Archive for the ‘Assessment Tools’ Category

The Power of Donor Feedback

Wednesday, September 28th, 2011

The conversation at the Center for Effective Philanthropy (CEP) tends to move rapidly toward the subject of feedback. The assessment tools we provide to foundations make it possible to collect responses in areas relevant to foundation organization and practice from a wide range of constituent groups — grantees, local stakeholders and donors among them. The goal in every case is credible, comparative feedback that gives those constituents a voice and places them in context.

Donors and the Donor Perception Report (DPR) were the particular focus of a recent seminar conducted at the Council on Foundations’ fall conference by Kevin Bolduc, CEP’s vice president – assessment tools. Video from that session makes a strong statement about the utility of feedback in general but also about the power of comparative data.

What we see here is a look at what foundations get from the DPR. Above all, that is the contrast between what foundation staff members surmise donors think of them, and what the data compiled through CEP’s cumulative surveys actually reveal. During the seminar, Kevin asked attendees to suggest one word that donors might be expected to use to describe their community foundation. Participants offered up a list: trustworthy, responsible, connector, leader, engaged, pretty much in that order.

From research, he then listed what donors actually said to describe the community foundation they work with. These were, in order: effective, professional, helpful and efficient.

The point is that data replaces assumptions with facts. And even a seasoned hunch can benefit from that sort of informational update.

Taking part in the rest of the session with Kevin Bolduc were Amy Cheney, vice president for Giving Strategies at the Greater Cincinnati Foundation; Terence Mulligan, president of Napa Valley Community Foundation; and Sarah Nelson, chief philanthropy officer at the Communities Foundation of Texas. These foundations differ in terms of geography, mission and history but all share an appreciation of how measurable feedback can improve their work processes as well as the specific findings they drew from constituent feedback. A full video of this seminar will be available soon at www.effectivephilanthropy.org.

To find out more about the DPR and the power of feedback, friends and colleagues are invited to join CEP for a webinar from 2 to 3 p.m., EST, on Friday, October 7. Amy Cheney will share her experience with the DPR, and participants will have the chance to pose questions to her, as well as to CEP President Phil Buchanan and Kevin Bolduc. We have had a good show of interest in the webinar already, and expect a lively conversation.

Click here to register.

David Trueblood is vice president – communications and programming at CEP.

Data Point: Talking About Staff Performance

Friday, September 23rd, 2011

The use and management of data stands at the core of the work undertaken by the Center for Effective Philanthropy. The set of survey tools CEP has developed as well as field-wide research builds comparative data drawn from key constituent groups—grantees, donors, staff members and others—providing insights that enable funders to better define, assess and improve their effectiveness.  We are posting this series to share our data more broadly and to highlight specific data points.

In this case the source is the Staff Perception Report (SPR), which explores foundation staff members’ perceptions of foundation effectiveness and job satisfaction on a comparative basis. The SPR is based on a survey specific to foundations that includes questions related to staff members’ impressions of their role in philanthropy, satisfaction with their jobs, their foundation’s impact, and opportunities for foundation improvement.

 

 

The data point shown above comes from responses to the following question:

Was your performance formally reviewed during the last 12 months? Those who answered ‘Yes,’ were then invited to agree or disagree with the following statement: Yes, I had a conversation about my recent performance with my supervisor.

Over 700 foundation staff members responded to this question. Of those, 551 individuals or 76 percent indicated that they had such a conversation, and 170 individuals or 24 percent said they had had no conversation with their supervisor about their performance.

 

Kevin Bolduc is vice president — assessment tools at CEP.

Data Point: Influencing Donors Who Give to Community Foundations

Friday, September 16th, 2011

The use and management of data stands at the core of the work undertaken by the Center for Effective Philanthropy. The set of survey tools CEP has developed as well as field-wide research builds comparative data drawn from key constituent groups—grantees, donors, staff members and others—providing insights that enable funders to better define, assess and improve their effectiveness.  We are posting this series to share our data more broadly and to highlight specific data points.

In this case, the source is the Donor Perception Report (DPR), which helps community foundations to better understand donors’ awareness of their organizations’ strengths and future opportunities.

