Non-profits are increasingly gathering equity data on the communities they serve – but what about their own staff?

Ramona Leitao’s fellowship is funded by the World Education Services (WES) Mariam Assefa Fund. Sharlene Gandhi’s fellowship is funded by Mastercard Changeworks™. See our editorial ethics and standards here.

TORONTO / TREATY 13 – It was the spring of 2020, the murder of George Floyd had ignited an international racial justice movement, and like many social purpose organizations, the Vancouver Foundation was re-evaluating who it granted money to with an eye towards equity and inclusion. 

Vincent Tom, the foundation’s manager of community learning and engagement, says the organization’s initial inclination was to ask potential grantees and stakeholders about their demographics and examine the make-up of the communities they serve. “But then we realized before we can even start asking these types of questions, we have to start looking inside,” Tom says.

With that in mind, the Vancouver Foundation joined the ranks of a small but growing number of non-profits collecting data on their own employees. While the practice requires safeguards, it provides hard numbers and hard truths in a sector where many organizations don’t live-up to their own hype around diversity, equity and inclusion.

Using recommendations set out in The Grandmother Perspective, a guide to collecting equity and race-based data produced by the British Columbia’s Office of the Human Rights Commissioner, the foundation launched an internal survey in late 2021. They hoped the disaggregated data it generated would help foundation leadership better understand its staff, take ownership of workplace inequities, create long-term solutions and increase inclusion.

Disaggregated data, generally anonymous information separated into detailed subcategories, is one way for organizations to better understand how different issues are interconnected without compromising privacy.

And the results from Vancouver Foundation’s employee survey were telling; half the staff identified as white or European, a demographic 10 per cent more likely to hold a leadership position in the organization. 

“That was a really helpful point for us to highlight, especially to HR or to senior leadership [to let them know that] something needs to change,” Tom says. 

The survey also found that 90 per cent of non-white staff spoke a second language, in comparison to only 33 per cent of white staff. Ninety per cent of non-white staff and 43 per cent of white staff reported experiencing challenges with language barriers.

Thirty per cent of staff identifying as 2SLGBTQIA+ strongly agreed that the Vancouver Foundation was “a welcoming place for people of all genders.” A stark contrast to the 89 per cent of non-2SLGBTQIA+ staff who agreed with that sentiment. 

Settler-led organizations still catching up 

Yamikani Msosa, engagement manager at the Ontario Nonprofit Network, says organizations led by Black, Indigenous, racialized and 2SLGBTQIA+ communities have already been doing this equity work for a long-time. But most white-led organizations exploring internal data collection only began the process in 2020, following the death of George Floyd and increased public discourse around equity.

“We saw this external expression of commitment [from settler-led organizations], and then accompanying that, we saw those internal questions: what are we doing to uphold systems of white supremacy? Which can look like, ‘how are we collecting our data?’” Msosa says.

They add that non-profits need to do more than simply collect internal data, they need to create culture shifts and “expand beyond Eurocentric ways of doing and being.” Which is why the network launched a data guide earlier this year called: Using data and decent work to advance equity within the nonprofit sector . 

Internal data collection is an opportunity “to challenge not only organizations, but workers to reimagine and rethink how we show up within the workplace,” Msosa says. The guide also highlights how non-profits can collect data internally using non-traditional survey methods. 

Neemarie Alam, the network’s data strategy manager, says traditional surveys don’t always fit an organizations’ needs. “Non-profits are diverse and have different capacities,” she says.

The guide lays the groundwork for embracing and analyzing data collected through informal means, which may also be less traumatizing for participants. This includes storytelling, regular staff check-ins and attendance checks, something Alam says many non-profits are already doing, but not necessarily with data collection or equality in mind. 

“I’ve seen folks use internal practices of storytelling to … move away from interview panels,” says Msosa, adding internal data collection can be a great driver of organizational change.

How is your survey designed; are your questions equitable? 

The Vancouver Foundation opted to launch an internal staff survey as a starting point for their workplace equity research. Before participating, staff members were given examples of similar data collection exercises carried out by other organizations in the past, which gave them an idea of not only what to expect, but also what was expected of them.

Understanding what type of information was important to the organization and why, was the first step in designing the survey’s format and content. “Why are we asking about your age or sexual orientation and why are we asking it in this way?” Tom says. Overall, the internal research team designed their survey in a way that would help them better understand what sort of inequities staff might be facing in the workplace, and what the unique experiences and outcomes of those inequities might be. 

To reassure staff about the reasons for gathering certain pieces of information – some of which would be considered private, personal or sensitive – the research team built preamble statements into the survey before each question. These statements outlined what each piece of data would be used for and “gave people trust and comfort to respond honestly,” Tom says. 

Elisabeth Geller, the foundation’s director of emergent opportunities, says it’s important to show tangible examples of how data can be used to improve a workplace – ideally before an individual fills in a survey. “For example, if we found that a significant number of our staff were neurodiverse, that might shift how we do staff training,” she says. “If we were to find that queer staff were more likely to feel like the organization was less inclusive of all genders – which, in fact, we did find – that will shape the kinds of questions we ask ourselves about how we show up for gender internally.” 

The survey was also designed to encourage maximum participation. No question was mandatory, and as much as possible, the Vancouver Foundation team tried to ask open-ended questions rather than mandating individuals fill in certain checkboxes. 

“It allows folks to express things the way that they want to express them,” Tom says. “It was important for us to have that space for self expression – what is the point in narrowing and shaping the outcome? That is a self-fulfilling prophecy. There is a richness in the open [response] box.” 

