As the hectic holiday season and year-end activities draw to a close, many of us start planning for the coming year. If your plans include scheduling to attend any of our excellent Capacity Building Programs for Nonprofits, the online catalog is available. It can be viewed or downloaded for printing. https://www.healthfoundation.org/about/events.html The Health Foundation of Greater Cincinnati in cooperation with SC Ministry Foundation will continue to offer workshops particularly targeted to staff, volunteers and boards of small to medium size nonprofits. There are some new workshops as well as a few that have been core over the years. Our goals are to provide affordable workshops and to build expertise in business development, communication, evaluation and data, and fundraising. We anticipate adding some additional board development webinars. I invite you to share this blog or forward the information to any regional nonprofits. To register for a workshop, visit http://regisater.healthfoundation.org or call 513-458-6680.

I had the pleasure of attending Philanthropy Forward 2011, the annual conference of the Ohio Grantmakers Forum, last month in Columbus. For me the conference was an initiation of sorts into the world of philanthropy. I came to my job as the Health Foundation's Director of Publications in June after a 15-year career in the newspaper industry. The world of foundations and grantmaking was almost completely new to me. Thanks to the conference, I now better understand the breadth and impact of philanthropy, both the kinds of organizations involved (from private community foundations to faith-based nonprofits) as well as the activities they fund (from health initiatives to social enterprise). Plus I met a lot of the great people who are doing this important work throughout the state every day.

The Health Foundation's own Shelly Stolarczyk-George presented the session "What Due Diligence Delivers," along with Kerry Shaw of the Osteopathic Heritage Foundations and Leonor Alfonso of Grantmakers for Effective Organizations. Shelly described her experiences with due diligence as the Foundation's Grants Manager. She helped participants develop strategies for getting information they need to make informed decisions about awarding grants while not overburdening grantees with information requests.

In addition, the two communications sessions I attended reinforced the importance of organizations' blogs and websites. It is there that groups can share their own story and engage advisers, donors and others interested in their mission. A well-designed, modern and sophisticated website can make a favorable impression of your organization on users. Thus, the use of photos and attention to the amount and spacing of type on a website are important. Finally, social media outlets such as Facebook and Twitter are a great way to direct users back to content on your blog or website.

Health Foundation Program Officer Ann Barnum (from left), Director of Evaluation Kelly Firesheets, Program Officer Francie Wolgin, Grants Manager Shelly Stolarczyk-George and Director of Publications Jeff Williams attended Philanthropy Forward 2011 in Columbus.

It's official. I've been to my first datapolooza. Two weeks ago, people from Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana met to celebrate all things health data at our very own regional health data forum.

You might expect a data forum to be sort of a niche event, but this certainly wasn't. There were more than 300 people representing all types of organizations and sectors. Yes, there was a fair share of "data wonks," but there really was a good mix of people in the audience: computer programmers, public health professionals, philanthropists, entrepreneurs, and direct service providers. All these folks in one room, talking about one common goal: using data to improve health.

You may be asking yourself what a datapolooza looks like. We started the day with a virtual welcome from Todd Parks, the Chief Technology Officer at the Department of Health and Human Services. (check out Todd's blog here), and a keynote from Bob Kocher. Then we hit the ground running with a day full of presentations about some of the innovative things folks in our region are doing with health data. Jennifer already hit on some of the examples of innovation we saw at the conference. If you haven't already, I encourage you to take a little bit of time to go check them out. I won't repeat them, but I will share a few of my own observations from the day:

• Data are the little black dresses of the 21st century – invest in a couple of good data points, and you'll be prepared for any occasion.
• Data sharing is the new norm and we need to get all sectors in the game. Government, nonprofit and corporate partnerships around data will drive innovation.
• We've only seen the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the power of social networking in health care. Technology offers a new connectedness that can change and save lives, but we need to be willing to rethink some of our assumptions and practices in order to fully benefit from it.
• There really are some cool things happening in Cincinnati. Our region is poised to be a leader in data, technology and health improvement. That should make us very proud.

I want to thank the more than 300 health data enthusiasts, non-profits, entrepreneurs, hospitals, health departments, community planners, researchers, students, and funders who participated in our Data! Fostering Health Innovation in Kentucky and Ohio event last week. We had a rich set of presentations on how health data is being liberated and used in Ohio and Kentucky. We are lucky to be in a region so rich in health data innovation. This innovation was recognized in the opening video message from Todd Park, Chief Technology Officer for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and one of the national leaders of the health data liberation movement, when he said, "The Cincinnati region is one of the shining stars in the health data and innovation sky." To view the video Click here.

