Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Data Visualization in Excel

1,839 views

Published on

Presentation at the M&E Tech Conference
Washington, DC
September 26, 2014

Published in: Technology

Data Visualization in Excel

  1. 1. Data Visualization in Excel Ann K. Emery annkemery.com annkemery@gmail.com @annkemery
  2. 2. 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr
  3. 3. 0 5 10 15 Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Series 1 Series 2 Series 3
  4. 4. 93% 92% 95% 95% 91% 94% 92% 89% 93% 96% 89% 91% 95% 79% 78% 80% 84% 70% 76% 45% 69% 78% 85% 67% 74% 83% 98% 98% 98% 97% 98% 96% 98% 96% 97% 99% 96% 97% 98% Overall Gender Male Female Race and Hispanic Origin Non-Hispanic White Non-Hispanic Black Hispanic Other Poverty Level Poverty Level and Below 101 to 200% of Poverty Level Above 200% of the Poverty Level Parental Education Less than a High School Degree High School Degree More than a High School Degree
  5. 5. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 1/5/2002 1/6/2002 1/7/20021/8/2002 1/9/2002
  6. 6. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Series 3 Series 2 Series 1
  7. 7. Series 1 Series 2 Series 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4
  8. 8. 1,432 1,290 1,148 875 663 518 286 387 114 115 2011 2012 2013 2014
  9. 9. Telecommunications/ Internet 58% Social and Ethical 53% Systems and Fundamentals 48% 38% 43% 45% 47% 52% 68% 2009 2010 Word Processing; Spreadsheet 45% Multimedia/Presentation 38% Database 35% Social and Ethical skills increased the most between 2009 and 2010— from 53% to 68%, an average increase of 15 percentage points. Students made the greatest gains in Social and Ethical skills They also improved their Database skills.
  10. 10. 80% 71% 42% Increased knowledge Improved attitudes Changed behavior
  11. 11. Program A Program B 80% 71% 42% 76% 54% 40% Increased knowledge Improved attitudes Changed behavior Program A Program B
  12. 12. Program A Program B 80% 71% 42% 76% 54% 40% Increased knowledge Improved attitudes Changed behavior
  13. 13. 20% 29% 58% 80% 71% 42% 76% 54% 40% Increased knowledge Improved attitudes Changed behavior Program A Program B
  14. 14. Yes, 80% 71% 42% No, 20% 29% 58% Increased knowledge Improved attitudes Changed behavior
  15. 15. 20% 21% 20% 60% 50% 22% 11% 20% 40% 9% 9% 18% Increased knowledge Improved attitudes Changed behavior Strongly Agree Agree Strongly DisagreeDisagree
  16. 16. 3% 7% 17% 20% 30% 19% 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2% 5% 7% 12% 27% 35% 12% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Pre Post
  17. 17. 93% 92% 95% 95% 91% 94% 92% 89% 93% 96% 89% 91% 95% 79% 78% 80% 84% 70% 76% 45% 69% 78% 85% 67% 74% 83% 98% 98% 98% 97% 98% 96% 98% 96% 97% 99% 96% 97% 98% 96% 95% 96% 97% 92% 94% 95% 92% 96% 98% 89% 95% 97% Overall Gender Male Female Race and Hispanic Origin Non-Hispanic White Non-Hispanic Black Hispanic Other Poverty Level Poverty Level and Below 101 to 200% of Poverty Level Above 200% of the Poverty Level Parental Education Less than a High School Degree High School Degree More than a High School Degree Region A Region B Region C Region D Overall Gender Race and Hispanic Origin Poverty Level Parental Education
  18. 18. Health indicator #1 In layperson terms, this metric really means xyz. Health indicator #2 This thing is important to measure because of xyz. Health indicator #3 Here’s a sentence about what this indicator means. Texas Between 2000 and 2002, Texas had a sharp decline in indicator #1. Virginia Indicator #1 has decreased. What about indicator #3? California What would maintain upward momentum on indicator #2? 0 2 4 6 8 1994 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 2014 0 2 4 6 8 1994 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 2014 0 2 4 6 8 1994 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 2014
  19. 19. 35% 48% 63% 80% 82% 85% 55% 63% 76% 92% 96% 98% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Grantee B Grantee C Grantee D Grantee E Grantee F Grantee A Year 1 of Grant Year 2 of Grant All six grantees have improved Between the first and second year of the grant, all six of our grantees have shown improvements. Grantee F made the biggest just, increasing from 35% in Year 1 to 55% in Year 2.
  20. 20. 969,194 Population of all U.S.-based 501(c)3 public charities registered with the IRS in 2011 38,789 501(c)3 organizations that updated their IRS Form 990 in 2010 and provided GuideStar.com with a contact name and email address 20,000 Purchased random sample from GuideStar.com 13,070 Organizations in random sample with valid email addresses 546 Sample of organizations that completed the survey
  21. 21. 4 in 10 participants invited a friend to join the program 9 in 10 participants would recommend the program to a friend
  22. 22. 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
  23. 23. 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
  24. 24. Securing Immigration Reform Alliance for Citizenship Promise Arizona in Action Alliance for Citizenship Latino Voting and Immigration Institute Training Immigrant Rights Activists Interim Immigration Strategy Interim Immigration Strategy Core Support Turning the Tide Core Support Women Advocates for Women Immigrants Detention, Democracy and Due Process Immigration, Criminalization, and Parental Rights Renewal-Cross programme grant RHR & Ageing: Business Plan Implementation Support ENTRES NOS: Moms for Family Unity Campaign Enacting Immigration Reform: 2010 Campaign Support Strategic and Business Planning Four Pillars Campaign for Immigration Reform - Field and Policy Pillars Non-partisan Voter Mobilization Core Support Multicultural Leadership for Sound Public Policy Wave of Hope Campaign We Are America Alliance Action Fund Protecting the Legal Rights of Immigrants Accessing Immigrant Rights through the Media Strategic Planning Implementation Gulf Coast Recovery and Rebuilding Immigration Policy Research and Dissemination Responding to Anti-Immigrant Ballot Initiatives Evaluating the Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform Detention and Democracy Project 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 The Foundation has supported immigration reform through 64 grants over the past 8 years. Length of grant awards:
