Working with under resourced youth populations for over twenty years in both the public and non profit sectors, I’ve observed the narratives that exist on both sides of misleading data. I’ve seen thousands of dollars awarded (or not) based on this ‘information’. I’ve seen agencies doing dismal work appear like they’re changing the world. I also spent a few years working with disadvantaged adults and have seen those numbers tout imaginary successes as well. Ironically, although there’s been limited systems based improvements overall, it seems that almost every year data suggests improvements among disenfranchised populations; fairly consistently. Whether the markers are in housing, employment, health, etc., systematically, across the nation, improvements are touted almost every year in countless reports and grant applications. What I’ve always wondered is that if ‘things’ are improving, why isn’t that reflected in the numbers that really matter - e.g., the number of people who are homeless, who are on public assistance and the number who are ‘sustainably’ employed? There’s a host of reasons, but at the forefront is the fact that most non-profit funders are so disconnected from service delivery that they take most of the statistical information reported as ‘real data’; and truth of the matter is most truly believe they are helping and offer assistance with genuine altruism. Aligned with that there’s no incentive to dig deeper - as long as it appears that things are getting better.
Doesn’t anybody want to see the real numbers? They wouldn’t be nearly as promising and more than likely, have an opposing effect but, they would better prepare funders to take the challenges head on and start challenging their constituents around creating real and sustainable solutions.
To put things into perspective, a few years ago I had the opportunity to meet with the CFO of one of the larger non profits in the San Jose area. The cofounder of the non profit I’m a part of and I just wanted to get a little insight into the world of non profits - especially since we were in the initial process of getting ours off the ground. During our meeting I’d expressed my frustration with overstated statistical data that annually purports improvements among foster youth who’ve aged out of foster care. The CFO shared with us (very matter of factly) that it wasn’t necessarily about improvements, it’s about making it look like there were improvements - data manipulation. I couldn’t believe what I heard - but then again, I could. In an oxymoronic way it made sense. It was further explained and supports my previous notion that typical funders are so far removed from service delivery, and so inundated with their own respective missions, that ‘reported information’ is typically taken as fact - no questions asked. And that’s the way that it goes in almost every area where statistical data is collected, measured and interpreted concerning the lives of these vulnerable, often forgotten about, under resourced populations.
Employment is a perfect example. If a report suggests that 90% of the youth being served are ‘employed’, or ‘work more than 30 hours a week’ - most funders would consider this a success. What’s missing from this misleading data, however, are several key points. Is the youth making a living wage? Is the youth also receiving public assistance? Is the youth housed? Is the youth working more than one job? Is there any room for advancement? How long has the youth been employed? Does the youth support more than themselves? This same line of questioning can be used with other employment data. For example, national unemployment numbers. Prior to the pandemic I’d been hearing fairly consistently over the last few years that unemployment is down - especially when it comes to people of color. The realities, for those willing to do even the most basic research, will demonstrate that the statistical data that seems too good to be true is typically just that. Its purpose is pretty straight forward. To mislead the public into thinking that things are getting better. The sad reality is that, more often than not, it actually works in perpetuating the myth that things are getting better. If you think about it - when information is shared on ‘low unemployment’ numbers - is it typically accompanied by a footnote reporting wages, hours worked, time on the job, or whether or not any of the ‘employed’ are on public assistance? Probably not. Sometimes the truth hurts. But that doesn’t mean we should avoid it.
Comments