The feedback we need.

Welcome to Data Uncollected, a newsletter designed to enable nonprofits to listen, think, reflect, and talk about data we missed and are yet to collect. In this newsletter, we will talk about everything the raw data is capable of – from simple strategies of building equity into research+analytics processes to how we can make a better community through purpose-driven analysis.

If you follow me on LinkedIn, you have some idea about my past workweek. It has been mostly about webinars, conferences, and speaking engagements on consecutive days (something that I usually space out because I need the time to soak in that community energy). Anyway, as I was exchanging some wisdom with a group of kind and curious folx, I realized something about us, this group. Alright, love alert – get ready to take some compliments!

You and I started this space to explore topics, ideas, and questions that either go ignored or do not necessarily fall under a "service"/" contract"/" product". We bravely struggle (the good-kind) together on ideas – be it to challenge or celebrate them, as necessary. And you must know – how deeply, truly I appreciate you for keeping me grounded (and I hope I am doing the same for you). No amount of knowledge is too much, and no amount of effort is too less. So, I'm grateful to have your wisdom and patience as we evolve in this space.

Let's get to what we want to think about today with that energy. Today, we are looking at four types of feedback in the philanthropy world that we must seek. First, to set the context right, I am talking about feedback (or, you can loosely say it “input”) from the external community into your nonprofit. And seek because we don't have actively built space for them. We will explore

• what they are?
• why do we need them?
• what is its impact on data/research?
• who needs to be involved?

Let's look at each:

#1. Feedback from the community on "philanthropy".

Around the time Elon Musk was channeling his resources into the Twitter buyout, he expressed that his companies count as "philanthropy". It was interesting – and I am not saying this is the place for debating about him/his values as an individual. No, that's more appropriate for our coffee (on actions vs. words of assumed philanthropists). The interesting part is how such statements can affect and impact outlook towards philanthropy – because they do. And this is the feedback we must seek.

How the community defines "philanthropy" impacts data. Philanthropy can grow and evolve – that's okay (this is also not a comment on Musk's idea). However, the way philanthropy is acknowledged, perceived, and encouraged must be inclusive – of gender identity, sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, age, nationality, language, and other aspects of identity. Philanthropy is a verb. Getting this feedback into a nonprofit opens dialogue space to build clarity on generosity. And that, in turn, affects data collection, criteria for "top prospects", and how narratives will be drawn from the analysis.

#2. Feedback from funders on grant proposals.

Within the past 6 months, I have been asked by 3-to 5 separate nonprofits/social agencies

• what can they change in their data collection for funders?
• how can they collect and score social identity when their funders request it?

Valid but concerning questions. Concerning because how we collect, treat, and use social-identity data are all important – and absolutely must not be used for scoring, segmentation, or other forms of unintended tokenism. It also shows the lack of transparency in the decision-making process as it exists today. This is another feedback that we must seek.

Push for feedback – when you can and where you can. Seeking this feedback clarifies data points that you must prioritize for collection, but it also gives a directional idea of the ethics + values of your potential funders' processes.

And remember, share knowledge on such data collection with other local nonprofits of a similar mission. Your risk is not that other nonprofit around the corner but your unwillingness to collaborate appropriately and amplify the community impact. Building this collective knowledge on funders will help develop an ecosystem with clarity on these money issues.

#3. Feedback from donors on their philanthropic values and interests.

This kind of feedback is perhaps the easiest to collect out of the four kinds (of feedback), yet I don't see it in action. Whether fundraisers actively talk to assigned donors or collect donor perspectives during campaign planning, you need a system to regularly hear why, how, and what is shaping your donors’ philanthropic values and interests. It could be as simple as an annual/bi-annual survey of all your donors, volunteers, and other key supporters – and you could derive insights from the collective data.

This is your chance to explore donor "feelings" and, from there, decide what data points you must consider including in the collection.

#4. Feedback from the community on non-extractive community engagement strategies.

This kind of feedback is probably the toughest to collect. Mainly because designing anything carefully and intentionally "non-extractive" needs deeper awareness of what that looks like. And we miss that level of understanding as of today.

Let me borrow an example from the book Design Justice by Sasha Costanza-Chock.

One of the examples Sasha shares is from a funder at a national organization. This funder shares how her foundation funded an earned income tax credit tool, so billions of dollars do not go unclaimed by the working poor. However, when launched, the tool got a lot of usage in English but not with Spanish and Vietnamese communities (the other two local communities in target) – this despite the fact that the tool was translated into respective languages. In the words of the funder, "So either we don't understand how to deliver technology to these special language groups, or we are not doing the right outreach, or it's not culturally appropriate, I don't know."

Do you see any issue here? The problem here is that the community was not involved in the requirements, research, or design phase. Instead, their need was taken to develop a solution, to be later sold back to them. The solution, at no point, gave them (the target community) the power and choice to dictate the terms of the solution.

That's what we need to avoid – being extractive in the engagement strategies.

Share power with the people where it belongs. Let them guide your processes as to how they must be designed and developed.

*********************************

You and I evolve when we listen, watch, reflect, and act. And that at times means us actively seeking and engaging in dialogues that we need. So, don't be afraid to create spaces to hold conversations for this feedback.

As I said earlier, no amount of knowledge is too much, and no amount of effort is too less.

*** So, what do I want from you today (my readers)?

Today, I want you to

• Share what resonates here? Do you find value in seeking this feedback?

*** Here is a continuous prompt for us to keep alive the list of community-centric data principles.