615 forum

Benchmarking-Foundation-Evaluation-Practices.pdf

Home >Human Resource Management homework help >615 forum

CEP • CEI | 1

BENCHMARKING Foundation Evaluation Practices

2 3

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT Ellie Buteau, Ph.D. Vice President – Research 617-492-0800 ext. 213 [email protected] Julia Coffman Director, Center for Evaluation Innovation 202-728-0727 ext. 116 [email protected]

AUTHORS This report was prepared by the Center for Effective Philanthropy (CEP) together with the Center for Evaluation Innovation (CEI). A number of people contributed to the development of the survey instrument, analysis of data, and creation of this research report. From CEP: Ellie Buteau, Jennifer Glickman, and Charis Loh. From CEI: Julia Coffman and Tanya Beer.

CEP • CEI | 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Respondent Demographics 8

Foundation Demographics 11

Evaluation Practices 17

Using Evaluation Information 25

Looking Forward 32

Discussion Questions 36

Methodology 39

ABOUT THE CENTER FOR EFFECTIVE PHILANTHROPY

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We are very appreciative of the support that made this work possible.

We are grateful to Marc Holley, Kelly Hunt, Ed Pauly, Diana Scearce, Nadya Shmavonian, and Fay Twersky for providing feedback on a draft of the survey used for this research. The survey created for this research study drew, in part, from a survey originally created by Patti Patrizi and Elizabeth Heid Thompson in 2009. We are also grateful to Johanna Morariu for providing feedback on a draft of this report.

The authors would like to thank CEP’s President, Phil Buchanan, for his contributions to this research, as well as CEP’s Art Director, Sara Dubois, for her design of the report.

This research is based on CEP and CEI’s independent data analyses, and CEP and CEI are solely responsible for its content. The report does not necessarily reflect the individual views of the funders, advisers, or others listed throughout this report.

For more information on CEP, please visit www.effectivephilanthropy.org. For more information on CEI, please visit www.evaluationinnovation.org and www.evaluationroundtable.org.

ABOUT THE CENTER FOR EVALUATION INNOVATION

MISSION To provide data and create insight so philanthropic funders can better define, assess, and improve their effectiveness— and, as a result, their intended impact.

MISSION Our aim is to push philanthropic and nonprofit evaluation practice in new directions and into new arenas. We specialize in areas that are challenging to assess, such as advocacy and systems change.

CEP • CEI | 7

In 2015 and 2016, the Center for Effective Philanthropy and the Center for Evaluation Innovation partnered for the first time to benchmark current evaluation practices at foundations. We wanted to understand evaluation functions and staff roles at foundations, the relationship between evaluation and foundation strategy, the level of investment in and support of evaluation work, the specific evaluation activities foundations engage in, and the usefulness and use of evaluation information once it is collected.

To explore these topics, we collected survey data from 127 individuals who were the most senior evaluation or program staff at their foundations (see Methodology). These individuals came from independent and community foundations giving at least $10 million annually, or foundations that were members of the Evaluation Roundtable—a network of foundation evaluation leaders who seek to support and improve evaluation practice in philanthropy.

The result of this effort is what we believe to be the most comprehensive review ever undertaken of evaluation practices at foundations.

It is our hope that the data presented in this report will help you and your foundation determine what evaluation systems and practices align best with your foundation’s strategy, culture, and ultimate mission. What resources should you invest in evaluation? On what should your evaluation efforts focus? How can you learn from and use evaluation information? We believe that considering these questions in light of this benchmarking data can allow you to more thoughtfully answer these questions. Ultimately, we hope the information in this report helps you prepare your foundation to better assess its progress toward its goals and its overall performance.

We hope you find this data useful.

Sincerely,

Ellie & Julia

September 2016

Julia Coffman Director Center for Evaluation Innovation

Ellie Buteau, Ph.D. Vice President – Research Center for Effective Philanthropy

Dear Colleague,

In the survey, we defined evaluation and/or evaluation-related activities as activities undertaken to systematically assess and learn about the foundation’s work, above and beyond final grant or finance reporting, monitoring, and standard due diligence practices.

DEFINITION OF EVALUATION USED IN THIS STUDY

| BENCHMARKING FOUNDATION EVALUATION PRACTICES CEP • CEI | 8 9

Respondent Demographics

Thirty-eight percent of respondents have had responsibility for evaluation-related activities at the foundation for two years or less.

