Equity and Inclusion

Data: We need to talk about power

30 April 2025

By Tania Cohen

Data isn’t neutral – we need to stop pretending it is.

This isn’t a usual 360Giving blog about the power of data in informing decision-making and improving effective grantmaking.

This is a call for us all to consider and reflect on the power dynamics and inequity in data itself, which often goes unseen by funders but is not unfelt by charities.

This isn’t a new topic. There is rich literature on critical data studies in our sector – but in funder discussions it is often focused on the monitoring, reporting and evaluation processes, rather than the grantmaking process itself.

We work closely with funders on responsible data collection and use, and consistently champion thoughtful practices. Yet frequently, we see and hear the assumption that data is evidence and, therefore, is neutral. The myriad ways that power is exercised through data in grantmaking processes are under-acknowledged and need to be better recognised.

We often think of funders’ power being through their money, but we need to confront the reality that in today’s landscape, data is also an asset which can be used as a tool to empower and liberate, or to judge and discriminate. The combination of money and data can intensify hidden control and harm, and exacerbate power imbalances within the sector. Data, by its nature, can reinforce established hierarchies if not used thoughtfully. The ways in which data is collected, analysed, used and shared often reflect the priorities and biases of those in control of the process.

But it doesn’t need to be this way. When used carefully and intentionally, data can be used to support justice. Understanding how data itself contributes to power dynamics is crucial for creating a more equitable grantmaking environment.

Strategies for reducing power imbalances in data

I use the term “reducing”, rather than “addressing”, because it is not possible to completely eliminate the imbalance. But with heightened awareness, we can mitigate its impact. Here are some initial considerations for grantmakers, drawing on examples and learning from 360Giving’s work. We haven’t always got everything right, but we continually reflect, learn, and improve.

Intentional data collection practices

Develop an impact assessment for the data: Why are you collecting it? What are you collecting? Who is it about? How will it be collected and used? How will it be analysed? Who has access to it? Power is present in each of these aspects.

Why?

• Why are you collecting this specific data?
• Do you need to collect the data? Or can you look it up from other public sources? Do you have consent to collect or to even store the data?
  • Crucially, the “Why” must be transparent, and in some cases, it needs to be explicit to the people the data is about. Explicit consent from individuals is needed to record special category data – for example, you can’t record the race of an organisation’s leadership without their direct consent. Even seemingly anonymised data can fall under data protection legislation because charity regulators publish the names of trustees, which means individuals can be directly identified when data from different sources is combined.

What?

• What specific data points are being collected?
• How directly does this data relate to the stated “Why”?
• Will all collected data be actively used? What is the minimum you can collect for the specific purpose?
• What is the underlying design of the data collection? How is it structured and governed? How does that relate to the purpose?
  • For example, when 360Giving supported the design and development of the DEI Data Standard to support funders to monitor the equity of their grantmaking, we included codes alongside the language used to describe particular communities. This means the labels used for the categories could be updated if the language those communities use to describe themselves changes, without needing to fundamentally alter the structure of the DEI Data Standard or the data itself. These kinds of changes are made through a process overseen by the DEI Data Group, a group of funders which governs the standard to ensure it remains fit for purpose.
  • The DEI Data Standard has been designed to describe organisations serving specific communities. As such, it does not seek to record data about individuals or directly relate to personal experiences or identities, but about groups of people as a whole. The design and use aligns with the Why.

Who?

• Who benefits from the data being collected and used?
• Who is collecting the data? What bias might exist in the choices made over what to collect? Or how the questions are asked or might be perceived?
• Who are you collecting the data about? How have they been involved in the process? What potential impact might the data collection have on them?
  • The development of the DEI Data Standard involved groups in co-designing  the language used and the definitions – for example the approach to the leadership threshold of 75% self-identifying from a particular community reflects the strong views expressed by several minoritised groups engaged in the process that a lower threshold would not be sufficient to be considered ‘led by’ a community.
• Who has access to the data? Who can change the data?
  • 360Giving has put in place a mechanism for grantees to request amendments to the data that has been published about them that appears in GrantNav – for example if the summary grant description is not consistent with how an organisation would describe themselves. This supports accountability for the data published by funders.

How?

• How will the data be collected?
• How will it be used in practice?
• Is it clear to the person providing the data how it will be used?
• Is the proposed use of the data fair and equitable?
  • The DEI Data Standard guidance includes example statements to ensure clarity in data use – an important step in informed consent and fairness.
• How will it be stored? Is the security of the system adequate for the nature of the information?
• How might when it is collected impact the data?
  • The DEI Data Standard guidance considers when data is collected in the grantmaking process – for example, during the application process or after the award is made. This might impact what people feel comfortable sharing and potentially what conclusions can be drawn from analysing the data.

Centring communities in using data

Funders should actively cultivate mechanisms for engaging community voices in the analysis and interpretation of data. Even seemingly objective quantitative data carries inherent meaning shaped by the analyst’s perspective – what is analysed and how it is interpreted. Involving the people the data is about helps shift the narrative power to those closest to the challenges being addressed, values their lived experience and context, and fosters more inclusive and informed decision-making. 360Giving has often consulted with advisory groups or panels convened around our reports and analyses. At a minimum, these groups review draft reports. However, when the data analysed relates to a specific community or cause, advisors are involved from the outset, shaping the analytical approach, prioritising areas of focus, and contributing to the interpretation of findings and the development of recommendations.

Democratising access

Where is the data held? How is it shared? How do the people the data is about access and benefit from it?

Initiatives such as 360Giving provide standards and tools that make it easier for funders to share and access grantmaking data to improve their own decision-making. Crucially, such mechanisms provide greater participation and equity in data use. Over 120,000 people used GrantNav in 2024-25, the vast majority of them from charities. It has been used to understand the activities of funders, but also to identify other funded organisations to collaborate with or learn from. It also allows charities and umbrella bodies to identify funding for their communities or causes, and use the data to understand funding in the sector and advocate for their needs.

Conversely, when funders choose not to publish their grants data, they risk hoarding a valuable resource for their exclusive use, preventing its broader application for the benefit of the sector. Collecting data from charities without contributing it back into the ecosystem for wider benefit can be perceived as an extractive practice. This is particularly relevant for DEI Data Standard information, where data is being collected and used by funders to understand the equity of their grantmaking processes, but without more public sharing of data, in detail alongside grants information or in aggregated form on funders’ own websites, shared learning and progress is being hampered.

Conclusion

Data has the potential to transform grantmaking for the better, but it also carries the risk of perpetuating existing power imbalances without careful stewardship. By addressing issues of control, bias, and accessibility, the philanthropic sector can harness the power of data to advance equity and maximise the potential of this valuable asset to the charitable sector.

As a charity working at the heart of the grantmaking sector, we strive to live our values and lead through example, showing how open, accessible, and community-centered data practices can challenge traditional hierarchies and foster more collaborative relationships. We are committed to working with funders and charities to create a more equitable and transparent data ecosystem that enables all stakeholders and contributes to a more just and effective philanthropic sector.

None of this is easy, and we know we haven’t always got everything right, but we continually reflect, learn, and improve. The challenges highlighted here are not an excuse to give up on data – how will you examine your own practice without it? Rather, we urge you to think about these questions, consider the context, and examine and acknowledge the inherent power dynamics at play.

Ultimately, addressing data-driven power imbalances requires a commitment to inclusivity, mutual accountability, and a recognition of the diverse ways in which impact can be understood and measured. When data is used effectively, it can be a catalyst for meaningful and lasting change.

Have you tried the above data impact assessment approach and need some more help? Come to a 360Giving workshop, or book a data support 1-1.