Posts Tagged ‘community foundations’

A CEP Advisory Board Member Weighs In

Monday, September 26th, 2011

Two weeks ago, CEP released a report about strategy at community foundations. Last Thursday, Ellie Buteau wrote a blog post about some responses we have received since the report’s release. Today, Alicia Philipp, who was a member of the advisory group for this study, weighs in with her thoughts on the report.  Philipp is president of the Community Foundation of Greater Atlanta.

 

Thoughts about CEP’s Recent Report on Community Foundation Strategy

I would like to weigh in with my thoughts on CEP’s new study of strategy at community foundations. I served as a member of the Community Foundation Strategy Study Advisory Committee and, hopefully, added input to the design but I take neither credit nor criticism for the study or the results. I do know that I, along with others, raised concerns about a singular focus on program strategy at community foundations and pushed successfully for the broader look at both strategy in donor and programmatic work.

My main worry about too great a reliance on this study arises from the sample size of 30. While it may not still be “if you have met one community foundation, you have met one community foundation”, it is not far from the truth. I can’t help wonder how the next 30 interviews would have changed the results.

That said, I believe community foundations are still in the early stages of figuring out how to have an overall strategy for their work that encompasses donor and program. The silos for many of us are hard to break down. Even in this study the two were looked at separately. Success will be when the articulation of our strategy is different from private foundations because of the unified way we impact communities with all of our assets (literally and figuratively).

 

 

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

New Report on Strategy at Community Foundations Sparks Debate

Thursday, September 22nd, 2011

The topic of strategy has long been central to research undertaken by the Center for Effective Philanthropy, because we are convinced that strategy is essential if foundations are to maximize their impact on people, communities and issues.

For this reason, we have spent considerable energy exploring how to define strategy in philanthropy and how to determine the degree to which foundations do – or don’t – use strategy in their day-to-day work. Our most recent research report (released last week) looks at strategy at community foundations and concludes that, just as is the case at private foundations, there is a gulf between rhetoric and reality. CEOs say strategy is crucial, but few are really using strategy – at least as we define the term.

The majority of the feedback we have received from community foundation leaders in response to this report has been positive so far. Our findings resonate with them and their experience. But we have also received a few challenging comments from community foundation CEOs. I want to lay out the three critiques we have heard, and our response to each.

Critique 1: The fatal flaw is…the application of the definition of strategy developed for private foundations as the lens through which you evaluated strategic behavior at community foundations.

The definition of strategy used in our research was the following:

A framework for decision-making that is 1) focused on the external context in which the foundation works, and 2) includes a hypothesized causal connection between use of foundation resources and goal achievement.

Before designing this research, we sought feedback from a variety of community foundation leaders about whether or not we should be approaching this research with this definition. Overwhelmingly, community foundation leaders supported the use of this definition in our research.

Then, while analyzing the data collected through our interviews, we considered whether or not the definition of strategy should be changed or expanded. After several months of data analysis and conversation, our conclusion was that nothing in CEOs responses indicated a different definition was applicable to community foundations.

Community foundations generally met the first condition of our definition: external orientation. It was the second condition – includes a hypothesized causal connection between use of foundation resources and goal achievement – where community foundations did not come through.

Might there have been a better definition for strategy in community foundations than the one we used in our research? Perhaps. But it’s hard for me to imagine any definition of strategy that doesn’t include the very basic requirement of logical connections between use of resources and goal achievement. As a result, our finding that few community foundations are strategic would still hold.

Critique 2: Being strategic is not black or white; there’s a huge spectrum along which all of us lie.

We at CEP agree with this statement. In the methodology for this report, we explained that in order for a CEO to be categorized as strategic, half of the decision-making processes CEOs shared with us with regard to how they work to achieve the foundation’s goals had to meet the definition of strategy. This criterion allowed us to be very inclusive about who was categorized as strategic.

In addition, we did identify a group of CEOs as partly strategic, as noted in the report. The bar for being categorized in this way was even lower – requiring only one decision-making process to fit our definition of strategy.

We also tried to capture some of the nuance and spectrum by categorizing CEOs separately with regard to their donor and programmatic work. That means, for example, a CEO could be categorized as strategic in donor work but not in programmatic work.

We did receive a suggestion during the process of collecting external feedback for this report, prior to its release, that we should frame our findings more gently by refraining from using the term “not strategic.” But rather than make our decision about how to word these findings on the basis of what people wanted to hear, we made our decision according to what the data were indicating.