<1 year 13%

1-2 years 25%

6-8 years 14%

≥ 9 years 18%

3-5 years 30%

38%

Of respondents:

CEO report to the CEO/President 62% 23% SENIORPROGRAM STAFF

report to senior or executive level program staff

are evaluation staff 58%

are program staff 35%PROGRAM STAFFEVALUATION STAFF

ROLE AND TENURE

| BENCHMARKING FOUNDATION EVALUATION PRACTICES CEP • CEI | 10 11

45% have an advanced degree in the social sciences or applied research

37% have received training in evaluation through workshops or short courses

5% have an advanced degree in evaluation

Foundation DemographicsPREVIOUS EVALUATION TRAINING

Of respondents:

| BENCHMARKING FOUNDATION EVALUATION PRACTICES CEP • CEI | 12 13

of foundations have a dedicated evaluation unit or department, separate from the program department

Of these departments:

34%

have had their name changed in the past two years

21% were newly created during the past two years

19%

have their own grantmaking and/or contracting budget

79%

of foundations do not have a dedicated evaluation unit or department Of respondents at these foundations:

66%

work in program departments

89%

work in operations or administration departments

20%

work in the President’s office or executive office

19%

EVALUATION DEPARTMENT

PROGRAM

PRESIDENT'S /EXECUTIVE

OFFICE

OPERATIONS/ ADMINISTRATION

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

Larger foundations are more likely to have a

dedicated evaluation unit or department.1

Common department names include:

Evaluation

Evaluation and Learning

Research and Evaluation

Research, Evaluation, and Learning

Learning and Impact

1 A chi-square analysis was conducted between whether or not foundations have asset sizes greater than the median in our sample and whether or not foundations have a dedicated evaluation department. A statistical difference of a medium effect size was found. A chi-square analysis was also conducted between whether or not foundations give more than the median annual giving amount in our sample and whether or not those foundations have a dedicated evaluation department. Again, a statistical difference of a medium effect size was found.

| BENCHMARKING FOUNDATION EVALUATION PRACTICES CEP • CEI | 14 15

About half of foundations have 1.5 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff or more regularly dedicated to evaluation work.

About half of foundations spend $200,000 or more on evaluation (in U.S. dollars).3

About one-quarter of foundations spend $40,000

or less on evaluation.

About one-quarter of foundations spend $1 million

or more on evaluation.

Thirty-five percent are quite or extremely confident in the dollar estimate they provided.

Staff with evaluation-related responsibilities:

$200k

$40k

35%

$1M

direct and manage all or most

work related to evaluation at 45%

of foundations

provide advice and coaching to other

foundation staff who manage all or most work related to evaluation at

21% of foundations

hire third parties to direct and manage all

or most work related to evaluation on behalf of the foundation at 14%

of foundations

T H I R D PA RT Y

2 An independent samples t-test indicated that foundations with asset sizes greater than the median foundation in our sample were more likely to have a greater number of evaluation staff. This statistical difference was of a medium effect size.

Larger foundations tend to have more staff regularly dedicated to evaluation work.2

For every 10 program staff members, the median foundation has about one FTE staff member regularly dedicated to evaluation work.

EVALUATION STAFFING

MODELS OF HOW EVALUATION RESPONSIBILITIES ARE MANAGED

3 In the survey, we did not put parameters around what respondents should or should not include in the dollar value they provided. Respondents were told it is understandable that it may be difficult to give a precise number, but to provide their best estimate.

EVALUATION SPENDING

perceive that funding levels for evaluation work at their foundation have stayed about the same relative to the size of the program budget over the past two years

45% perceive that funding levels for evaluation work at their foundation increased relative to the size of the program budget over the past two years

50% Of respondents:

| BENCHMARKING FOUNDATION EVALUATION PRACTICES CEP • CEI | 16 17

Half of respondents report that most or all of their grantmaking is proactive (e.g., the foundation identifies and requests proposals from organizations or programs that target specific issues or are a good fit with foundation initiatives and strategies).

About one-quarter of respondents report that most or all of their grantmaking is responsive (e.g., driven by unsolicited requests from grant seekers).

