Sometimes it is Just Googling

We prospect researchers like to say, "Research is about more than just googling something."

Largely, that is true. But sometimes, it is just about googling:

http://letmegooglethatforyou.com/

(Thanks to my research colleagues who forwarded this on to me.)

Lessons from the Obama Campaign: Fundraising Done Right Becomes a Movement

I'm a West Coast-elite liberal who loves government spending. And I'm not so sure that I like Portland's publicly financed campaign system.

This is not only because I want to keep fundraisers in work.

Newly-elected city commissioner Amanda Fritz wrote an op-ed in last Friday's Oregonian extolling the value of publicly funded elections, largely because they keep your hands clean of that filthy job, fundraising.

Fritz sneers, "(A)sking affluent people for large sums of money isn't a 'skill' I want to develop."

I'd like to make an argument on behalf of the skill of asking affluent, or otherwise, people for large, or otherwise, sums of money.

Fritz paints an unseemly and money-grubbing image of fundraising, a world where she would be "beholden to... a few affluent donors with interests that don't always dovetail with community concerns."

Clearly some wealthy individuals (or their lobbyists) curry favor in shady ways with elected officials. However, Fritz suggests that the only campaign financing alternatives available are a) running a publicly-financed campaign or b) total abandonment of ethics.

There is a middle ground.

President-elect Barack Obama's powerful campaign demonstrated this. Fundraising done right becomes a movement.

In this crazy modern world with its internets, broad relationship-based fundraising is possible. (But most of your constituents have one-to-one relationships with each other instead of your staff.)

This emerging model also partners fundraising with volunteerism. Every constituent is a public relations volunteer and advisory board member. Some might actually show up to lend a hand in the real world. This lets the unwealthy majority more meaningfully engage with the cause to which they are contributing.

I commend Fritz for meeting with thousands of Portlanders to learn their needs and dreams. I wish she could have given them the chance to invest in community good right then and there by donating to her campaign.

Though Fritz received around $500,000 in taxpayer money to run her campaign for commissioner, I don't deeply feel my investment in her campaign. Government expenditure of my tax dollars rarely feels visceral like donating my money or time. (There are some notable exceptions to this rule, thanks largely to the Bush administration.)

I feel proud to have donated to Barack Obama's campaign. I, and millions of others, were given the ability to invest in something I cared about. That's true voter-owned elections.

This harks back to Arthur C. Brooks' argument (Fundraising Among Prisoners, 11/11/08) : offering people the opportunity to participate in creating community good is good for them, too.

That can be powerful stuff, as President-elect Obama demonstrated.

(All signs point to his continued use of the web to interact with a huge constituency: the entire United States. Weekly presidential address posted on YouTube? Brilliant.)

But it's not only about offering people the opportunity to give.

It's about demonstrating that one can bring community members together to support a shared goal, a skill of paramount importance for public servants.

It's about creating a movement. It's about the highest potential of fundraising -- fundraising that matches resources to needs, while creating a community of individuals working together for the greater good.

Heartwarming Tale of Research

Today's Oregonian featured one of Margie Boule's weekly "human interest" stories, the heartwarming tale of Nicole Knect. Nicole found her long-lost mother with the help of a private investigator's services, which he had donated to a monthly radio program called "Lost Loves" on KUPL.

Researchers out there, you'll appreciate this tale. Using only the mother's incredibly common name, Patricia Lee; her age; and the names and ages of her siblings, investigator Steve Robinett was able to track Patricia down in a care home forty years after then-eight-year old Nicole last saw her.

Go researcher, go!

Though private investigators do a lot more hanging around in weird parking lots than do prospect researchers, professionally speaking at least, they also spend a lot of time with databases these days.

If I ever get tired of development research, I suppose I could always get an awesome mustache, a Ferrari, and a Smith & Wesson 1911. (Thanks internets -- it's hard to believe people actually spend time being concerned about what kind of gun Magum P.I. used, and that I have just somehow joined that crew. Thank goodness it's a small crew.)

Also, I am not kidding. Magnum P.I. is awesome.

Simple Zip-Based Prospect Ranking Using Social Explorer and VLOOKUP

If you got past that title, then welcome, fellow nerd.

Today I faced a common conundrum of many a fundraiser: a looming deadline and a long list of potential donors that needed to be prioritized.

Background: About a year ago, the organization for which I work purchased a database screening (sending constituent records to a vendor for data modeling and/or having asset data appended). We had 975 additional screens remaining, and a fast-impending expiration date, after which we would lose the screens.

The data I had was sparse -- just the names and addresses of a pool of 3,715 potential donor prospects -- and I had mere hours to select the quarter of these 3,715 individuals I should screen. Because this type of screening is best used to identify major gift prospects, I wanted to get the best bang for my buck by narrowing my list to those who were likeliest to have sufficient wealth to make a gift of $25,000 or more to our organization.

By "pre-screening" the data, I figured I would wind up with a greater percentage of major gift prospects among my 975 names than I would were I to randomly select 975 individuals from the list of 3,715. (If you want to skip the how and get to the what happened, scroll to the end to see the results.)

What to do?

