Archive for the ‘Constituent Feedback’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Data Point: Getting Input When Developing Strategies

Friday, November 4th, 2011

Being “strategic” in philanthropy is sometimes equated with being isolated, arrogant, or top-down, with foundation leaders asserting detailed theories of change to rigidly guide grantmaking. But CEP’s research suggests that the opposite is the case. Those who are strategic are more likely to seek feedback from external constituents when developing strategies.

This data point comes from our December 2009 study titled Essentials of Foundation Strategy. The findings from this report are based on data collected from surveys of CEOs and program staff at private foundations with $100 million or more in assets. These leaders were then classified as either “more strategic” or “less strategic” based upon the extent to which they embody two defining elements: 1) an external orientation to their decision making, and 2) logical connections between the way they use their resources and the achievement of their goals.

Completed surveys were received from 102 CEOs and 89 program staff members, representing 155 different foundations. Respondents were asked to rate on a scale of 1 (Not at all) to 7 (To a very great extent) the extent to which they obtain input from four different external constituent groups when developing their foundation’s strategy.

The results show that more strategic leaders seek input from grantees, stakeholders, beneficiaries, and consultants when developing their strategies to a greater extent than their less strategic counterparts. Contrary to the perception that to be strategic in foundation work is to be inflexible, unresponsive, or top-down, the more strategic CEOs and program staff were in fact more likely to look outside their foundations’ walls and seek input from stakeholders.

Even for those leaders who are more strategic, though, the average rating for the extent to which they seek input on strategy development from the ultimate beneficiaries of their work falls on the lower end of the scale.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

What separates more strategic foundation leaders from less strategic ones? To read CEP research that explores the state of strategy at private foundations and identifies behaviors and practices common to more strategic leaders, see the report Essentials of Foundation Strategy written by Ellie Buteau, Ph.D., Phil Buchanan, and Andrea Brock.

Ellie Buteau is Vice President – Research at the Center for Effective Philanthropy

 

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Constituent Feedback, Data Point, Developing Strategy | Comments Off

A Foundation Asks its Constituents About How Best to Spend $100 Million

Monday, October 17th, 2011

I was struck by a September 29th blog post written by Chris Langston, program director at the John A. Hartford Foundation in New York City. In his post, Chris asks for suggestions from “grantees, stakeholders, peers, and older persons themselves” about how the Foundation can “make the biggest difference in the lives of older adults” with the $100 million it plans to spend between 2013 and 2017.

He specifies that, at this point, the Foundation wants to “discuss the nature of the problem of health and aging and the broad societal forces that seem likely to be relevant.” He goes on to explain why he believes it is so important to focus on the problems at hand before turning to strategies or grant ideas.

Much of CEP’s research, as well as our conversations with leaders in the field and clients, touch at one point or another on the complex yet crucial issues of communication, goals, and strategy. The challenging nature of each of these only increases as we consider the power dynamics that often exist between funders and the nonprofits they support, as well as the growing economic needs in our society.

The John A. Hartford Foundation’s experiment of seeking suggestions from such a wide variety of stakeholders about which problems it should be addressing through its funds – and of seeking them through social media – is one attempt to mitigate the power dynamic and hear directly from those closest to the problems at hand. So far, Chris’s post has received over a dozen comments containing suggestions, which have arrived steadily since the post appeared.

Chris’s post reminded me of several elements that have arisen in our research at CEP about what distinguishes more strategic leaders from less strategic leaders. Through our research, both qualitative and quantitative, CEP has developed and applied a definition of strategy. The first component of that definition focuses on foundation leaders who seek and consider information and data about the relevant populations, issues, communities, and fields when they are making decisions about how to use the foundation’s resources to achieve its goals. That means not relying solely on what the foundation already knows, what the board’s preferences are, or what the foundation has done in the past.

In our research, both with private and community foundations, we find that strategic leaders seek information from a variety of stakeholders when developing their strategies. In that context, Chris’s invitation to beneficiaries of the foundation’s work (i.e., older adults) to contribute suggestions also stands out. The inclusion of beneficiaries in input and feedback processes has been the focus of increasing conversation in philanthropy – in books, on blogs, in op-eds, and in CEP’s research. Today, though, the practice of seeking beneficiary voices is not a common occurrence.

As the John A. Hartford Foundation moves forward with its work, it would be helpful to learn how the input received from constituents shapes the thinking there, and what the ultimate decisions turn out to be. More broadly, I wonder if the Foundation’s openness to seek input in such a public forum will spur other foundations to take risks on similar efforts.

The John A. Hartford Foundation is by no means the first funder to open itself up in this way. In 2007, for example, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation solicited, through a wiki, suggestions for developing strategies to address nitrogen pollution.

Still, such efforts to invite input from a variety of relevant constituents remain far too rare. I can only wonder what the consequences of such lost opportunities have been for foundations making progress toward their goals.

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

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Constituent Feedback, Developing Strategy | 1 Comment »

Data Point: Importance of Social Networks to Donors

Friday, October 7th, 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.

