Grantmaking Process Feedback Survey Report · 9/6/2016 · Title: Grantmaking Process Feedback...

transcript

GRANTMAKINGPROCESSFEEDBACKSURVEYREPORT

Submittedby:LijaGreenseid,Ph.D.GreenseidConsultingGroup,LLCSeptember6,2016

2GreenseidConsultingGroup,LLC September6,2016

Background

TheFoundationforaHealthySt.Petersburg(“theFoundation”)madeitsfirstgrantawardsduringthe

summerof2016afteratwophaseapplicationprocess.Aspartofitsmissiontocontinuallyimprove,

theFoundationcontractedwithGreenseidConsultingGroup,LLC(GCG)togatherfeedbackfrom

organizationswhosubmittedLettersofInterest(LOI)duringthe2016fundingcycle.Thepurposeof

thisreportistosharefindingsfromtheGrantmakingProcessFeedbackSurveywithFoundationstaff

andotherstakeholdersinordertoimprovefuturefundingcycles.

Methodology

GreenseidConsultingGroup,incollaborationwithFoundationstaff,developedanonlinesurveyusing

SurveyMonkey.OnAugust8,2016,theFoundationemailedsurveyrequeststo181projectcontacts

and/orCEOsrepresentingthe145organizations1thatsubmittedLOIs.Thiswasfollowedwithreminder

emailsonAugust11thandAugust15th.WhilesomeorganizationssubmitteduptothreeLOIsfortheir

organization,onlyonesurveyemailwassenttoeachcontactfromtheorganizations.Atotalof76

peoplecompletedthesurveybeforethesurveywasclosedonAugust22ndfora42%responserate.As

thesurveywasanonymous,wedonotknowhowmanyorganizationsarerepresentedamongthe

surveyrespondents.AfullcopyofthesurveyisavailableinAppendixA.

Findings

OverallExperience

Thefirstquestiononthesurveyaskedgrant-seekingorganizationstocomparetheiroverallexperience

withtheFoundationforaHealthySt.Petersburgtootherfundingorganizations.AsshowninFigure1,

aboutathirdofrespondentsstatedthattheFoundationwaseasiertoworkwiththanother

organizations,abouthalfofrespondentssaidtheFoundationwasthesametoworkwithasother

grant-makingorganizations,and15%ofrespondentsstatedthattheFoundationwashardertowork

withthanotherorganizations.

1While200projects/organizationsoriginallysubmittedLOIs,somewereineligibleorwithdrewtheirapplications;therefore,theywerenotincludedinthemailing.

Figure1.OverallexperiencewiththeFoundation

MissionQuestions

Thenextsectionofthesurveyaskedrespondentstostatetheiragreementordisagreementwitheight

statementsrelatedtotheFoundation’smission,vision,andstrategies.Thefirstfourstatementshave

beenaskedofotherstakeholdergroupsinpriorFoundationsurveys.Theremainingfourstatements

werenewlydevelopedforthissurveyinordertoassessmoreextensivelytheFoundation’smission,

vision,andstrategies.

AsshowninFigure2,allstatementssawhigherlevelsofagreementthandisagreement.Thehighest

levelsofagreementwerewiththestatements:“TheFoundationvaluesbringingpeopletogetherto

cultivatetrustamongproviders,thecommunity,andtheFoundation”(83%stronglyagreedoragreed)

and“TheFoundationisdeeplycommittedtomaintaininganopenandtransparentprocess”(78%

stronglyagreedoragreed).Thelowestlevelofagreementwaswiththestatement:“TheFoundationis

cultivatingcompellingsolutionstoaddressourcommunity’smostimportantneedsbyleveraging

collaborationsandthesustainedcommitmentoffundersandadvocates”(20%stronglydisagreedor

disagreed).

TheFoundationwaseasiertoworkwiththanotherorganizations

TheFoundationwasaboutthesametoworkwithasothergrant-making

organizations

TheFoundationwashardertoworkwiththanotherorganizations

Overall,howwouldyoucompareyourexperiencewiththeFoundationforaHealthySt.Petersburg(“theFoundation")toyourexperiencewith otherfundingorganizations?(n=76)

Figure2.AgreementwithFoundationmission,vision,andstrategyquestions

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

TheFoundationisdeeplycommittedtomaintaininganopenandtransparentprocess.

TheFoundationvaluesbringingpeopletogethertocultivatetrustamongproviders,thecommunity,andthe

Foundation.

TheFoundationrespectsthedeep-rootedunderstandingthatmembersofthecommunityhaveaboutthehealth

needsoftheircommunities.

TheFoundationisdedicatedtoestablishingprocessesandinitiativesthatinviteandembraceallmembersofthecommunity,especiallythoseoftennotengagedand

included.

TheFoundationisimprovingthehealthandwell-beingofourcommunitythroughinitiativesthatcreate

sustainable,effectiveimprovementstoqualityoflife.

TheFoundationiscultivatingcompellingsolutionstoaddressourcommunity’smostimportantneedsby

leveragingcollaborationsandthesustainedcommitmentoffundersandadvocates.

TheFoundationiscommitted tobeingaccountableandtransparent.

