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.

Kampala Evaluation Talk

1,199 views

Published on

Excerpt from my Kampala Evaluation Talk at Data Visualization for Evaluation. USAID Office; Kampala, Uganda; November 2014.

Published in: Data & Analytics

Kampala Evaluation Talk

  1. 1. Data Visualization for Evaluation Kampala Evaluation Talk USAID Office Kampala, Uganda November 2014 Ann K. Emery annkemery.com @annkemery
  2. 2. 20+ local and regional affiliates
  3. 3. 48 interest groups
  4. 4. Seminars
  5. 5. Half-day workshops
  6. 6. Monthly board meetings
  7. 7. Data Visualization
  8. 8. exploratory explanatory
  9. 9. one chart many charts 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100
  10. 10. Sketching and drafting
  11. 11. Sketching and drafting Doodling by hand Drafting via computer Who’s my audience? How much precision is needed? Which chart is best for my data?
  12. 12. Sketching and drafting Doodling by hand Drafting via computer Who’s my audience? How much precision is needed? Which chart is best for my data?
  13. 13. Sketching and drafting Doodling by hand Drafting via computer Who’s my audience? How much precision is needed? Which chart is best for my data? annkemery.com/data-table-to-small-multiples
  14. 14. Sketching and drafting Doodling by hand Drafting via computer Who’s my audience? How much precision is needed? Which chart is best for my data? annkemery.com/data-table-to-small-multiples
  15. 15. Essential Charts
  16. 16. Bar Charts Classic Clustered Side by Side Back to Back Small Multiples Stacked & Diverging 80% 71% 42%
  17. 17. Line Charts Classic Area Slope Panel Small multiples Shading 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% Program A 1 7 Program B 1 7 Program C 1 7 Program D 1 7 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% Program E 1 7 Program F 1 7 Program G 1 7 Program H 1 7
  18. 18. Line Charts Classic Area Slope Panel Small multiples Shading 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% Program A 1 7 Program B 1 7 Program C 1 7 Program D 1 7 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% Program E 1 7 Program F 1 7 Program G 1 7 Program H 1 7
  19. 19. Line Charts Classic Area Slope Panel Small multiples Shading 69% Program D 1 7 30% Program C 1 7 54% Program A 1 7 51% Program B 1 7
  20. 20. Circles Dot Plots Circle Charts Unit Charts Scatter Plots Bubble Charts All six grantees have improved— great! 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. Grantee E 35% Grantee D 48% Grantee A Grantee B Grantee C 63% Year 1 of Grant 85% 82% 80% 55% 63% 76% Year 2 of Grant 96% 92% 98% Grantee F 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
  21. 21. Circles Dot Plots Circle Charts Unit Charts Scatter Plots Bubble Charts Small sample/low response rate How representative, really? Just groups already doing evaluation? Short survey responses, not in-depth interviews 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 contact information 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 Limitations
  22. 22. Circles Dot Plots Circle Charts Unit Charts Scatter Plots Bubble Charts 100 80 60 40 20 0 Scatter plots 2 variables (x and y) 0 20 40 60 80 100 100 80 60 40 20 0 Bubble charts 3 variables (x, y, and z) 0 20 40 60 80 100
  23. 23. Ranges or Dispersion Histogram Error Bars St Dev Shading Box Stem Span 3% 7% 17% 20% 30% 19% 4% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2% 5% 7% 12% 27% 35% 12% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Pre Post
  24. 24. Ranges or Dispersion Histogram Error Bars St Dev Shading Box Stem Span Positive responses were slightly longer than negative responses Although the difference was not statistically significant 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 1 2 Number of words per open-ended survey response
  25. 25. Reducing Clutter
  26. 26. Reduce clutter Delete/lighten border, grid lines, tick marks Outline shapes/segments in white 1 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100
  27. 27. Color
  28. 28. Color Custom palettes Action + muted Black/white printing Nominal, ordinal, etc.
  29. 29. Color Custom palettes Action + muted Black/white printing Nominal, ordinal, etc. annkemery.com/intentional-color-schemes
  30. 30. Color Custom palettes Action + muted Black/white printing Nominal, ordinal, etc. annkemery.com/intentional-color-schemes
  31. 31. Color Custom palettes Action + muted Black/white printing Nominal, ordinal, etc.