Critique 3: But wait – I can name many community foundations I think are strategic.

One of the main reasons that CEP conducts research is to steer conversations away from anecdotes and towards more systematic data.

Based on our data and analysis for this research, we did identify, among our respondents, some strategic community foundation CEOs – and we highlighted the work of three of them in the report: California Community Foundation; Orange County Community Foundation; and Community Foundation of the Eastern Shore. What we found, however, is that strategic foundations are more the exception than the rule.

Some community foundation leaders clearly disagree with our findings and how we arrived at them. Others, however, told us they did not find our results surprising at all. They said the fact that the majority of those we interviewed were not classified as strategic hardly seemed like news.

In all of CEP’s research, we recognize the critical role foundations play in our society. Our research is conducted to advance knowledge and contribute to conversations about important and challenging issues that foundations face. As with all of our reports, we invite you to share your comments.

 Ellie Buteau, Ph.D., is vice president – research 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.

Working Strategically: A Common Challenge for Community and Private Foundations

Wednesday, September 14th, 2011

Over the course of CEP’s work, we often hear reasons why foundations cannot, or should not, be compared to one another. According to the conventional wisdom, “If you’ve seen one foundation, you’ve seen one foundation.”  And it is often assumed that community foundations are too different from private foundations to enable us to draw lessons from one that apply to the other.

While there is some truth in these statements, we also see that differences across foundations aren’t necessarily best explained by type, or asset size, or the other commonly hypothesized reasons.  Our past research indicates that important variation exists across foundations, as well as in the practice of foundation staff members, on more mutable characteristics such as how grantees experience working with the foundation, internal attitudes and practices related to data and assessment, or the presence of a strategy.

Our latest research report,Rhetoric versus Reality: A Strategic Disconnect at Community Foundations,” presents us with yet another instance in which we see more similarities than differences across foundations of different types.

In 2006, CEP released a report about the use of strategy, or lack thereof, among CEOs and program staff at large private foundations. It was a qualitative study, based on interviews with a total of 42 staff members from 21 private foundations. Based on our data from that research, CEP developed a definition of strategy:

A framework for decision-making that is 1) focused on the external context in which the foundation works, and 2) includes a hypothesized causal connection between use of foundation resources and goal achievement.

After receiving requests from community foundation leaders, we set out to conduct a similar, but separate study, about the meaning and use of strategy at community foundations. Given the particular challenges and competitive dynamics that community foundations face, we hypothesized that strategy may carry a somewhat different meaning or be viewed differently by community foundation CEOs.  Or that, perhaps community foundations, by virtue of the pressures they’re under, would be more strategic than their private foundation counterparts.

But findings from this new research do not support that hypothesis. Our findings for community foundations are strikingly similar to the findings from our research with private foundations.

After in-depth interviews with 30 randomly selected community foundation CEOs, we found that CEOs of community foundations believe that strategy is important, and say that they are using strategy in their work at their foundation. However, when we compare their descriptions of their strategies with CEP’s definition of strategy, we find that few community foundation CEOs are actually using strategy.

It is worth pointing out that while analyzing our data from this study, we noticed that CEOs’ descriptions of their decision making processes did not indicate that CEP’s strategy definition needed amending in order to be applied to the work of community foundations.

The missing ingredient for most who participated in our study is the second part of CEP’s strategy definition: the logic that explicitly links the use of foundation resources to intended results in the community it serves. When we drill down to examine the decision-making process, we tend to see the biggest gaps between a CEO’s choices and how those choices will help the foundation move closer to achieving the foundation’s goals.

But we know that gaps of this nature are also key opportunities for progress in the development of strategy – for community and private foundations alike. It is clear that community foundations, too, have a long way to go to marry their rhetoric and the stark reality when it comes to strategy.

 

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

How Community Foundations Use Donor Perspectives to Improve Their Work

Friday, July 22nd, 2011

While donors are the lifeblood of community foundations, at times it can be tough to know exactly what they want from their foundations.

For two leading community foundations, learning about their donors’ views from a comparative survey served as a catalyst to get both their donors and their board members more excited and involved in foundations’ work. What’s more, survey results led both foundations to take new steps that they believe will bring in donors who will be actively engaged with their foundations, according to the community foundation leaders who spoke at CEP’s 2011 conference in May.