TheFoundationishelpingdevelopsolutionsthatgeneratesustainedandmeasurableimprovementsto

ourcommunity’shealth.

MissionQuestions(n=76)

StronglyAgree/Agree StonglyDisagree/Disagree I'mnotsure

FeedbackontheApplicationProcess

Thenextsectionofthesurveyaskedforfeedbackontheapplicationprocess.Thevastmajorityof

respondents(81%)agreedthatthetimeallottedtocompletethefullapplicationwasjustright,while

14%feltthetimelinewastooshortand6%feltitwastoolong,seeFigure3.

Figure3.Timeallocationforapplicationcomplete

Over70%ofrespondentsfeltthattheoveralltimelinefromthebeginningoftheRFPuntilthetime

theyreceivedafinaldecisiontobeaboutwhattheyexpected.22%ofrespondentsfeltthatthe

timelinewaslongerthanexpectedand7%feltthetimelinewasshorterthanexpected,seeFigure4.

Figure4.TimelinefromRFPtodecision

Theapplicationtimelinewastooshort

Theapplicationtimelinewasjustright

Theapplicationtimelinewastoolong

Howwouldyoudescribethetimeallottedforgranteestocompletethefullapplication?(n=72)

Theoveralltimelinewasshorterthanexpected

Theoveralltimelinewasaboutwhatwasexpected

Theoveralltimelinewaslongerthanexpected

HowwouldyoudescribethetimelinefromthebeginningoftheRFPtothetimewhenyoureceivedafinaldecision

(declinedorfunded)?(n=73)

Over70%ofrespondentsfeltthattheLetterofInterestapplicationwas“abouttherightlengthand

providedapplicantsenoughspacetomakethecasefortheirproject,”whileabout20%feltthe

applicationwas“tooshortanddidnotprovidesufficientspace.”Only7%felttheapplicationwas“too

longandthelevelofdetailwasexcessiveforanLOI,”seeFigure5.

Figure5.LetterofInterestwrittenrequirements

Overall,themajorityofrespondentsfelttheLetterofInterestapplicationguidancewasclearand

understandable.AsshowninFigure6,56%statedthatitwas“veryclear,”37feltitwas“somewhat

clear,”6%feltitwas“alittleclear,”andonly1%(1person)feltitwas“notatallclear.”

Theapplicationwastooshortanddidnotprovideuswithsufficientspacetomakeourbestcasetothe

foundation

Theapplicationwasabouttherightlengthandprovidedapplicants

enoughspacetomakethecasefortheirprojectidea

Theapplicationwastoolongandthelevelofdetailwasexcessiveforan

LOIapplication

HowdoyoufeelaboutthewrittenrequirementsofthefirstLetterofInterest (LOI)application?(n=73)

Figure6.LetterofInterestapplicationguidance

ThenextquestionaskedforfeedbackontheFoundation’stwophasereviewprocessincludinga

shorterLOIphaseandafullproposalphase.Overhalfofrespondentsfeltthetwophaseprocesswas

“anefficientandfairwaytostructurethefirstrequestforproposals,”while38%statedthe“twophase

processhadbothstrengthsandweaknesses.”Only9%statedthatthetwophaseprocesswas“too

detailedandtookuptoomuchoftheorganization’stimeandenergies,”seeFigure7.

Figure7.Twophaseapplicationprocess

5.5%1.4%

Veryclear Somewhatclear Alittleclear Notatallclear

HowclearandunderstandablewastheLetterofInterest applicationguidanceforapplicants?(n=73)

Thetwophaseprocesswasanefficientandfair waytostructurethisfirstrequestforproposals

Thetwophaseprocesshadbothstrengthsandweaknesses

Thetwophaseprocesswastoodetailedandtookuptoomuchofourorganization'stimeandenergies

TheFoundationstructuredthisreviewprocesstoincludebothashorterLetterofInterest phaseandafullproposal

phase.Didthistwophaseprocessworkforyourorganization?(n=71)

Eightrespondentssharedcommentsregardingthetwophaseapplicationprocess.Threerespondents

werepositiveaboutthetwophaseapplicationprocesscallingit“goodpractice”and“wellstructured,”

andsayingthattheyappreciatednothavingtocompleteafullproposaluntiltheyknowifafunderis

interested.OnesuggestedthattheFoundationoughttoconsiderleavingalittle“wiggleroom”inthe

LOItoallowagenciestoaccuratelyrepresenttheirstrengths.Fourrespondentsweremorecriticalof

theprocess;theyallfeltthattheLOIwastoodetailed.Onerespondentsaidtheapplicationwastoo

muchforaone-yeargrant,onesaiditwasbeyondthecapacityofsmalleragencieswithout

professionalgrantwriters,onefelttheLOIwasequivalenttomanycompletegrantprocesses,and

anotherpersonsaidtheapplicationwastoomuchgiventhatonly50%oftheorganizationswere

funded.Finally,onerespondentusedthespacetostatethatPhase2oftheapplicationprocessdidnot

materializeasdescribedbytheFoundation.

