Critical friends

We hold dear the principle of participation – we aim to enable people who are involved in activities we fund to have a role in shaping those activities themselves. For children and young people, the vulnerable and marginalised in particular, there are important benefits. It confers power onto them, increases accountability, and builds cohesion between groups, as taking part in decision-making processes helps to build better relationships and a shared sense of purpose.

We are therefore in favour of allowing all voices to be heard – even when the Foundation is the subject. When we commissioned a Grantee Perception Report from the Massachusetts-based Center for Effective Philanthropy in late 2009, we learnt a great deal about our relative performance compared to a large dataset of other foundations from around the world. We have shared the findings of this work on our website and through the Association of Charitable Foundations.

One of PHF’s strategic aims is to help to promote and improve the philanthropic sector in this country, and it is hoped that research like this, if taken up by more UK funders, will have an impact on the sector as a whole. We therefore organised a seminar about the Grantee Perception Report, and other survey tools, which was attended by several other leading grant-makers.

The data provided by the survey gave a strong indication of the overall picture of the Foundation’s performance, and pointed to areas in which we can seek to improve. The survey also invited respondents to comment anonymously on their experiences of working with the Foundation.

We are grateful to everyone that responded to the Grantee Perception Report. Powerful comparative statistics, in addition to qualitative findings such as the comments on the page opposite, have provided us with new insight into our performance and effectiveness as a grant-maker.

Some findings fitted well with our expectations, based on the strategy we are pursuing and the types of grants we choose to make. However, there are other areas that we had not considered which have been brought to light.

We have learned that:

  • PHF is relatively unusual amongst funders in that the grants we make tend to be to smaller and younger organisations, and are both larger, and for a longer period of time, than the sector average
  • PHF is rated as having a particularly positive impact on the organisations we fund
  • Grantees have generally found our application, proposal development and reporting processes useful to them.

The research has also identified that:

  • Perhaps because of the range of fields in which we fund, we are not perceived as having a similar level of impact on grantees’ fields of activity as on their organisations
  • There are some areas where we could be helping more through additional types of support, whether to make a practical difference to the quality of support through the life of the grant, or to help grantee organisations thrive in the long term, after the end of the activity we have funded
  • We are not always being consistent in the level of our interactions with grantees throughout the lifetime of the grant, compared with other funders.

What are we doing now?

On the strength of these findings – in particular the final three – we have been looking at ways to improve our services to grantees, and to increase our impact:

  • We plan to improve our pattern of engagement with grantees across the course of the grant
  • We plan to build a more systematic approach to learning from the outcomes of the work we fund so that we can share the findings more widely
  • We will be seeking to increase the level of non-monetary support we provide, in particular through the information and resources on our website.

A fourth area of activity that has stemmed from the GPR has been to look closely at the many comments participants made during the survey. This qualitative data points to a number of areas of potential development for the Foundation, in particular around networking opportunities and time to engage with other grantees. Below are a selection of quotes from grantees’ comments.

“A very helpful and approachable funder, though we would be keen to see more connectivity between grantees”

“I feel they [the Foundation] need to look at the ‘after care’ phase however and consider how best to monitor and assist organisations that have received a grant, particularly if those organisations… are working in uncharted waters”

“I’m not aware of any impact the Foundation is having in the field or community”

“The Foundation has a good reputation amongst organisations making applications. There is a certain cachet to receiving a grant”

“The lengthy process enabled us to be very clear about where the project was heading”

“I would describe the Foundation’s process as ‘thorough’”

“More sustained contact following approval of a grant, e.g. to see how the project is going – but without too many onerous procedures”

“We think that the Foundation was unreasonable in the demands it made for data that we could not collect… asking us to collect data up to a year after the project funding has finished. We have no money to pay anyone to do this work”

“More advice on sustainability, other funders to apply for etc”

“Visit us”

“Solely the issue of handing over slightly more seamlessly as/when your project/application is passed over to a colleague. It was painful, but the staff were very helpful and apologetic about it mostly. Just a wee thing”

“As a charity, we often encounter ‘innovation’ as a priority for funders that can be problematic for us, as we have been running now for 33 years. Perhaps more value could be placed on the durability of unique and valuable work – which is what we believe we provide”