At the opening of the 2011 American Public Health Association (APHA) Conference in Washington, D.C., last week, a collection of very provocative opening presentations challenged all 12,000-plus attendees to work harder for the health of those most in need. To view a few of the presentations, including one from former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, visit APHA's YouTube Page .

During that same opening session, attendees were encouraged to visit the new Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial. I did that and found the monument very thought-provoking. Below is a quote and picture from the memorial. If you've been there, what did you think?

The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy. - Martin Luther King

The APHA Conference featured more than 1,000 scientific presentations, including one based on our work with the Foundation for a Healthy Kentucky on the Kentucky Health Issues Poll (KHIP). Take a quick look at our slides:

This presentation reviewed how the addition of surveys with the cell phone-only population can affect the results of traditional landline surveys, and considered the costs and benefits of adding this hard-to-reach, but growing, population of telephone users.

KHIP is a random-digit-dialing telephone health opinion survey of more than 1,500 adults that has been conducted annually since 2008. Landline-only samples fell short of U.S. Census estimates of young and non-white people living in Kentucky. Therefore, a sample of more than 200 cell phone-only households was included in the 2009 and 2010 KHIP. In both years, the unweighted cell phone-only sample was significantly more likely than the unweighted landline sample to be non-white and to be younger than 35 years old.

Combining landline-only and cell phone-only surveys resulted in improved sample coverage, but did this improved coverage affect results? The answer is yes. The cell-phone sample included considerably more uninsured Kentuckians than would have otherwise been possible with a landline-only sample.

Last year, we partnered with the Center for Effective Philanthropy to conduct our second Grantee Perception Survey. Ninety six of our grantees participated in the survey, which asks questions about our grantmaking and reporting processes, our work in the community, and grantees' interactions with our staff and associates.

These survey results were really important to me. If you haven't noticed, we've experienced quite a bit of change at the Health Foundation in the past year. I think those changes are good, and I hope you agree. But one thing I don't want to see change is the Health Foundation's commitment to doing the best work possible with and for our grantee partners. The Health Foundation has a longstanding commitment to learning, and the Grantee Perception Survey results are a critical piece of information in our feedback loop.

You can download the full report here. But for those of you who'd rather just have the highlights, I've made a quick list:

• 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.

This was an exciting week at the Foundation. We hosted our 10th annual Distinguished Evaluator workship, where we honored Dr. Ann McCracken and her vision of building capacity for evaluation within nonprofit organizations. Ann shared some of her favorite evaluation "lessons learned," and talked about how and why she developed a capacity building approach to evaluation (If you missed it, her presentation is below). We also enjoyed a screening of Saving Philanthropy, a documentary that explores the role of outcomes-driven decision making in nonprofit organizations. After lunch, we enjoyed an afternoon of discussion about how we can work together to strengthen evaluation and a culture of outcomes in our community.

I want to say a special thank you to the panel participants who were willing to share their insights, challenges and ideas with the group:

Diane Wright, Greater Cincinnati Behavioral Health

Mary Carol Melton, Cincinnati Union Bethel

Shiloh Turner, The Greater Cincinnati Foundation

Ann Barnum, The Health Foundation of Greater Cincinnati

Kate Robinson, Saving Philanthropy

During the workshop, we mentioned a number of resources for folks who are interested in learning more about the topic. This isn't a comprehensive list, but I hope it will offer good starting point for those of you who want to know more. If you have resources to share, feel free to post them in the comments.

Health Foundation Events:

Organizations profiled in Saving Philanthropy:
ROCA
Nurse Family Partnership

Tools & Reports
Learning for Social Impact Learning Driven Assessment Workbook

Tools and Resources for Assessing Social Impact (TRASI) More than 150 assessment tools and resources collected by the Foundation Center

Impact Reporting and Investment Standards (IRIS) a group of funders and investors who are working to create a common language for reporting social and environmental impact

Charting Impact The Independent Sector's framework for strategic thinking and sharing impact

Other Information:

Pew Research Center Pew data on national and international trends

American Evaluation Associaton's Tip of the Day Short, practical tips related to evaluation and measurement

Venture Philanthropy Partners Free download of A Leap of Reason: Managing to Outcomes in an Era of Scarcity

Stanford Social Innovation Review: Social Return on Investment Articles on evaluation, impact and nonprofits

Blog: PhilanTopic from Philanthropy News Digest If you only have time for one blog, read PhilanTopic's weekly news roundup (posted on Sundays)

If you could have one superhuman power, what would it be? If I could pick one super power, I'd want the ability to quantify anything. Instantly. Stop for a minute and think about how useful the power of quantification would be in your real life:

• You go to the car dealership and say, "Bottom line: this purchase will only improve my quality of life if I can get it for less than $14,000. Can you do that or not?" You walk away with a great deal.
• After trying three different brands of laundry detergent, you can immediately tell which one is the most effective.
• You always precisely calculate the number of jelly beans in the giant jar.

Let me give you a glimpse into the mind of a foundation evaluator. When we funders start asking for "impact" and "outcomes" and "measurable results," we're not just looking to put our grantees through the exercise of doing evaluation. We're not even looking for grantees to prove that they're superheroes. We already know that our grantees are superheroes. They save lives day in and day out. Funders ask for outcomes because we want to see our grantees tap into the power of quantification – to put on their capes and show the world what they can do.