He mentioned some great regional examples of health data innovation, including:

The co-hosts of the conference -The Foundation for a Healthy Kentucky and The Health Foundation of Greater Cincinnati

Dave Heilman and SparkPeople and his "spectacular work"

Mark Carrozza from HealthLandscape and Andrew Bazemore from The Robert Graham Center for Primary Care for their development of HealthLandscape and their "incredible work, which was also featured at a national HHS conference."

Keith Hepp and HealthBridge and their work on Health IT: "We've been in absolute awe of the work."

Matt Rhodes at The Louisville Health Department: "massive kudos."

As promised, we've posted all 17 of the wonderful presentations online. Click here to access them. Thanks also to the 24 tweeters who helped share some of the most exciting moments with those who were not at the event. To read a transcript of #dataforum tweets, please see the attached file.

And finally, congratulations to HealthLandscape the winner of the People's Choice Innovation Award. Click here to see a photo.

The first week of March, I attended the annual meeting of Grantmakers in Health (GIH), a national affinity group for foundations that fund health-related activities. Although I don't attend every year, I always come back from meetings with information that I can incorporate into my work. I thought that I would share what I learned this year with you.
• Many foundations approach prevention from an advocacy point of view: converting vacant lots to vegetable gardens, making sure a park is a safe place for walking and other activities, lobbying for better fluoridation of water, or smoke-free environments, etc. Here at the Health Foundation, we have developed the Assistance for Substance Abuse Prevention (ASAP) Center which approaches prevention from a different perspective. The ASAP Center is less about advocacy and more about teaching individuals and groups to use specific prevention practices. It was interesting for me to contemplate how we might use the other approach. One foundation shared a readiness assessment they use when working with communities that are trying to change their community environment or social norms. I wonder how this might be helpful for communities in the Health Foundation's region.
• One session was a breakfast meeting for the Behavioral Health Funders Network, a group of about 70 funders within GIH. John O'Brien, senior advisor on healthcare financing at the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), shared the SAMHSA strategic plan for 2011-2014. As a group, we discussed ways that the federal government might partner with foundations in behavioral health. Even though I had heard the SAMHSA strategic initiatives before, I recognized nuances of the SAMHSA strategic plan I had not seen before. This will hopefully turn into an improved ability to coach grantees attempting to get SAMHSA funds.
• In a session about "what keeps you up at night," I learned that many foundations are in the midst of transitions in leadership. Since we have just gone through a transition in leadership here, it was good to listen to others and offer some guidance from our experience. I was reminded of some transition practices that might be helpful for our grantees that are or soon will be going through transitions. These included developing a succession plan before the time for new leadership emerges, using both board and staff involvement in the search process for new leadership, and forming a transition team from all parts and levels of the organization to help guide the new leader in the first few months of the job. For new leaders, those present recommended taking at least a year to get situated before making major changes.
• In many of the sessions, I was reminded that as grantmakers it is important to start where our communities are. What works in Los Angeles or New York or a small rural community in Nebraska might not necessarily work here in Greater Cincinnati. It might sound great, but I can't push it on people here. I can share, but forcing people to do something "my way" rarely works.

Does any of this raise questions for you? What did you learn at your last conference that you want to share?

I planned to have this blog be the last of a 3-part series on what I learned at the Communications Network conference. I was going to talk about two points that Sendhil Mullainathan, a behavioral economist and director of ideas42 and an affiliated professor of the Poverty Action Lab made:

• When people see numbers, they interpret the meaning of those numbers out of the context used around the numbers. Are we giving people scales and numbers they can relate to?
• When delivering a message, it's not the words or the messenger, it's the what the audience thinks that matters. Do we have the right model of how our audience thinks?

That was what I intended to blog about this week. But what's on my mind is vacation: I leave on Friday. Actually, what I'm thinking about is getting everything done before I go. And I think I have everything done. I've finished all the projects I currently have on my desk, and will have a batch of new projects waiting for me on November 12, when I'm back in the office.

As I sat down to write this blog, though, I realized that my time away will allow me to really start fresh with new projects on the 12th. I won't be bogged down with other work (except checking e-mail, of course) and can give more thought to the projects before I start them than I sometimes can. I can look at them with a fresh eye and make sure the scales and numbers make sense to the audience. I can take time to challenge myself about what model I think the audience members have in their heads and see if there are other models I haven't considered. Which is a good thing, because the first projects I'll tackle when I get back all deal with numbers and data. I know that it's vital with communications projects to make sure to keep the audience in mind. How they view numbers, what scales they use, and what frames of thinking they hold have a strong influence on how they receive a message. For example, U.S. college students consumed 430 million gallons of alcoholic beverages in 1991. 430 million gallons seems like a lot, but it's hard to wrap your head around.