50%

27%

PROACTIVE

RESPONSIVE

Evaluation Practices

GRANTMAKING

| BENCHMARKING FOUNDATION EVALUATION PRACTICES CEP • CEI | 18 19

PRIORITIZATION OF EVALUATION ACTIVITIES

respondents spending time on the activity who say it is a top priority

respondents spending time on the activity

Provide research or data to inform grantmaking strategy

90% 35%

Evaluate foundation initiatives or strategies

88% 51%

Develop grantmaking strategy

86% 34%

Design and/or facilitate learning processes or events within the foundation

79% 27%

Compile and/or monitor metrics to measure foundation performance

71% 33%

Evaluate individual grants

71% 34%

Design and/or facilitate learning processes or events with grantees or other external stakeholders

70% 15%

Improve grantee capacity for data collection or evaluation

69% 14%

Conduct/commission satisfaction/perception surveys (of grantees or other stakeholders)

7% 60%

Disseminate evaluation findings externally

57%

Refine grantmaking strategy during implementation

87% 26%

Half of respondents report spending time on at least nine

of these activities.

| BENCHMARKING FOUNDATION EVALUATION PRACTICES CEP • CEI | 20 21

CHALLENGES INVESTMENT IN EVALUATION ACTIVITIES

Percentage of respondents who say the following practices have been at least somewhat challenging in their foundation’s evaluation efforts4

Percentage of respondents who say their foundation invests too little in the following evaluation activities

Having evaluations result in meaningful insights for the foundation 76%

Incorporating evaluation results into the way the foundation will approach its work in the future

70%

76% Having evaluations result in useful lessons for grantees 82%

4 Respondents were asked to rate how challenging each of the practices has been to their foundation’s evaluation efforts on a 1-5 scale, where 1 = ‘Not at all challenging,” 2 = ‘Not very challenging,” 3 = ‘Somewhat challenging,’ 4 = ‘Quite challenging,’ and 5 = ‘Extremely challenging.’ The percentages included above represent respondents who rated a 3, 4, or 5 on an item.

Identifying third party evaluators that produce high quality work 59%

Having evaluations result in useful lessons for the field 83%Disseminating evaluation findings externally

71%

Improving grantee capacity for data collection or evaluation 69%

Designing and/or facilitating learning processes or events with grantees or other external stakeholders

58%

Compiling and/or monitoring metrics to measure foundation performance 55%

Designing and/or facilitating learning processes or events within the foundation 48%

Evaluating foundation initiatives or strategies 44%

Providing research or data to inform grantmaking strategy 42%

Refining grantmaking strategy during implementation 39%

Developing grantmaking strategy 26%

Evaluating individual grants 22%

Conducting/commissioning satisfaction/perception surveys (of grantees or other stakeholders)

41%

Allocating sufficient monetary resources for evaluation efforts 63%

Having foundation staff and grantees agree on the goals of the evaluation 36%

Having programmatic staff and third party evaluators agree on the goals of the evaluation

31%

| BENCHMARKING FOUNDATION EVALUATION PRACTICES CEP • CEI | 22 23

MOST COMMON APPROACHES TO FUNDING GRANTEES' EVALUATION EFFORTS

of foundations have no common approach to evaluating grants because funding evaluation efforts differs widely across the foundation’s program or strategy areas

41% of respondents report that grantees can spend a portion of their grant dollars on evaluation if they request to do so

19%

of respondents report that grantees receive general operating support dollars, and they can choose to use these dollars for evaluation5

10% of respondents say the foundation commissions outside evaluators to evaluate individual grantees’ work

12%

5 All other response options for this item were selected by fewer than 10 percent of respondents and not shown here.

Percentage of individual grants funded for evaluation

Almost two-thirds of respondents say their foundations fund evaluations for less than 10 percent of individual grants.

none less than 10% 10% to 25% 26% to

50%

51% to

75%

more than 75%

63% 13%

found it quite or extremely useful in providing evidence for the field about what does and does not work

found it quite or extremely useful in future grantmaking decisions

found it quite or extremely useful in understanding the impact the foundation’s grant dollars are making

found it quite or extremely useful in refining foundation strategies or initiatives

Of those who have provided funding for a randomized control trial:

63%

38%

42%

25%

RANDOMIZED CONTROL TRIALS

About one-fifth of respondents say their foundations have provided funding for a randomized control trial of their grantees’ work in the past three years.

19%

| BENCHMARKING FOUNDATION EVALUATION PRACTICES CEP • CEI | 24 25

TYPES OF EVALUATION

Over 40 percent of respondents say their foundation has engaged in efforts to coordinate its evaluation work with other funders working in the same issue areas.

