Transparency Talk

Category: "Social Media" (37 posts)

Wanna Hangout? The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Use of Google Hangouts
May 21, 2014

(Eliza Smith is the Special Projects Associate for Glasspockets at the Foundation Center-San Francisco. She recently interviewed Erin Kelly and Susan Dentzer from the RWJF to learn about their experience with hosting Google Hangouts.)

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), America's largest public Eliza Smithhealth-focused philanthropy, is using Google Hangout to hold virtual panel discussions the first Friday of every  month. The Foundation has been using this social media tool to increase transparency around its work since November of 2013 and is finding these offereings have been very well-received. The foundation treats the platform as an opportunity to open its doors to its stakeholders and the general public so they can explore one of the foundation’s current projects, efforts, or campaigns in-depth and cost-free.

RWJF logoThe most recent Hangout was held on Friday, May 2 in partnership with the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) on its latest campaign, "Choose Wisely." The Choosing Wisely effort promotes patient empowerment, encouraging doctors and leaders in healthcare to inform consumers against employing expensive, superfluous, and potentially dangerous procedures and treatments. The Hangout platform promoted collaboration with doctors, patients, and healthcare professionals; moreover it championed transparency, inviting the general public to tweet (using #RWJF1stFri and @RWFJ) or submit their questions and comments to Google+. Past Hangout themes have centered on the cost and quality of healthcare, country-wide health rankings, innovative ways of delivering healthcare, and interest in new ways of employing and analyzing health data.

We believe these Hangouts can be effective in convening experts on an issue, increasing transparency to the work and partners we have the pleasure to be engaged with, and a means to expand the discussion beyond the those ‘in the room.’
Erin Kelly Erin Kelly
RWJF social media manager Susan Dentzer Susan Dentzer
RWJF senior policy adviser

The RWJF has a strong track record with social media, using tools like Twitter and Facebook so that grantees can connect with its leaders and grantmakers. Erin Kelly, social media manager at the Foundation, says they have been using these tools “to share insight into the issues and projects we’ve invested in across our areas of investments. Oftentimes these discussions are jumping off from an in-person convening or recent research or developments in the field. We believe they can be effective in convening experts on an issue, increasing transparency to the work and partners we have the pleasure to be engaged with, and a means to expand the discussion beyond the those ‘in the room.’”

Susan Dentzer, senior policy adviser to the RWJF, likens the Hangouts to “mini conferences” and sees them as alternative ways of facilitating communication between the Foundation and the general public. “As much information as the Foundation puts out on the web site, many grantees sometimes feel like they don’t understand what’s going on at the RWJF,” Dentzer says. “The Hangouts are an opportunity for grantees to get a sense of what’s going on at the Foundation.” And the best part about these Hangouts? “They are low-cost and low-effort,” as Dentzer says; thus, staff at the Foundation don’t feel spent after conducting a Hangout as they might holding an actual conference, leaving energy and enthusiasm for the next month’s session.

While the First Friday sessions have been popular and widely attended, the RWJF is developing more metrics for measuring the impact of the Hangouts. “This is a work-in-progress,” Dentzer says, “we are finding new ways to assess how many people we reach, who we are reaching, and if any members of the audience take action afterwards.” So far, the Foundation is planning on using resources from Survey Monkey to gather more user data, but they are still looking for more ways to better understand the impact of these social media tools. All told, “this is a great technology for the RWJF,” Dentzer says.

Have you attended one of the RWJF First Friday Hangouts? Tell us about your experience at @Glasspockets on Twitter, or post a comment here on Transparency Talk. 

-- Eliza Smith

The Value Added of Engagement
January 23, 2014

(Jay Ruderman is the president of the Ruderman Family Foundation. You can engage with him on Twitter and/or follow the foundation to learn more about inclusion. This post originally appeared on the Foundation Center's GrantCraft blog.)

Jay-Ruderman-press-headshot-150There are over 500,000,000 users on Twitter--and I am one of them.

As president of a family foundation, I spend my day managing the foundation’s operations and staff, working with partners in the philanthropic and organizational world, and searching for new, innovative projects to invest in. Our foundation advocates for and advances the full inclusion of people with disabilities into the Jewish community. Our focus is on creating lasting change, and I work tirelessly in pursuit of creating a fair and flourishing community.

I speak at conferences, conduct interviews with journalists, meet with legislators, and do whatever is necessary to push the issue of inclusion onto the agenda. Like you, I have a very full schedule filled with meetings, phone calls, site visits, and still more meetings.

And then I started tweeting.

Most of my philanthropic friends and foundation colleagues do not use social media, for a variety of reasons. I myself was unsure of how effective Twitter could be in helping to change the status quo. But I embarked on this experiment six months ago to see if I can build community around the issues the foundation advocates for. I understood that it takes time to build an audience and find one’s voice online. Change does not happen overnight.

Tweeting allows me to see who the players and influencers in this field are. Connecting with them allows us to share experiences and knowledge.

Of utmost importance was having a Twitter strategy in place. I knew in advance who the influencers I wanted to engage were, how to connect with them, and what type of content to push out. Certainly I had much to learn: how to engage, how to effectively use the platform, when and how to post and how to conduct conversations. Through trial and error I have learned, and the early results are encouraging--there has been a definite increase in the number of conversations, retweets and mentions. (Notice I didn’t mention number of followers--that’s not a metric I’m using to measure success). Additionally, my tweeting has brought increased exposure for our foundation’s official account, and we have seen a marked upswing in traffic to our blog.

