the data will provide an indicator

of the response of philanthropy to a prolonged

downturn.

These findings point to one major outcome of the

project: it has helped establish family foundations

Putting family foundations on the mapTrying to change the world through philanthropy without data on what

we do is like starting a journey without compass or map. This was the

recognition that led to the collaboration between Pears Foundation

and the Centre for Charitable Giving and Philanthropy (CGAP) on Family

Foundation Giving Trends, which presents annual data on major family

foundation giving in the UK, US and Europe. Now into its fifth edition, it

has clear objectives: to provide a reliable and transparent benchmark of

family foundation giving and to arouse the interest of wealthy families in

philanthropic activities by demonstrating what many are already doing.

Cathy Pharoah is director of CGAP. Email [email protected]

Charles Keidan is director of Pears Foundation. Email [email protected]

Cathy Pharoah and Charles Keidan



This list of resources and examples

was compiled by Jeff Stanger, founding

director of the Center for Digital

Information. Email [email protected]

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation: County

Health Rankings & Roadmaps

www.countyhealthrankings.org

Based on a model of population health

that emphasizes the many factors that

can help make communities healthier

places to live; ranks the health of nearly

every county in the US.

WASHfunders.org

http://washfunders.org

Interactive map that allows users to see

who is funding WASH strategies around

the world, with results filterable by

country, strategy and other indicators.

Other examplesClimate and Development Links

(World Bank)

http://climate4development.worldbank.

org

Interactive map that allows users to

explore the difference between two

climate change scenarios that assume

different development pathways and

associated greenhouse gas emissions.

Gay Rights in the United States (Guardian

newspaper)

www.guardian.co.uk/world/

interactive/2012/may/08/gay-rights-

united-states

Interactive graphic that shows how the

handling of gay rights varies by state.

OECD Better Life Index

www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org

Interactive tool that allows users to see

how OECD countries perform according

to the importance the user gives to each

of 11 factors that contribute to well-being

and a better life.

Related resourcesCenter for Digital Information Dashboard

http://digitalinfo.org/showcase

Highlights innovative examples of

the changing form of information in

the digital age, with examples drawn

from journalism, publishing, research,

government and elsewhere

Examples from the fieldData analysis and visualization

applied to a range of traditional

foundation activities.

Annie E Casey Foundation: KidsCount

Data Center

http://datacenter.kidscount.org

One of the first rich, data-driven

applications from a foundation; provides

access to hundreds of measures of child

well-being in the US, by and across states

and in a mobile format.

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation:

Infographics

www.gatesfoundation.org/infographics/

Pages/infographics.aspx

Information graphics designed to

help explain the aims and impact of

the foundation’s work, from vaccine

delivery to supporting women farmers in

developing countries.

California HealthCare Foundation: Medical

Variation Rates

www.chcf.org/publications/2011/09/

medical-variation-rates-california

Interactive map that presents, in multiple

formats, elective surgery and other

procedure rates across California relative

to state averages.

Data resources ‘For data to be useful in philanthropy they have to be known, accessible, and compoundable (able to be mixed and combined).’ So wrote Lucy Bernholz in a post on her Philanthropy 2173 blog in July.1 The following resources and examples, from philanthropy and beyond, are intended to help you think about your data in new and more interactive ways.

DataKind

http://datakind.org

Formerly known as Data Without

Borders, DataKind brings together

leading data scientists with high-impact

social organizations.

Drawing by Numbers

http://drawingbynumbers.org

Created by the Berlin-based Tactical

Technology Collective, this site offers

open-source software tools to help

you make your own charts, maps and

mashups; advice on the tactical use

of data and visual communication for

activists; and online manuals, toolkits

and tutorials.

Gapminder

www.gapminder.org

‘Fact tank’ founded by Swedish doctor,

academic and statistician Hans Rosling to

promote a fact-based view of sustainable

global development and achievement of

the UN Millennium Development Goals.

Google Charts | Fusion Tables

https://developers.google.com/chart

http://www.google.com/fusiontables

Charting tools from search giant Google

make it easy to merge public data with

your own and display it all live on

your website.

Mapbox

http://mapbox.com

Project of Development Seed, a creative

data visualization team based in

Washington DC; allows users to create and

publish fast, interactive maps for web and

mobile devices.

Tableau Public

www.tableausoftware.com/public

Free data visualization tool that allows

users to create interactive visualizations

from their data and embed them in

a website.

Visualizing.org

http://visualizing.org

Self-billed as ‘a community of creative

people making sense of complex issues

through data and design’.

1 http://philanthropy.blogspot.com/2012/07/data-new-element.html



Documents

Alliance September 2012 DATA