Yes, we are already engaged in such efforts 28% 6% 24%

42%

Evaluation Type Grantees’ Work Regularly Occasionally Never

Summative 20% 52% 28% Formative 15% 53% 31% Developmental 10% 46% 44%

Evaluation Type Foundation Initiatives or Strategies Regularly Occasionally Never

Summative 25% 53% 22% Formative 20% 57% 23% Developmental 22% 36% 42%

No, but we are currently considering such efforts

No, we considered it but concluded it was not right for us

No, we have not considered engaging in any such efforts

COLLABORATION

Using Evaluation Information

Frequency with which different types of evaluations are conducted on grantees’ work and foundation initiatives or strategies

| BENCHMARKING FOUNDATION EVALUATION PRACTICES CEP • CEI | 26 27

Grantee organizations it seeks to affect 46%

Fields it seeks to affect 35%

Communities it seeks to affect 22%

Ultimate beneficiaries it seeks to affect 20%

UNDERSTANDING CHALLENGES

Percentage of respondents who say each of the following is a challenge for program staff’s use of information collected through, or resulting from, evaluation work

Program staff's attitudes toward evaluation 50%

Program staff's lack of involvement in shaping the evaluations conducted 40%

Program staff's level of comfort in interpreting/using data 71%

Program staff's time 91%

Percentage of respondents who believe their foundation understands quite or very accurately what it has accomplished through its work, when it comes to each of the following

| BENCHMARKING FOUNDATION EVALUATION PRACTICES CEP • CEI | 28 29

Percentage of respondents who say program staff are likely to use information collected through, or resulting from, evaluations to inform the following aspects of their work

When a respondent says the foundation's senior management engages less than the appropriate amount in evaluation, the foundation is significantly more likely to experience the following evaluation challenges:

USE OF INFORMATION

Decide whether to adjust grantmaking strategies during implementation 74%

Decide whether to renew grantees’ funding 71%

76% Decide whether to expand into new program areas or exit program areas 76%

Hold grantees accountable to the goals of their grants 57%

Understand what the foundation has accomplished through its work 80%

Strengthen grantee organizations’ future performance 63%

Communicate publicly about what the foundation has learned through its work

56%

Decide whether to award a first grant 40%

LEVEL OF ENGAGEMENT OF SENIOR MANAGEMENT

LESS THAN HALF of respondents say senior management engages the appropriate amount in supporting adequate investment in the evaluation capacity of grantees.

44%39%16%

LESS THAN HALF of respondents say senior management engages the appropriate amount in considering the results of evaluation work as an important criterion when assessing staff.

43%31%26%

ABOUT HALF of respondents say senior management engages the appropriate amount in modeling the use of information resulting from evaluation work in decision making.

52%39%9%

OVER TWO-THIRDS of respondents say senior management engages the appropriate amount in communicating to staff that it values the use of evaluation and evaluative information.

68%24%6%

No engagement

Appropriate amount of engagement

Too little engagement

Too much engagement

► Allocating sufficient monetary resources for evaluation efforts ► Incorporating evaluation results into future work ► Having evaluations result in useful lessons for the field

| BENCHMARKING FOUNDATION EVALUATION PRACTICES CEP • CEI | 30 31

LEVEL OF SUPPORT FROM BOARD

ALMOST 40 PERCENT of respondents say there is a high level of board support for the use of evaluation or evaluative data in board-level decision making.

38%39%22%

ABOUT HALF of respondents say there is a high level of board support for the use of evaluation or evaluative data in decision making by staff at the foundation.

52%40%6%

FORTY PERCENT of respondents say there is a high level of board support for the role of evaluation staff at the foundation.

40%39%14%7%

No support

Moderate support

Little support

High support

ONLY ONE-THIRD of respondents say there is a high level of board support for foundation spending on evaluation.

3% 34%44%19%

When a foundation's board is less supportive of evaluation, the foundation is significantly more likely to experience the following evaluation challenges:

► Allocating sufficient monetary resources for evaluation efforts ► Having evaluations result in meaningful insights ► Incorporating evaluation results into future work ► Having foundation staff and grantees agree on evaluation goals ► Having evaluations result in useful lessons for grantees ► Having evaluations result in useful lessons for the field

Percentage of respondents who say evaluation findings are shared with the following audiences quite a bit or a lot

SHARING INFORMATION

Foundation’s grantees 28%

Foundation’s CEO 77%

Other foundations 17%

Foundation’s board 47%

Foundation’s staff 66%

General public 14%

| BENCHMARKING FOUNDATION EVALUATION PRACTICES CEP • CEI | 32 33

Looking Forward Foundations will be more strategic

in the way they plan for and design evaluations so that information

collected is meaningful and useful.