Thenextquestiononthesurveyaskedrespondentstoprovidetheirsuggestionsforhowtoimprove

theFoundation’stwophaseproposalprocess.Thequestionposedwas“IftheFoundationdecidesto

keepatwophase(LetterofInterestandfullapplication)proposalprocessinthefuture,doyouhave

anysuggestionsconcerninghowitcouldbeimproved?”Atotalof33peoplerespondedtothe

question.Fourrespondentsstatedthatnothingoughttobechangedandseveralstatedtheydidnot

know;twentyrespondentsofferedsuggestionsforimprovingtheproposalprocess.Suggestionsfor

improvementwerewide-ranging.Fourpeoplecommentedthatcommunicationcouldbeimprovedin

someway,suchasbeingclearerabouttimelines,expectations,theopportunityforsmallorganizations

toreceivefunding,andgenerallyaboutwhattheFoundationisseeking.Threerespondentssuggested

thatFoundationlimitthenumberoforganizationsinvitedtocompletethefullapplication,asitwas

burdensomefororganizationstocomplete.TworespondentsstatedthattheFluxxGranteePortal

neededtobeimprovedasitwasdifficulttouse.Tworespondentsrequestedmoreclarityon

expectationsfortheLOI.Othersuggestionsincluded:onlyhavingonephase,addingabudgetsection

totheLOI,aligningthefundingprocessandstatedgoals,encouragingmulti-partnerproposals,

encouragingorganizationstoflushouttheirproposalsmorefullyduringtheLOIphase,providingmore

spaceontheapplication,shorteningtheLOI,beingmoresupportiveofsmallnon-profits,andonly

havingatwo-phaseprocessformulti-yearawardstominimizeburden.

Next,respondentswereaskedwhat,ifanything,theywouldchangeabouttheFoundationapplication

process.Atotalof35peoplerespondedtothequestion,althoughsevensaidnottochangeanything.

Theothersprovidedawide-rangeofcommentsonallaspectsoftheapplicationprocess.Seven

respondentsaskedforgreaterclarityfromtheFoundationaboutvariouscomponentsofthe

applicationprocess,includingtwoaskingforclarificationabouttheconveningprocessandgrants,two

peopleaskedforclarityonfundinginterests,oneaskedformoreclarityontheLOI,andanotherasked

generallyfortheFoundationtokeepthingssimpleandtothepoint.

Anissueraisedbyfourrespondentsistheperceivedlackoffundingforsmallernon-profit

organizations.Thishascausedconcernamongstrespondentswhohadexpectationsthatthe

Foundationwouldhelptobuildthecapacityofsmallerorganizations,butnowperceivethatthe

Foundationisprimarilyfundingwell-establishedorganizations.Respondentssuggestedthatthe

Foundationconsideratwo-trackprocessbasedonorganizationsizewhileasecondsuggestedoffering

mini-grantsforsmallerorganizationstobegiventheopportunitytodemonstratetheirimpact.

Thefollowingadditionalsuggestionswereofferedbytworespondentseach:

• Developstrategiesleadingtobettercollaborationbetweenorganizations• Balancegranteeselectionbetweenemergencyservicesandsustainablesolutions• Fundmulti-yeargrantstoallowgreatertimetoachievegoals• Solicitfewerorganizationstosubmitfullproposalssothattheratiooffundedtounfunded

proposalsincreasesthussavingorganizationaltimeandeffort

Additionalsuggestionsofferedbysinglerespondentsincluded:

• AllowmorecontactbetweenorganizationsandtheFoundationduringtheproposalphase• Continuetoprovideoutreachandtechnicalassistanceduringfuturefundingcycles• ExpandtheLOItoallowformoredetail• PostresponsestotheFAQsmorequickly• FixbugsintheFLUXXGranteePortal• Considerfundingexistingeffectiveinterventions• Continuedialoguewithorganizationsnotfunded• Besuretoinviteallorganizationstothefeedbackmeeting• Providegreatertransparencyonhowapplicationsarereviewedandscored

ApplicationFollow-up

ThenextsectionofthereportwasdesignedtogatherinformationabouttheFoundation’sapplication

follow-upactivities.Thequestionsinthesectionweretailoreddependingonwhethertherespondent

hadbeeninvitedtosubmitafullproposalorhadparticipatedinvariousfollow-upactivities.Therefore,

thenumberofrespondentsperquestionmaybelessthanthetotal.Abouthalfofrespondents

reportedhavingbeeninvitedtosubmitafullproposal(n=34)andhalfreportednotbeinginvitedto

submitafullproposal(n=35).

Thoserespondentswhoindicatedtheyhadnotbeeninvitedtosubmitafullproposalforfundingwere

askediftheyattendedanapplicationfeedbackmeetingattheFoundation.Abouthalf(19respondents)

statedtheyhadattendedafeedbackmeeting.Thosewhoattendedanapplicationfeedbackmeeting

weredividedsomewhatonthehelpfulnessofthemeetings.About40%ofrespondentsstatedthatthe

feedbackmeetingwas“veryhelpful,”16%stateditwas“somewhathelpful,”21%statedthatitwas“a

littlehelpful,”andanother21%stateditwas“notatallhelpful,”seeFigure8.