  32. 32. Color Custom palettes Action + muted Black/white printing Nominal, ordinal, etc.
  33. 33. Color Custom palettes Action + muted Black/white printing Nominal, ordinal, etc. http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/10/mapmaking_using_reddit_okcupid_twitter_and_other_social_media_websites.html
  34. 34. Title and Subtitle
  35. 35. Title, etc. Title Subtitle Annotations Data source 3 in 4 participants are women The organization’s target population is single mothers. Women Women Men 76% 76% 24%
  36. 36. Title, etc. Title Subtitle Annotations Data source
  37. 37. Sharing
  38. 38. Adapt and share Traditional reports Slidedocs Presentations Animated videos Meeting handouts Dashboards (internal) Twitter Infographics (external) Postcards
  39. 39. Adapt and share Traditional reports Slidedocs Presentations Animated videos Meeting handouts Dashboards (internal) Twitter Infographics (external) Postcards 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100
  40. 40. Predictions
  41. 41. Coalition A scored higher than Coalition B across all 7 sections of the assessment. Coalition scores on the Coalition Assessment Tool: 50% 47% 50% 39% 39% 47% 59% 70% 83% 80% 64% 59% 80% 93% 90% 88% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Coalition A Coalition B Coalition A Coalition B
  42. 42. Coalition A scored higher than Coalitions B and C across all 7 sections of the assessment. Coalition scores on the Coalition Assessment Tool: 60% 33% 39% 38% 50% 47% 47% 55% 77% 78% 68% 50% 39% 47% 59% 70% 83% 80% 59% 64% 80% 90% 88% 93% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Coalition A Coalition B Coalition C
  43. 43. Coalition A scored higher than Coalitions B, C, and D across all 7 sections of the assessment. Coalition scores on the Coalition Assessment Tool: 55% 47% 45% 39% 41% 45% 53% 77% 75% 65% 57% 60% 33% 38% 47% 55% 78% 68% 50% 39% 47% 50% 59% 70% 80% 59% 64% 80% 83% 90% 88% 93% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Coalition A Coalition C Coalition B Coalition D
  44. 44. Coalition A scored higher than Coalition B across all 7 sections of the assessment. Coalition scores on the Coalition Assessment Tool: Coalition A (n=32) Coalition B (n=29) 90% 88% 83% 80% 64% 59% 80% 93% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 59% 50% 47% 47% 39% 39% 50% 70% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
  45. 45. Coalition A scored higher than Coalitions B and C across all 7 sections of the assessment. Coalition scores on the Coalition Assessment Tool: 47% 68% 60% 38% 33% 55% 77% 78% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 93% 90% 88% 83% 80% 64% 59% 80% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 59% 50% 47% 47% 39% 39% 50% 70% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Coalition A (n=32) Coalition B (n=29) Coalition C (n=34) Basic Functioning Ability to Learn Allies and Partnerships Champions Coalition Leadership Reputation and Visibility Sustainability Overall
  46. 46. Coalition A scored higher than Coalition B across all 7 sections of the assessment. Coalition scores on the Coalition Assessment Tool: 93% 90% 83% 80% 64% 59% 80% 88% 50% 47% 50% 39% 39% 47% 59% 70% 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Coalition A (n=32) Coalition B (n=29)
  47. 47. Two charts in one (2 bar charts) Invisible bars (1 stacked bar chart)
  48. 48. Predictions Simple layouts New formats Disaggregating
  49. 49. Predictions Simple layouts New formats Disaggregating http://www.latimes.com/la-ca-g-rise-of-californias-no-party-voter-20141026-htmlstory.html
  50. 50. Predictions Simple layouts New formats Disaggregating http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-g-drought-drawdowns-and-death-of-the-salton-sea-20141021-htmlstory.html
  51. 51. 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% Predictions Simple layouts New formats Disaggregating Program A 1 7 Program B 1 7 Program C 1 7 Program D 1 7 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% Program E 1 7 Program F 1 7 Program G 1 7 Program H 1 7
  52. 52. 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% Predictions Simple layouts New formats Disaggregating Program A 1 7 Program B 1 7 Program C 1 7 Program D 1 7 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% Program E 1 7 Program F 1 7 Program G 1 7 Program H 1 7
  53. 53. Data Visualization for Evaluation Kampala Evaluation Talk USAID Office Kampala, Uganda November 2014 Ann K. Emery annkemery.com @annkemery

×