In 2007, MaineCF contracted with the Center for Effective Philanthropy (CEP) to survey recent grantees about their satisfaction with MaineCF.
The survey was sent to 350 organizations that received competitive grants from MaineCF in 2005 and 2006. More than 240 grantees responded. MaineCF's results were compared to those of 123 other foundations, including 13 metro, regional, and statewide community foundations.
Summary of Survey Findings
As a group, community foundations typically rate above average on impact on community and assistance securing funding from other sources. The area of greatest weakness for community foundations relative to all other foundations is impact on the grantee's field of work.
Indicators where MaineCF rates above its community foundation peers:
- Grantee satisfaction
- Quality of interactions based on fairness, responsiveness, and grantee comfort approaching the foundation if a problem arises
Indicators where MaineCF rates on par with its peers:
- Impact on grantee field
- Clarity of communication of goals and strategy
Indicators where MaineCF rates below its peers:
- Impact on community
- Impact on the grantee organization
- Provision of non-monetary assistance including management assistance
- Assistance securing funding from other sources
- Helpfulness of selection process for grantees
- Helpfulness of reporting and evaluation processes
- Dollar return on grantee administrative hours
MaineCF received feedback on how it could improve its grant programs and the role it should play in helping nonprofits address pressing concerns. One key finding was that a large percentage of respondents suggested changing grant characteristics such as grant size, type, and length. They also wanted MaineCF to play a stronger role in connecting and advocating for nonprofits.
Interpretation of Survey Results
CEP encourages foundations to view their survey findings in the context of their grantmaking goals and strategies. MaineCF’s competitive grant portfolio has evolved over time and is not guided by a single theory of change or consistent grant guidelines. The portfolio includes:
- Community Building Program: a direct expression of the foundation’s focus on building on existing community assets and fostering broad-based participation and collaboration
- Expansion Arts Fund, Equity Fund, and Fund for Maine Land Conservation: a result of program initiatives to raise endowed resources for a specific field of interest
- Program for Nonprofit Effectiveness: MaineCF's high-engagement, multi-year capacity building grant program
- Other competitive grant programs designed by donors whose interests include specific issues and/or geographic regions
Most of MaineCF’s competitive programs award small (less than $7,500), one-year grants for specific projects. This strategy assumes that small grants can serve as early stage funding for new or expanded projects. This approach results in a large volume of proposals, which limits the amount of time available for review, feedback, and non-monetary assistance. For this reason, it is not surprising to see low assessments on dollar return and impact on grantee organization. By contrast, this makes MaineCF's satisfaction and quality-of-interaction rating noteworthy. Finally, MaineCF's status as a statewide foundation may limit its impact in a particular community when compared to those foundations whose work is focused on a single region.
Next Steps
CEP has found that grantee satisfaction is most influenced by the following:
- Quality of interactions with foundation staff, including fairness, responsiveness, and approachability
- Clarity of communications of a foundation's goals and strategies, including clear and consistent articulation of objectives
- Expertise and external orientation of the foundation: the extent to which foundation staff, boards, and volunteer review committees understand the fields they are tying to influence.
MaineCF is using the results of the CEP report to modify its grant programs. Foundation staff are working with members of volunteer grant committees to obtain input and get support for the changes we are making in response to nonprofit feedback.
September 1, 2008