Ever noticed that we seem to be simultaneously drowning in information but can’t find what we need when we need it? We’ve got data everywhere, but not what we need, when we need it, and the knowledge of how we can use it.
Several efforts at addressing information in social capital markets make recommendations to address the availability, accessibility, comparability, and value of performance, outcome, indicators data. These efforts are focused on the need for emerging philanthropic capital markets to be able to track, compare, and discuss social outcomes in comparable, meaningful ways. Here are some of the data efforts that I know of:
- Great Nonprofits
- Social Capital Index
- Keystone’s ” Impact” sessions
- Urban Institute Outcome Indicators
- Acumen Fund/Google/Salesforce’s work on Portfolio Data Management
- Jed Emerson’s new work, From Fragmentation to Function: Critical Concepts and Writings on Social Capital Market’s Structure
- Performance data commons, a recommendation from Keystone
- UPenn’s Center on High Impact Philanthropy
- Various reports and services from New Philanthropy Capital
- The Nonprofit Reporter
Of course, existing data providers such as Guidestar, Center for Effective Philanthropy, Charity Navigator, GiveWell, Charity Scorecard, the IRS, Attorneys General, Better Business Bureau, etc. form a core component of this expanding marketplace of data.
These efforts are exciting, and, be there necessity, duplicative. Why is this duplication necessary? Because we don’t know what data matter, to whom, and for what purposes. This is a period of experimentation and market sizing, and many of the organizations above are seeking ways to price their products, entice potential customers, massage business plans, and source their data.
Several factors drive what happens to these various providers. Some of these forces are fairly obvious - donor motivation, economic trends, demographics of donors, growing reliance on the internet for information, and continuing shifts in the marketplace of financial products for donors. Other forces, such as regulation of nonprofits, new hybrid organizations such as L3Cs and B Corporations, and changes in the capital markets themselves, also matter. And then there is a circle of influences another level removed which matter - decisions about who owns and can resell certain data. The Guardian Newspaper company in the UK is experimenting with some ideasthat may hold lessons for purveyors above. Legislation and regulation about net neutrality, data access and ownership currently in play in the US are added to the list of what matters and influences what happens providers. The future of newspapers matters to these efforts - they have been trusted sources of information for decision makers for years - but what does the future hold?
From my perspective this is all exciting, and utterly predictable. It represents a moment when we can truly see how philanthropy operates within many of the same forces of creativity, maturity, and disruption that mark other industry cycles. Is the answer to the “data problem” in philanthropy contained somewhere in the list above? Possibly - but it probably has roots and tendrils in several of the efforts/organizations above and the next few years will be a process of teasing out the key pieces and re-organizing this cycle of providers into a sustainable set of credible and independent sources.
A good portion of what will determine success for any of these ventures is the degree to which they can develop their products and services with a keen eye on the needs, wants, and willingness of their final customer. Who is that customer? What does s/he need? What does s/he want? And what will s/he pay for? Sadly, most of the reports, papers, and proposals that I have read are woefully thin on real answers to these questions. Without those answers, these “supply side” proposals and business plans can get us only so far in building new markets for information. We may be at the point where all of these “information suppliers” should turn their attention to really understanding what thirsts the “info users” really have, will really use, and will really pay for.
I am working with a colleague, Steve Goldberg, to build out this list as comprehensively as possible. We also want to see if the minds behind these efforts will join us in thinking about what this all means, where it all may be going, what else might be needed. Here is how can you get involved:
- Comment on this list (use comments function below) and add other organizations or efforts
- Email me (firstname.lastname@example.org) and let me know if you want to be added to an email group -the first step in organizing conversation.
**Disclosure: I have or have had board, advisory board, or some kind of professional working relationships with several of the individuals/organizations on this list, including, but not limited to, GiveWell, Nonprofit Reporter, SmartLink, Keystone, Aspen Institute, Center for Effective Philanthropy, and Jed Emerson.
Lucy Bernholz is the Founder and President of Blueprint Research & Design, Inc, a strategy consulting firm that helps philanthropic individuals and institutions achieve their missions. She is the publisher of Philanthropy2173, an award-winning blog about the business of giving, and serves as executive producer of The Giving Channel on Fora.tv.