1. Grantee Perception Reports Prepared for Human Dignity Foundation December 2015

2. 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 3 Survey Period Number of Grantees Surveyed Number of Responses Received Survey Response Rate May and June 2015383182%  Comparative Dataset:  More than 250 foundations  Over 42,000 grantee responses Outcome Number of Responses Child Protection21 Life Choices10

4. 4 Comparative Cohort: A custom cohort of 11 funders listed below: The Atlantic PhilanthropiesMama Cash The Children’s Investment Fund Foundation New Profit Comic ReliefOak Foundation EMPowerPaul Hamlyn Foundation Humanity UnitedSkoll Foundation Levi Strauss Foundation

5. 5 Impact on Fields and Communities Impact on Grantees’ Organisations Relationships with Grantees Helpfulness of Processes Differences by Outcome

6. 6

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 8 “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 9 “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. 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. 52% Received funding from other sources as a results of HDF’s reputation or assistance “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 12 26% Received suggestions for funders to contact

13. “Overall, how would you rate the Foundation’s impact on your organisation?” 1 = No impact, 7 = Significant positive impact 13

14. Grantmaking Characteristics HDF 2015Average FunderCustom Cohort Median Grant Size$550K$60K$181K Proportion Receiving Multi-Year Support 87%51%65% Proportion Receiving General Operating Support 10%20%21% 14 “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. 15 Type of SupportHDF 2015 Average Funder Custom Cohort Comprehensive0%6%8% Field-Focused13%9% Little55%37%45% None32%48%38% Provision of Non-Monetary Assistance

16. Relationships with Grantees

17. Funder-Grantee Relationships STRONG RELATIONSHIPS Fairness of treatment by foundation Comfort approaching foundation if a problem arises Responsiveness of foundation staff Clarity of communication of foundation’s goals and strategy Consistency of information provided by different communications INTERACTIONS COMMUNICATIONS 17

18. 18 Funder-Grantee Relationships Summary Measure 1 = Very negative, 7 = Very positive

19. 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 20 “How clearly has the Foundation communicated its goals and strategy to you?” 1 = Not at all clearly 7 = Extremely clearly

21. 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. 23 “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 “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

24. 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. 25 “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. 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