CEP’s Donor Perception Report (DPR) is a confidential survey that asks donors’ perceptions of the strengths and areas for improvement of the community foundations they fund. The DPR provides foundations with findings not just on their donors’ perceptions but on how they compare with other community foundations.

The Greater Cincinnati Foundation commissioned the DPR in 2010 after trying four other donor surveys that did not yield the information that leaders needed, said Kathryn E. Merchant, president and CEO of the foundation. In the previous attempts, the foundation struggled to get good, objective information from a source that understood community foundations, Merchant said.

“The first [donor] survey we did ourselves,” she said. “People didn’t think the credibility was strong. Then we went to the other extreme and hired a market research firm, and they didn’t get our business.”

For the DPR, CEP surveyed the community foundation’s donor advised funds (755 via email and traditional mail) and received a 34 percent return rate. The foundation found that it rated highly on donor satisfaction and willingness to refer others to the foundation compared to 13 other community foundations.

“When [CEP] presented the report it was our best board meeting ever,” Merchant said. “The board was so excited to have this information…The board was excited to learn: (a) about our good report card; and (b) about the areas where we could possibly improve because they were so clear and excited about the journey we were going to take…The whole organization is getting a buzz from this one survey. Had I known, I would have begged CEP harder to do this sooner.”

The foundation also learned that fully 72 percent of its donors would like to be self-sufficient for their giving decisions, relying on the foundation primarily for management and facilitation of their funds.

“That tells you a little bit about what you have to do in upping your game in your self-service tools,” Merchant said. “We had been working on that in a slow paced way. We decided that 2011 is the year that we really need to bring that home.”

The DPR also told the foundation that some donors wanted much more involvement. For the past several years, The Greater Cincinnati Foundation has categorized its donors into one of three tiers with tier one donors as the most highly engaged, tier two has somewhat less involved and some wanting to get more involved, and tier three as the donors satisfied with the self-service aspect. The DPR revealed that some of the tier two donors wanted more engagement with the foundation, more site visits to nonprofits, and other ways of connecting. As a result of the survey, the foundation formed a task force that included donors and began looking for ways to engage those donors and address other DPR findings, Merchant said.

“We’re thinking about making it easier for donors to go from tier two to tier one,” Merchant said. “I do wine tastings for my donors now.”

(Merchant is also a certified wine professional.)

“This is the hit of the universe,” Merchant said. “This is just a fun informal setting where we get to talk about the community of donors because we didn’t really get that before. The biggest gift in the DPR is to see what the donors think in a clear-eyed way and understand the nuances of how you might approach coming a little closer to getting people what they need.”

The DPR also revealed that The Greater Cincinnati Foundation had twice as many donor advised funds for each staff person assigned to donor relations as did the comparative foundations. Merchant used that information successfully to make the case to her board that the foundation needs to hire another staff member in donor relations.

The Rhode Island Foundation used the DPR in conjunction with other CEP tools, including the Grantee Perception Report®, the Stakeholder Perception Report, and the Applicant Perception Report, to get feedback from a variety of key people and organizations, said Neil D. Steinberg, the foundation’s CEO.

“The single most significant finding [from the DPR] was that our donors of today are not our donors of tomorrow,” Steinberg said. “If we wanted to grow the foundation, if we wanted to have an impact, if we wanted to raise our visibility and leadership, we had to reorient how we would [cultivate] donors.”

As part of that work, the foundation looked outside the usual applicants when it had an opening in its development team. Instead of hiring a fundraiser as is typical for community foundations, the foundation hired a senior private banker who had worked in wealth management. She had ties to some of the wealthiest individuals in the state who may not have known about the foundation, Steinberg noted. The foundation also started connecting potential donors with its program officers more.

“Our best fundraisers are our program officers,” he said. “If someone says they are interested in the arts, we put them with our program officers and we wow them with what we are doing in arts organizations.”

Through the DPR and other CEP surveys, Steinberg said that the foundation began to address a potentially serious problem. When donors die and leave their estate to their children, those offspring, who are often living in another state, may want to use the money to support causes where they live rather than Rhode Island.

“We are now having a dialogue with donors when they open funds, which is usually when their kids are young,” Steinberg said. “We will describe the situation of money going outside of Rhode Island and ask them where they want their money to go. They will often write in the document that 50 percent of the money goes to Rhode Island. We didn’t know to do that before,” he said.

“The real crux of what we are doing is changing the dialogue,” he said. “We are getting to know our customers better.”

Susan Parker is owner of Clear Thinking Communications.