So far, so good.

People ask me why I tweet--especially those who think Twitter is where people post about their morning coffee! I see Twitter as an integral tool to furthering our mission. Here’s why:

  • Tweeting allows me to see who the players and influencers in this field are. Connecting with them allows us to share experiences and knowledge.
  • Twitter is helping to position our foundation as a thought leader in the inclusion arena.
  • It allows me to advocate for the rights of people with disabilities and raise awareness of the issue.
  • By showcasing the wonderful work being done by our partners and grantees, we advance their individual missions and contribute to “grantmaking beyond the buck.”
  • Social media opens my eyes to other projects out there, the latest news and trends, and that allows us to have a finger on the pulse and assists us in becoming a smarter funder.

Jay-Ruderman-Tweet

The central reason why I tweet is because people like to connect to other people. Putting a face on our foundation’s activities helps create a more intimate conversation and can bring more people into the fold. People connect to my passion, my sense of urgency to create sustainable change, and, as president, I have a unique voice on the issue that people want to hear.

Funding innovative projects is not enough--we want to move the needle. The value of social media is the ability to reach the masses, meet people where they are hanging out and engage them. I want to tap into the energy and passion young people have for issues of social justice and encourage them to become involved, advocate and be at the forefront of change in society. I want to use my newfound connections to urge organizational leaders to make their communities more inclusive.

When I look back in a year or two, I hope to have raised awareness and to have caused more people in the Jewish community to realize the importance of the issue. This will go a long way to realizing our foundation’s mission, one tweet at a time.

-- Jay Ruderman

Tweeting for Good: How to Host a Twitter Chat
November 7, 2013

(Tara Pringle Jefferson is the social media consultant for the Cleveland Foundation.)

Pringle-100Roughly four years ago, when I began managing the Cleveland Foundation's social media accounts, I was inundated with questions from other local nonprofits about how they could better manage their social media.

“It takes too much time. How can I streamline this?"

"I'm not sure what I'm doing."

"Can you help me figure out how to convince our CEO we should have a Facebook page?"

These nonprofit employees were really wondering how to tell their story efficiently. As a community foundation, the Cleveland Foundation saw this as an opportunity to help local nonprofits while also building awareness of philanthropy in greater Cleveland as these groups increased their own social media presence.

To that end, the foundation created monthly meet-ups, where a different nonprofit would host the meeting each time. Attendees would tour the facility, ask questions, and then have a mix-and-mingle where we discussed everything from editorial calendars to online fundraising strategies.

ClevelandFoundationTwitterThese meetings were well attended, with more than 20 nonprofits represented on average. Eventually, the approach shifted to an online format to better accommodate the busy schedules of our most loyal attendees.

Since early 2012, the Cleveland Foundation has met online for our #CLE4Good Twitter chats on the second Monday of every month. Co-hosted with the Foundation Center-Cleveland and local communications firm Ink+ LLC, we spend an hour discussing important topics with our nonprofit community, giving them an opportunity to share best practices on social media, fundraising, and much more. We often have a special guest join us to allow participants to hear from national experts without having to leave their work desk.

As the lead sponsor of these chats, the Cleveland Foundation’s main goal is to give local nonprofits the opportunity to share their stories and get advice about pressing issues. It is easy to forget that social media isn’t about “likes” and clicks; rather, it is about conversations and relationships with real people. These chats are another way for us to connect with the community we serve and to be a resource for those who carry the same desire to improve our region.

For foundations or other nonprofits thinking about creating a similar dialogue on social media, here are a few takeaways:

  • Make the chat accessible. Be sure to spell out exactly what the chat is, its topic, and step-by-step instructions on how to participate. We publish an instructional blog post before each chat so any newcomers so can quickly learn the ropes.
  • Invite a special guest. Thisensures that the chat will be vibrant and full of information, and it also gives participants a chance to ask an expert. We work to invite a special guest to participate whenever possible, to ensure that we're not simply speaking to an empty room. It also helps the conversation ramp up quickly.
  • Use the tools at your disposal to promote the chats. Write a blog post, put a quick blurb in your e-newsletter, or advertise the chat on your organization’s Facebook page. But also remember: a successful chat is the best promotion for the following chat.
  • Track your chats to see where you can improve. Using a site like TweetReach or a social media dashboard like Hootsuite can allow you to see at a glance who has participated and how many followers you have attracted.
  • Keep the momentum going. We encourage all of our participants to follow each other after the chat and continue their conversations. Several participants have thanked us for making these introductions, which reinforces our goal of strengthening the local nonprofit network.

For any nonprofits who are interested in seeing one of our #CLE4Good chats in action, follow @CleveFoundation and join us on November 11 at noon EST for a discussion on how nonprofits can improve their donor relationships, or on December 9 at Noon EST, topic to be determined.

-- Tara Pringle Jefferson

 

Glasspockets Webinar Series: Transparency and Technology Tools for Grantmakers
October 23, 2013

(Rebecca Herman is Special Projects Associate for Glasspockets at the Foundation Center-San Francisco.)

Rebecca Herman PhotoPublic expectation about what information is made available online is increasing at a rapid pace—whether you are operating in the public sector, the private sector or the social sector. For grantmakers, emerging online technologies and platforms also provide an array of new opportunities to be transparent about their approaches to philanthropy and the impact of their work.