With only address data on hand, the path was clear: geodemography.

I decided to rank the prospects using census data: median income in each 5-digit zip code.

First, I had to get my hands on the census data. Then, I had to correlate the data to my prospect list. This is where VLOOKUP enters the picture, but first things first: the census data.

The U.S. Census site is an absolute nightmare to navigate, and extracting data from it is challenging and frustrating. (What is it with government websites? They are consistently awful.) Thank goodness for Social Explorer, which lets you create your own maps and reports based on U.S. Census data.

Social Explorer is very easy to use -- in the Reports tab, simply select your geographic area (in this case 5-digit zip code) and then select the demographic data you want to extract (Median Household Income in 1999). I decided that 1999 data was good enough for this project. When selecting your output, I recommend using the .csv (comma-separated values) or .tab (tab-delimited) option available in the "Download Data" tab. (The Excel option made a really weird output.)

So, I'm sure you're dying to know: when do we get to use Excel's VLOOKUP formula?

Right now!

The next thing I did was open up my list of 3,715 prospects. Then I created a second sheet (creatively named Sheet2) in the same workbook, and imported my .csv file from Social Explorer into Sheet2.

Now I had the prospects' zip codes and the median income by zip code list in the same Excel workbook. (They don't actually have to be; I just find it easier to work with that way.) I needed to correlate each prospect's zip code with the correct median income value so that I could rank them.

In situations like this, Excel's VLOOKUP (vertical look up) formula is ideal. I created a new column in my original prospect list called "Zip Median Income" and I entered the following formula in that column:

=VLOOKUP (F2,Sheet2!K:L,2,false)

This formula tells Excel:

1. Look at the value in cell F2. In this case, Column F contains the prospects' zip codes.
   
2. Now look up the value in F2 on a list in Sheet2 in Column K (the first column named in the range given in the formula). In this example, Column K contains all of the zip codes in the U.S.
   
3. Look at the second column in the range, Column L (median income), and return the value that is in the same row as the zip code match.
   
4. The last bit of instruction ("false") tells Excel "Don't accept somewhat close values -- I want you to look up and match the exact value that's in cell F2."

So, if the first prospect on my list lives in Esopus, NY, the value in cell F2 is 12429. Zip code 12429 is listed in Sheet2 in Column K. The corresponding median income value in Column L is $200,001 (since Esopus is one of the ten zip codes in the country that had a median income greater than $200,000 in 1999). The look up formula will return the value of $200,001.

Side note: What if your address data has zip+4 codes? Use the "Text to Columns" function on Excel's Data menu. Set the hyphen as your delimiter to split your zip+4 into two columns, one a 5-digit zip and the other the +4.

I used my new prospect list with its median income data to rank my prospects (or more accurately, to rank their zip codes) from highest median income to lowest median income. Additionally, I cross-referenced my prospect list with Forbes' Expensive Zip Code list, also using the VLOOKUP function, which helped me find a few more potential high-net worth individuals. (There are a few wealthy geographies with high home values but relatively low incomes, likely because the income data is skewed by a large retiree presence.)

So... the results?

Out of the 975 individuals I screened, the results indicated that over one-third appear to possess sufficient wealth to give a major gift. An additional third appear to have the capacity to make a significant gift of $10,000 or so. This was a fabulous result, since out of any given random prospect population, I would only expect five to ten percent at most to have the wealth required to make a major donation.

Calling All Map Nerds

Portland State University's Geography Department is hosting its semi-annual map sale on Thursday, November 20th from 12 p.m. to 4 p.m. Check it out at a table outside between Cramer Hall and Smith Center, and a table outside the Geography Department office, 4th Floor Cramer Hall. For more information , contact Friends of Geography, fog@pdx.edu.

Street With a View, the Surveillance Camera Players, and useful data vs. creepy data

View Larger Map


While considering the privacy implications of Google's Street View, Pittsburgh artists Robin Hewlett and Ben Kinsley conceived Street With a View. "(I)nstead of dwelling on the darker undertones of these issues, we began to think about ways of playing with the system," Kinsley said in an interview with the Associated Press.

They staged several scenes, including the marching band seen above and an attempted third-story escape via a bedsheet rope. The Google Street View team agreed to go along with the fun by driving the Street View vehicle down Sampsonia Way to capture the sights.

This stunt made me think of the Surveillance Camera Players, albeit a decidedly less protest-y version.



As a data manager, I often think about the line between useful data and invasion of privacy (creepy data). Comparing these two art projects inspired me to think of where Street View and surveillance cameras lie on what I call the "continuum of creepiness."

On my personal continuum, Street View occupies the "a little weird" end. Surveillance cameras are much further down, toward the "Microchips! The end time is near!" side.

I think it is a little odd that one can see into my windows via Google Street View, but it does not actually bother me. (My only Street View regret is that I was not photographed as a pedestrian by the Street View van. When it first went online, I "walked" all over my neighborhood to see if I could find myself.)

Conversely, surveillance cameras annoy and concern me a great deal.

I think part of the difference lies in the stakes involved -- so what if Google Street View reveals that I have an inordinate number of houseplants in my apartment? I'm willing to give up that bit of data in exchange for the ability to virtually walk down streets all over the world.

