Page 26 - January 2023 Report

January Report 2023
Grant Program Committee meeting minutes (draft) (8)
10. Center for Effective Philanthropy
Malcolm welcomed Kristy Luk, CEP’s Manager for Assessment and Advisory Services, and Joyce Cheng, Analyst for Assessment and Advisory Services, to discuss the findings of the 2022 Grantee Perception Report. Both presenters appeared before the Committee via Zoom. JSF engaged CEP to conduct the survey as it did in 2017. The following materials had been circulated: a memo with a link to the online version of the report; a summary of key findings and recommendations from the 2022 report; a full copy of the 2022 report; and a summary of key findings and recommendations from the 2017 Grantee Perception Report.
As a nonprofit that serves funders, CEP provides comparative benchmarking that enables foundations to see their grantees’ ratings relative to other funders. This year JSF’s custom cohort included 13 other funders that resemble JSF in size and scope. The survey took place during the early summer. Kristy commented that JSF’s respondents exceeded the 50% anticipated response rate both in 2017 (68%) and in 2022 (74%). The responses were segmented by program area, and there was an “other” category that included the Core and a handful of grantees that overlapped into 2 program areas. There were fewer grantees surveyed overall in 2022 because recipients of Director Discretionary and matching grants were excluded. Asked how long it takes grantees to complete the survey, Kristy replied 30 minutes.
JSF rated highly in its impact on and understanding of grantees’ fields. Kristy surmised that the Foundation’s contextual understanding probably contributes to these ratings. At the same time, the Foundation’s understanding of grantees’ local communities significantly decreased since 2017. She said that is not a cause for concern as JSF is not a place-based funder. Meanwhile, JSF rated in the top 10 percent of funders when it comes to impact on grantees’ organizations. The median grant size is $239,000 and the average grant length is 6 years. It is possible these numbers skewed higher because of Core grantees. At the same time, 28% said they receive non-monetary support, which is below the average of 40 percent. For this survey, non-monetary support is typically interpreted as training, professional development and the like. In written comments, there was an expressed desire for JSF to connect grantees with other funders. A next step might be to investigate what non-monetary support grantees want.
JSF’s highest rating was again in transparency in communication with grantees, a rating that placed it at the top of CEP’s dataset both in 2017 and 2022. Kristy and Joyce were asked if JSF set a record by achieving the 100th percentile in both years. Kristy said she would look into this. She added that it attests to the quality of staff interactions with grantees. In other key findings, 67% of grantees receive either in person or virtual site visits from JSF, which is higher than the average funder. There is a higher frequency of site visits, and most are initiated by JSF. Even so, grantees said they desire even more opportunities to make contact with JSF and strengthen relationships.
Regarding grant processes, grantees consider the selection process to be helpful, and they spend less time on reporting (20 hours in 2022 vs. 40 hours in 2017). Kristy said it’s clear that JSF has made the reporting process less burdensome. On the other hand, grantees do not see reporting as a helpful opportunity to reflect and learn, as shown by a lower rating from 2017.
Based on these findings, CEP’s recommendations are to codify good practices; consider connecting people and organizations in the same area, as well as convening stakeholders from different sectors to foster collaboration; consider increasing the number of touch points and opportunities for interaction such as site visits; determine whether opportunities exist to increase grantees’ reflection and learning during the reporting process; and consider identifying certain practices that may contribute to differences in grantees’ perception ratings.
Kristy and Joyce were asked if there are any recommendations by focus area. On several questions, grantees in the Disadvantaged program area rated JSF higher than those in the Indigenous Peoples and Disability areas. Kristy said those appear to be trends rather than statistical differences, and CEP does not place as much weight on trend data. Some takeaways for JSF could include hosting
24