In October 2013, Ann K. Emery presented "How to fool Excel into making (pretty much) any chart you want" at the American Evaluation Association's annual conference in Washington, D.C.
She shared four strategies for communicating data more clearly in Excel:
1) Adjust default settings until charts pass the Squint Test;
2) Create two charts in one;
3) Create invisible sections of charts; and
4) Exploit the stock chart types, for example, by making timelines from stacked bar charts or by making dot plots from scatter plots.
An audio recording of slides 77-94 is available on YouTube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hP0yDMRxVc&feature=c4-overview&list=UUu0waUz-GtZzeRQunEHSj_g
8. In all four cohorts, about half of the economics teachers
felt the content was at a higher level than their previous coursework.
“The economics content presented in the seminar was at a higher conceptual level
than my earlier coursework or study of economics.”
Agree
Strongly Agree
Cohort A
(n=98)
Cohort B
(n=100)
Cohort C
(n=100)
Cohort D
(n=100)
22%
Neutral
22%
26%
22%
25%
30%
35%
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
25%
22%
35%
27%
21% 6%
20%
13%
9%
10% 5%
19% 6%
13. In all four cohorts, about half of the economics teachers
felt the content was at a higher level than their previous coursework.
“The economics content presented in the seminar was at a higher conceptual level
than my earlier coursework or study of economics.”
Agree
Strongly Agree
Cohort A
(n=98)
Cohort B
(n=100)
Cohort C
(n=100)
Cohort D
(n=100)
22%
Neutral
22%
26%
22%
25%
30%
35%
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
25%
22%
35%
27%
21% 6%
20%
13%
9%
10% 5%
19% 6%
21. Coalition Members' Perceptions
Coalition A Coalition B
Basic Functioning and Structure
93%
70%
Ability to Learn from the Community
90%
59%
Ability to Develop Allies and Partnerships
88%
50%
Ability to Cultivate and Develop Champions
83%
47%
Coalition Leadership
80%
47%
Reputation and Visibility
64%
39%
Sustainability
59%
39%
Overall
80%
50%
22. Basic Functioning and…
Ability to Learn from the…
Ability to Develop Allies and…
Ability to Cultivate and…
Coalition A
Coalition Leadership
Coalition B
Reputation and Visibility
Sustainability
Overall
0%
20%
40%
60%
80% 100%
23. Basic Functioning and Structure
Ability to Learn from the Community
Ability to Develop Allies and Partnerships
Ability to Cultivate and Develop Champions
Coalition A
Coalition B
Coalition Leadership
Reputation and Visibility
Sustainability
Overall
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
24. Basic Functioning and Structure
Ability to Learn from the Community
Ability to Develop Allies and Partnerships
Ability to Cultivate and Develop Champions
Coalition A
Coalition B
Coalition Leadership
Reputation and Visibility
Sustainability
Overall
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
25. Basic Functioning and Structure
Ability to Learn from the Community
Ability to Develop Allies and Partnerships
Ability to Cultivate and Develop Champions
Coalition A
Coalition B
Coalition Leadership
Reputation and Visibility
Sustainability
Overall
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
26. 93%
Basic Functioning and Structure
70%
90%
Ability to Learn from the Community
59%
88%
Ability to Develop Allies and Partnerships
50%
83%
Ability to Cultivate and Develop Champions
47%
Coalition A
80%
Coalition Leadership
Coalition B
47%
64%
Reputation and Visibility
39%
59%
Sustainability
39%
80%
Overall
50%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
27. 93%
Basic Functioning and Structure
70%
90%
Ability to Learn from the Community
59%
88%
Ability to Develop Allies and Partnerships
50%
83%
Ability to Cultivate and Develop Champions
47%
80%
Coalition Leadership
47%
64%
Reputation and Visibility
39%
59%
Sustainability
39%
80%
Overall
50%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
28. Basic Functioning and Structure
Coalition A
Coalition B
93%
70%
90%
Ability to Learn from the Community
59%
88%
Ability to Develop Allies and Partnerships
50%
83%
Ability to Cultivate and Develop Champions
47%
80%
Coalition Leadership
47%
64%
Reputation and Visibility
39%
59%
Sustainability
39%
80%
Overall
50%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
29. Basic Functioning and Structure Coalition A
Coalition B
93%
70%
Ability to Learn from the Community
90%
59%
Ability to Develop Allies and Partnerships
88%
50%
Ability to Cultivate and Develop Champions
Coalition Leadership
83%
47%
47%
Reputation and Visibility
64%
39%
Sustainability
80%
39%
Overall
59%
80%
50%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
30. Basic Functioning and Structure Coalition A
Coalition B
93%
70%
Ability to Learn from the Community
90%
59%
Ability to Develop Allies and Partnerships
88%
50%
Ability to Cultivate and Develop Champions
Coalition Leadership
83%
47%
47%
Reputation and Visibility
64%
39%
Sustainability
80%
39%
Overall
59%
80%
50%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
31. Basic Functioning and Structure Coalition A
Coalition B
93%
70%
Ability to Learn from the Community
90%
59%
Ability to Develop Allies and Partnerships
88%
50%
Ability to Cultivate and Develop Champions
Coalition Leadership
83%
47%
47%
Reputation and Visibility
64%
39%
Sustainability
80%
39%
Overall
59%
80%
50%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
32. 93%
Basic Functioning and Structure Coalition A
70%
Coalition B
90%
Ability to Learn from the Community
59%
88%
Ability to Develop Allies and Partnerships
50%
83%
Ability to Cultivate and Develop Champions
47%
80%
Coalition Leadership
47%
64%
Reputation and Visibility
39%
59%
Sustainability
39%
80%
Overall
50%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
33. Coalition A scored higher than Coalition B
across all 7 sections of the assessment.