The stakes involved with surveillance by the state are so much higher. If a mistake is made (and there is no such thing as a 100% accurate data set), it may result in wrongful imprisonment, extraordinary rendition to some crazy top-secret overseas jail, etc.

Another distinction is the sheer volume of data involved. The more data you collect, the greater the risk of creepiness. Surveillance cameras collect a lot more data than does Google Street View, which is composed of still shots. Compare this to the real time footage of a surveillance camera, which may even be linked with other data. The thought of someone seeing a photo of my houseplants is non-threatening; the thought of someone being able to watch my movements is incredibly unnerving.

As data collection and collation capabilities expand, notions of privacy are rapidly evolving, and can be strikingly different from person to person. One person's useful data is another person's creepy data.

Where does Street View land on your personal continuum of creepiness? How is this different than, or similar to, your feelings about surveillance cameras?

Beautiful Evidence in Zip Code Heaven

One of my favorite websites of all time is Ben Fry's zip code map. I've actually used it for legitimate research queries a couple of times, but my appreciation for the site has far less to do with practical applications than with elegance and "beautiful evidence."

Crushed out on Google's Flu Trends

I love Google a little bit too much, especially considering that they are a ginormous corporation whose activities have major implications for privacy.

Yet, when they release something like Flu Trends (and note the .org address), I can't help but love them more! It's like having an inappropriate crush that you just can't let go.

(And no, this isn't directly related to fundraising, but as promised, this blog also concerns general nerdy things -- especially those related to data.)

Fundraising Among Prisoners

President-elect Obama is calling on Americans to serve their country through volunteerism. His plans include giving a $4,000/year higher education tax credit in exchange for 100 hours of community service each year and requiring all middle and high school students to do 50 hours of community service per year.

The immediate benefits to people in need within our communities are numerous and obvious. The hidden upside is that the widespread experience of giving will have a profound effect on our society.

Giving, whether time or money, makes the giver happier, healthier and wealthier. So says Arthur C. Brooks, who I saw speak at the Association of Professional Researchers for Advancement conference this past August. He talked about the "helper's high" and emphasized that human selfishness is actually unnatural -- our brains reward us with dopamine and other happy chemicals when we give.

In The Year of Living Biblically, in which A.J. Jacobs attempts to follow all of the rules of the Bible, he decides to tithe a portion of his income. He donates money online to several non-profit organizations:

"When the confirmation emails ping in, I feel good. There's a haunting line from the film Chariots of Fire. It's spoken by Eric Liddell, the most religious runner, the one who carries a Bible with him during his sprint. He says: 'When I run, I feel His pleasure.' And as I gave away money, I think I might have felt God's pleasure. I know: I'm agnostic. But still -- I feel His pleasure. It's a warm ember that starts at the back of my neck and spreads through my skull. I feel like I am doing something I should have been doing all my life."

Even compulsory community service benefits the doer with positive effects on health and happiness -- so disgruntled 7th graders required to do community service will still feel the buzz of the helper's high. (And there's nothing like the travails of middle and high school to drive young people to seek an endorphin boost, so they may get hooked.)

Givers are more likely to be informally generous as well. "They are also significantly more likely to give food or money to a homeless person, or to give up their seat to someone on a bus," Brooks said in an interview with The American.

Lest you dismiss Brooks as a feel-good hippie, he is an economist and visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. He actually set out to counter a common claim of high net worth individuals: that their wealth was in part attributable to their philanthropic endeavors. He theorized that this could not possibly be true, and that philanthropic giving could only decrease one's wealth. While researching his theory, he learned that not only does giving make one happier and healthier, but also proved that charitable giving is positively correlated with income! For each dollar one gives, one receives $3.75 in return.

Brooks concluded his talk by praising fundraising professionals. He spoke of fundraising as a moral imperative -- we are providing individuals the opportunity to make themselves healthier, happier and wealthier by asking them give. It is our obligation and our privilege to provide individuals that opportunity.

A few months ago, I saw the tail-end of a documentary concerning a group of prisoners who donated their meager earnings from working prison labor to help build a school in Vietnam. At first I thought: who would fundraise from prisoners!? They are so downtrodden already -- why would you ask them for money? But when the school was built and the prisoners, many of whom were serving life sentences, saw the pictures of the completed school, it became clear why one would fundraise among prisoners. Tears of joy coursed down one man's face as, feeling the "helper's high," he proclaimed that he finally felt like he was a worthwhile person.

So, volunteer coordinators, coordinate on, and fundraisers, fundraise on! You are providing an invaluable opportunity to people. Here's to the people of our nation serving one another while becoming healthier, happier and wealthier in the process.

Thanks Lynda Barry

I saw Lynda Barry speak at Wordstock last night. She spoke about themes from her latest book, What It Is, a meditation on creativity and play, as well as a how-to for those of us who gave up on writing at some point.

I had been meaning to start writing again... and meaning to, and meaning to, and meaning to. (Nothing like re-starting your writing avocation with a dangling preposition.)

So, thanks Lynda Barry! I started writing again.