Clearly, none of us have superhuman powers of quantification. In real life, evaluation isn't so easy. It takes time, energy, and resources to collect and analyze data. Sometimes I see people who put so much energy into getting the outcomes that they don't have much left over to look at them. That's when quantification becomes more like kryptonite than a super power – it drains rather than energizes. And that worries me because the power of quantification doesn't come from calculating outcomes. It comes from using them.

All of this begs the question: how can we better support the use of outcomes in our community? On June 14th, our 2011 Distinguished Evaluator, Dr. Ann McCracken, is going to help us tackle that question and give us some hints on how we can tap into the power of evaluation. Then, we'll get a sneak peek at Saving Philanthropy, a PBS documentary that explores how some nonprofits developed and use their powers of quantification. Finally, we'll spend the afternoon talking about how our community can work together to build evaluation capacity so that we all walk away with some ideas for making our own work more powerful. It's going to be an exciting day, and I hope you can make it.

To find out more about the workshop (or to register), check out the Health Foundation's website. If you'd like to know more about Saving Philanthropy, you can go to www.savingphilanthropy.org.

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

Knowledge is power. Take the weather for example. If you know the temperature, you know if you should wear a sweater or a sun dress or if you should take your umbrella with you. Pioneers stuck their heads out the window or walked outside to check the weather. Today, we are more likely to check the weather channel.

NOAA can be an inspiration for people interested in improving local health data. NOAA you ask, who is that? NOAA is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. They provide the bulk of the weather data used in the U.S. NOAA provides high-quality, easy-to-use weather data for free and people use the data to inform the public (think your local weather reporter or www.weather.com).

Health data empower entire communities. Health data are past the stick-your-head-out-the-window phase, but they are not quite to the NOAA stage. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is hoping to change that and become the NOAA of health data. By the end of 2010, HHS is planning to release, free of charge and without any restrictions, a wealth of health data through the Community Health Data Initiative ( www.hhs.gov/open/plan/opengovernmentplan/initiatives/initiative.html).

As part of the Foundation's effort to improve community health data, I was in D.C. two weeks ago for the launch of this initiative. The organizers of the initiative, HHS Chief Information Officer (CIO) Todd Park and White House Chief Technology Officer (CTO) Aneesh Chopra, said they wanted to "free" the data. The hope is that providing quality data will inspire local innovators to use and analyze these data in ways that lead to improved local health.

This project is very exciting for organizations like the Health Foundation that have been working on improving community health data. The Community Health Data Initiative has created a lot of buzz online, including comments by Craig Newark (Craig of Craigslist) in the Huffington Post ( Huffington Post).

Some of the early examples we saw at the launch included:

• innovative data analysis tools by Google and Bing that will go public soon
• Sonoma County's Network of Care for Healthy Communities ( Sonoma Network of Care)
• a GPS device that allows asthmatics to track location and time of each use (Asthmapolis)

What is keeping you from using health data? What tools or resources do you need to use data to improve health?

In two recent blogs, Christine Mulvin talked about the value of using graphs and charts to describe activities and data. I just finished six site visits related to the Foundation's Getting and Keeping People in Substance Use Disorder Treatment: Using the NIATx Approach and was reminded of this fact. At the site visits, potential grantees showed us problems that they found during a walk-through of initial client requests for services and the intake and assessment procedures. Some of them used flow charts to describe their procedures and the changes that they made. Others used graphs to show the results of rapid changes they had done to increase client engagement or retention in services over a two or three week period. It was so much easier to see what was going on within the agencies when they used these visual methods to share their activities. It was also obvious to us on our visits which agencies were having easier times collecting data and using it and which agencies were having more difficulty.

The other thing that stood out at these visits was that data did not tell the entire story. The passion that people had for their work came through in the client and agency vignettes that they shared (or did not share) as they talked about the goal of engaging and retaining clients in addiction treatment. At one site visit, we heard the story of a person who would have waited 21-28 days to get into treatment using old procedures, but now was getting into treatment one day after the initial call because of the changes that were made in agency procedure. The staff were excited because they knew that this change would improve the person interest in the early part of treatment and reduce resistance to the personal changes needed to gain and maintain sobriety. For the Foundation staff, the combination of data communicated in an understandable way and passion for the people whom agencies treat is a winning combination.

I wanted to call this blog from ice picks to applesauce, but I didn't think as many people would read it.

As many of you know, I recently had a second child. This means double the preparation every morning for daycare. My husband and I use a large backpack to carry all the things my kids need for the day. Last week, as I was packing this backpack, I realized that it had been completely repurposed. I purchased the very expensive backpack 5 or 6 years ago, before my husband and I had children. At that time, we were living in Italy and doing some serious alpine hiking. Last week, I put my son's applesauce in the compartment designed for my ice pick. Oh how life changes!! This backpack is a very expensive way to carry stuff to and from daycare every day, but it's what we already have so I will continue to use it.

This same thing happens often when nonprofits purchase technology: they use what they have. Sometimes this means trying to do things in Excel or Access that specialty software could do much better. Or, it means spending a lot of money on specialty software when a simple Access database could do the trick.

It is difficult to know what or how much your organization needs now and for the future. This is particularly true with donor management. I sometimes get asked about good donor management systems. There are so many options out there and each organization has different needs so this question is always difficult for me to answer. Luckily, a friend just sent me the Nonprofit Technology Network's (NTEN) excellent (and free!) report that thoroughly compares donor management systems for differently situated organizations. If you're in the market or wondering if what you have is a good fit, check out: A Consumer's Guide to Low Cost Donor Management Systems. I hope that this report will help you make a more informed choice.