THE TOP THREE CHANGES EVALUATION STAFF HOPE TO SEE IN FIVE YEARS⁶

Implement more strategic evaluation designs to measure initiatives and key areas of investment.

Develop clear strategies and goals for what [the foundation] hopes to measure and assess.

My sole wish is that evaluation data is meaningful−that it is actually linked to strategy.

6 Of evaluation staff who responded to our survey, 74 percent, or 94 of 127 respondents, answered the open-ended question, “In five years, what do you hope will have changed for foundations in the collection and/or use of evaluation data or information?”

| BENCHMARKING FOUNDATION EVALUATION PRACTICES CEP • CEI | 34 35

2 Use evaluation deliverables to inform decisions that improve our foundation and grantee performance.

More and more effective use of evaluative data and information for the purpose of learning and improvement for foundations.

I would like to see the full integration of evaluation into foundation daily

practice and routine decision making.

Foundations will use evaluation data for decision-making and

improving practice.

More public sharing both internally and externally and more frank conversation about what worked or didn’t work.

I want to expand our ability to share information to inform the fields in which we work and to inform our audiences, such as donors and policymakers.

To improve the level of transparency surrounding evaluation, less emphasis on perfection and more on discovery.

3 Foundations will be more transparent about their

evaluations and share what they are learning externally.

| BENCHMARKING FOUNDATION EVALUATION PRACTICES CEP • CEI | 36 37

1. What is the purpose of evaluation at your foundation?

________________________________________________________________

How do your foundation’s evaluation efforts align with its goals and strategies, if at all?

________________________________________________________________

How does leadership at your foundation use information from the foundation’s evaluation work, if at all?

________________________________________________________________

How do your foundation’s evaluation efforts align, or not align, with its organizational culture?

________________________________________________________________

2. How does your foundation make decisions about each of the following:

How much to budget for evaluation work?

________________________________________________________________

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

Which costs will be categorized as evaluation costs (e.g., salaries of staff with evaluation responsibilities, third party evaluators, data collection efforts, etc.)?

________________________________________________________________

3. How are responsibilities for evaluation work structured at your foundation?

________________________________________________________________

How many staff have evaluation-related responsibilities at your foundation?

________________________________________________________________

What are the evaluation-related job responsibilities of these staff members? On what do they spend their time?

________________________________________________________________

In which department or area do staff with evaluation-related responsibilities work, and why?

________________________________________________________________

| BENCHMARKING FOUNDATION EVALUATION PRACTICES CEP • CEI | 38 39

METHODOLOGY

SAMPLE

Foundations were considered for inclusion in this sample if they:

• were based in the United States or Canada; • were an independent foundation, including health conversion foundations,

or community foundation as categorized by Foundation Directory Online and CEP’s internal contact management software;

• provided $10 million or more in annual giving, according to information provided to CEP from Foundation Center in September 2014 and the Canada Revenue Agency, with help from Philanthropic Foundations Canada;

• or, were members of the Center for Evaluation Innovation’s (CEI) Evaluation Roundtable.

For foundations that were members of CEI’s Evaluation Roundtable, the foundation’s representative to the Roundtable was included in the sample. For all other foundations, the following criteria were used to determine the most senior person at the foundation who was most likely to have evaluation-related responsibilities:

An individual was deemed to be evaluation staff if his/her title included one or more of the following words, according to the foundation’s website:

1. Evaluation 2. Assessment 3. Research

4. Measurement 5. Effectiveness 6. Knowledge

7. Learning 8. Impact 9. Strategy

10. Planning 11. Performance 12. Analysis To determine which evaluation staff member at a foundation was the most senior, the following role hierarchy was used:

1. Senior Vice President 2. Vice President 3. Director

4. Deputy Director 5. Senior Manager 6. Manager

7. Senior Officer 8. Officer 9. Associate

If no staff on a foundation’s website had titles or roles that included the above words related to evaluation, the most senior program staff member at the foundation was chosen for inclusion in the sample. Program staff were identified as having titles that included the words “Program” or “Grant,” or mentioned a specific program area (e.g., “Education” or “Environment”). The same role hierarchy described above was used to determine seniority.