Over the past few months, in partnership with California Philanthropy and the James Irvine Foundation, Glasspockets offered three webinars to help foundations take advantage of online tools and resources that address timely issues in philanthropy. Our Glasspockets webinar series for grantmakers explored how harnessing the power of transparency can facilitate greater collaboration, reduce duplication of effort, build stronger relationships with stakeholders, and cultivate a community of shared learning:

Check out these webinar recordings for tips on the newest transparency tools:

Equipping Your Foundation for the Age of Transparency and Big Data, presented by Foundation Center President Bradford K. Smith

Webinar1screenshotFINAL

Watch the webinar»

Are you ready for big data? Big data—the gathering of unprecedented amounts of digital information to understand trends and predict future behavior—is fundamentally changing the way we understand the world and make decisions. This webinar explores how grantmakers can use big data to inform their work. He also discusses how revolutionary changes in technology-fueled transparency, data access and data mining will have a profound impact on foundations of all sizes.

Sample tip: The field of philanthropy resembles an archipelago—islands that are far too isolated from each other, especially in this era of data-sharing. Foundations’ urge to be unique (and create their own “island”) creates disadvantages when it comes to harnessing big data, since each grantmaking program is speaking its own language. Stop trying to be unique!

What Do We Know? Tapping the Social Sector’s Collective Intelligence, presented by Gabi Fitz, Director of Knowledge Management Initiatives, The Foundation Center

Webinar2screenshotFINAL

Watch the webinar»

Our collective intelligence is one of our most valuable offerings as a field. Access to quality research provides the social sector with the ability to improve programs and strengthen funding initiatives. How can you amplify the impact of the knowledge you create, fund, and produce? This webinar addresses how social sector research can help your organization fulfill its mission; it also provides an introduction to IssueLab, the Foundation Center’s free database of more than 13,000 white papers, case studies, and evaluations.

Sample tip: How can you make your knowledge more accessible? In addition to putting your research on your website and disseminating it to your networks, add a copy to IssueLab—a resource that we see as the public library of the social sector. You many also consider open licensing for your research, so that it to be used more widely. Make sharing research your default, not the exception!

Transparency 2.0: Foundations in the Age of Social Media, presented by Jereme Bivens, former Digital Strategy and Emerging Media Manager, The Foundation Center

Webinar3screenshotFINAL

Watch the webinar»

Learn how social media tools can help you improve information flow, interact with partners and stakeholders, and operate more transparently. This webinar shares proven techniques to stay on top of industry trends, participate in mission-related conversations, communicate effectively with your teammates, and reduce your e-mail and meeting schedule. The webinar also discusses organizations who are leading in social media, as well as new tools to track and measure your social media campaigns.

Sample tip: Google Analytics gives you information about how many people visit your website, where they are coming from, which pages they went to, and even more. For instance, are they accessing your website from a mobile device, even though your website is not mobile-friendly? There is also a new section in Google Analytics to help you identify which social media platforms are getting people to your website.

If you are interested in other transparency tools, let us know! We thank our Glasspockets webinar series sponsor, The James Irvine Foundation, and our webinar partners: Northern California Grantmakers, San Diego Grantmakers and Southern California Grantmakers.

-- Rebecca Herman

Glasspockets Find: Ask Me Anything
October 3, 2013

(Rebecca Herman is Special Projects Associate for Glasspockets at the Foundation Center-San Francisco.)

Spreddit8You may know the social news website Reddit for its humorous photos, videos and links to articles about hot topics. One of the most popular content areas is IAmA (or "I Am A…"), where users may participate in "AMAs" (for "Ask Me Anything"). AMAs are a forum for interviews on any topic, and there are several live AMAs scheduled everyday. Any Reddit user may post a question or comment and vote topics “up” or “down”, so the collective response informs how the Q&A appears, and how it is ranked within the Reddit site.

The topics and seriousness of the Reddit users’ questions vary widely, but it is great to see some very direct inquiries that touch on challenges in the nonprofit sector.

A few foundations and philanthropic organizations have participated in AMAs in the past few years—most notably Bill Gates, of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, as reported on our blog earlier this year. Among the recent Reddit AMAs from the nonprofit and philanthropic sector are the Himalayan Cataract Project and Give2Asia. The topics and seriousness of the Reddit users’ questions vary widely, but it is great to see some very direct inquiries that touch on challenges in the nonprofit sector. Here is an excerpt from the AMA with Dr. Matt Oliva, a Himalayan Cataract Project board member:

redishhead: What types of resistance, if any, do you come up against when providing healthcare in other countries with laws and values?

mattoliva: Good question. It is important that US doctors working in other countries work within the current medical system and the local providers. We always get a local medical license if possible. We also strive to "never leave a patient behind" and ensure that the local partner can provide followup if there are any complications. Long term success requires a collaborative relationship with the local medical team and empowering them. If the quality of the service is high, even the poorest people will recognize this quality and seek the service. Many organizations and doctors can do more harm than good with the "fly in/fly out" model of care.

Give2Asia participated in a Reddit AMA about earthquake and tsunami recovery work in Japan that included advice on disaster giving and real-life lessons from the field:

macdaddy0086: How difficult was the whole thing?

give2asia: Every disaster is different, but this was one of the most difficult disasters I’ve worked on. It was a triple disaster (earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear) that affected over 420mi of coastline.

In the beginning, it was made even more complex because many NGOs and NPOs were waiting to hear the government’s response, so there was a fair amount of waiting, and a lack of coordination between them. For a time, they were limiting access to the area, and permits were required to enter. Even the humanitarian response was strictly measured, since the country has such a strong focus on equality. We’d never seen that before in any disaster, and it added a measure of complexity.

Only three days after the MacArthur Foundation announced its 2013 Fellows last month, new fellows Kyle Abraham and Jeremy Denk participated in an AMA. Here is the most popular exchange, as voted on by Reddit users:

aedwards044: What do ya'll intend to do with the Fellowship stipend?

MacArthurFellows [Kyle Abraham]: I still owe over 100k in student loans :-/ I'm hoping to get rid of those completely... Other than that, I'm hoping to work with a financial advisor to see how I can really work on building my company structure for the long haul. We recently found an affordable plan for health care for our company and plan on implementing that as of October 1st. That was already in the works, but now I know that we'll actually be able to pull it off for sometime to come!

Do you think AMAs are a tool that can make philanthropic work more accessible? Let us know if you have participated and what you have learned. And if you would like to read the Reddit AMAs without the extensive comments, I definitely recommend skimreddit.

-- Rebecca Herman

Family Philanthropy and Social Media: A Conversation with Kate Wolford, President of The McKnight Foundation
September 26, 2013

Kate Wolford (@KateWolford) became president of The McKnight Foundation (@McKnightFdn) in 2006. This blog is re-posted with permission from the August 2013 edition of Family Giving News, the monthly email newsletter of the National Center for Family Philanthropy.

Social-media-for-public-relations1

We don’t see a lot of foundation executives on Twitter. So, let’s hear a bit more about your own experience with social media – how did you first get started?

Wolford-100

The biggest value to me personally is in what I follow: a mixture of topics directly relevant to our work, as well as others that help broaden my horizon.

The first thing to make clear is that I am not an expert on social media! The McKnight Foundation has been getting its feet wet on Facebook and Twitter for a year or so, and recently launched a blog. We’ve also been experimenting with Yammer as an in-house tool for sharing knowledge. I registered my personal Twitter account about eight months ago. I was an early adopter, so I could better support our institutional communications strategy. My plan was to simply “lurk and learn” on Twitter, following others so I could better understand how our foundation and grantees were using social media to increase our reach and impact. Now I tweet as well, and more and more McKnight staff are using social media.

What are three things you hope to gain from social media?

The biggest value to me personally is in what I follow: a mixture of topics directly relevant to our work, as well as others that help broaden my horizon. I see articles that I would probably never see otherwise—or at least not in such a timely manner.

For The McKnight Foundation, my goal is even greater transparency and awareness about how we are using private funds to pursue public good. It is an avenue to share research, as well as promising and proven ideas with a broader network both within and beyond philanthropy.

Social media—like every tool—can be used for good or ill. More than a goal, my dream is to use it in ways that support a powerful global movement for social, economic, and environmental sustainability.

Why should a family foundation use social media?

Social media can be an additional useful way to engage with current or potential grantees, stakeholders, and the general public. It’s not a substitute for strong individual relationships and deep dialogue between foundations and grantees. Foundations still need a one-stop organizational website through which grantseekers can find clear information on the foundation’s mission, goals, strategies, what it will or won’t fund, its application process, etc.

Taking advantage of as many communications tools as we can use well and cost effectively can enhance our transparency, accessibility, and ability to share knowledge and perspectives in our fields of interest.

A Center for Effective Philanthropy survey in 2012 found that only about 16% of grantees followed the social media streams of their funders. I suspect this number will grow quickly as both nonprofits and foundations move from early experiments in usage, evaluating feedback and ramping up in areas that seem most productive for building their networks and advancing their goals. We’re also increasingly reaching out to important program stakeholders beyond our grantees, and social media is one way to reach those broader audiences.

The real power of social media is the opportunity to go beyond just one-way communication to a more engaged dialogue. Unlike newsletters or press releases, social media is—well, it’s social! For many family foundations (and foundations in general), that may push the boundaries of their comfort zone. Social media puts real-time information, learning and perspectives out to a potentially very broad audience. That, in turn, may invite new levels of scrutiny, critique, and interaction.

I think it is important to enter with the mindset that you will get feedback that covers the spectrum from positive to negative, and from polite to nasty. Embrace that, and focus on how the input can also broaden your perspectives, sharpen your thinking, and increase your effectiveness and impact.

What kind of rules and practices do you follow?

In general, I think about how all my communications, whether in a community conversation or a blog or a tweet might reflect on the foundation and its reputation.

While “all tweets are my own,” I do not tweet anything that I would not want associated with our foundation. I know others who more freely mix the personal and professional—in that case, I think it would be important to be transparent with your board of directors about that choice.

I limit my time on social media to 30 minutes per day, and sometimes I don’t get to it all. On my best days, I uncover 3-5 articles that I read or tag for my next plane ride, and I share something that will be of interest to my followers.

I see some foundation leaders focusing mainly on topics relevant to the philanthropic sectors while others cover a number of topic areas. I think each person has to “find their own voice.” I lean toward the eclectic side of the spectrum — I follow and tweet on topics ranging from governance to climate change to education to Minnesota.

Should the foundation executive engage if the foundation already has a social media presence?

