Posts Tagged ‘performance assessment’

Data Point: Why Aren’t Foundation Boards More Involved in Assessing Performance?

Wednesday, November 23rd, 2011

One of the key findings from our recent performance assessment study, titled The State of Foundation Performance Assessment: A Survey of Foundation CEOs, is that 70 percent of CEOs want their board members to be more involved in assessment. This finding is consistent with our previous research – a desire for more board involvement is one area where we have seen little change in our surveys over the years. To try to understand why this gap remains, we asked CEOs what stands in the way of greater board involvement in assessing the foundation’s performance.

 

 

One hundred seventy-three CEOs of U.S. foundations with annual grantmaking of at least $5 million responded to our survey. The 70 percent who said they wanted greater board involvement in assessment were asked to consider whether any of the four hurdles listed above hamper their board’s involvement; CEOs could select any or all of these options, as well as present other reasons on their own. They could also answer that “Nothing hampers board’s involvement” in assessment efforts.

Almost 30 percent said an impediment to board involvement is a belief among CEOs that their boards do not have a deep enough understanding of the issue areas the foundation funds. More than 20 percent saw a misalignment between the board and staff about what is possible to understand about the foundation’s impact. Just under 20 percent said the board does not support allocating the necessary resources for useful assessment. Finally, 13 percent believed that the board isn’t more involved because it doesn’t understand the foundation’s goals or strategies.

Yet a third of CEOs who would like their board to be more involved in assessment reported that nothing in particular hampers their board from greater involvement in assessment.

The most common barriers CEOs saw to board involvement in assessment seem to be easily addressable. If boards and CEOs work to make overcoming these hurdles a priority, perhaps we will begin to see more CEO satisfaction with the involvement of their boards in assessment.

* * * * * * * *

To read about current foundation CEOs’ attitudes toward assessment and what foundations are doing to understand their performance, see the report, The State of Foundation Performance Assessment: A Survey of Foundation CEOs written by Ellie Buteau, Ph.D. and Phil Buchanan and published by the Center for Effective Philanthropy.

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

 

Evaluation Roundtable Study Highlights the Role of the CEO in Evaluation

Wednesday, November 16th, 2011

report written by Elizabeth Heid Thompson and Patricia Patrizi (and currently available on the CEP website) explores the extent to which foundations evaluate the results of their work. An examination of 31 foundations that have demonstrated a commitment to evaluation over time highlights several key facts.

According to the report, published for the Evaluation Roundtable, funding to support evaluative activities has decreased despite an increase in the demand for the information those activities produce. The number of foundation staff devoted to these activities has also declined in recent years.

Much of the current investment in evaluation is focused on performance metrics, often administrative metrics, rather than on the measurement of the strategy behind the work or on the implementation process. In fact, many evaluation leaders raised the following concerns about the metrics used:

  • That the metrics they were tracking did not adequately align with their strategies;
  • That their investments did not make a difference in moving the needle; and
  • That metrics chosen often reflect goals too distant to inform the way a strategy is implemented.

The good news discovered in this research, which took place in 2009, was about the role of foundation CEOs in the evaluation process. They report that when the evaluation unit reports to the CEO, more financial resources will be provided, the evaluations will be more widely distributed and more attention will be paid to the findings.

 

Podcast Interview Explores Findings in CEP’s Recent State of Foundation Performance Assessment Report

Monday, November 7th, 2011

A podcast interview with CEP President Phil Buchanan provides a timely take on the state of foundation assessment. The interview is conducted by Larry Blumenthal and Bill Silberg for Talking Philanthropy, a Foundation Center service. The conversation, available directly here, is just over 15 minutes long and covers a wide range of questions.

It takes off from CEP research recently published in the report The State of Performance Assessment: A Survey of Foundation CEOs, which presented the following key findings:

  • CEOs place great importance on assessing their foundations’ effectiveness;
  • Foundations appear to be using a broader range of information to assess their financial, operations, and programmatic performance than a decade ago; and
  • Board involvement in assessment remains a challenge.

The conversation examines the findings and charts the changes since CEP’s earlier research on the subject almost a decade ago, putting the efforts to find effective ways to assess performance both in the long-range history of modern philanthropy and in the more immediate context of a decade of significant change in culture and practice.

 

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.

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.