Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
1
Human Dignity Foundation
Grantee Perception Reports Prepared for Human Dignity Foundation December 2015
2
CEP MISSION The mission of the Center for Effective Philanthropy is to provide data and create insight so philanthropic funders can better define, assess, and improve their effectiveness – and, as a result, their intended impact.
3
Grantee Survey Population
Survey Period Number of Grantees Surveyed Number of Responses Received Survey Response Rate May and June 2015 38 31 82% Outcome Number of Responses Child Protection 21 Life Choices 10 Comparative Dataset: More than 250 foundations Over 42,000 grantee responses
4
Comparative Cohort: A custom cohort of 11 funders listed below:
The Atlantic Philanthropies Mama Cash The Children’s Investment Fund Foundation New Profit Comic Relief Oak Foundation EMPower Paul Hamlyn Foundation Humanity United Skoll Foundation Levi Strauss Foundation
5
Impact on Fields and Communities Impact on Grantees’ Organisations
Relationships with Grantees Helpfulness of Processes Differences by Outcome
7
Impact on Fields and Communities
8
“Overall, how would you rate the Foundation’s impact on your field?”
1 = No impact 7 = Significant positive impact “Overall, how would you rate the Foundation’s impact on your local community?” 1 = No impact 7 = Significant positive impact
9
“How well does the Foundation understand the field in which you work?”
1 = Limited understanding of the field 7 = Regarded as an expert in the field “How well does the Foundation understand the local community in which you work?” 1 = Limited understanding of the community 7 = Regarded as an expert in the community
10
“They encourage organisations to address policy-level issues and interact with government actors to facilitate change from a grassroots to a national level.” “The HDF grant has helped us explore innovative strategies in making communities aware of child rights and issues of violence against children. It will help in creating a safe environment and promote values of child rights [– especially those of girls].”
11
Impact on Grantees’ Organisations
12
1 = Did not improve ability, 7 = Significantly improved ability
“How much, if at all, did the Foundation improve your ability to sustain the work funded by this grant in the future?” 1 = Did not improve ability, 7 = Significantly improved ability 26% Received suggestions for funders to contact 52% Received funding from other sources as a results of HDF’s reputation or assistance
13
“Overall, how would you rate the Foundation’s
impact on your organisation?” 1 = No impact, 7 = Significant positive impact
14
Grantmaking Characteristics
HDF 2015 Average Funder Custom Cohort Median Grant Size $550K $60K $181K Proportion Receiving Multi-Year Support 87% 51% 65% Proportion Receiving General Operating Support 10% 20% 21% “Develop funds specifically dedicated to organisational development as this is an area where funding is lacking although it is key to the growth and sustainability of organisations.”
15
Provision of Non-Monetary Assistance
Type of Support HDF 2015 Average Funder Custom Cohort Comprehensive 0% 6% 8% Field-Focused 13% 9% Little 55% 37% 45% None 32% 48% 38%
16
Relationships with Grantees
17
Funder-Grantee Relationships
STRONG RELATIONSHIPS Fairness of treatment by foundation Clarity of communication of foundation’s goals and strategy Comfort approaching foundation if a problem arises INTERACTIONS COMMUNICATIONS Consistency of information provided by different communications In a few moments, I will turn to the Relationships measures in the GPR, but first I want to talk about the funder-grantee relationship and why it is so important. First, here at CEP, ‘a relationship’ means something specific. Based on items in the grantee survey, we have found that funder-grantee relationships are made up of 5 highly related items about grantees’ interactions and communications with their funders, shown on the screen. Grantees are foundations’ chosen agents of changes, the organizations through which CIFF achieves impact. Without grantees, foundations - including CIFF - would achieve little. Foundations need to work productively with grantees in order to accomplish their shared goals. We have found that grantees perceptions on these five items are highly related to a whole host of other perceptions about their funders. …Stronger relationships are predictive of a funder’s impact on their organization, …They are predictive of a funder’s impact on the communities and fields in which its grantees are working. …Stronger relationships are even related to how helpful grantees find their evaluation and reporting processes, just to name a few. This doesn’t just apply to one role. Everyone at a foundation can and does influence how grantees experience their relationships with foundations. So these principles need to be shared by others. Grants managers and finance folks who help grantees through the process. Staff and Board leadership who sets the tone and messages for the foundation. Grantees should feel that the foundation treats them fairly That’s a big one – so what does it mean to treat them fairly? Comments from grantees and our interviews with them suggest that it means you’ve met the expectations you set up with them. That you treat them the same way you treat other grantees. And that you mean what you say to them. They should feel comfortable approaching the foundation if a problem arises You certainly want this to be the case. If a grantee is encountering problems achieving your shared goals, you may be able to help. And they should feel like staff are responsive to them That often plays out when they have a question or need assistance. CLICK - And regarding the 2 aspects of communications Grantees should feel like the foundation clearly communicates its goals and strategies Do they know what you’re trying to accomplish? If they don’t, how can they possibly be working their hardest to achieve it? And they should perceive that the communication they are receiving from foundation is consistent That’s not just consistency in what you say, but how does that match up the website or funding guidelines. How does it match up to what they hear others saying? -These 5 items make up the construct of funder-grantee relationships. Responsiveness of foundation staff
18
Funder-Grantee Relationships Summary Measure 1 = Very negative, 7 = Very positive
19
“The relationship, based on trust and confidence, that we created with the person from HDF following our project has been extremely important in allowing both [our organisation] or HDF to freely and confidently raise issues when they arise.” “HDF has a way of working where they are able to engage with us as a partner – and not one of a donor-recipient. That has meant a feeling of co-ownership to the work that we do.”
20
“How consistent was the information provided by different communications resources, both personal and written, that you used to learn about the Foundation?” 1 = Not at all consistent 7 = Completely consistent “How clearly has the Foundation communicated its goals and strategy to you?” 1 = Not at all clearly 7 = Extremely clearly
21
“With regard to processes and expectations of grant beneficiaries, it is not always clear what is expected. Clearer guidelines may facilitate quality communication and avoid different interpretations.” “I do feel that there was perhaps a disconnect in terms of what the Foundation ultimately saw as the emphasis or priority area of the project and what the organisation perceived as priority areas.”
22
Helpfulness of Processes
23
“How helpful was participating in the Foundation’s selection process in strengthening the organisation/programme funded by the grant?” 1 = Not at all helpful 7 = Extremely helpful “How helpful was participating in the Foundation’s reporting/ evaluation process in strengthening the organisation/ programme funded by the grant?” 1 = Not at all helpful 7 = Extremely helpful
24
“How involved was the Foundation staff in the development of your proposal?”
1 = No involvement 7 = Substantial involvement “At any point during the application or the grant period, did the Foundation and your organisation exchange ideas regarding how your organisation would assess the results of the work funded by this grant?” Proportion responding ‘Yes’
25
“Their process is a good one
“Their process is a good one. They are involved and helpful as they want to see the project a success and sustained. They pushed us in a good way to establish targets and not just under-promise and over-deliver. They made us be realistic in our goals.” “…even if we did not win the bid for this grant the whole process of developing the proposal was very stimulating mentally. It made us to think of a number of factors that we had over looked. We were energized by the whole process.”
26
Recommendations Reflect on differences in work and interactions with Child Protection and Life Choices grantees Seek opportunities to develop and demonstrate a deeper understanding of grantees’ fields and context Consider providing general operating support where appropriate Identify opportunities to increase non-monetary support More clearly and consistently communicate HDF’s goals and strategy to grantees
Similar presentations
© 2024 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.