Reimagining the Role of Data in Philanthropy

Sulma Gandhi, DrBA MSc, joined Stupski Foundation in 2021 as the Hawaiʻi health program officer, her first role from a funder perspective after years of experience as a grantee. As a longtime East Hawai‘i Island resident with a background in public, private, and nonprofit work, Gandhi’s approach to grantmaking is rooted in community and power sharing. Gandhi sat down with Hawai‘i Data Collaborative (HDC) to discuss the role data plays – along with relationship building – in redefining the dynamic between funders and grantee organizations.

Data and Power

“Data has historically had a very central role in philanthropy, at least in the last 50 years or so where data has determined what priorities get attention and funding, which organizations receive grants, and how work and initiatives are evaluated,” Gandhi explains. In this historical model, data may tend to reinforce the power differential between funders and grantees. Gandhi has seen, and experienced as a grantee, how community-based organizations that depend on private funding are obligated to comply with data and reporting requirements determined by funders, which may or may not align with actual impact or internal priorities. “Data for the sake of data just to get dollars is frustrating - it is a resource being diverted to prove and validate their existence to a funder rather than utilizing it for community,” says Gandhi.

From experience, Gandhi explains how in some communities and organizations, the data requirements of conventional requests for proposals (RFPs) may not even be feasible to meet. Some smaller communities don’t have the data to support their work because there is little evidence-based practice or statistical significance due to small populations. And yet, she notes there are leaders and longtime community members who know the community well and can effectively address issues. “‘Evidence-based’ may not be accessible to all organizations, as going through the process of proving and quantifying practices can bear a significant cost with only marginal benefit.”

Gandhi continues, “Organizations are compelled to develop the capacity to collect and report data because philanthropy has demanded it, not necessarily because it’s been effective in solving problems writ large. This hidden burden is a result of the data-driven mindset - what resources do organizations divert to capture and report data that funders require, but that may not be useful to impact work? Many organizations have become adept at data just for this purpose, but the fundamental question is: how can anyone with any precision say that a specific dollar given has led to a specific outcome?”

A Collaborative Approach to Data Strategy and Reporting

Most organizations have their own internal data, compass, and accountability systems. Rather than funders imposing requirements through the RFP and reporting process that dictates an organization’s data strategy and resource allocation, Gandhi wonders what if instead they asked, “What work needs to be done? What does success look like to you? What did we learn and how are we applying those learnings?”

Gandhi works with partners to develop a learning strategy based on shared questions and curiosities. “Adopting their data priorities, rather than telling folks what to measure, is important. I am a thought partner and collaborator. In working with organizations, I acknowledge that a power differential exists, then consciously work to share that power so organizations have the discretion to do what they need to do,” says Gandhi.

In the past, organizations collected internal data to measure impact, and reporting data for funders. Now, Gandhi does not ask organizations for reports. Instead, she asks organizations to meet with her once a year to share learnings and challenges, problem solve, and celebrate together. The result has been grantee partners inviting her to engage in greater involvement and partnership, with them driving the cadence of communication. By reducing reporting requirements, Gandhi has created a space where organizations can be vulnerable, share challenges, and come together to find solutions with her. “Everyone has stories to tell and data to share, so we focus on what’s compelling to the organization…so there isn’t a disconnect between reporting [requirements] and the evolving needs of the community. This allows for deeper collaboration, and keeps funders engaged in community-driven solutions and change,” says Gandhi. By building trust around data and power, Gandhi shifts her funder-grantee relationship into true partnerships in the larger systemic and strategic sense.

Aggregated Data as a Starting Point: Confirming What We Already Know in Our Bones

Aside from insight gained from experience, Gandhi shares how aggregated community data – data that provides quantitative information about the geography of health, resourcing, and challenges across our communities – can benefit both funders and organizations by offering a common starting point. It provides the potential to determine which populations are most affected by revealing where and which inequities and needs exist. Along with aggregated data, data-guided storytelling validates what people actually experience and can catalyze support for our communities with the greatest need. Speaking to the value of having aggregated data that’s not program-specific, Gandhi says, “I think it’s my job to understand communities. It’s not the grantee’s job to prove something about the population or community.”

“How organizations choose to use data and [by extension] hold their power is a practice decision,” says Gandhi. “Fundamentally, we already know what and where the challenges are, [but] we can confirm what we know in our bones with data. It’s about building connections and seeing who could leverage resources [to develop solutions]. It’s more about the ‘who’ than the ‘what.’ Data drives decisions, but it’s trust that powers the relationships between grantees and funders.”

HDC Reflections

Reflecting on our conversation with Gandhi, two key themes stuck with us at HDC:

• The data capacities of community-based organizations should not be developed in response to reporting to funders, but rather enable organizations to leverage their data for internal sensemaking, adaptivity, and impact assessment.

• There are opportunities to think differently about reporting requirements and the role that plays in the funder-grantee relationships.

These insights leave us to wonder: what could happen if grantee capacities were freed up from onerous reporting requirements and refocused on internal sensemaking and insight? We hope to learn more as Gandhi’s work with her partners evolves.