|
|
Tags: Capacity Building, Data Driven, Evaluation, Evidence, Failure, i4, Knowledge Management, Philanthropy, Planning, Research, Strategic Communication, Theory of Change | Category: Articles, Resources By Michael C. Gilbert, Andie Whitley, & Mike Bergfors
For most of this year, The Gilbert Center has been conducting large scale research into the practices of major U.S. grantmakers. In advance of our forthcoming report, we have already published the bibliography and an inspiring set of annotated quotations from foundation leaders. In this piece, we’re giving you a look at our methodology and a tiny glance at some of the results.
We all want to know that we’re making a difference. Trustees of major private foundations and donors to community foundations have the same desires for some kind of confidence in their work. For many years now, there have been movements, discussions, and countless initiatives meant to help move grantmakers toward greater rigor in the methods they use to determine whether they are truly making a difference.
Several leading organizations in this field should be mentioned for their collaborative efforts. In particular, the Center for Effective Philanthropy, Grantmakers for Effective Organizations, the Glass Pockets Project, and others have promoted collaboration, evidence based research, and transparency. Specific foundations have helped lead the way as well, but I’ll wait until a future article to talk about them. Suffice it to say, there is a lot going on in this field.
| * On the Use of the Concept of “Evidence” Rather than “Data”.
At The Gilbert Center, we’re leaning toward the use of the word “evidence” (and the phrase “evidence-based”) rather than the word “data” (and the phrase “data-driven”). Both of these rhetorical devices come from the same core commitment, but ultimately we think there is an important distinction worth highlighting. Data may be vital to building evidence, but evidence is about more than just data. Data sounds like bean counting. Evidence sounds like reasoning. Indeed, plenty of agencies are driven by data, but how often is it the right data? (I’m certain you all have examples of this, but fundraising expense ratios are an obvious one.) By its nature, evidence is relevant to questions of outcomes and causality and is thus a more demanding standard. It is related to effectiveness, whereas data might just be about outputs. Overall, the notion of being “evidence-based” may seem like a subtle distinction, but it may also be a more mature approach overall. |
|
|
As you might have gathered from our recent articles on the topic, The Gilbert Center has been engaged these last few months in a fairly ambitious project: to measure both the rhetorical and material commitment of the largest U.S. foundations to evidence-based* grantmaking.
Methodology: What Goes Into the Score
The guiding principle of our research methodology concerned our process for gathering data. As mentioned, we tried to stay away from self-assessment as a primary source. Although our … [Continue reading...]
Tags: Capacity Building, Evaluation, Failure, i4, Knowledge Management, Philanthropy, Planning, Research, Strategic Communication, Theory of Change, Transparency | Category: Articles, Resources By Michael C. Gilbert & Andie Whitley
Over the course of the study we’re currently conducting on the effectiveness practices of sixty-four of the largest U.S. grantmakers, we’ve started to collect a wide range of observations. Some of them are puzzling. More are genuinely wise. Most are simply banal. We thought we might share a few of the wise ones with you.
Failure is an Orphan?
As one leader pointed out, “failure is a dirty word” in philanthropic and nonprofit sectors. We’ve written about the topic many times. Given human nature, our culture’s relationship to money, and the social structures of our sectors, there’s not likely to be a “last word” on this topic any time soon. But here is … [Continue reading...]
By Michael C. Gilbert & Andie N. Whitley
1.0: Introduction
Grantmaking, like any other form of philanthropy, is not a strictly rational activity. That’s not an accusation of irrationality, just arationality. Or more simply speaking, ordinary humanity. Neither is it an accusation of complete lack of rigor. Indeed, there are remarkable efforts toward rigor in the sector, as some research shows. It’s just a clear assertion that grantmaking has many motives, many contradictions, and many things that are rarely discussed.
At The Gilbert Center, one of the main question we’ve been studying for some time is a seemingly simple one: How do grantmakers engage in the study and practice of cause and effect? The Buddhists might call this the study of Karma (which is why I have always … [Continue reading...]
Research Assistant & Contributing Writer
Andie Whitley is a Research Assistant at The Gilbert Center, where she works on the analysis of text and content, including semantic and network research. Her professional background includes social work, training delivery and online research methods, such as background investigation and relationship mapping. She’s currently helping lead a large scale research project on the culture and practices of data driven decision making among the largest U.S. foundations.
|
|