There are a number of factors to consider, including size and staffing structure. In small foundations where the executive already has many hats, it may simply not make sense nor be practical to maintain a separate Twitter or blog presence. The executive can still have a presence—authoring blogs or being quoted on the foundation sites.

Another key consideration is board expectations around the level of visibility of its lead staff person, and whether or not he/she should have a voice that may be distinct in substance or tone from that of the foundation.

Final thoughts?

I’d encourage foundations to use any communications tools that help them reach and engage their own key audiences in useful ways. Within that, just like any tool, social media probably isn’t a great fit for everyone.

So as we explore social media’s pros and cons at McKnight, we are paying close attention to how our philanthropic colleagues are using it to the best effect. We’re forging our own unique path as we go, which I think is very important, but we’re also keeping our eyes out for model practices and practitioners around the country. For readers interested in digging deeper, I’d point you to nonprofit social media guru Beth Kanter, The Communications Network’s resource-rich website for nonprofit and foundation communications pros, and terrific sector blogs like COF’s RE:Philanthropy, Foundation Center’s PhilanTopic, and the Center for Effective Philanthropy.

And there is no shame and very little to lose in lurking first, like I did, just to see if social media seems like a good fit before diving in!

-- Kate Wolford

(For a list of additional Twitter feeds to get started, see this Ask the Center feature on Family Giving News.)

Advancing Social Media Measurement for Foundations: A Re-Cap (Part Two)
May 30, 2013

(Beth Kanter is a Master Trainer and the author of Beth's Blog, one of the longest running and most popular blogs for nonprofits, and co-author of the highly acclaimed book, The Networked Nonprofit, published by J. Wiley in 2010, and its new follow-up, Measuring the Networked Nonprofit, published in 2013 by J. Wiley.)

Kanter-100In my post yesterday, we discussed what working transparently means and its benefits, and I left you with the cliff-hanger on how to measure your return on investment. Transparency is like any other measurement challenge; you first need to be clear about what you are measuring. There are different ways to measure transparency. The first is assessing the impact of a change in transparency on your foundation by measuring the change in the benefits of that transparency – in this case efficiency or trust. The second way is a self-evaluation to determine how transparent your organization is.

The transition to transparency may be discomforting, but the benefits of inviting people in and sharing in a foundation’s strategy development far outweigh the potential downsides.

How to Measure Improvements in Efficiency
To measure efficiency you need to have a chat with your accounting and operations departments to figure out what your leadership team is already tracking for efficiency metrics. If they aren’t already doing it, then chances are that someone in one of those departments knows how to do it and can help you. Typical efficiency metrics include:

  1. Percent reduction in response time from inquiry to satisfied resolution
  2. Percent reduction in staff hours responding to queries
  3. Percent increase in satisfaction and knowledge of employees

The benefits of increased transparency can also be quantified by a relationship survey (see Chapter 7).

How to Measure Improvements in Trust
Several studies have shown that the more transparent people perceive an organization to be, the more likely they are to trust that organization. The more the organization provides honest, open, and occasionally vulnerable communications, the more people trust the institution. Amazingly, the ability to be open and transparent was found to be more influential than competence in terms of willingness to trust. In other words, people care more about your willingness to be open and transparent than whether you are competent enough to do what you say you are going to do!

How to Measure Your Own Transparency
While the field of transparency measurement is relatively nascent, thanks to the work of Rawlins and others there are established techniques to quantify it in your own organization. There are two elements to measuring transparency. The first is “How do I know just how transparent we are?” The second is: “Do our stakeholders perceive us as transparent? And, consequently, do they trust us?”

Measurement of transparency examines four separate but equal components:

  1. Participation – The organization asks for feedback, involves others, takes the time to listen, and is prompt in responding to requests for information.
  2. Substantial – The organization provides information that is truthful, complete, easy to understand, and reliable.
  3. Accountable – The organization is forthcoming with bad news, admits mistakes, and provides both sides of a controversy.
  4. Absence of secrecy – The organization doesn’t leave out important but potentially damaging details, the organization doesn’t obfuscate its data with jargon or confusion, and the organization is not slow to provide data or only discloses data when required.

In Measuring the Networked Nonprofit, we recommended using survey or focus group questions based on the work of Brad Rawlins or the Who Has Glass Pockets? assessment, which your foundation can use to audit its own transparency. Typically a survey like this is administered either as a group discussion, or as a written survey followed by a group discussion of the results. Some of the areas of discussion that should emerge as a result of such an exercise are outlined below:

Is your organization participative?

  1. Do we involve stakeholders to help identify the information we need?
  2. Do we ask the opinions of stakeholders before making decisions?
  3. Do we take the time with stakeholders to understand who we are and what we need?

Do we provide substantial information?

  1. Do we provide detailed information to stakeholders?
  2. Do we make it easy to find the information stakeholders need?
  3. Are we prompt when responding to requests for information from stakeholders?
  4. Are we forthcoming with information that might be damaging to the organization?
  5. Do we provide information that can be compared to industry standards?
  6. Do we present more than one side of controversial issues?

Are we accountable?

  1. Do we provide information in a timely fashion to stakeholders?
  2. Do we provide information that is relevant to stakeholders?
  3. Do we provide information that could be verified by an outside source?
  4. Do we provide information that can be compared to previous performance?
  5. Do we provide information that is complete?
  6. Do we provide information that is easy for stakeholders to understand?
  7. Do we provide accurate information to stakeholders?
  8. Do we provide information that is reliable?
  9. Do we present information in language that is clear?
  10. Are we open to criticism?
  11. Do we freely admit when we make mistakes?