Figure8.Applicationfeedbackmeeting

Thosewhohadbeeninvitedtosubmitafullproposalwereaskedaboutthehelpfulnessofthe

consultationvisitsbyFoundationstaff.AsshowninFigure9,allofthosewhohadhadbeeninvitedto

submitafullproposalhadfoundthattheconsultationvisitswithFoundationstaffwereatleastalittle

15.8%21.1% 21.1%

Veryhelpful Somewhathelpful Alittlehelpful Notatallhelpful NotApplicable- wedonotplantosubmitfutureapplications

Towhatextentdidtheapplicationfeedbackmeetingprovideyouwithinformationthatwashelpfultoyouforsubmitting

futureapplicationstotheFoundation?(n=19)

helpful,with70%statingthattheywereveryhelpfulorandover20%statingtheyweresomewhat

helpful.

Figure9.Foundationstaffconsultationvisits

Foundationsupportforapplicants

AllrespondentswereaskedtoratethehelpfulnessofavarietyofFoundationsupportcomponents.As

showninFigure10,themosthighlyratedcomponentwasemailupdatesthroughoutthegrantprocess

(3.48outof4.0),followingcloselybyphonecallswithFoundationstaff(3.32),theFrequentlyAsked

Questionsprocess(3.29),andemailswithFoundationstaff(3.27).Thelowestratedcomponentwas

onlinevideos(2.68).WebinarsandnotificationsviatheFluxxGranteePortalwerealsomorelowly

rated(2.98and3.03respectively).

Veryhelpful Somewhathelpful Alittlehelpful Notatallhelpful

HowhelpfulweretheconsultationvisitsbyFoundationstaffwithprojectsinvitedtosubmitfullproposal?(n=33)

Figure10.HelpfulnessofFoundationsupportmechanisms

RatingScale:1=Notatallhelpful;2=Alittlehelpful;3=Somewhathelpful;4=Veryhelpful;Totalnwas68;Questionn'sdonotequal68becausesomeselectednotapplicableforsomequestions.

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Onlinevideos(n=50)

Webinars(n=56)

NotificationsviatheFluxxGranteePortal(n=61)

EmailswithFoundationstaff(n=52)

TheFrequentlyAskedQuestionsprocess(n=68)

PhonecallswithFoundationstaff(n=44)

Emailupdatesthroughoutthegrantprocess(n=67)

AverageRating

HelpfulnessofFoundationSupportMechanisms

FrequentlyAskedQuestionsprocess

AllrespondentswereaskedtoratethetimelinessandhelpfulnessoftheFoundation’sresponsesto

FrequentlyAskedQuestions.Overall,85%ofrespondentssaidtheywereeither“verysatisfied”or

“mostlysatisfied”withthetimelinessoftheFoundation’sresponses,while13%weresomewhat

satisfied,and1.5%(1person)statingtheywerenotatallsatisfied,seeFigure11.

Figure11.FAQresponsetimeliness

42.6% 42.6%

Verysatisfied Mostlysatisfied Somewhatsatisfied Notatallsatisfied

HowsatisfiedwereyouwiththeFoundation’stimelinessinrespondingtoFrequentlyAskedQuestions?(n=68)

RespondentsalsoprovidedhighratingsoftheappropriatenessoftheFoundation’sresponsestoFAQs.

Almost90%ofrespondentsstatedthattheywereeither“verysatisfied”or“mostlysatisfied”withthe

appropriatenessoftheresponsestheFoundationpostedontheFAQwebsite.10%ofrespondents

weresomewhatsatisfiedand1.5%(1person)wasnotatallsatisfiedwiththeappropriatenessofthe

responses,seeFigure12.

Figure12.FAQresponseappropriateness

RespondentswereaskediftheyhadanysuggestionsorcommentsabouthowtheFoundationcan

improveorwhattheFoundationshouldcontinuetodoregardingtheFAQprocess.Eightindividuals

providedfeedbackandsuggestionsregardingtheFoundation’sFAQprocess.Threesurveyrespondents

requestedthattheFoundationimprovetheclarityofitsFAQresponses,specificallybeingclearerand

moredirectinthelanguagetheFoundationuses.Additionalsuggestionsincludedprovidingongoing

feedbackontheFAQprocessandprovidingbettercommunicationwithgrantseekersandthe

community,includingarecommendationtoaddongoingconvenings.Finally,asalsomentionedin

othercommentsections,tworespondentsemphasizedthattheyfeeltheprocesswasskewedtoward

largerorganizationsandthatsmallerorganizationswerenotfunded.

Verysatisfied Mostlysatisfied Somewhatsatisfied Notatallsatisfied

HowsatisfiedwereyouwiththeappropriatenessoftheresponsestheFoundationpostedontheFAQwebsite?(n=68)

FeedbackontheFluxxGranteePortal

Inthenextsectionofthesurvey,respondentswereaskedfortheirfeedbackusingtheFluxxGrantee

Portal.Thefirstquestionaskedrespondentstoratetheuser-friendlinessoftheFluxxGranteePortal.

Overhalfofrespondentsstatedthattheyfoundtheportaltobe“mostlyuser-friendly”(54%),with

fewerstatingitwas“veryuser-friendly”(24%)or“somewhatuser-friendly”(21%),andoneperson

statingitwas“notatalluser-friendly,”seeFigure13.