But I can make it easier to grasp by changing the context, using what's known as "social math," and putting the amount in a different quantity: In 1991, U.S. college students drank enough alcohol to fill 3,500 Olympic-size swimming pools. That is something more tangible that people can relate to.

Audience, frames, and context are important. But when things get busy, it's hard to find the time to reflect on those things. It's easier to work under the assumptions we already hold. Challenging those takes time and energy, which are valuable commodities in short supply.

This reminds me that I have to build in that time, and not let it fall by the way side. Or save it until I get back from vacation. How do you build time into your busy work week for that critical thinking and reflecting? What tips or advice can you share?

Sendhil Mullainathan, a behavioral economist and director of ideas42 and an affiliated professor of the Poverty Action Lab, wrapped up the Communications Network's annual conference last month. He built a little on Jim Surowiecki's crowdsourcing topic I discussed last week but really delved into the rationale behind choices.

Three points he made were:

• Just because we have intentions doesn't mean we will act on them. So we may intend to get up at 5:00 a.m. and work out, but when that alarm goes off the next morning, we hit snooze.
• Self-control is a psychological problem affected by the environment we put ourselves in. Our preferences are changeable, and many things move and affect what we prefer.
• Attention is a scarce commodity, but what comes to our attention is often beyond our control.

Then he tied that in to the work of the social services sector when he pointed out that programs we run charge participants psychic resources. People have to "pay" with their energy and emotions to join a counseling session, visit a doctor, sign up for federal assistance programs, or apply for a grant from a foundation.

So are we aware of the psychic resources we are charging our participants? Are we supporting their intentions? Are we creating an environment that supports their self-control, or are we distracting them from what they really need? Are we bringing to their attention the things that matter to them, or to us?

It echoes the notions of "getting into another box" and "listening to other people rather than the usual suspects" that I mentioned last week. We usually design programs and processes from our perspective, not from the perspective of the people who participate. The NIATx initiative in our Substance Use Disorders focus area tries to get at that with it's walkthrough approach, where staff of a treatment organization walk through the registration, enrollment, and other processes that clients have to do in order to get services. It takes a look at things from the other side of the desk.

How do you look at the other side of the desk? What can you tell us to help us learn what things are like from your side?

Last week, while at the Communications Network annual conference, I had the pleasure of listening to 5 great keynote speakers. They gave me lots of food for thought, and I'm passing it along in this and my next 2 blog posts.

Jim Surowiecki, columnist for The New Yorker, kicked off the conference with a discussion of the ideas in his book, The Wisdom of Crowds. Basically, under the right conditions, a group as a whole can be smarter than the smartest person in the group. What are those right conditions? According to Surowiecki, you need three things:

• A meaningful way to aggregate the data and opinions. You have to take what you hear and actually do something with it, so you have to combine it in a way that makes it easier for you to find the nuggets and act on them.
• Cognitive diversity. You need people who have different ways of processing information and framing a problem, as well as people with different ideas, tools, life experiences, and perspectives. This expands the range of information within the group. Surowiecki pointed out that 90% of the time, a random group will outperform the experts, even though their IQ is lower. They know less as individuals but group has wider range of outlooks and perspectives. It helps avoid everyone making the same mistake. Conversations in homogenous groups tend to become an echo chamber.
• People who think for themselves. You need independence of thought, and you need people who will say what they think. You also need a safe environment in which to do so--you have to let people say whatever is on their minds and take it seriously, without criticizing or dismissing it out of hand.

Lucy Bernholz, a blogger on philanthropy and author of Disrupting Philanthropy, echoed the sentiment of cognitive diversity when she said in a later session, "When you talk to someone you know you'll agree with, you lose the wisdom of crowds and invoke the rule of mobs."

So are we just following the guy with torch? Do we really try to tap into the wisdom of crowds? If not, how can we tap into that wisdom?

Social media is one seemingly easy answer--it definitely expands who you can reach. However, most people use it to talk to the usual suspects. As Bernholz challenged us, "Are we taking yesterday's message and using technology to accelerate it to people already in our rolodex?"

I think the answer lies even before choosing a tool or method for tapping into the wisdom of the crowd. We first have to expand who we are listening to. And we have to go to them, we can't wait for them to come to us. As Jacob Harold, a conference attendee from the Hewlett Foundation said, "Don't think outside the box, actually get into another box."

Where are those other boxes the Health Foundation should get into? What crowds in Greater Cincinnati should we reach out to and listen to? Whose wisdom are we missing?

A blurb in a newsletter I got this week caught my eye:

"Presentation advice from Monty Python's John Cleese: What can Monty Python teach you about being creative?"

I was feeling particularly overwhelmed and undercreative--and I'm a huge fan of John Cleese--so I clicked the link. It was to Garr Reynold's Presentation Zen blog, which has lots of good tips and advice on presentations.

The blog post contained a link to a 10-minute video of a presentation John Cleese gave on creativity. In the video, Cleese talked about creating a "tortoise enclosure" in order to let your creativity come out. In that enclosure, you create an oasis of boundaries of both space and time. Get rid of all distractions--computers, phones, everything. Because, as Cleese says, "We don't know where we get our ideas from. We do know that we do not get them from our laptops."

Reynolds ended his blog post with this image:

I like this quote, and it got me thinking. Back in college, I had my tortoise enclosures. Whenever I needed to do homework that required lots of thought and creativity--whether it was an essay for Brit Lit or my Differential Equations "opportunity set" (Sr. Ann Mason didn't call them "problems," she called them "opportunities")--I headed to the back corner of the library on the 2nd floor of the Academic Building when the weather was cold or wet, or to the grassy area near Wege Pond when it was warm or dry. While I didn't have a cell phone, I usually took my Walkman and a couple cassette tapes. I work better with background music.

Cleese's presentation made me realize that I don't have a tortoise enclosure in my professional life. I am interrupted frequently during my day by the phone, e-mail, coworkers, etc. Which, most of the time, is okay--I've learned techniques over the years that help minimize the effect of distractions. But there are times when I really need to not be interrupted so I can do some creative thinking, and I don't create the oasis of boundaries that I need.

So while it's a little early for New Year's Resolutions, I think mine is going to be to find my new tortoise enclosure. Closing my office door won't work--I don't have one in my cubicle. And the back corner of the library and Wege Pond are 6 hours away.

Where do you go to do your creative thinking? What advice do you have for creating a tortoise enclosure in an open office environment?

This week has been a real test of the Health Foundation's belief in sharing openly all of the public opinion polling data collected by our Health Issues Polls . I have received many calls from people on both sides of the issue, but especially calls from the smoking and liquor lobby thanking me for my groundbreaking work. They are also asking for more specifics about our poll that shows that Ohioans want the smoking ban in bars lifted.

First, let me set the record straight: our data show that Ohioans are split on support for the ban on smoking in bars. There is no great call to arms to repeal the ban based on our findings: 51% said they want to repeal the ban, 47% said they wanted to keep it in place. But the calls I've gotten from the public give me serious pause: How can I, a staff member of The Health Foundation of Greater Cincinnati, an organization that has given over $14 million in grants to reduce alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use in our region, be providing data to groups who want to encourage increased consumption of cigarettes?

My answer is transparency and reliability. The Health Foundation believes that we must provide high-quality, reliable, local public opinion data so people can make data-driven decisions. We know we cannot control public opinion, but understanding what people think is critical to the work that we do.

In order for the Health Foundation to be a legitimate source of high-quality, reliable data, we cannot just release the data we like best. This means that when we ask tough public opinion questions, we are not always going to get the answers that we hope for. But it is our responsibility to provide the data to the community.

One very important distinction that was not made in the media is the difference between public opinion data and research data. We used good polling techniques to obtain the opinions regarding smoking in bars, but that doesn't change the research data that shows that first- and second-hand smoke cause cancer of the lungs, mouth, throat, and other cancers in people who smoke in a bar (or anywhere for that matter) and, because of the prolonged exposure, people who work in bars. The poll data show that the public is divided on whether or not people should be permitted to smoke in bars. The research data show clearly that smoking causes cancer, emphysema, and many other unpleasant or fatal illnesses.

Unfortunately, while the media chose to spin the spilt on support for the smoking ban in bars into a cry for repeal of the law they have missed other stories that I think are much more interesting:

• The majority of smokers support continued ban on smoking in restaurants and workplaces
• A third of Kentuckians are uninsured
• Most Ohioans and Kentuckians support mental health and substance abuse treatment over incarceration for non-violent offenders
• Most of Ohioans and Kentuckians support healthcare reform