Strategic Communications Audits

Nonprofit organizations are now continuously being challenged to be more strategic in their communications efforts. Communications activities must add up to more than a series of isolated events such as the dissemination of an occasional publication or press release. Being strategic requires that nonprofits be more deliberate, innovative, savvy, and less reactive in their communications practice. Nonprofits are encouraged to regard communications as essential to their overall success and integrate it throughout their organizations.1As a result of this movement, an array of new tools, resources, and trainings have been developed to help organizations better understand the concept of strategic communications, develop their own communications strategies, and evaluate them for both accountability and learning purposes. But while nonprofits are learning how to develop strategies and are gaining a better understanding of their importance, questions remain about their actual follow through in practice and nonprofits' overall capacity to implement their strategies given their relative inexperience in this field and the many priorities, including communications, that often compete for scarce organizational resources

LESSONS IN EVALUATING COMMUNICATIONS CAMPAIGNS

Builds on the findings of the first and second papers. It examines specifically how campaigns with different purposes (individual behavior change and policy change) have been evaluated, and how evaluators have tackled some of the associated evaluation challenges that the first three papers raised as important to address. It features fi ve brief case studies in which the main unit of analysis is not the campaign, but the campaign's evaluation. The case studies provide a brief snapshot of the real experiences of campaign evaluations. The paper also features cross-case lessons that highlight important findings and themes

Foundations and Public Policy Grantmaking

Foundations trying to better leverage their influence and improve their impact increasingly are being urged to embrace advocacy and public policy grantmaking as a way to substantially enhance their results and advance their missions. In fact, public policy grantmaking has been described as "one of the most powerful tools available to foundations for creating real change."1 The argument for public policy grantmaking is clear. Achieving large-scale and lasting results for individuals or communities -- a goal linked to many foundation missions -- typically cannot be accomplished with private resources alone. Often, it requires public investments and government directives. While a foundation might identify effective interventions, for example, and fund their implementation in several communities, larger and more sustainable funding sources are needed to scale up those interventions and broaden their impacts. Securing such commitments requires changes in public policies. This reasoning is persuasive. Yet to date, relatively few foundations have incorporated public policy into their grantmaking agendas. Although there is little doubt that the number of foundations moving in this direction has increased in recent years, foundations that make policy grants are still considered innovators among their peers. This paper is designed to inform how The James Irvine Foundation might frame, focus, and advance efforts to achieve policy reforms in its primary program areas. It is organized around a framework developed to support the Foundation's thinking about its grantmaking options. The framework is used throughout the paper to help the Foundation consider its positioning vis-a-vis broader philanthropic trends and how other foundations have positioned their grantmaking in the policy arena. The paper has four main sections. The first section describes the framework and how foundations can use it to develop grantmaking strategies for achieving public policy goals. The second section uses the framework to discuss current grantmaking trends. The third section offers brief case studies of four foundations' public policy grantmaking approaches. And the final section presents several lessons foundations should keep in mind when developing their public policy grantmaking strategies

Early Childhood Systems Building from a Community Perspective

Even when children and their families have access to support services from a variety of programs and organizations -- such as early learning centers, nutrition programs, and pediatric, nursing, dental and mental health care providers -- there are challenges in connecting families to these services. The result is that families often have a difficult time learning about, applying for and taking advantage of the services that could benefit their children. This Issue Brief, prepared for The Colorado Trust by Julia Coffman of the Center for Evaluation Innovation and Susan Parker of Clear Thinking Communications, explains systems building as an intentional, organized way to create or improve a system of early care and education services for children

Digital Transitions: Nonprofit Investigative Journalism: Evaluation Report on the Center for Public Integrity

Summarizes outcomes of a one-year grant to CPI to transform itself into a leader in digital nonprofit journalism. Examines CPI's track record, use of new tools and methods, capacity as an effective and credible online presence, and areas for improvement

How Shortcuts Cut Us Short: Cognitive Traps in Philanthropic Decision Making

Foundations need to build new ways of thinking and interaction that help to combat cognitive traps, support rigorous inquiry, and foster more deliberative decision making. This brief highlights several common cognitive traps that can trip up philanthropic decision making, and suggests straightforward steps that strategists, evaluators, and organizational learning staff can take to address them

Evaluating Communication Campaigns

Summarizes presentations from a September 2007 conference on evaluating communication campaigns. Discusses the mechanism of effecting change through communication; the principles of advocacy evaluation; the design, methods, and tools; and lessons learned

How Do You Measure Up? Finding Fit Between Foundations and Their Evaluation Functions

As the number of foundations has grown, the philosophies and ways of working across the sector have diversified. This variance means that there is no one right model for how a foundation’s evaluation function should be designed. It is imperative for a foundation to think carefully about how the structure, position, focus, resources, and practices of its evaluation function can best fit its own needs and aspirations. This article focuses on questions foundations can ask to assess that fit, and the specific considerations that can inform these decisions. It draws on 2015 benchmarking research conducted by the Center for Evaluation Innovation and Center for Effective Philanthropy to demonstrate how foundations across the sector are approaching these issues. This article also identifies common areas of misalignment between what foundations need and how they are spending their evaluation time and resources. For foundations that are new to evaluation, these are misalignments to avoid. For those experienced with evaluation, they are reminders of what to heed as practices are examined

Network Evaluation in Practice: Approaches and Applications

As more funders support networks as a mechanism for social change, new and practical knowledge is emerging about how to build and support effective networks. Based on extensive review of different types of networks and their evaluations, and on interviews with funders, network practitioners, and evaluation experts, the authors have developed an accessible framework for evaluating networks. This article describes the evaluation framework and its three pillars of network assessment: network connectivity, network health, and network results. Also presented are case examples of foundationfunded network evaluations focused on each pillar, which include practical information on evaluation designs, methods, and results, as well as a final discussion of areas for further attention

Lost Causal: Debunking Myths About Causal Analysis in Philanthropy

What if philanthropic evaluations told us that changes in the world had occurred, as well as how and why they occurred, including in what ways foundation funding and grantees contributed to those changes? What if evaluations made change pathways more visible, tested hypotheses and assumptions, and generated new insights based on what happened in the “black box” of systems change strategies? This type of learning comes from causal analysis — inquiry that explores cause-andeffect relationships. Yet currently in philanthropy, particularly for strategies and initiatives that feature high complexity, few evaluations use robust techniques for understanding causality. Instead, philanthropic evaluation tends to rely on descriptive measurement and analysis. These descriptions often are rich, meaningful, and in-depth, but they remain merely descriptions nonetheless. This article challenges the myths that hold us back from causal inquiry, allowing us to embrace curiosity, inquiry, and better knowing, even (or especially) if it means learning that our assumptions and theories do not hold up. We argue that philanthropy more frequently needs to examine causal relationships, using a growing suite of methodological approaches that make this possible in complex systems. Causal methodologies can challenge and strengthen the often uncontested beliefs that underlie philanthropic interventions, while offering evidence about enabling contexts and system drivers. Strong causal analysis considers not only the funder’s model and assumptions, but also the beliefs others hold about how and why change occurs, opening the door to more equitable and less biased ways of understanding change