Figure13.User-friendlinessoftheFluxxGranteePortal

Veryuser-friendly Mostlyuser-friendly Somewhatuser-friendly Notatalluser-friendly

TowhatextentdidyoufindtheFluxxGranteePortaltobeuser-friendly?(n=67)

Next,thesurveyaskedrespondentsiftheyexperiencedanytechnicalproblemswhileusingtheFluxx

GranteePortal.AsshowninFigure14,28%ofrespondentsstatedthattheyhadatechnicalproblem.

Figure14.FluxxGranteePortaltechnicalproblems

Respondentswhoindicatedtheyhadencounteredtechnicalproblemswereaskediftheyreceived

promptresponsesfromFoundationstaffregardingtheirissues.80%ofthosewithproblemsstated

thattheydidreceiveapromptresponse,while20%statedtheydidnot,seeFigure15.

Yes28%

DidyouexperienceanytechnicalproblemsusingtheFluxxGranteePortal?(n=67)

Figure15.PromptnessofFoundationresponsestoFluxxtechnicalissues

Atotalof46surveyrespondentsreportedthattheyattendedtheFluxxGranteePortalwebinarpriorto

completingtheLOI.ThisgroupwasaskedtoratethehelpfulnessoftheFluxxsystemwebinar.As

showninFigure16,abouthalfofwebinarattendeesstatedthattheyfoundit“somewhathelpful,”

aboutathirdstateditwas“veryhelpful,”and20%stateditwas“alittlehelpful.”

Figure16.HelpfulnessoftheFluxxGranteePortal

Yes80%

Forthoseencounteringtechnicalproblems:DidyoureceiveapromptresponsefromourstaffconcerninganytechnicalissuesthatyoumayhavehadwiththeGrantee

Portal?(n=20)

Veryhelpful Somewhathelpful Alittlehelpful Notatallhelpful

HowhelpfulwastheFluxxGranteePortalwebinarasyouusedtheFluxxsystem?(n=46)

SurveyrespondentswereaskedfortheirfeedbackonhowtomakeworkingwiththeFluxxGrantee

Portalabetterexperience.Eighteenpeopleprovidedsuggestionsandfeedback,althoughfourofthe

respondentsstatedthattheproblemstheyencounteredwereduetousererrororasteeplearning

curve.Threerespondentsaskedforadditionalorimprovedtrainingoradditionaltechnicalassistance;

onespecificallyaskedforcommunitytrainingsessions.Twopeoplestatedthatthesystemwasbadbut

didnotprovidespecificreasons.OnerecommendedthattheFoundationcompleteafullproposal

usingthesystembeforehavingotherorganizationstrytodoso.

Respondentsreportedhavingavarietyofspecifictechnicalproblemsusingthesystem.Twopeople

reportedproblemswithslowuploads.Onereportedencounteringissuesaccessingtheportalfrom

theirorganization’scomputersystem.Onehadaproblemlocatingthecorrectgrantfoldersonthe

system.Onepersonreportedthesystemwouldfreezeonthem.Oneaskedforadditionalinformation

onhowtoallowmultiplepeoplewithinanorganizationtoworkonanapplication.Finally,oneperson

suggestedthatthesystemprovideawaytoreceiveafullcopyofwhatwassubmitted,including

attachments.

FinalFeedback

Thefinalpageofthesurveyaskedrespondentsthreeopen-endedquestionsaskingforgeneral

feedbackontheirexperiencesandsuggestionsforimprovement.

Improvedapplicationexperience.Thefirstopen-endedquestionasked“Whatwouldhaveimproved

yourapplicationexperiencewiththeFoundation?”Atotalof35peoplerespondedtothisquestion,

althoughninestatedthatnothingwouldhaveimprovedtheirapplicationexperience.Manyofthe

suggestionsechoedthoseofferedearlierinthesurveywiththetopsuggestionforimprovement

relatingtocommunicationwithandfromtheFoundation.Sevenrespondentsleftcommentsrelatedin

somewaytocommunication.Fourrespondentsstatedthattheywouldhavelikedtohavemoredirect

feedbackfromtheFoundation.Onerequestedcommunitymeetingstobetterunderstandthe

Foundation’sfundingprocessandareasofinterest.Onestatedthatcommunicationbeganwellbut

becamesecretivetowardtheendoftheprocess.Finally,onerespondentsharedthattheywere

disheartenedastheyfelttheFoundationsaidtheyweregoingtobeadifferenttypeoffunding

organizationbutdidnotliveuptothatpromise.

Thenextmostfrequentlymentionedtopicwasgreaterclarityregardingtheapplicationprocess.One

personstateditwouldbehelpfultohaveaclearerunderstandingoftheLOI.Anotheraskedsimplyfor

“betterinstructions.”Athirdrespondentaskedforabetterunderstandingoftheselectioncriteria.