Secrecy

  1. Do we provide only part of the story to stakeholders?
  2. Do we leave out important details in the information we provide to stakeholders?
  3. Do we provide information that is full of jargon and technical language that is confusing to people?
  4. Do we blame outside factors that may have contributed to the outcome when reporting bad news?
  5. Do we provide information that is intentionally written in a way to make it difficult to understand?
  6. Are we slow to provide information to stakeholders?
  7. Do we only disclose info when it is required?
  8. Do we only disclose “good” news?

Measuring Stakeholder Perceptions
The second part of transparency measurement is assessing whether your stakeholders perceive you as transparent. To measure whether your supporters and stakeholders perceive you as transparent you need to ask them whether they agree or disagree with the following statements. These questions could be added to grantee perception reports or other surveys that are routinely conducted by foundations.  

  1. The organization wants to understand how its decisions affect people like me.
  2. The organization provides information that is useful to people like me for making informed decisions.
  3. I think it is important to watch this organization closely so that it does not take advantage of people like me.
  4. The organization wants to be accountable to people like me for its actions.
  5. The organization wants people like me to know what it is doing and why it is doing it.
  6. This organization asks for feedback from people like me about the quality of its information.
  7. This organization involves people like me to help identify the information I need.
  8. Provides detailed information to people like me.
  9. Makes it easy to find the information people like me need.
  10. Asks the opinions of people like me before making decisions.

The transition to transparency may be discomforting, but the benefits of inviting people in and sharing in a foundation’s strategy development far outweigh the potential downsides. Imagine how much stronger your network's reactions, input, and suggestions will make your organization—and how exciting it will feel to share your great work with more people. And, with a measurement strategy in place, you can know for sure that your effort has paid off, and that your organization is changing from the inside out.

--Beth Kanter

Advancing Social Media Measurement for Foundations: A Re-Cap (Part One)
May 29, 2013

(Beth Kanter is a Master Trainer and the author of Beth's Blog, one of the longest running and most popular blogs for nonprofits, and co-author of the highly acclaimed book, The Networked Nonprofit, published by J. Wiley in 2010, and its new follow-up, Measuring the Networked Nonprofit, published in 2013 by J. Wiley.)

Kanter-100Last month, I was invited to participate in a meeting organized by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation called Advancing Social Media Measurement for Foundations where I presented on the State of Nonprofit Social Media Measurement. The participants were a cross-disciplinary group and included people who work at different foundations in the areas of evaluation, communication, social media, and programs as well as people who work for nonprofits and as consultants who work in evaluation, social media, network analysis, data scientists, and others.

To be transparent means that a foundation is open, accountable, and honest with its stakeholders and the public. Transparency exists to a lesser or greater extent in all organizations. Greater transparency is a good thing, not just because it is morally correct, but because it can provide measurable benefits.

We had two working sessions where we focused on defining outcomes, strategies, key performance metrics, and measurement methods for five outcome areas that may be common to many foundation’s communication’s strategies including transparency –a topic that KD Paine and I devoted an entire chapter to in our book, Measuring the Networked Nonprofit.

Transparency is a developing practice for nonprofits and their funders, and the field of measurement of transparency for foundations and nonprofits is embryonic. To be transparent means that a foundation is open, accountable, and honest with its stakeholders and the public. Transparency exists to a lesser or greater extent in all organizations. Greater transparency is a good thing, not just because it is morally correct, but because it can provide measurable benefits.

Measureable Benefits of Transparency
Transparency helps an organization by engaging its audiences and by speeding the processes of learning and growing. Transparency helps foundation programs improve in ways they might not otherwise. Two of transparency’s readily measureable benefits are increased efficiency, and increases in the stakeholder perceptions of trust, commitment and satisfaction.

Increased efficiency: Transparency makes organizations more efficient because it removes the gatekeeping function, which not only takes extra time, but can be an exhausting way to work. When foundations are working transparently, problems are easier to solve, questions are easier to answer, and stakeholder’s needs are met more quickly.

Increased trust, satisfaction, and commitment:  Dr. Brad Rawlins’ research has demonstrated that increased organizational transparency is directly tied to increases in trust, credibility, and satisfaction among the organization’s stakeholders. He sees a key benefit of transparency as, “enhancing the ethical nature of organizations in two ways: first, it holds organizations accountable for their actions and policies; and second, it respects the autonomy and reasoning ability of individuals who deserve to have access to information that might affect their position.”  (Rawlins is the Dean of the Communications Department at Arkansas State University)

Now that we have defined what working transparently means and the benefits, what is the method for measuring it? 

In the second part of my post tomorrow, I will outline the best approaches to measuring the value of transparency to your foundation.

--Beth Kanter

Social Media, So What? RWJF Tackles How to Answer the Social Media, So What Question
April 17, 2013

Debra Joy Perez (@djoyperez) is currently serving as Interim Vice President of Research and Evaluation at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Perez-100Last year, after Steve Downs shared an overview of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s (RWJF) social media strategy, we hosted a series of interviews with RWJF staff members about how social media, and more broadly, the transparency and participation they offer, are adding new and critical dimensions to their work. The first case study on social networking as a learning tool is available here. The second on experimenting with different social mediums to serve as a catalyst for collaboration is available here. The third on leveraging social media to expand networks is available here.

