Insights on Change Blog

By Ria Sengupta Bhatt

The topic of human rights protection often evokes images of poor and disadvantaged individuals and the activities conducted and laws passed to ensure that they are not mistreated. A less common image is that of evaluators collecting data from and about these very same individuals, yet this is also a real piece in the human rights protection puzzle.

Evaluations of grantmaking strategies and programs document the experiences of grantees and program constituents through surveys, interviews, focus groups and observations. As such, it is important to protect the information communicated through these interactions. But whose job is it to ensure the rights of study participants?

It is the responsibility of both the evaluator and the grantmaker.

Evaluators are accountable to their clients, their clients’ grantees and program constituents involved in their studies. As evaluators, we are required to take action to ensure that personal information and opinions are protected (sometimes under lock and key) and that sensitive data (like health status and contact information) is kept confidential. Foundation staff are also responsible for the rights of participants in the studies that they fund. This may seem obvious; however, the established standards for protection are not always clear.

BTW has created resource documents and a training toolkit to help foundation staff understand how study participants should be protected and how philanthropic organizations can navigate these issues. These materials are written specifically for foundation staff responsible for commissioning evaluation and research studies. They are intended to share the appropriate amount of information and detail without overwhelming funders and to serve as a reference when questions arise about the protection of study participants.

We hope you find these materials useful to you and your colleagues at foundations!

By Ellen Irie

In the past few days, we have been drawn to the somber news of Steve Jobs’ passing. We listen to the story of his life, finding inspiration from its twists and turns. Jobs’ 2005 Stanford commencement address, in particular, caught my attention, with its straight-forward references to the certainty of death and how to gain inspiration from death’s imminence.

“If today were the last day of my life, would I want to do what I am about to do today?” Jobs posed. This question is not just about personal gratification; it is about life purpose. What am I going to do today, tomorrow and the next day that has lasting significance? Jobs places his question in the context of the certainty that we all come and go in this world. Death is not to be feared but rather embraced as a source of motivation and in recognition that we can make important contributions that will endure beyond any one of us.

Similarly, I was also moved by the passing of Betty Ford earlier this year. In my office I have a photograph of Ford posing barefoot on the Cabinet Room table on Gerald Ford’s last day in office. It is a vision of power, grace and service—a pose of offering.

Like Jobs, Ford’s life was full of significant twists and turns. “I was an ordinary woman who was called on stage at an extraordinary time,” she has been quoted as saying. Ford took her own personal adversity and turned it outward, leaving her legacy in the Betty Ford Center as a place of comfort and healing for others. She built upon her own shortcomings for the greater good.

What do the powerful life stories of Steve Jobs and Betty Ford have to say to those of us working in and around the nonprofit sector? Whether we are toiling at a nonprofit to feed the hungry or nurture children in need, striving to be effective stewards of philanthropic resources, or supporting the efficiency and effectiveness of the sector, we can draw inspiration from their examples. They compel us to tackle uncharted territory while maintaining the humility of seeing individual efforts as part of the larger whole.

Purpose propels us forward; humility keeps us real.

By Ellen B. Gattozzi

Technology is one of my favorite things. I love to “geek-out” and have conversations about how to use new technology in evaluation projects, such as new updates to online survey software and social media tracking strategies for community organizing projects. My technology toolbox is well stocked and constantly growing. Often I am tempted to use these tools simply because I can. However, as I was reminded today, this is not always a good idea.

I joined my team this morning to brainstorm ways to collect data from college students. In our attempt to make it easy for the students, we planned to use four different tech tools to track data: two online surveys, a text message survey and Facebook event tracking. My mind began to spin and I started to panic!

How are we going to keep track of all these data? What if students respond more than once? What if two students report different attendance numbers for the same event?

Thankfully, after much discussion, we streamlined our methods and limited ourselves to a fraction of our original plan (two online surveys). In hindsight, my panic resulted in an important learning: don’t use technology just because it’s available. Having the right tools is important, but knowing when to use them is the key to success. Here are some thoughts I now keep in mind when determining which tech tools to use.

