Posts Tagged ‘Funder/Grantee Relationships’

Naming Names: Five of the Best Program Officers

Friday, April 30th, 2010

On Monday, we’ll be releasing a new report, Working with Grantees: The Keys to Success and Five Program Officers Who Exemplify Them. The report is the culmination of new analyses conducted primarily by CEP Vice President – Research Ellie Buteau and CEP Research Analyst Tim Chu on our dataset of surveys of thousands of foundation grantees. 

In the report, we describe how five key questions in our grantee survey get at one underlying measure: Relationships. We looked at what most powerfully predicts strong performance on this measure. These keys to working with grantees are the focus of our report.

But we take it a step further, naming names of program officers who are among the best on the Relationships Measure.  Our survey asks grantees to rate foundations, but we have often seen tremendous variation in grantee responses for the same foundations.  One big reason for that variation?  It’s as simple as the luck of the draw –  which program officer a grantee happens to have been assigned.  (For a flavor of the ends of the spectrum of grantee experience, see my colleague Kevin Bolduc’s recent blogs on positive and negative grantee comments.) Building on CEP’s 2007 Stanford Social Innovation Review article, we have segmented our data based on primary contact for those foundations that have asked us to gather that information, selecting five program officers who are among the very best performing on the Relationships Measure to profile – with their permission, of course.

On Monday, we’ll release the report and the names of the five program officers – along with video interviews with three of them.  We hope this well-deserved recognition inspires foundation leaders and program officers to focus with renewed energy and determination on what our analysis shows to be the keys to strong funder-grantee relationships.

These relationships matter.  Wallace Foundation President Christine DeVita puts it this way: “Because foundations like ours can only achieve their mission through the work of others, it is important that we have strong and effective partnerships with all our grantees.”  It’s a simple point, but one that gets lost, all too often, within the walls of foundations.

A Dose of Honesty: The Tyranny of the Anecdote

Wednesday, February 10th, 2010

“We always felt we had a ‘Hannibal-the-cannibal’ relationship: Stay where you are and mind yourself and you’re okay. Take one step forward and your arm will be bitten off.”

“The Foundation has had a negative impact on our organization in spite of funding. Runaround by foundation staff and [the Foundation’s] nontransparent priorities and processes have wasted staff time and effort…. It is disheartening to think that the viability of an important program is subject to an unqualified person’s review, analysis, and presentation of our project to the full decision group.”

In my last “Dose of Honesty,” I highlighted the positive end of the spectrum of commentary we receive from grantees. Here, I figured I’d talk a bit about the other end, using these comments from surveys of two different funders.  Just like positive remarks, the terrible need equally careful consideration.

It’s a rare foundation that solicits candid, grantee feedback through CEP’s Grantee Perception Report, that doesn’t end up with a zinger in there. Invariably, comments like these cause serious freak-outs when staff members read them in the full list of redacted comments we provide.

Yet, as these one-off comments absorb attention and focus, they can distract from the important insights hidden in less snappy language in the rest of the qualitative feedback. So, staff should be upset – but mostly if those comments are part of a broader theme and not, as the zingers often are, just an indication of one very broken funding relationship.

One comment is scant evidence of failure – or, for that matter – of success. The glowing comment that gets tacked up on a bulletin board can wipe away dozens of comments that reveal utter mediocrity, or worse, a serious problem. As intoxicating as they may seem, like the zingers, one or two compliments – in a survey or at a dinner party – are just anecdotes.

Don’t get me wrong – qualitative anecdotes have their place. Terrible comments like those at the beginning of this post make for important warnings to foundations about what to try to avoid. They provide a visceral punch in the gut. But our focus at CEP is to raise up themes worthy of significant attention – and so we try to focus on trends in negative comments that highlight areas in which grantees say funders most need to improve.

****

Kevin Bolduc is Vice President - Assessment Tools at CEP