Basic Functioning and Structure
Coalition A
Coalition B
93%
70%
Ability to Learn from the Community
90%
59%
Ability to Develop Allies and Partnerships
88%
50%
Ability to Cultivate and Develop Champions
83%
47%
Coalition Leadership
80%
47%
Reputation and Visibility
64%
39%
Sustainability
59%
39%
Overall
80%
50%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
34. Coalition A scored higher than Coalition B
across all 7 sections of the assessment.
Coalition scores on the
Coalition A
Coalition B
Coalition Assessment
Basic Functioning and Structure
Tool:
Coalition A
Coalition B
93%
70%
Ability to Learn from the Community
90%
59%
Ability to Develop Allies and Partnerships
88%
50%
Ability to Cultivate and Develop Champions
83%
47%
Coalition Leadership
80%
47%
Reputation and Visibility
64%
39%
Sustainability
59%
39%
Overall
80%
50%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
35. Coalition A scored higher than Coalitions B and C
across all 7 sections of the assessment.
Coalition scores on the Coalition Assessment Tool:
Coalition A
Basic Functioning and Structure Coalition B
Coalition C
Ability to Learn from the Community
59%
Ability to Develop Allies and Partnerships
Ability to Cultivate and Develop Champions
47%
Coalition Leadership
55%
39%
33%
59%
50%
0%
20%
80%
64%
39%
38%
Sustainability
77%
78%
83%
47%
47%
Reputation and Visibility
90%
88%
50%
Overall
93%
70%
68%
40%
80%
60%
60%
80%
100%
36. Coalition A scored higher than Coalitions B, C, and D
across all 7 sections of the assessment.
Coalition scores on the Coalition Assessment Tool:
Basic Functioning and Structure
Coalition A
Coalition B
Coalition C
Coalition D
57%
90%
59%
Ability to Learn from the Community
65%
Ability to Cultivate and Develop Champions
47%
Coalition Leadership
78%
75%
83%
47%
47%
45%
55%
53%
80%
64%
39%
38%
41%
Reputation and Visibility
Sustainability
33%
77%
88%
50%
Ability to Develop Allies and Partnerships
93%
70%
68%
59%
39%
45%
80%
50%
Overall
60%
55%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
37. 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)
93%
Basic Functioning and Structure
70%
90%
Ability to Learn from the Community
59%
88%
Ability to Develop Allies and Partnerships
50%
83%
Ability to Cultivate and Develop…
47%
80%
Coalition Leadership
47%
64%
Reputation and Visibility
39%
59%
Sustainability
39%
80%
Overall
0%
25%
50%
75%
50%
100%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
38.
39. Coalition A scored higher than Coalitions B and C
across all 7 sections of the assessment.
Coalition scores on the Coalition Assessment Tool:
Coalition A
(n=32)
Coalition B
(n=29)
93%
Basic Functioning
Ability to Learn
88%
Champions
25%
50%
38%
39%
33%
39%
80%
0%
47%
47%
59%
Overall
55%
47%
64%
Sustainability
78%
50%
80%
Reputation and Visibility
77%
59%
83%
Coalition Leadership
68%
70%
90%
Allies and Partnerships
Coalition C
(n=34)
75%
60%
50%
100% 0%
25%
50%
75%
100% 0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
40.
41.
42.
43. Participants increased their knowledge
Knowledge is increasing.
after completing the program.