The data point shown above comes from responses to the following question:

Please think about your giving to or through the Foundation over the past 3 years. Rate the importance of each of the following factors in your decision(s) to establish a fund with the Foundation, or to make contributions to the Foundation or to your fund instead of giving to or through other charitable options.

Donors taking this survey were asked to rate on a scale of 1 (Not at all important) to 7 (Extremely important) several elements related to their community foundations, in categories such as leadership and knowledge, finance and administrative services, or reputation and referral network. While the highest rated factor among the over 2,500 donors surveyed was the Foundation’s integrity and trustworthiness, the quality of the Foundation’s staff was the next highest rated factor as shown in this chart. The Foundation’s efforts to connect the respondent to other donors, however, stood on the opposite end of the scale as factor with the lowest rating.

Readers of this blog post are invited to respond. Does this information fit with your expectations about how donors make decisions?

 

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

CEP’s work is rooted in the conviction that feedback can play a role promoting change in foundation practice. For a broader look at the role of feedback in philanthropy, see the report, Can Feedback Fuel Change at Foundations? written by Phil Buchanan, Ellie Buteau, Ph.D., and Shahryar Minhas and published by the Center for Effective Philanthropy.

 

Kevin Bolduc is Vice President – Assessment Tools at the Center for Effective Philanthropy.

The Effect of Response Bias: Who Completes our Surveys?

Monday, September 12th, 2011

The topics about which the Center for Effective Philanthropy (CEP) surveys foundation leaders can be controversial and challenging. As a result, we never know exactly who will respond to a particular survey or why. Yet the issue of who responds and who does not should always be considered by critical readers of research based on survey data.

For example, in 2006, we sent surveys to 163 CEOs of foundations that had used CEP’s Grantee Perception Report, asking about the types of support they provide to grantees, and why: 48 percent responded. We got about the same response rate, 49 percent, when we sent surveys to CEOs of foundations with $100 million or more in assets about their provision of assistance beyond the grant in 2008.

But when we surveyed essentially the same population in 2009 about the concept of strategy and their approaches to it, only 23 percent responded. We knew our survey in this case was long, and the questions were more complex than the 2006 and 2008 surveys.  Perhaps that contributed to the lower response rate. But, another potential explanation is that those who were not interested in strategy, or those who were not yet using strategy, were less likely to respond.

For our recently released research report, The State of Foundation Performance: A Survey of Foundation CEOs, we sent surveys early this year to the 537 CEOs of foundations giving $5 million or more annually in grants. Thirty-two percent responded, for a total of 173 CEOs.

As you can see, response rates of foundation leaders to the surveys we have fielded over the years differ quite a bit. Response rates are one indication of how representative our survey data might be. But whenever we close a survey, and before we analyze the data, a big question for us is: What kind of response bias do we have?

While we can never fully know the answer to that question, we do know a few things about our latest sample. Foundations from which CEOs did and did not respond looked the same in terms of asset size. The giving of these two groups of foundations differed only slightly, with CEOs of foundations giving more being slightly more likely to respond. So we know that, on these basic dimensions, we don’t appear to have a bias issue.

But we did see one important difference: CEOs of foundations that had used CEP’s Grantee Perception Report were quite a bit more likely to have responded to the survey than CEOs of foundations that had not.

When it comes to response bias, a key concern is how the respondents differ from non-respondents on the principal variables the survey seeks to measure. Our main variables in this survey were foundation CEOs’ attitudes and practices regarding foundation performance assessment. It is likely that those less focused on assessment were less likely to respond to the survey. Put another way, perhaps members of the proverbial choir to which CEP preaches – those who are already thinking about, and perhaps working on, assessment – are over-represented among our survey respondents.

Though we have no systematic data with which to test this hypothesis, one email we received while fielding the survey indicates we should at least consider this possibility. The note came from a CEO who told us that she is usually open to doing surveys, but, “I got halfway through and it was seriously raising my anxiety about all the things we aren’t doing to evaluate our work in a systematic way. Then I closed the window and went back to my other work.”

So, we do need to be careful about generalizing too broadly from these results.