The latest post offers perspective on how the use of these tools—which have become essential to our communication efforts—can be measured to reflect the impact of our work and rooted in a context of achieving social change goals.

Q: Let’s start with a glimpse into a day in the life of your work at the Foundation in light of all these new technologies. Why are metrics important to RWJF?
A: RWJF has a 40 year history of developing evidence-based programming. We are known for our research and evaluation work nationally and internationally. Yet, as new ways to advance our goals in health and health care become more reliant on technology, we struggle with measuring success and accountability.

Since 2009, RWJF has been incorporating Web 2.0 technology in our everyday work. That is what people who visit our website  can see since our September redesign, as we have more social sharing facilitation tools across the site. We also invite conversation about how to advance health and health care on Twitter, Facebook, and produce content that can serve the needs of various online communities.

We can clearly see and have made projections about the future value of social media. Social media can help us create social change and build movements around the causes that we care deeply about. We have learned many key lessons from initiating this work guided by our principles of openness, participation, and decentralization. Specific lessons include:

  • Personal outreach matters;
  • Responsiveness to requests for engagement is important;
  • Criticism can lead to healthy dialogue;
  • Make engagement easy and simple; and
  • Engagement takes work and dedicated resources.

These take homes suggest that each of these principles requires concerted efforts and conversations about policies and processes for achieving the intended goals. With each social media campaign, we must be explicit about expectations. Social media metrics is an essential part of our efforts at RWJF. We need measurement to help us achieve those expectations. Measurement also helps us continually improve our use of social media to achieve our broader social change goals.

Social media is another tool to achieve larger goals. While it can be a very powerful tool, it should not be mistaken for an end in itself.

Q: What does an effective and efficient social media campaign look like?
A: So where do you start: well, you might start first with acknowledging what you are already doing in social media and celebrating that. Do you have a Facebook page, an organizational presence on Twitter, operations on Tumblr? Conduct an inventory of what you are doing as an organization, as well as the engagement by individuals. Do staff leverage social media for their job, how have they been able to extend their reach, do we regularly appear on relevant blogs?

As you do this, you might start to recognize how much you don’t know. BUT don’t let the “not-knowing” stop you.

  • Have an explicit dialogue about your goals, what are you trying to accomplish with your social media efforts, e.g. what is the purpose of tweeting something, what is the action you want an individual to take? Although click-through is not itself an outcome, in my view, it is a process measure. 
  • Identify your networks. You probably already have more of a network than you recognize (see The Networked Nonprofit  by Kanter).
  • Schedule a formal discussion about value proposition in-house. Talk to who does it now and who doesn’t. Don’t expect everyone to Tweet. Some are better long-form writers and therefore might be better suited for blogging.
  • Establish data points for measuring impact of what you do.
  • Provide unique URLs for product releases and then test URL placements against each other (AB testing) to see which one is more effective.

Ultimately, discuss to what end are you using social media. Social media is another tool to achieve larger goals. While it can be a very powerful tool, it should not be mistaken for an end in itself.

Q: What is the expected ROI for social media?
A: We believe social media can have a profound effect on expanding our reach, as more people are building trusted networks of individuals and organizations and engaging online. Appropriate use of social media channels help us provide the right information and the right tools into the hands of our health and health care advocates (also known as message evangelists). You then start to see how making data accessible in new ways, such as interactives, data visualizations, and infographics, enables us to illustrate key points for case-making and building awareness.  

Because social media is a vehicle through which ideas can be generated, tested, built upon, and spread, we believe that this is worth measuring. However, while there is a plethora of ready to use analytical tools crowding the market, the challenge will be to avoid the “low-hanging fruit” trap of measuring activity over action. If we do our job correctly, we will be able to say what works and what doesn’t using social media metrics, as well as distinguishing online from offline impact.

Q: What is the current state of the field for measuring social media? Where do we go from here?
A: The potential power of social is undeniable and we are looking for ways to continue to test our assumptions about what we are producing. For example, by watching others comment on Twitter about our work we not only have a better sense of how we are being understood, it also serves as a kind of content analysis of the impact we are having. By monitoring a recurring Twitter chat, we can hear whether our meaning and intention is influencing the discussion in the way we desire it to.

As the unit responsible for measuring the impact of our work, we regularly ask ourselves: What are we using social media for? Who are our target audiences (segmented, as well as aggregated)? (The ability to diversify our networks is a huge value to RWJF; developing metrics that includes demographics of our audiences is an important part of the measurement effort.) What is the expected action/behavior we wish to see? How do we measure behavior change? How can we best go beyond measuring online activity (page views, unique visitors, tweets, and re-tweets) to measuring offline action and policy change? This is the key challenge for philanthropy today: assessing an effective and efficient social media campaign. As a foundation, accountable to our Board and the public, we must have standards for our investments in social media just as we do for our programmatic investments. We ought to be able to answer the so-what question for investing staff time and talent in social media campaigning. As a sector, we are becoming much more sophisticated in our use of communications to advance our work. Looking at ways to measure social media should fit within the framework of measuring communications broadly. Even as the task of identifying communications indicators is challenging, social media lends itself well to being more precise and thus measurable.