But there are also design trade-offs when survey respondents are allowed or encouraged to write anything in response to certain questions, Geller says. “You’re dealing with data that is not standardized,” she warns. “It is an important consideration to allow people to self-identify, and [the organization] bears the weight of sorting that qualitative data out on the other end.”

Another design trade-off occurs when an organization provides multiple methods by which their staff can fill in a survey, because it might increase the time taken to consolidate all the information that has come in through different sources and data collection methods. However, providing different ways to access and complete a survey not only increases the likelihood that people will participate, but also makes the survey more accessible for staff members who are neurodiverse, or who are differently abled, say Alam and Msosa. 

One example is offering a survey both in physical and digital formats, as well as offering an option for a staff member to fill in a survey with the support of another person. “Different and accessible options ensure that folks feel seen and cared for. Providing alternatives is essential to wellbeing.”

Pride at Work Canada has helped organizations of all sizes better understand the experiences of staff belonging to 2SLGBTQIA+ communities. The non-profit advocacy group recommends that organizations using drop-down menus rather than open-end response boxes list responses alphabetically, which puts “asexual” as the first option a person can choose, de-centring the identity with the most power — heterosexual.

“Another thing to consider is putting demographic questions last,” says Jade Pichette, Pride at Work’s director of programs. “By nature, we have a tendency to put demographic questions first, but it makes people think about their identity in a different way. You are going to get different answers depending on where you put demographic questions, which has been shown in research.”

Safety is key when collecting data

Pichette and Colin Druhan, Pride at Work’s executive director, both emphasize the importance of anonymized surveys — including outsourcing certain elements of the data collection process to third parties. 

“In a smaller organization, you’ll want to have the data collected and stored externally. You can get the data in aggregate form, but it doesn’t pin down exactly which employees are unhappy,” Pichette says. “Sometimes people don’t feel a level of safety or trust if [the data] is going to an internal person. People don’t always see HR as their friend or as an ally.” 

Msosa echoes this, adding organizations need to remind staff that data collection processes are not meant to be “punitive” and that nobody is going to get into trouble for sharing their experiences. They suggest building a “trauma-informed workplace” to help staff feel psychologically safe in sharing their information and experiences with leadership. 

Forty-eight of the Vancouver Foundation’s 60 staff members responded to the survey. The anonymized data was then held externally by an Indigenous-led consultancy firm; no one at the foundation had access to the raw data or completed surveys ensuring no one response could be traced back to a particular staff member. Charlotte Fox, who participated in the foundation’s survey, says that separation between the organization and the data it collected was a crucial part of the process. “It built our trust in the seriousness of the work they were doing.”

Alam also says organizations need a plan for disposing of raw data once it has served its purpose. 

Is disaggregated data always the answer? 

Although disaggregated data offers opportunities to analyze certain equity trends and patterns, there’s also a risk of over-reliance, resulting in tokenism, says Meenakshi Das, who works with non-profits on data collection and analysis. “Tokenism occurs when: organizations set specific quotas or targets for representation based on disaggregated data without addressing systemic barriers and biases,” she explains in a recent LinkedIn post. 

Das was once asked to participate in a survey asking such specific questions that the organization quickly traced her responses back to her. She was then selected for a follow-up interview where she was asked to share her views on power within the organization.

Without safeguards, research involving 2SLGBTQIA+ communities can also devolve into tokenism. “It’s what happens when the entire community becomes a checkbox. It erases the complexities within the community,” Pichette says.

Druhan echoes that concern.

“You could ask ten people what being queer means to them and get ten different answers.” Druhan suggests that workplaces go beyond just asking people about their identity and reporting on demographic breakdowns of their organizations By asking the right questions, you can discover a lot about people’s childcare and/or eldercare responsibilities, and the extent to which that might impact them being able to show up fully in the workplace, he says. 

And there’s always the possibility collecting disaggregated data will cause harm and trauma to often underserved, equity deserving communities, say Alam and Msosa. Unlike for-profit workplaces, non-profit staff often work on the frontlines of the communities they belong to, in roles that expose them to potential trauma. Data collection methods that demand staff recount specific events runs the risk of re-traumatizing them.

“I think sometimes, non-profit funders get caught up in the cycle of perpetuating data [through surveys]. Not only is that counterproductive, we know that survey fatigue is very real,” Alam says. “What that means is constantly needing to prove or provide evidence for an issue that we know exists. It doesn’t give [non-profit funders] enough time to sit with the results and figure out concrete solutions because they’re already off to try to prove it again.”

Just one tool in the box

In hindsight, Geller says the Vancouver Foundation team was overly ambitious. Once they got into the weeds and started disseminating the survey and collecting the data, the foundation realized they needed more time, both to allow as many people to fill in the survey as possible, but also to ensure that the analysis was thorough and meaningful. The team was also conducting the internal survey alongside other responsibilities, and they found that “disaggregated data collection was infinitely more complex” than they’d imagined it would be. The foundation’s survey was completed earlier this year.

“As you generate disaggregated data, you are pursuing this with the purpose of uncovering systemic inequity and oppression,” Geller adds. “We can’t know these things and make a choice to do nothing about them.” 

Data is, however, just “one tool in the toolbox of dismantling systems of oppression within the organization,” she says. Tom adds to this: “It is a principle for many of us that [the data] doesn’t just sit in a glossy binder in someone’s office.” 

The metaphor of the snow-capped mountain – where most of the leadership in an organization is more likely to be white, and those lower down in the organization are more likely to be of racialized backgrounds – is a reality in a number of non-profit organizations, says Fox. 

“Something I would like to underscore is whether the organization is ready to hear stories that are going to be challenging,” Fox says. “They’re going to require action, change and difficult conversations. You’re not just presented with the data – it’s about what comes after it.”  

Tell us this made you smarter | Contact us | Report error