Comments on: Measure for Measure http://www.philanthrocapitalism.net/2009/07/measure-for-measure/ How giving can save the world. Wed, 01 Feb 2012 22:51:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.3 By: Kevin Bolduc http://www.philanthrocapitalism.net/2009/07/measure-for-measure/comment-page-1/#comment-138 Kevin Bolduc Fri, 10 Jul 2009 17:22:23 +0000 http://www.philanthrocapitalism.net/wp/?p=1026#comment-138 I'm sorry Ed feels CEP's Grantee Perception Report is more of a "popularity contest" than a tool to understand and improve a funder's effectiveness. Luckily, most funders that have commissioned a grantee survey from CEP disagree. In a recent <a href="http://www.effectivephilanthropy.org/images/pdfs/LaFrance_2008_FULL_Assessment%20Report_FINAL_020209.pdf" rel="nofollow">3rd party assessment </a> of how funders respond to the grantee feedback they receive, nearly all indicate making substantive changes that they believe will improve their performance. And, why shouldn't funders listen to their grantees and respond? Especially for focused funders working strategically in a field or a community, grant recipients are a funder's chosen agents to change those fields or communities. Whether a funder is "purchasing" services or impact through grantees or working with them to achieve shared goals, some basic principles have to apply. If a funder isn't clearly communicating its goals or strategies, how can a grantee be expected to work optimally to achieve them? If a funder is unresponsive or unapproachable when problems arise, how can a funder best position itself to offer help, ask tough questions, or celebrate successes? If grantees tell a funder that the funder hasn't helped them improve the sustainability of their program (if that's the funder's goal), then it probably hasn't. And we know it's possible to be focused, ambitious, and still receive strong grantee ratings because grantees tell us in their own words that it is. No grantee survey is definitive proof of effectiveness, but the constructive feedback provided through a confidential, comparative process, can make a real difference. Many funders have chosen to make the results of their Grantee Perception Reports public. You can read them here and judge for yourself: <a>http://www.effectivephilanthropy.org/assessment/assessment_gprpublicreports.html</a> The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation is one of those funders that made an excerpt of their recent <a href="http://www.moore.org/grantee-perception-2008.aspx" rel="nofollow">2008 GPR results</a> public on their website. Since they've shared the results publicly, I can say that grantee ratings suggest that the Foundation has improved significantly since it first surveyed grantees in 2004. And grantees' words and ratings paint a picture of a funder striving to create real impact through its focused efforts. But they also show a funder that has struggled to find a consistent focus, message, and the right amount of measurement that doesn't overwhelm grantees but helps them and Moore do their work better. Moore's efforts to change based in part on grantee feedback, described in the public letter discussing Moore's latest GPR results, strike me as rooted in a desire to make more of an impact -- not a desire to be well-liked. -- Kevin Bolduc, Vice President, CEP I’m sorry Ed feels CEP’s Grantee Perception Report is more of a “popularity contest” than a tool to understand and improve a funder’s effectiveness. Luckily, most funders that have commissioned a grantee survey from CEP disagree. In a recent 3rd party assessment of how funders respond to the grantee feedback they receive, nearly all indicate making substantive changes that they believe will improve their performance.

And, why shouldn’t funders listen to their grantees and respond? Especially for focused funders working strategically in a field or a community, grant recipients are a funder’s chosen agents to change those fields or communities. Whether a funder is “purchasing” services or impact through grantees or working with them to achieve shared goals, some basic principles have to apply. If a funder isn’t clearly communicating its goals or strategies, how can a grantee be expected to work optimally to achieve them? If a funder is unresponsive or unapproachable when problems arise, how can a funder best position itself to offer help, ask tough questions, or celebrate successes? If grantees tell a funder that the funder hasn’t helped them improve the sustainability of their program (if that’s the funder’s goal), then it probably hasn’t.

And we know it’s possible to be focused, ambitious, and still receive strong grantee ratings because grantees tell us in their own words that it is. No grantee survey is definitive proof of effectiveness, but the constructive feedback provided through a confidential, comparative process, can make a real difference. Many funders have chosen to make the results of their Grantee Perception Reports public. You can read them here and judge for yourself: http://www.effectivephilanthropy.org/assessment/assessment_gprpublicreports.html

The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation is one of those funders that made an excerpt of their recent 2008 GPR results public on their website.

Since they’ve shared the results publicly, I can say that grantee ratings suggest that the Foundation has improved significantly since it first surveyed grantees in 2004. And grantees’ words and ratings paint a picture of a funder striving to create real impact through its focused efforts. But they also show a funder that has struggled to find a consistent focus, message, and the right amount of measurement that doesn’t overwhelm grantees but helps them and Moore do their work better. Moore’s efforts to change based in part on grantee feedback, described in the public letter discussing Moore’s latest GPR results, strike me as rooted in a desire to make more of an impact — not a desire to be well-liked.

– Kevin Bolduc, Vice President, CEP

]]>