  25. 25. Positive Responses (n=91) Negative Responses (n=40) Country A Country B
  26. 26. annkemery.com/data-table-to-small-multiples
  27. 27. annkemery.com/data-table-to-small-multiples
  28. 28. annkemery.com/data-table-to-small-multiples
  29. 29. 0 2 4 6 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 0% 10% 20% 30% 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 35% 40% 45% 50% 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 0 2 4 6 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 0% 10% 20% 30% 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 40% 45% 50% 55% 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 4.5 5 5.5 6 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 0% 5% 10% 15% 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 24% 26% 28% 30% 32% 34% 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
  30. 30. 0 1 2 3 4 5 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 36% 38% 40% 42% 44% 46% 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 0 1 2 3 4 5 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 40% 42% 44% 46% 48% 50% 52% 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 4.8 5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 0% 5% 10% 15% 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 24% 26% 28% 30% 32% 34% 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
  31. 31. 0 2 4 6 8 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 0 2 4 6 8 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 0 2 4 6 8 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 Health indicator #1 Health indicator #2 Health indicator #3 Virginia Texas California
  32. 32. 0 2 4 6 8 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 0 2 4 6 8 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 0 2 4 6 8 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 Virginia Texas California Health indicator #1 Health indicator #2 Health indicator #3
  33. 33. 0 2 4 6 8 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 0 2 4 6 8 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 0 2 4 6 8 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 Virginia Texas California Health indicator #1 Health indicator #2 Health indicator #3
  34. 34. 0 2 4 6 8 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 0 2 4 6 8 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 0 2 4 6 8 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 Virginia Texas California Health indicator #1 Health indicator #2 Health indicator #3
  35. 35. 0 2 4 6 8 1994 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 2014 0 2 4 6 8 1994 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 2014 0 2 4 6 8 1994 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 2014 Virginia Texas California Health indicator #1 Health indicator #2 Health indicator #3
  36. 36. 0 2 4 6 8 1994 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 2014 0 2 4 6 8 1994 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 2014 0 2 4 6 8 1994 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 2014 Virginia Texas California Health indicator #1 Health indicator #2 Health indicator #3 After 20 years of grantmaking, are our three target states improving?
  37. 37. 0 2 4 6 8 1994 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 2014 0 2 4 6 8 1994 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 2014 0 2 4 6 8 1994 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 2014 Virginia Texas California Health indicator #1 In layperson terms, this metric really means xyz. Health indicator #2 This thing is important to measure because of xyz. Health indicator #3 Here’s a sentence about what this indicator means. After 20 years of grantmaking, are our three target states improving?
  38. 38. 0 2 4 6 8 1994 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 2014 0 2 4 6 8 1994 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 2014 0 2 4 6 8 1994 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 2014 Virginia Texas California Health indicator #1 In layperson terms, this metric really means xyz. Health indicator #2 This thing is important to measure because of xyz. Health indicator #3 Here’s a sentence about what this indicator means. After 20 years of grantmaking, are our three target states improving? Data source: My imagination. Visualization by Ann K. Emery
  39. 39. In Virginia, health indicator #1 has decreased. But what about health indicator #3? Health indicator #1 In layperson terms, this metric really means xyz. Health indicator #2 This thing is important to measure because of xyz. Health indicator #3 Here’s a sentence about what this indicator means. After 20 years of grantmaking, are our three target states improving? Data source: My imagination. Visualization by Ann K. Emery Between 2000 and 2002, Texas had a sharp decline in indicator #1. What types of social or environmental factors contributed to that success? California’s rates of indicator #2 are the lowest of all three target states, but are steadily increasing. What would maintain this upward momentum? 0 2 4 6 8 1994 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 2014 0 2 4 6 8 1994 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 2014 0 2 4 6 8 1994 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 2014
  40. 40. Health indicator #1 In layperson terms, this metric really means xyz. Health indicator #2 This thing is important to measure because of xyz. Health indicator #3 Here’s a sentence about what this indicator means. After 20 years of grantmaking, are our three target states improving? Data source: My imagination. Visualization by Ann K. Emery Texas Between 2000 and 2002, Texas had a sharp decline in indicator #1. Virginia Indicator #1 has decreased. What about indicator #3? California What would maintain upward momentum on indicator #2? 0 2 4 6 8 1994 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 2014 0 2 4 6 8 1994 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 2014 0 2 4 6 8 1994 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 2014 0% 20% 40% 60% 1994 2014
  41. 41. Data Visualization in Excel Ann K. Emery annkemery.com annkemery@gmail.com @annkemery

×