Twoorganizationssharedconcernsaboutthetypesoforganizationswhoreceivedfundingduringthe

inauguralyear.Onepersonstatedthattheywouldnothaveappliediftheyhadknownthat

community-basedorganizationswerenotgoingtobefundedtoagreaterextent.Asecondperson

statedthataccesstocaredidnotgetasmuchsupportastheyfeltiswarranted.

Finally,therewereanumberofcommentsandsuggestionsofferedbyjustasinglerespondent,

including:

• Theapplicationdeadlinetoocloselyfollowedtheholidays• Theguidelinesforgrassrootsorganizationsshouldbeeasiertomeet

• Itwouldbehelpfultoreceivewrittenfeedbackonproposals,theapplicationwastooshort,anditwashardtofittheirorganizationintojustonehealthdeterminant

• TheFoundationneedstogetits“acttogether”regardinghowtomoveforward• Thefeedbacksessioncouldbeimproved• Thetimelinewastooshortconsideringitwasthefirstyearoffunding• Therewasamisalignmentbetweenthestatedgoalsandwhowasfunded• Morecollaborativegrantopportunitiesandmorefrequentawards• MoretimeisneededtocompletetheLOI• Providegreaterthanayearoffunding• MaketheLOImoreconcise• Thesocialservicemodeldoesn’tworkforallorganizations

Futureintentions.Thesecondopen-endedquestionasked,“Doyouplantoapplyforfuturegrantsfrom

theFoundation?Ifno,whynot?”Atotalof60peopleansweredthisquestion.Almost80%of

respondents(47outof60)statedthattheyplannedtoapplyforafuturegrant,sixrespondentssaid

theymightapplyforafuturegrant,fiverespondentsstatedthattheywerenotsurewhetherthey

wouldapply,andonlytworespondentsstatedthattheywouldnotapplyinthefuture.

Foursubstantivecommentswerereceivedregardingreasonsfornotapplyingorbeinghesitantabout

applyingforgrantsinthefuture.Onepersonstatedthattheywouldnotbeseekingfundingbecause

theFoundationwas“nothonest”whenitcameintothecommunity.Anotherpersonwrotethatthey

wouldnotseekfundingassmaller,grassrootsorganizations(withoneexception)werenotfunded.

Anotherwrotethattheywerenotsureiftheywouldseekfundingastheyarenotsureifitisafairand

openprocess.Finally,onepersonstatedthattheywereundecidedaboutreapplyingastheyfeelthat

theFoundationappearstobeamorepoliticalthanamission-drivenorganizationbasedonthe

organizationsthatreceivedfunding.ThispersonalsostatedthattheFoundationneedsbetteradvice

regardingblackSt.Petersburg.

Additionalcomments.Thethirdandfinalopen-endedquestiononthesurveyaskedrespondentsfor

anyadditionalcomments.38respondentsprovidedfinalcomments.Sixteenrespondentspraisedthe

Foundationforapositiveexperienceduringthisinauguralfundingyear.Respondentsstatedthatthe

applicationprocesswentsmoothly,withseveralmentioningspecificallythatFoundationstaffwere

accessible,helpful,knowledgeable,andrespectful,andthatthefeedbacktheyreceivedwasvaluable

totheirorganizations.

Otherrespondentsreiteratedtheconcernstheyhadabouttheprocess,includingcommentsaboutnot

fundingsmallorganizations,thedifficultyofcompletingtheapplicationprocesswithoutprofessional

grantwriters,andaconcernabouttheFoundationbeingunfairandbiasedinitsawards.Therewere

severalcallsfortheFoundationtonarrowitsareasoffocusandprovidemoreclarityonthetypesof

organizationsandprojectsofmostinterest.

ConclusionsandRecommendations

TheFoundationforaHealthySt.PetersburgdesignedtheGrantmakingProcessFeedbackSurveyto

obtainfeedbackfromgrantseekersabouttheirfirstfundingcycle.Atotalof76organizationalproject

contactsand/orCEOsparticipatedinthesurveyfora42%responserate.

ThesurveyfoundthatthemajorityoforganizationsfoundtheFoundationtobeaboutthesameor

easiertoworkwiththanothergrant-makingorganizations.Onlyaminorityofsurveyrespondents

foundtheFoundationhardertoworkwiththanotherorganizations.Overall,organizationsbelievethe

Foundationvaluesbringingpeopletogether,respectingcommunitymember’sunderstandingofhealth

needs,andbeingopenandtransparent.Therewasrelativelyloweragreementwithstatementsrelated

totheFoundationmakingimprovementsincommunityhealth-althoughitislikelythatthese

sentimentsarerelatedtotheFoundationnotactuallyhavingfundedanyinitiativestodateandthis

maychangeovertime.

Feedbackontheapplicationprocess

Overall,thevastmajorityofapplicantsweresatisfiedwiththetimeallottedforcompletingthefull

applicationandthelengthoftimebetweenthebeginningoftheRFPuntilthetimetheyreceivedafinal

fundingdecision.Similarly,mostapplicantsfelttheapplicationwastherightlengthandprovided

applicantswithenoughspace,although20%ofrespondentsstatedthattheapplicationwastooshort

anddidnotprovidesufficientspacetomaketheirbestcase.TheFoundationmaywishtoconsider

providingadditionalroomforapplicantstoarticulatefullythevalueoftheirprojects.

ThemajorityofapplicantsfeltthattheLetterofInterestapplicationguidancewasclear.Whileover

halfofrespondentsfeltthattheFoundation’stwophaseprocesswasefficientandfair,aboutathird

feltthatithadstrengthsandweaknesses.Theopen-endedcommentssuggestthatFoundation

communicationcouldbestrengthenedwithseveralcallsforclarityinfundingexpectationsand

timelines.Additionally,severalrespondentssuggestedthattheFoundationlimitthenumberof

applicantscompletingthefullproposaltoreduceoverallburdenonorganizations.Finally,several

organizationsexpressedconcernsabouttheperceivedlackoffundingforsmallerorganizations.

Applicationfollow-upmeetings

Abouthalfofsurveyrespondentshadbeeninvitedtosubmitafullproposalandhalfhadnotbeen

invited.Forthosewhohadnotbeeninvitedtosubmitafullproposalandhadattendedanapplication

feedbackmeeting,over40%saidthatthemeetingwasonlyalittlehelpfulornotatallhelpful.This

strategymaywarrantadditionalconsiderationtomaximizeitsusefulnesstothoseorganizationsthat

arenotinvitedtosubmitproposals. Incontrasttothehelpfulnessoftheapplicationfeedback

meetings,applicantswhosubmittedfullproposalsgenerallyfoundtheconsultationvisitsby

Foundationstafftobequitehelpful.Werecommendthesecontinueinthefuture.

Foundationsupport,theFAQprocess,andtheFluxxGranteePortal

Surveyrespondentsratedemailupdates,phonecallsandemailswithFoundationstaff,andtheFAQ

processmorehighlythanwebinars,onlinevideos,andnotificationsviatheFluxxGranteePortal.

Improvingtheonlinevideosandwebinars,orperhapsprovidingsupportinalternativeformats,maybe

worthconsidering.

TheFoundation’sresponsestoFrequentlyAskedQuestionswerefound,overall,tobetimelyand

appropriate,althoughtherewereafewrequestsfortheinformationtobepresentedinawaythatis

moredirectandtransparent.

TheFluxxGranteePortalwasratedlowerthanothercomponentsoftheapplicationprocess.Itwas

onlymoderatelyuser-friendlyandoveraquarterofsurveyrespondentsreportedhavingtechnical

issues,althoughmostoftheirquestionswereaddressedpromptlybyFoundationstaff.The

Foundation’sFluxxsystemwebinarprovidedonlysomewhathelpfulinformationaboutusingthe

system.Whilesomeofthetechnicalproblemswereduetousererrororalearningcurve,other

commentssuggestthatthesystemwouldbenefitfromimprovementstoensureabetteruser

experienceandthatapplicantswouldlikeadditionaltrainingandtechnicalassistance.

Overallfeedbackandassessment

ThemajorityofapplicantswhosubmittedLettersofInterestduringthefirstfundingcyclereported

thatthegrant-makingprocesswentsmoothly.Inparticular,surveyrespondentsfoundFoundationstaff

tobeaccessible,respectful,andsupportiveandmanypraisedtheFoundationforapositiveapplication

experience.Astobeexpected,however,therewasaminorityofapplicantswhohadconcernswiththe

process,particularlyregardingtheperceivedlackoffundingforsmallerorganizations.Whilethismay

havecoloredsomerespondents’assessmentsoftheapplicationprocess,thissurveyidentifiedafew

areasfortheFoundationtoconsideringimproving.Foundationcommunicationwasoneareathatwas

mentionedbyseveralsurveyrespondentsasneedingimprovement.Greaterclarityaboutexpectations,

timelines,andprocesseswouldhelporganizationstobetterrespondtofuturefundingopportunities.

Additionally,afewspecificcomponentscouldusesomestrengthening,namelytheapplication

feedbackmeetingandtheFluxxGranteePortal.

Despiteafewareasofconcern,thevastmajorityofrespondentsstatedthattheywereinterestedin

applyingtotheFoundationagaininthefuture.GiventhatthisistheFoundation’sfirstgrantmaking

cycle,itisexpectedthattherewouldbesomeareasforimprovement.Onthewhole,however,this

surveyfoundthatmostorganizationsapplyingforfundingduringtheinauguralyearweresatisfiedwith

theFoundation’sprocess,systems,andsupport.

AppendixA.Surveyinstrument

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback on the Foundation’s inaugural grantmaking funding

cycle. The purpose of this survey is to gather information about your experience with the Foundation’s

application process, support to applicants, application follow-up, and Fluxx Grantee Portal. We are

conducting this survey with all organizations who applied for funding this year, regardless of whether they

were awarded a grant or not. We greatly appreciate your honest responses. The feedback you provide will

be used to improve the grant application experience for other local organizations next year.

Thank you for your time!

Introduction

Grantmaking Process Feedback Survey

Overall Feedback

1. Overall, how would you compare your experience with the Foundation for a Healthy St.

Petersburg (“the Foundation") to your experience with other funding organizations?

The Foundation was easier to work with than other organizations

The Foundation was about the same to work with as other grant-making organizations

The Foundation was harder to work with than other organizations

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree I'm not sure

The Foundation is

deeply committed to

maintaining an open

and transparent

process.

The Foundation

values bringing people

together to cultivate

trust among providers,

the community, and

the Foundation.

The Foundation

respects the deep-

rooted understanding

that members of the

community have about

the health needs of

their communities.

2. From your experience with the Foundation to date, to what extent do you agree or disagree with

the following statements:

The Foundation is

dedicated to

establishing

processes and

initiatives that invite

and embrace all

members of the

community, especially

those often not

engaged and included.

The Foundation is

improving the health

and well-being of our

community through

initiatives that create

sustainable, effective

improvements to

quality of life.

The Foundation is

cultivating compelling

solutions to address

our community’s most

important needs by

leveraging

collaborations and the

sustained commitment

of funders and

advocates.

The Foundation is

committed to being

accountable and

transparent.

The Foundation is

helping develop

solutions that generate

sustained and

measurable

improvements to our

community’s health.

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree I'm not sure

The Foundation's Application Process

3. How would you describe the time allotted for grantees to complete the full application?

The application timeline was too short

The application timeline was just right

The application timeline was too long

4. How would you describe the timeline from the beginning of the RFP to the time when you

received a final decision (declined or funded)?

The overall timeline was shorter than expected

The overall timeline was about what was expected

The overall timeline was longer than expected

5. How do you feel about the written requirements of the first Letter of Interest (LOI) application?

The application was too short and did not provide us with sufficient space to make our best case to the foundation

The application was about the right length and provided applicants enough space to make the case for their project

The application was too long and the level of detail was excessive for an LOI application

6. How clear and understandable was the Letter of Interest application guidance for applicants?

Very clear

Somewhat clear

A little clear

Not at all clear

Other (please specify)

7. The Foundation structured this review process to include both a shorter Letter of Interest phase

and a full proposal phase. Did this two phase process work for your organization?

The two phase process was an efficient and fair way to structure this first request for proposals

The two phase process had both strengths and weaknesses

The two phase process was too detailed and took up too much of our organization's time and energies

8. If the Foundation decides to keep a two phase (Letter of Interest and full application) proposal

process in the future, do you have any suggestions concerning how it could be improved?

9. What, if anything, would you suggest the Foundation change about the application process?

Application Follow-up

10. Were you invited to submit a full proposal for funding?

Application feedback meeting

11. Did you attend an application feedback meeting at the Foundation?

Application feedback meeting

12. To what extent did the application feedback meeting provide you with information that was

helpful to you for submitting future applications to the Foundation?

Very helpful

Somewhat helpful

A little helpful

Not at all helpful

Not Applicable - we do not plan to submit future applications

Foundation consultation visits

13. How helpful were the consultation visits by Foundation staff with projects invited to submit full

proposal?

Very helpful

Somewhat helpful

A little helpful

Not at all helpful

Foundation Support to Applicants

Very helpful Somewhat helpful A little helpful Not at all helpful Not applicable

Email updates

throughout the grant

process

The Frequently Asked

Questions process

Notifications via the

Fluxx Grantee Portal

Webinars

Online videos

Phone calls with

Foundation staff

Emails with

Foundation staff

Comments:

14. The Foundation attempted to provide support to applicants through a variety of different means.

Please rate the helpfulness of each of the following support mechanisms, or indicate you did not

use them:

15. How satisfied were you with the Foundation’s timeliness in responding to Frequently Asked

Questions?

Very satisfied

Mostly satisfied

Somewhat satisfied

Not at all satisfied

16. How satisfied were you with the appropriateness of the responses the Foundation posted on the

FAQ website?

Very satisfied

Mostly satisfied

Somewhat satisfied

Not at all satisfied

17. Do you have any suggestions or comments about how we can improve or what we should

continue to do regarding the FAQ process?

The Fluxx Grantee Portal

18. To what extent did you find the Fluxx Grantee Portal to be user-friendly?

Very user-friendly

Mostly user-friendly

Somewhat user-friendly

Not at all user-friendly

19. Did you experience any technical problems using the Fluxx Grantee Portal?

20. What, if anything, would make working in the Fluxx Grantee Portal a better experience?

Technical problems

21. Did you receive a prompt response from our staff concerning any technical issues that you may

have had with the Grantee Portal?

Fluxx webinar

22. Did you attend the Fluxx Grantee Portal webinar prior to completing the LOI?

Fluxx webinar helpfulness

23. How helpful was the Fluxx Grantee Portal webinar as you used the Fluxx system?

Very helpful

Somewhat helpful

A little helpful

Not at all helpful

Final Feedback

24. What would have improved your application experience with the Foundation?

25. Do you plan to apply for future grants from the Foundation? If no, why not?

26. Is there anything else about your experience with the Foundation’s grantmaking process that

you would like to share?

Thank you!

Thank you for providing your feedback on the Foundation's inaugural grantmaking

year. We appreciate your candid responses and will use them to make

improvements in the future.

Please click "Done" below to submit your responses.

Grantmaking Process Feedback Survey Report · 9/6/2016 · Title: Grantmaking Process Feedback...

Documents