But we also believe that responses from 173 CEOs of the largest foundations in the country form a solid sample to give us a sense of CEOs’ attitudes and practices regarding performance assessment.  We also conducted a similar survey almost a decade ago, with a 34 percent response rate – which for that survey represented 77 CEOs – and there’s no reason to believe the response biases would be different this time than last time. That’s why we’re comfortable making some statements about how practices appear to have changed.

But readers of the report, and for that matter any report that’s based on a survey, should always consider the important question of response bias.

My hope is that those who read this latest report take a look at our findings as well as our methodology.

Ellie Buteau, Ph.D., is Vice President – Research at the Center for Effective Philanthropy.

 

 

Grantee Feedback Fuels Changes at Foundations

Tuesday, May 10th, 2011

Collecting feedback from grantees about a foundation’s performance seems like a good idea, but does it lead to any change?

“Since we began [the Grantee Perception Report®] eight years ago, a big question is whether collecting feedback from grantees that is candid, confidential and comparative in nature leads to any change,” said Center for Effective Philanthropy (CEP) President Phil Buchanan at CEP’s Better Philanthropy: From Data to Impact pre-conference seminar on May 9.

At the meeting, CEP released a new research report that indicates that repeated use of the Grantee Perception Report (GPR) by foundations does appear to be contributing to changes in foundation practices that benefit grantees. The GPR provides provides funders with comparative, candid feedback based on grantee perceptions. A CEP analysis of 59 foundations that have undertaken the GPR at least twice showed that on a number of dimensions in the grantee survey there were statistically meaningful improvements for those funders.

Overall, 80 percent of funders repeating the GPR see some level of positive improvement on the impact that grantees perceive them to be having on their organization, and nearly one-third see statistically significant increases, said Ellie Buteau, CEP Vice-President—Research. Only three percent saw their average rating statistically decline.

“The good news is that funders that are committed to getting improved ratings from grantees are seeing improvement,” Buteau said.

The largest improvements were seen on questions such as:

  • Grantees’ perceptions of foundations’ understanding of, and impact on, their organizations;
  • Helpfulness of a funder’s selection process;
  • Impact on and understanding of grantees’ fields.

Repeated users of the GPR saw the least improvement on community-focused measures, such as understanding of grantees’ local communities. CEP found no improvement on making an impact on local communities.

The findings are particularly noteworthy because CEP found that grantees’ perceptions of foundations in general have not improved in the past eight years, a finding that surprised CEP staff.  CEP hypothesized that given the number of “infrastructure” organizations that have sprung up in this field in the past decade that focus on the experiences grantees have with their funders —including CEP—that CEP would see higher ratings of foundations for first-time GPR users in recent years than it did in early days.

“The disappointing news is that we don’t see recent first-time GPR users rating funders any different than first-time GPR users did eight years ago,” Buteau said.

Those findings make the improvements of the 59 foundations that repeated the GPR particularly striking, she said.

Making changes at foundations, particularly after receiving poor ratings, however, isn’t easy. 

Mary Vallier-Kaplan, vice president and chief operating officer of the New Hampshire-based Endowment for Health, said that when the foundation received its first GPR, it ranked in the 25th percentile of funders on several significant indicators.

“It really felt like a punch in the stomach,” she said at the CEP meeting. “We had worked so hard and we thought we had done so well. It took a while not to deny [the findings], question the methodology or say, ‘Well, we’re a new foundation.’”

After Vallier-Kaplan, staff, and board members absorbed the news, the Endowment for Health undertook several steps to improve its ratings, she said.

“We had been so focused on doing a good job and being fair and using evaluation that we had forgot some of the human side of what this business is about,” Vallier-Kaplan said. “Much of what we did to improve was to add the human dimension.”

As a result, when it undertook the GPR again three years later, the Endowment for Health saw greatly improved ratings. On many of the dimensions where the Endowment had lagged behind most other funders, it was now among the leaders.

CEP’s report, Can Feedback Fuel Change at Foundations? An Analysis of the Grantee Perception Report will be released on its website the week of May 16. The report includes:

  • Detailed findings from the CEP research;
  • Stories of the steps that the Endowment for Health and other foundations took to make improvements based on GPR findings;
  • Four common characteristics of foundations that drive real improvement in GPR results.

Susan Parker is owner of Clear Thinking Communications