 

This data point comes from the Donor Perception Report (DPR), which helps community foundations identify actionable strategies for more effectively engaging their donors. The DPR covers topics such as donor preferences, future giving plans, perceptions of impact on the community, and foundation communications.

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

“Please think about your use of online social networks (e.g., Facebook, Twitter). How important to you are these online networks?”

Donors taking this survey were asked to rate on a scale of 1 (Not at all important) to 7 (Extremely important) the importance of online networks. With over 1,500 respondents answering this question, the majority of donors (64%) gave the lowest possible rating to the importance of social networks, with an average rating of 1.9. Only a tiny sliver (2%) felt these networks were extremely important.

Perhaps even more striking, an overwhelming 91% of respondents indicate that they would NOT like to receive information about a foundation’s work over social networks.

Because this question is an optional addition to the standard DPR, results reflect respondents from only thirteen funders.

Readers of this blog post are invited to respond. Do donors really not want to be engaged through online networks or could their minds be changed with more effective social media outreach?

 

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

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

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Assessment Tools, Constituent Feedback, Data Point, Programming and Communications | 1 Comment »

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.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Assessment Tools, Constituent Feedback | Comments Off

Listening to Beneficiaries: Why Are We So Bad At It?

Thursday, September 22nd, 2011

CEP has been actively exploring the topic of beneficiary feedback through its YouthTruth project since 2008. We were very pleased to share what we are learning – and to challenge the status quo — on the Tactical Philanthropy blog this week, where the following post was originally published.

 

The power of feedback is almost universally acknowledged. Every day, millions of people turn to reviews written by end-users in Yelp, Trip Advisor, GreatNonprofits, and Global Giving to inform their purchasing and philanthropic decisions.  The end-user’s perspective on their experience is seen as an asset just about everywhere—except in the world of foundations.

Consider a recent report published by the Center for Effective Philanthropy (CEP). The State of Foundation Performance: A Survey of Foundation CEOs, updates work CEP completed a decade ago, looking at the types of data foundations use to assess their performance.  While the report shows that foundations are increasingly looking to a range of indicators, notably surveys of grantees, only about a quarter of funders gather feedback from beneficiaries in any way. This, despite analysis showing that it may be among the most valuable types of feedback. CEOs of foundations who collect beneficiary feedback rate themselves as having a better understanding of the progress their foundation is making against its strategies and a more accurate understanding of the impact the foundation is having on the communities and fields in which it works.

As head of CEP’s YouthTruth initiative, which gathers comparative feedback from students – the ultimate beneficiaries of education reform efforts, I have seen the power beneficiary feedback can have in informing local school change efforts. Consider this recent post about The California Endowment’s YouthTruth experience.  So the question I ask myself is this: How can we better understand why foundations have not seriously embraced beneficiary feedback, and how can we encourage its use?

To elevate beneficiary perspectives, I am convinced that at least three things need to happen.

  • We need to believe as a field that beneficiaries’ perspectives matter.
  • Foundation leaders need to understand the connection between beneficiaries’ perspectives and good strategy – to acknowledge that this data has the potential to inform funders’ theory of change.
  • And we need easy-to-use tools to collect and make sense of the feedback as we acquire it.

The third area is where we have made the most progress, as we are increasingly well-positioned with new tools for gathering beneficiary feedback. Now we need to push ourselves on these first two points.

With regard to the first, we need to address the biases that convince some in the field that beneficiary feedback is less valuable or objective than the opinions of say, grantees or donors.

Daniel Sid describes the situation this way on Bridgespan’s blog:  “the working assumption of the suppliers [of nonprofit human services] and their funders alike is that they know what is best for the individuals and families they are serving… reducing [beneficiaries] to passive recipients… And why bother [gathering feedback] when your beneficiaries can’t really take their business elsewhere?”

With regard to the second point, can foundations expect to learn anything that will enable them to make different decisions from beneficiary feedback? Speaking from my own experience, we don’t know for sure but we are getting close.

YouthTruth was started by CEP, with support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to test this very notion. To date, YouthTruth has gathered perspectives from more than 71,000 students from 164 schools nationwide. With this dataset, we have been able to examine the degree to which there are systematic differences in student perspectives based on the type of school they attend.

Moreover, we have the ability to identify differences in student perceptions, say about their futures, across groups implementing a common strategy, such as a STEM strategy, and provide insights about the relative effectiveness of various efforts. This to me seems like helpful and actionable data that can inform funders’ decision-making. While this is one isolated example, we need many more experiments such as YouthTruth to push our thinking about the benefits and limits of beneficiary feedback.

I would argue that since beneficiaries are ultimately the people we are all trying to serve, we need to take dramatic steps to take their perspectives into account.

We need to ask each other the tough questions about why this feedback is not being more widely used and challenge ourselves to determine the potential of beneficiary feedback once and for all.

Valerie Threlfall is vice president – youthtruth initiative at CEP.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Constituent Feedback | Comments Off

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »