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.
3GreenseidConsultingGroup,LLC September6,2016
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).
34.2%
51.3%
14.5%
TheFoundationwaseasiertoworkwiththanotherorganizations
TheFoundationwasaboutthesametoworkwithasothergrant-making
organizations
TheFoundationwashardertoworkwiththanotherorganizations
Overall,howwouldyoucompareyourexperiencewiththeFoundationforaHealthySt.Petersburg(“theFoundation")toyourexperiencewith otherfundingorganizations?(n=76)
4GreenseidConsultingGroup,LLC September6,2016
Figure2.AgreementwithFoundationmission,vision,andstrategyquestions
78%
83%
75%
71%
55%
58%
75%
55%
11%
8%
13%
12%
14%
20%
8%
14%
12%
9%
12%
17%
30%
22%
17%
30%
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
5GreenseidConsultingGroup,LLC September6,2016
FeedbackontheApplicationProcess
Thenextsectionofthesurveyaskedforfeedbackontheapplicationprocess.Thevastmajorityof
respondents(81%)agreedthatthetimeallottedtocompletethefullapplicationwasjustright,while
14%feltthetimelinewastooshortand6%feltitwastoolong,seeFigure3.
Figure3.Timeallocationforapplicationcomplete
Over70%ofrespondentsfeltthattheoveralltimelinefromthebeginningoftheRFPuntilthetime
theyreceivedafinaldecisiontobeaboutwhattheyexpected.22%ofrespondentsfeltthatthe
timelinewaslongerthanexpectedand7%feltthetimelinewasshorterthanexpected,seeFigure4.
Figure4.TimelinefromRFPtodecision
13.9%
80.6%
5.6%
Theapplicationtimelinewastooshort
Theapplicationtimelinewasjustright
Theapplicationtimelinewastoolong
Howwouldyoudescribethetimeallottedforgranteestocompletethefullapplication?(n=72)
6.8%
71.2%
21.9%
Theoveralltimelinewasshorterthanexpected
Theoveralltimelinewasaboutwhatwasexpected
Theoveralltimelinewaslongerthanexpected
HowwouldyoudescribethetimelinefromthebeginningoftheRFPtothetimewhenyoureceivedafinaldecision
(declinedorfunded)?(n=73)
6GreenseidConsultingGroup,LLC September6,2016
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.”
20.5%
72.6%
6.8%
Theapplicationwastooshortanddidnotprovideuswithsufficientspacetomakeourbestcasetothe
foundation
Theapplicationwasabouttherightlengthandprovidedapplicants
enoughspacetomakethecasefortheirprojectidea
Theapplicationwastoolongandthelevelofdetailwasexcessiveforan
LOIapplication
HowdoyoufeelaboutthewrittenrequirementsofthefirstLetterofInterest (LOI)application?(n=73)
7GreenseidConsultingGroup,LLC September6,2016
Figure6.LetterofInterestapplicationguidance
ThenextquestionaskedforfeedbackontheFoundation’stwophasereviewprocessincludinga
shorterLOIphaseandafullproposalphase.Overhalfofrespondentsfeltthetwophaseprocesswas
“anefficientandfairwaytostructurethefirstrequestforproposals,”while38%statedthe“twophase
processhadbothstrengthsandweaknesses.”Only9%statedthatthetwophaseprocesswas“too
detailedandtookuptoomuchoftheorganization’stimeandenergies,”seeFigure7.
Figure7.Twophaseapplicationprocess
56.2%
37.0%
5.5%1.4%
Veryclear Somewhatclear Alittleclear Notatallclear
HowclearandunderstandablewastheLetterofInterest applicationguidanceforapplicants?(n=73)
53.5%
38.0%
8.5%
Thetwophaseprocesswasanefficientandfair waytostructurethisfirstrequestforproposals
Thetwophaseprocesshadbothstrengthsandweaknesses
Thetwophaseprocesswastoodetailedandtookuptoomuchofourorganization'stimeandenergies
TheFoundationstructuredthisreviewprocesstoincludebothashorterLetterofInterest phaseandafullproposal
phase.Didthistwophaseprocessworkforyourorganization?(n=71)
8GreenseidConsultingGroup,LLC September6,2016
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.
9GreenseidConsultingGroup,LLC September6,2016
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
10GreenseidConsultingGroup,LLC September6,2016
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
42.1%
15.8%21.1% 21.1%
0.0%
Veryhelpful Somewhathelpful Alittlehelpful Notatallhelpful NotApplicable- wedonotplantosubmitfutureapplications
Towhatextentdidtheapplicationfeedbackmeetingprovideyouwithinformationthatwashelpfultoyouforsubmitting
futureapplicationstotheFoundation?(n=19)
11GreenseidConsultingGroup,LLC September6,2016
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).
69.7%
21.2%
9.1%
0.0%
Veryhelpful Somewhathelpful Alittlehelpful Notatallhelpful
HowhelpfulweretheconsultationvisitsbyFoundationstaffwithprojectsinvitedtosubmitfullproposal?(n=33)
12GreenseidConsultingGroup,LLC September6,2016
Figure10.HelpfulnessofFoundationsupportmechanisms
RatingScale:1=Notatallhelpful;2=Alittlehelpful;3=Somewhathelpful;4=Veryhelpful;Totalnwas68;Questionn'sdonotequal68becausesomeselectednotapplicableforsomequestions.