In order to engage the field in a dialogue on social media measurement, RWJF is hosting a national convening of experts in three domains: evaluation, communications, and social media. The April convening will produce a set of indicators on five Foundation-focused outcomes:

1. Our foundation is viewed as a valuable information source.

2. Our foundation is viewed as transparent.

3. Lessons are disseminated, multiplying impact beyond our foundation’s reach.

4. Public knowledge, advocacy, influence, and action is increased in strategic areas

5. Our networks strengthen and diversify.

We invite you to help us advance the field of social media measurement. Please follow hashtag #SM_RE on Twitter for conversations stemming from the social media measurement meeting this month, including a live Twitter chat on April 18, 3 p.m. EDT, as we continue to move the field forward in using data to evaluate and assess impact of our work.

-- Debra Joy Perez

From the President: Transparency 2.0
February 13, 2013

Jim Canales is the President and CEO of the James Irvine Foundation. This post first appeared February, 13 on the foundation's Web site.

Canales-100Within the past few weeks, I have read with interest the observations of a number of active bloggers in the arts field whom I have come to respect and admire: Nina Simon, Diane Ragsdale, Clay Lord and Barry Hessenius. Each of them has blogged on aspects of the Irvine Foundation’s new arts strategy and, in doing so, has contributed to a robust dialogue that has played out on their respective blogs as well as on Twitter.

And that’s what prompts my contribution to this discussion: I will comment only lightly on the substantive issues they have raised related to our Arts strategy as my colleague, Josephine Ramirez, who directs our Arts program, plans to post a more substantive comment on those issues in the next week or so. There is another aspect of this discussion that I do want to comment upon and invite others to engage on with me and my colleagues in philanthropy.

Whether people agree or disagree with the choices we have made, we are now discussing it, publicly, intelligently and forthrightly.

From my early days as Irvine’s CEO, and with great support from our Board of Directors, I have placed a premium on transparency, both with regard to our work at Irvine and for the broader field of philanthropy. I have certainly not been alone in this quest (Brad Smith at the Foundation Center is probably our field’s leading champion), and I think it’s a fair observation to say that the field has come a long way in the past decade.

At the same time, I would characterize much of the progress under the headline of “Transparency 1.0”: creating useful and information-rich websites; describing in detail the strategic priorities of the foundation; sharing results of evaluations and learning; posting results of surveys that offer feedback, such as the Center for Effective Philanthropy’s Grantee Perception Report. All of these have been positive developments, aimed toward shedding more light on what is often an opaque and impenetrable field. At the same time, these efforts at transparency are primarily one-way, aimed at information transmission. In “Transparency 1.0,” we decide what to be transparent about and then put it out there for you to digest.

Today, the advent of social media, to which philanthropy is still a bit of a newcomer, combined with the recognition that foundations certainly do not have all of the answers, offers opportunities for the field to embrace and practice what I will call “Transparency 2.0,” oriented toward dialogue, debate and shared learning.

And that’s what has struck me about this recent dialogue related to Irvine’s Arts strategy. Whether people agree or disagree with the choices we have made, we are now discussing it, publicly, intelligently and forthrightly. I admire those who have stepped forward to criticize aspects of our strategy, whether they believe it is wrong on its merits or they view it as yet another example of “strategic philanthropy” gone awry, where we are dictating and imposing our solutions upon the field.

That is certainly not our intention. What is different for us in our new Arts strategy is that rather than continuing with a broad-based approach that funded projects across multiple objectives, we made the strategic decision to direct our finite resources in a way that, in our view, will best position the arts field for future viability and success. In doing so, we are openly expressing a point of view about how we think the field must evolve to ensure its dynamism and relevance. Yet, we are very clear about our willingness to learn with our partners in this effort, to refine our approach accordingly, and to help to advance the field’s understanding of the many ways to engage a broader cross-section of Californians (in our case) in the arts.

To draw from Diane Ragsdale’s very thoughtful analysis, I suppose one person’s coaxing might be another person’s coercion, but I hope what we will be able to do via this work is to co-create. In the end, we care about impact. And we believe that to maximize our ability to have impact requires a clear, focused and coherent strategic direction. That’s what we are aiming for in the Arts, similar to what we have already been committed to in our other core program areas of Youth and California Democracy.

Just as we lament the fact that the arts are too often (and wrongly) viewed by funders as discretionary or recreational, so must we demand that arts grantmaking be guided by the same level of rigor and strategic direction as other program areas. That’s what we are striving for at Irvine, and we know that we have much to learn along this journey. And that’s why I have been inspired and pleased by the active engagement from others, demonstrative of the evolution of transparency in philanthropy. So, please keep the ideas, observations and critiques coming. It’s the best way to ensure we can achieve the end we all agree upon: a vibrant, relevant and successful arts field. And in doing so, we might just model new ways for foundations and their partners to engage, debate, discuss and learn together.

-Jim Canales

Share This Blog

  • Share This

About Transparency Talk

  • Transparency Talk, the Glasspockets blog, is a platform for candid and constructive conversation about foundation transparency and accountability. In this space, Foundation Center highlights strategies, findings, and best practices on the web and in foundations–illuminating the importance of having "glass pockets."

    The views expressed in this blog do not necessarily reflect the views of the Foundation Center.

    Questions and comments may be
    directed to:

    Janet Camarena
    Director, Transparency Initiatives
    Foundation Center

    If you are interested in being a
    guest contributor, contact:
    glasspockets@foundationcenter.org

Subscribe to Transparency Talk

Categories