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

Sometimes, when my to-do pile looks particularly daunting, I encourage myself by thinking about the sheer volume of knowledge that will be gained from all our grantees' evaluations. I get to see our grantees' evaluation plans, annual and final reports, but I always wonder where else all those evaluation results go. To you, it's probably the kind of stuff that seems like common knowledge by the time you're three years into a program: what worked and what didn't, who got better and who didn't, who finished the program and who dropped out. But this is exactly the kind of information that people would love to know before they start something new. What, exactly, happens to all that learning after the final report is turned in? Do people share it, or does it sit in a file cabinet somewhere and gather dust?

Our 2009 Sustainability Survey results tell me that that 69% of our grantees shared their results with other folks in their organization, and that 1/3 of our grantees have shared their evaluation results with a professional audience. I think that's pretty good, but I also think it could be better. Since this week starts the beginning of a new decade, it somehow seems fitting to issue a challenge. So here it is: if you have a final report sitting in a drawer somewhere, I challenge you to share it with someone. And I don't mean the person in the office next to yours (although if he or she is your Executive Director, you really should start there). Think big. Think "publication."

If this sounds a little intimidating, then let me encourage you a little. I see your outcomes, so I know you're doing good work. Other people really want to know how you pulled that off. Plus, if you've finished your final reports to your funders, you've done most of the work already. Don't let all that effort go to waste! Dust that report off and send it in to your favorite journal for publication. Put together an abstract and shop it around to a few state and national conferences. (Since some conferences waive registration fees for presenters, this can also be a budget-friendly way to get CEUs!) You won't know what the interest will be until you put it out there.

Not sure where to start? Check with your coworkers to see what they're reading or what conferences they like. If you need more direction, or you'd like to know what kinds of things other people have done, check with your Senior Program Officer. If you want a little extra support, the Foundation offers a number of resources: our Evaluation department is always available to assist you with data analysis and interpretation, and we have great Communications staff who can help you put together a slick presentation (including posters and PowerPoint) before you head off to your first conference.

(By the way, let us know when you're successful so that we can brag on you!)

My husband jokes that every time I go on an evaluation consult, I find myself a new job. And you know what? He's exactly right. It never fails that I go home and announce, "Today I met these people who are doing the neatest project! I would love to do that!"I think it's because every time I meet with a grantee, I discover a new organization or a new group of people that is passionate about its work. I am a complete sucker for passion, so I can't help but want to jump on board.

Passion is contagious. Passion can motivate and inspire. It can create momentum and change. It helps to overcome resistance and build connections. And, I've learned in my current job (where I get to do neat projects with passionate people) passion is key to a successful grant project.

How do I know this? You told me so. The Health Foundation recently completed our 2009 Sustainability Survey. In that survey, we asked past grantees to talk about the things that made their programs successful and to give advice to others who are doing similar work. Of course, they say money is helpful. You've got to pay the bills.

But even in these crazy economic times, most of our grantees noted that their strongest assets were not those of the financial variety, but their people. In our conversations with grantees, we learned that having passionate people-- employees, leaders, stakeholders, and advocates--is key to having a strong program. A grantee who responded to the survey said it better than I ever could:

You really need staff and your clinical director on board, and it's good to involve your whole clinical staff in the process. Take a really long look at your staff . . . You can have all the money in the world and the best plan, but if you don't have the right people, it doesn't matter.

But it's not enough to hire passionate staff. You've got to do something to keep them that way. And (let's be honest with each other) sometimes the daily grind of saving the world becomes . . . a daily grind (or a giant pile of paperwork!). Richard Perry, at Fundraising Success gives a few tips to help us fall "back in love" with our work. Richard points out that an organization with passionate employees gives them space for all the different things--celebration, fun, frustration, and disagreement--that go along with their passion. Successful organizations create an environment where staff can take ownership of the work they're doing and where they're encouraged to embrace the organization's vision as their personal one. They give people ways to fall in love with their work again and again.

What do you think of Richard's suggestions? What else does your organization do to help you rekindle the flame?

My husband and I are house hunting. On one of our recent home tours I got to the bottom of the basement stairs when I suddenly heard, "splash, splash," and realized that my feet were wet and that I was standing in a puddle of water. There was water everywhere. Too bad I thought, yet another potential future home scratched off the list. With baby number two on the way, our tiny apartment is suddenly feeling like a closet. But I have to admit that the thought of buying our first home is terrifying. It's an enormous amount of money and I am far from a home expert.

It is this same look of terror that I see in some of our grantees' eyes when we start talking about information technology upgrades. The grantee knows that technology should be part of the solution to effective and efficient health service delivery. Although they are not techies, they do know that technology has the potential to make their working lives easier. But they too are terrified about making technological changes. Their first thought is often about money. They ask themselves, "How can we possibly afford this sort of on-going expense?" Their second thought is, "We know nothing about technology." Finally, there may be concerns around negotiations and contracts with vendors.

Our grantees, like us, are often social workers and clinicians. While we frequently use computers, there is little in our academic preparation that gets us ready to negotiate the world of technology. How can we get what we need, at a cost we can afford, with contracts that protect us as the consumer?

If this sounds like you or your organization and you could use a little guidance on how to move up the technology ladder, consider attending our up-coming workshop on IT acquisition planning and vendor negotiations. On August 31st we're bringing in a nonprofit IT consultant from Pittsburgh who will help you figure out what you need and how to get it at a reasonable price. For more details, please visit http://www.healthfoundation.org/events/itplan.html.

How's this for a deal? You come to the workshop and start laying out some concrete steps on how to improve your organization's technology infrastructure, and I'll stop looking for bunk bed style cribs. Hope to see you there!