Distribution of pre test and post test scores:
40%
30%
30%
17%
20%
Pre test scores
10%
(78 participants)
3%
20%
19%
7%
4%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
27%
30%
20%
Post test scores
10%
7
35%
40%
(77 participants)
6
2%
5%
7%
12%
12%
0%
1
0-4
2
5-9
3
10-14
4
15-19
5
20-24
6
25-29
# of test questions answered correctly
(out of 34 total questions)
7
30-34
44.
45.
46. Nonprofits are more likely to use quantitative
evaluation practices than qualitative practices.
Percentage of nonprofits using each evaluation practice:
Qualitative Practices
Quantitative Practices
81%
64%
79%
Compiling
Statistics
Case
Studies
51%
63%
28%
50%
49%
Medium
orgs
Large
orgs
32%
87%
Feedback
Forms
Internal
Tracking
Forms
18%
43%
87%
24%
Focus
Groups
76%
13%
65%
38%
Interviews
Small
orgs
Medium
orgs
Large
orgs
Small
orgs
53. 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)
Basic Functioning and Structure
93%
Ability to Learn from the Community
90%
Ability to Develop Allies and Partnerships
88%
70%
Ability to Cultivate and Develop Champions
83%
Coalition Leadership
Reputation and Visibility
Sustainability
Overall
80%
64%
59%
50%
47%
47%
39%
59%
39%
80%
50%
54.
55. 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)
Basic Functioning and Structure
93%
Ability to Learn from the Community
90%
Ability to Develop Allies and Partnerships
88%
70%
Ability to Cultivate and Develop Champions
83%
Coalition Leadership
Reputation and Visibility
Sustainability
Overall
80%
64%
59%
50%
47%
47%
39%
59%
39%
80%
50%
56.
57. Two charts in one
(2 bar charts)
Invisible bars
(1 stacked bar chart)
58. Participants were generally satisfied—
85% would recommend the program to a friend.
Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following
statements. (n=100)
Strongly
agree
Agree
I'd recommend this
program to a friend. 50%
35%
I learned a lot
in this program. 45%
This program
exceeded my
expectations.
8% 7%
30%
30%
Strongly
Disagree disagree
25%
15%
10%
25%
20%
67. The Foundation has supported immigration reform
through 64 grants over the past 8 years.
Length of grant awards:
Core Support
Detention and Democracy Project
Electronic Policy Network Web Portal
Evaluating the Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform
Immigrant Rights
Responding to Anti-Immigrant Ballot Initiatives
General Support
Immigration Policy Research and Dissemination
Protecting the civil and human rights of new and non-citizens
Gulf Coast Recovery and Rebuilding
Follow-on Support
Strategic Planning Implementation
Evaluating the Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform
Accessing Immigrant Rights through the Media
National Immigrant Justice Center - Follow-on support
Protecting the Legal Rights of Immigrants
National Convening of Funders
We Are America Alliance Action Fund
Executive Director Search
Wave of Hope Campaign
Immigration Policy Center – Planning Grant
Multicultural Leadership for Sound Public Policy
Elm City ID Card
Core Support
We Are America Alliance Action Fund
Non-partisan Voter Mobilization
Four Pillars Campaign for Immigration Reform: Embedded Evaluation
Four Pillars Campaign for Immigration Reform - Field and Policy Pillars
Four Pillars Campaign for Immigration Reform: Communication Support
Strategic and Business Planning
Pilot Project: Engaging Latino Voters
Enacting Immigration Reform: 2010 Campaign Support
Reform Immigration for America Campaign
ENTRES NOS: Moms for Family Unity Campaign
Immigration: The Changing Face of America
Renewal-Cross programme grant RHR & Ageing: Business Plan Implementation Support
New Leaders for America Project
Immigration, Criminalization, and Parental Rights
Immigration Reform: Communication Support
Detention, Democracy and Due Process
Reform Immigration for America
Women Advocates for Women Immigrants
Immigrants' Rights Project
Core Support
Protecting the Rights of Immigrants
Turning the Tide
Final Core Support
Core Support
Cuentame: Voter project
Interim Immigration Strategy
Reform Immigration for America, (RIFA)
Interim Immigration Strategy
Promise Arizona in Action
Training Immigrant Rights Activists
Safe Communities Campaign
Latino Voting and Immigration Institute
United We Dream Action Network
Alliance for Citizenship
Protecting Immigrant Rights
Promise Arizona in Action
General Support
Alliance for Citizenship
Evaluating U.S. Immigration Reform
Securing Immigration Reform
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
72. Policy Analysis/Research
Influencer Education
Policymaker Education
Public Education
Media Advocacy
Communications and Messaging
Model Legislation
Public Forums
Public Polling
Coalition Building
Public Awareness Campaigns
Demonstration Programs
Community Mobilization
Champion Development
Regulatory Feedback
Advocacy Capacity Building
Community Organizing
Leadership Development
Public Will Campaigns
Political Will Campaigns
Voter Outreach
Litigation
90
81
71
63
36
36
29
27
22
25
25
23
22
21
20
11
11
7
3
2
1
0
73. ACTION
WILL
AWARENESS
Outcomes
Community Mobilization
18
Community Organizing
10
Public Will Campaigns
3
Advocacy Capacity
Building
9
Leadership Development
Voter Outreach
6
1
Public Awareness
Campaigns
21
Public Polling
22
PUBLIC
Coalition Building
21
Media Advocacy
36
Communications and
Model Legislation
29
Regulatory Feedback
14
Champion Development
15
Political Will Campaigns
1
Messaging
36
Public Forums
27
Demonstration Programs
18
INFLUENCERS
Audiences
DECISION MAKERS
81. All 6 students improved after
completing the reading program.