2.68
2.98
3.03
3.27
3.29
3.32
3.48
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
13GreenseidConsultingGroup,LLC September6,2016
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%
13.2%
1.5%
Verysatisfied Mostlysatisfied Somewhatsatisfied Notatallsatisfied
HowsatisfiedwereyouwiththeFoundation’stimelinessinrespondingtoFrequentlyAskedQuestions?(n=68)
14GreenseidConsultingGroup,LLC September6,2016
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.
48.5%
39.7%
10.3%
1.5%
Verysatisfied Mostlysatisfied Somewhatsatisfied Notatallsatisfied
HowsatisfiedwereyouwiththeappropriatenessoftheresponsestheFoundationpostedontheFAQwebsite?(n=68)
15GreenseidConsultingGroup,LLC September6,2016
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
23.9%
53.7%
20.9%
1.5%
Veryuser-friendly Mostlyuser-friendly Somewhatuser-friendly Notatalluser-friendly
TowhatextentdidyoufindtheFluxxGranteePortaltobeuser-friendly?(n=67)
16GreenseidConsultingGroup,LLC September6,2016
Next,thesurveyaskedrespondentsiftheyexperiencedanytechnicalproblemswhileusingtheFluxx
GranteePortal.AsshowninFigure14,28%ofrespondentsstatedthattheyhadatechnicalproblem.
Figure14.FluxxGranteePortaltechnicalproblems
Respondentswhoindicatedtheyhadencounteredtechnicalproblemswereaskediftheyreceived
promptresponsesfromFoundationstaffregardingtheirissues.80%ofthosewithproblemsstated
thattheydidreceiveapromptresponse,while20%statedtheydidnot,seeFigure15.
Yes28%
No72%
DidyouexperienceanytechnicalproblemsusingtheFluxxGranteePortal?(n=67)
17GreenseidConsultingGroup,LLC September6,2016
Figure15.PromptnessofFoundationresponsestoFluxxtechnicalissues
Atotalof46surveyrespondentsreportedthattheyattendedtheFluxxGranteePortalwebinarpriorto
completingtheLOI.ThisgroupwasaskedtoratethehelpfulnessoftheFluxxsystemwebinar.As
showninFigure16,abouthalfofwebinarattendeesstatedthattheyfoundit“somewhathelpful,”
aboutathirdstateditwas“veryhelpful,”and20%stateditwas“alittlehelpful.”
Figure16.HelpfulnessoftheFluxxGranteePortal
Yes80%
No20%
Forthoseencounteringtechnicalproblems:DidyoureceiveapromptresponsefromourstaffconcerninganytechnicalissuesthatyoumayhavehadwiththeGrantee
Portal?(n=20)
32.6%
47.8%
19.6%
0.0%
Veryhelpful Somewhathelpful Alittlehelpful Notatallhelpful
HowhelpfulwastheFluxxGranteePortalwebinarasyouusedtheFluxxsystem?(n=46)
18GreenseidConsultingGroup,LLC September6,2016
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.
19GreenseidConsultingGroup,LLC September6,2016
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
20GreenseidConsultingGroup,LLC September6,2016
• 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
21GreenseidConsultingGroup,LLC September6,2016
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
22GreenseidConsultingGroup,LLC September6,2016
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.
23GreenseidConsultingGroup,LLC September6,2016
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.
24GreenseidConsultingGroup,LLC September6,2016
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
1
Overall Feedback
Grantmaking Process Feedback Survey
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:
2
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
3
The Foundation's Application Process
Grantmaking Process Feedback Survey
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
idea
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
4
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?
5
Application Follow-up
Grantmaking Process Feedback Survey
10. Were you invited to submit a full proposal for funding?
Yes
No
6
Application feedback meeting
Grantmaking Process Feedback Survey
11. Did you attend an application feedback meeting at the Foundation?
Yes
No
7
Application feedback meeting
Grantmaking Process Feedback Survey
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
8
Foundation consultation visits
Grantmaking Process Feedback Survey
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
9
Foundation Support to Applicants
Grantmaking Process Feedback Survey
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:
10
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?
11
The Fluxx Grantee Portal
Grantmaking Process Feedback Survey
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?
Yes
No
20. What, if anything, would make working in the Fluxx Grantee Portal a better experience?
12
Technical problems
Grantmaking Process Feedback Survey
21. Did you receive a prompt response from our staff concerning any technical issues that you may
have had with the Grantee Portal?
Yes
No
13
Fluxx webinar
Grantmaking Process Feedback Survey
22. Did you attend the Fluxx Grantee Portal webinar prior to completing the LOI?
Yes
No
14
Fluxx webinar helpfulness
Grantmaking Process Feedback Survey
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
15
Final Feedback
Grantmaking Process Feedback Survey
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?
16
Thank you!
Grantmaking Process Feedback Survey
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.
17