For Funders
5 TIPS FOR FUNDERS
Funders—including philanthropic organizations, government agencies and others—play a crucial role in advancing overdose prevention efforts. Funders may inform policy decisions and which programmatic strategies are implemented and thus benefit from data that can help to provide evidence for implementation and justify sustained funding.
Funders are encouraged to partner with program implementers in the communities they serve to best address the needs of people who use drugs and prevent overdose. Some philanthropic organizations are already doing this well, having worked together to develop similar data reporting requirements. Additional tips are listed below.
Prioritize program implementers and limit data reporting requirements
When funding is allocated to program implementers, data collection should not be a barrier to service provision, and funders should limit data reporting requests to data that will be used to address program sustainability and ongoing funding priorities.
Be transparent about data collection and reporting requirements in requests for proposals
Clearly outline all data requirements in Request for Proposals (RFPs) so applicants can assess their capacity to meet those requirements. Flexibility in funding and reporting should be built into the RFPs to allow grantees to adapt and respond to shifting community priorities. If funding is multi-year, consider not collecting any indicators in the first year while programs get started.
Co-create deeper data collection with dedicated funding
Consider providing dedicated funding for building data collection capacity and staffing for more comprehensive program monitoring, evaluation, or continuous quality improvement (CQI) efforts.
Gather input from participants using point-in-time surveys (PiTS)
Avoid requesting data that requires programs to collect information directly from participants during routine service encounters. Instead, you may consider supporting semi-annual or annual point-in-time surveys (PiTS) via which program participants can provide feedback on their experiences with services, gaps and needs. Examples and guidance to develop PiTS can be seen here from the Supporting Harm Reduction Programs (SHaRP) at the University of Washington.
Adequately and respectfully compensate partners and participants
If recipients/grantees are partnering with sub-partners or involving participants, ensure they can allocate funding for appropriate compensation of all individuals involved in the project.
By working closely and collaboratively with program implementers and community conveners, funders can support the development, monitoring and evaluation of innovative programs. This can lead to improved programming, a better sense of what works and ultimately, the use of data to promote more effective overdose prevention strategies. Remaining open to some of these considerations can help funders build strong partnerships with communities.
Funders’ Note: Requesting consistent and standardized indicators in grant reports reduces the burden on those working in harm reduction and overdose prevention so they can make the most of their efforts.
Resources
For more funder considerations, see Appendix 3: Considerations for Funders in the Syringe Service Programs Indicators Implementation Guide from the Supporting Harm Reduction Programs (SHaRP) at the University of Washington.
The Data Equity Framework is a systematic way of looking at data projects at key equity decision points. They have simple, practical tools to help make those decisions in a way that reflects the organization’s definition of equity. Funders may consider these tools when developing RFPs and in supporting data collection and analysis efforts.
Developing your learning and evaluation plan: A workbook to support your grant recipients to engage in conversation and co-creation between funders and recipients to develop useful evaluations. The goal of the tool is to encourage a learning mindset between funders and recipients to help clarify the learning goals of the project before identifying evaluation requirements. This is another approach to co-creation of evaluations.