Student reading scores before and after the program:
85%
Student A Before reading program
After reading program
82%
Student B
80%
Student C
63%
Student D
48%
Student E
35%
Student F
0%
20%
98%
96%
92%
76%
63%
55%
40%
60%
80%
100%
88. Before enrolling in the reading program,
scores ranged from 35% to 85%.
Student reading scores before enrolling in program:
Before
program
Student A
85%
Student B 82%
Student C 80%
Student D
Student E
Student F
0%
20%
63%
48%
35%
40%
60%
80%
100%
89. Before enrolling in the reading program,
scores ranged from 35% to 85%.
Student reading scores before enrolling in program:
Before
program
Student A
85%
Student B 82%
Student C 80%
Student D
Student E
Student F
0%
20%
63%
48%
35%
40%
60%
80%
100%
90. Before enrolling in the reading program,
scores ranged from 35% to 85%.
Student reading scores before enrolling in program:
Before
program
Student A
85%
Student B 82%
Student C 80%
Student D
Student E
Student F
0%
20%
63%
48%
35%
40%
60%
80%
100%
91. All 6 students improved after
completing the reading program.
Student reading scores before and after the program:
Before
After
program program
Student A
85%
Student B 82%
Student C 80%
Student D
Student E
Student F
0%
20%
35%
40%
63%
48%
98%
96%
92%
76%
63%
55%
60%
80%
100%
92. All 6 coalitions increased their capacity
over the course of the grant.
Coalition Assessment Tool scores after Years 1 and 2:
Year 1
Coalition A
Year 2
85%
98%
Coalition B 82%
Coalition C 80%
63%
Coalition D
Coalition E
Coalition F
0%
20%
35%
40%
48%
96%
92%
76%
63%
55%
60%
80%
100%
93. Coalition members rated themselves more highly
than the external TA providers.
Coalition member vs. TA provider coalition ratings:
TA
Coalition
Providers Members
Coalition A
85%
Coalition B 82%
Coalition C 80%
63%
Coalition D
Coalition E
Coalition F
0%
20%
35%
40%
48%
98%
96%
92%
76%
63%
55%
60%
80%
100%
94.
95. Coalition capacity is promising.
Each
represents one coalition member’s ratings on the Coalition Assessment Tool.
30
Number of
coalition
members
(n=100)
25
20
15
10
5
0
0-9% 10-19%
20-29%
30-39%
40-49%
50-59%
60-69%
70-79%
80-89%
90-100%
96. Nobody scored
their coalitions
below 20%
30
Number of
coalition
members
(n=100)
25
20
15
10
5
0
0-9% 10-19%
20-29%
30-39%
40-49%
50-59%
60-69%
70-79%
80-89%
90-100%
97. Only 18 people
scored their coalitions
below 60%
30
Number of
coalition
members
(n=100)
25
20
15
10
5
0
0-9% 10-19%
20-29%
30-39%
40-49%
50-59%
60-69%
70-79%
80-89%
90-100%
98. 69 people
gave ratings between
60 and 89%
30
Number of
coalition
members
(n=100)
25
20
15
10
5
0
0-9% 10-19%
20-29%
30-39%
40-49%
50-59%
60-69%
70-79%
80-89%
90-100%
99. 13 people rated
their coalitions
above a 90%
30
Number of
coalition
members
(n=100)
25
20
15
10
5
0
0-9% 10-19%
20-29%
30-39%
40-49%
50-59%
60-69%
70-79%
80-89%
90-100%