1. Know your audience. What tools do your constituents use? Does your audience text or use Facebook? Do they have access to new tech tools? How can you meet them where they already are? Does your audience need incentives to respond?
2. Do your research. What are the strengths and limitations of each tool? Are the tools easy to use or are there steep learning curves? TechSoup has a wealth of resources about different types of tech tools that I have found helpful when answering these questions, such as the pros and cons of various online survey software systems.
3. Make informed decisions. What types of data will different tech tools produce? Does the type and quality of the data vary? Is it necessary to use more than one tool? Since using too multiple tech tools can create analysis complications down the line, proactively think about the specific data you expect to collect from each tool.

On a positive note, these guidelines have helped my team choose the most appropriate tech tools and ensure that we collected accurate data. On the other hand, it does mean that the really cool text message survey will just have to wait until my next project…

By Kim Ammann Howard

Recently I ran, or to be more accurate, “sort of ran and mostly walked” the Bay to Breakers, the infamous 12K race in San Francisco. After navigating the course with my 11-year old daughter and more than 50,000 others, I found myself thinking about ways to engage diverse communities in social change efforts. While the race is clearly different from these more complex and long-term endeavors, it did serve as a symbolic reminder of successful engagement strategies that I have observed over the years in social change efforts.

• Acknowledge, respect and support different entry points: The athletic abilities of Bay to Breakers runners varies dramatically, ranging from professional athletes who run with the intention of breaking course records, to the novice who has trouble ascending hills, to those for whom the term “athlete” lacks personal resonance. The variety of pre-race supports (e.g., training schedules and running clubs) takes into account these differences. Regardless of athletic ability, pre-race conditioning or the extent to which race preparation goals are met, everyone remains welcomed.
• Embrace different ways of participating: While the universal goal is to complete the race, each participant’s approach to this varies. Race attire ranges from costumes and official running gear to street clothes and even a few birthday suits! Different starting points allow for seeded participants, recreational runners and weekend walkers to enter the race based on anticipated course completion times. Scattered teams, some more formal than others, include small groups of individuals with similarly themed costumes (e.g., this year’s winner was the Royal Wedding Party) to human centipedes that whiz by as leaders call out commands to ensure the unison stride of the multiple feet. Regardless of your interest, there seems to be a place for everyone.
• Offer incentives for engagement: Bay to Breakers has a number of ways to entice individuals to participate and cultivate race commitment. Runners have opportunities to receive tangible prizes and recognition (e.g., race t-shirts, monetary prizes, fundraising incentives), as well as informal incentives such as social time with friends and opportunities to meet new people, which may be more of a motivation for participation.

As we are involved in community engagement across our various roles (e.g., funder, organizer, evaluator), let’s continue to think about the best structures and processes that welcome large numbers of diverse individuals and groups in a way that respects and builds upon differences, experiences and desires. By creating a welcoming space that promotes individual and collective expression, we can work better towards a shared purpose.

By Lande Ajose

I’ve used this space in the past to take a critical look at philanthropic practice and what foundations can do better. Well, hold on to your hats…today I’m writing about something they’ve done well.

A couple months ago, shortly after the shellacking President Obama took in the polls, I was watching television and came across a familiar face: Oprah’s B.F.F. Dr. Mehmet Oz. Although he was a well known guest on the “Queen of Talk’s” show and now hosts a popular show of his own, in this advertisement he takes on a new role speaking about the imperative for all Californians to learn about the new health care reform law. It was brilliant to see Dr. Oz leave a patriotic, balloon-filled room and float through a hospital corridor, all the while delivering a message about Californians’ responsibility to learn about upcoming health care changes. But what really blew my mind was this—the ad ends with, “paid for by The California Endowment” and a proudly emblazoned logo.

Foundations are usually reticent to become involved in policy issues for fear that it will jeopardize their privileged tax status. What struck me as extraordinary was the Endowment’s willingness to take a stand on a live and contentious topic, especially since the aforementioned shellacking suggested that not everyone is enamored with the new law. The Endowment’s support for this advertisement and the Get Covered California campaign carries out a philanthropic mandate to inform and educate the public about issues that are timely and that matter. That they used a well-recognized, pop culture figure to do so—well, that was the icing on the cake. What the Endowment really did was exhibit true leadership. Kudos to them.

My greatest hope that is that other foundations will think about following their example.