Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

OE Post-Grant Survey Summary Prepared for: The David and Lucile Packard Foundation Prepared by: The Data Center Organizational Effectiveness (OE) Goldmine.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "OE Post-Grant Survey Summary Prepared for: The David and Lucile Packard Foundation Prepared by: The Data Center Organizational Effectiveness (OE) Goldmine."— Presentation transcript:

1 OE Post-Grant Survey Summary Prepared for: The David and Lucile Packard Foundation Prepared by: The Data Center Organizational Effectiveness (OE) Goldmine Research Project

2 Table of Contents 2 3Executive Summary 4Survey Overview 5Existing and New Data 6How Data Supports the Research 7- 12Survey Response Trends By Program Area By Last Grant Awarded By Grant Year Closed By OE Ranking By Org Size at the Time of Grant Summary of Existing Data on Total Population and Respondent Sample By Project Focus By Program Area OE Intermediary Grants 18Survey Response Example

3 1.Input on research purpose, focus and process was collected from 25 external stakeholders (grantees, consultants, peer Foundations, academics) and Foundation Evaluation and OE teams. 2.The Data Center surveyed Packard Foundation Organizational Effectiveness (OE) grantees that received 274 out of 1391 OE grants since Existing grant data for all grants was organized and coded for research. Data reports are prepared for the research phase of the project. 3.A 62% survey response rate is higher than expected given depth and complexity of questions. 4.The survey sample represents all OE grants by project focus, project size, organizational size, and program; slightly fewer CFC as expected due to a greater use of OE for exit strategies (non- current grantees); more Local grantmaking partially due to the recoding of some CFC and C&S grants; the over-representation of Planning and Fund Development grants (and relative under- representation of other project foci) is reflective of more recent grantmaking trends. 5.The survey sample focused on a) grants closed from (for relevancy, accessibility and scope) and direct grantees (for 90% representation, grantee/data access and scope). 6.New data collected: grant sustainability, learning, impact on program, organizational sustainability, consultant satisfaction/challenges, factors of success, budget and success/failure stories fields of existing data for 1391 grants, 21 additional fields of new and existing data for the surveyed sample of 274 grants, and 64 additional fields of new data for the survey respondent sample of 169 grants is accessible to researchers in an Excel spreadsheet. 8.Rich data also exists in the narrative survey responses and the project stories collected. Executive Summary 3

4 1391 OE grants since surveyed grants ◦ Recent focus (relevance, accessibility) ◦ 20% sample of all grants; 83% of grants that closed ◦ Representative (project/program focus, org size) ◦ PO review of sample for sensitivities (4% eliminated) 169 surveys completed ◦ 62% response rate ◦ 12.5% of all OE grants ◦ Representative of project/program focus, org size ◦ Slightly fewer CFC as expected ◦ More Local grantmaking partially due to the recoding of some CFC and C&S grants ◦ More Planning and Fund Development grants reflecting recent grantmaking trends 21 survey questions ◦ More open-ended (narrative) questions than GPR ◦ More “sensitive” data: sustainability, budget, consultant satisfaction, etc. ◦ Rich quantitative and qualitative data (self-reported) for research 4 Survey Overview

5 The data collected for the Goldmine Project includes existing and new data and has been organized into three distinct data groups: total population, surveyed sample, and survey respondent sample. 15 fields of existing data for the total population of 1391 grants 21 additional fields of new and existing data for the surveyed sample of 274 grants 64 additional fields of new data for the survey respondent sample of 169 grants The existing data for the total population was collected from the Foundation’s internal database. This data includes general information such as: Reference #, Organization Name and Info, Program Areas, Project Description, Award Date and Amount, Grant Completion Date, Organization Last Grant Date, Project Focus Areas, Network Organization Identifier, Intermediary Grant Identifier, and Geographical Area Served. Certain data points within this existing data collection were reviewed, updated, and recoded due to grant processes within OE changing over time. The existing data collection spans from 1997 to 2009 and within that elapse time period specific categorizations including Project Focus, Network Organization Identifier, and Intermediary Grant Identifier were modified or added. For accuracy and completeness, these areas for the total population were retroactively updated. The survey sample, which is made up of all closed OE grants from 2007 to 2009, includes some additional existing and new data points. The additional existing and new data points were extracted from final reports and from updated budget and consultant information. Each of the 274 Final Reports were reviewed and used to complete information regarding objective, outcomes, impact, learnings, approach, advice, rankings, and other comments. Because the survey sample is made up of fairly current grants, these reports were relatively easily accessible. However, the information reported on the final reports varies depending on the grantee and the scope of the project. Unlike the existing data set for the total population, this data set is not as robust in terms of completeness and consistency. Finally, additional fields of new data for the survey respondent sample consists of data from self reporting information from the grantee via the survey and also from a external consultant review of those survey results. This new data includes information regarding grant sustainability, learning, impact on program, organizational sustainability, consultant satisfaction/challenges, factors of success, budget and success/failure stories. All of this existing and new data is available to researchers in an excel workbook. Existing and New Data 5

6 1) What is the sustained impact of OE grants? ◦ Self-reported ranking ◦ Specific narrative examples ◦ Multiple questions for correlations 2) In what ways do OE grants build one-time capacity vs. on-going or transformational capacity? ◦ Self-reported ranking ◦ Specific narrative examples 3) What contributed to the consultant relationship working or not working? ◦ Consultant satisfaction ranking ◦ Forced choice, ranking and narrative responses 4) What factors contribute to a successful OE project? ◦ Forced choice, ranking and narrative responses ◦ Recent focus (relevancy, accessibility) 6 How Data Supports Research

7 7 Survey Response Trends 8By Program Area 9By Last Grant Awarded 10By Grant Year Closed 11By OE Ranking 12By Org Size at the Time of Grant

8 By Program Program AreaSubmittedNot SubmittedGrand Total Children, Families, and Communities Conservation and Science Local Grantmaking Other21829 Population Grand Total

9 By Last Grant Awarded Organization Last Grant DateSubmittedNot SubmittedGrand Total Grand Total *”Last Grant Awarded “ refers to the last grant awarded to the grantee by the Foundation which can include program areas other than OE.

10 By Grant Year Closed Grant Year ClosedSubmittedNot SubmittedGrand Total Grand Total

11 11 By OE Final Report Ranking OE Final Report RankingSubmittedNot SubmittedGrand Total No Ranking Available or Less Grand Total *Note: No Ranking Available in most cases are older grants (before the implementation of an OE Final Reports ranking system)

12 12 By Org Size at the Time of Grant Org SizeSubmitted Not Submitted Grand Total No record available4913 < $1M < $5M > $5M Grand Total

13 13 Summary of Existing Data on Total Population and Respondent Sample 14By Project Focus 15By Program Area 16OE Direct vs. Intermediary Grants (Table) 17OE Intermediary Grants by Total Award Amount (Graph)

14 By Project Focus Total PopulationSurvey Respondent Sample Project Focus (Primary)Grant Amount % of Total Amount Grant Count % of Total CountGrant Amount % of Total Amount Grant Count % of Total Count Planning$14,840, % %$2,270, %6035.5% Fund Development/Fundraising Feasibility Studies$7,775, % %$1,253, %3420.1% Strategic Communications Planning$6,468, % %$384,4005.8%127.1% Operational Systems$5,488,9039.0%1168.3%$473,9977.2%137.7% Organizational Assessment$4,350,6857.1%1107.9%$501,3907.6%127.1% Staff Development$3,882,5346.4%695.0%$243,4173.7%63.6% Executive Search/Transition$3,574,5375.8%926.6%$377,1255.7%95.3% Other/Miscellaneous$3,292,3165.4%201.4%$126,9591.9%21.2% Board Development/Governance$3,280,6275.4%1047.5%$289,0654.4%74.1% Leadership/Coaching$3,041,4085.0%302.2%$187,7002.8%31.8% Strategic Restructuring$2,435,9794.0%604.3%$241,0003.7%63.6% Evaluation$2,016,8853.3%362.6%$190,0002.9%42.4% Not Applicable$623,6811.0%90.6%---- Network: Technical Infrastructure$50,0000.1%1 $50,0000.8%10.6% Grand Total$61,121, % %$6,589, % % 14

15 By Program Area Total Population Program AreaTotal $Total % Total Count Count % Children, Families, and Communities$13,288, % % Conservation and Science$16,404, % % Local Grantmaking$5,623,1209.2% % Other$5,846,9779.6%1107.9% Population$13,480, % % None$6,477, % % Grand Total$61,121, % % Survey Respondent Sample Program AreaTotal $Total % Total Count Count % Children, Families, and Communities$918, %2514.8% Conservation and Science$2,187, %5331.4% Local Grantmaking$1,359, %4325.4% Other$993, %2112.4% Population$1,131, %2716.0% Grand Total$6,589, % %

16 16 OE Direct vs. Intermediary Grants Direct Grant Intermediary Grant Project Focus (Primary)Grant Amount % of Total Amount Grant Count % of Total Count Grant Amount % of Total Amount Grant Count % of Total Count Planning$14,460, % %$380,0005.2%23.8% Fund Development/Fundraising Feasibility Studies$7,775, % % 0.0% Strategic Communications Planning$4,976,6879.2%1339.9%$1,491, %1223.1% Operational Systems$4,462,6488.3%1108.2%$1,026, %611.5% Organizational Assessment$4,084,4557.6%1057.8%$266,2303.6%59.6% Executive Search/Transition$3,574,5376.6%926.9% 0.0% Board Development/Governance$3,280,6276.1%1047.8% 0.0% Other/Miscellaneous$2,867,3855.3%120.9%$321,4724.4%47.7% Staff Development$2,546,6974.7%594.4%$1,335, %1019.2% Strategic Restructuring$2,165,5794.0%584.3%$270,4003.7%23.8% Evaluation$1,718,8853.2%352.6%$298,0004.1%11.9% Leadership/Coaching$1,441,8642.7%231.7%$1,599, %713.5% Not Applicable$300,0000.6%60.4%$323,6814.4%35.8% Facilities$103,4590.2%40.3% 0.0% Network: Technical Infrastructure$50,0000.1%1 0.0% Grand Total$53,808, % 1, %$7,313, % %

17 OE Intermediary Grants by Total Award Amount *Note: Intermediaries were found in 10 Project Focus Areas

18 Survey Response Example Survey Question #16: If any, what factors contributed most to the success of your capacity building project? Please limit choices to a maximum of five. Yes Count % Responded Yes a. the right time for the project % b. organizational readiness % c. resources to implement the project % d. resources to implement project follow-up % e. board involvement % f. executive director engagement % g. consultant fit % h. ready to look at options openly % i. no organizational crisis % j. team readiness/capacity % k. other: (specify)84.73% Other answers specified: having leverage to secure additional funds, involving external partners, engaging all staff not just leaders, having community (public/private) support, having a business plan highlighting needs. 18


Download ppt "OE Post-Grant Survey Summary Prepared for: The David and Lucile Packard Foundation Prepared by: The Data Center Organizational Effectiveness (OE) Goldmine."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google