4. How, if at all, does your foundation use information from its evaluation work to inform programmatic decisions?

________________________________________________________________

5. How are decisions made about with whom evaluation information will be shared:

Inside the foundation?

________________________________________________________________

Outside of the foundation?

________________________________________________________________

6. What changes would you like to see regarding evaluation at your foundation?

________________________________________________________________

What would you hope would happen as a result of these changes?

________________________________________________________________

| BENCHMARKING FOUNDATION EVALUATION PRACTICES CEP • CEI | 40 41

independent foundations, 13 percent were health conversion foundations. The final eight percent of foundations in our sample included other types of funders that were part of the Evaluation Roundtable, aside from independent or community foundations.

The median asset size for foundations in the sample was about $530 million and the median annual giving level was about $28 million. The median number of full-time equivalent staff working at foundations in this study was 25. The number of full-time equivalent staff is based on information purchased from Foundation Center in September 2014.

QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS

To analyze the quantitative survey data from foundation leaders, descriptive statistics were examined. Chi-square analyses and independent samples t-tests were also conducted to examine the relationship between foundation size and evaluation structure. An alpha level of 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance for all testing, and effect sizes were examined for all analyses.

Because our sample only consisted of 32 community foundations, we were unable to rigorously explore statistical differences between independent and community foundations in this study.

QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS

Thematic and content analyses were conducted on the responses to the open-ended question, “In five years, what do you hope will have changed for foundations in the collection and/or use of evaluation data or information?” A coding scheme was developed for this item by reading through all responses to recognize recurring ideas, creating categories, and then coding each respondent’s ideas according to the categories.

A codebook was created to ensure that different coders would be coding for the same concepts rather than their individual interpretations of the concepts. One coder coded all responses to the question and a second coder coded 15 percent of those responses. At least an 80 percent level of inter-rater agreement was achieved for each code.

Selected quotations were included in this publication. These quotations were selected to be representative of the themes seen in the data.

Only those individuals who had an e-mail address that could be accessed through the foundation’s website, CEP staff knowledge, or CEI staff knowledge were deemed eligible to receive the survey.

In September 2015, 271 foundation staff were initially sent an invitation to complete the survey. Two new members of the Evaluation Roundtable were later added to the sample and sent the survey. Later, 19 individuals were removed from the sample because they did not meet the inclusion criteria. Completed surveys were received from 120 staff members, and partially completed surveys, defined as being at least 50 percent complete, were received from seven staff members.

Thus, our final sample of respondents included 127 of the 254 potential respondents, for a response rate of 50 percent. Of the foundation staff who responded to the survey, 58 percent were evaluation staff, 35 percent were program staff, and six percent were staff with a title that did not fall into either of these two categories, based on our previously defined criteria.

METHOD

The survey was fielded online during a four week period from September to October of 2015. Foundation staff with evaluation-related responsibilities were sent a brief e-mail including a description of the purpose of the survey, a statement of confidentiality, and a link to the survey. These staff were sent up to nine reminder e-mails and received up to one reminder phone call.

The survey consisted of 43 items, some of which contained several sub-items. Respondents were asked about a variety of topics, including their role at their foundation and previous experience, their foundation and its evaluation function, their foundation’s specific evaluation practices, and the ways in which information collected through evaluations is used.

RESPONSE BIAS

Foundations with staff who responded to this survey did not differ from non- respondent organizations by annual asset size, annual giving amount, region of the United States in which the foundation is located, or whether or not the foundation is an independent foundation. Information on assets and giving was purchased from Foundation Center in September 2014. Evaluation staff of foundations that are part of CEI’s Evaluation Roundtable were more likely to respond to the survey than evaluation staff of foundations that are not part of CEI’s Evaluation Roundtable.

SAMPLE DEMOGRAPHICS

Sixty-seven percent of the foundations represented in our final sample were independent foundations and 25 percent were community foundations. Of the

| BENCHMARKING FOUNDATION EVALUATION PRACTICES42

www.effectivephilanthropy.org

www.evaluationinnovation.org

CEP FUNDERS We are very appreciative of the support that made this work possible. See below for a list of funders.

The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust The McKnight Foundation New Hampshire Charitable Foundation New York State Health Foundation Oak Foundation Public Welfare Foundation Richard M. Fairbanks Foundation Saint Luke’s Foundation Sobrato Family Foundation Teagle Foundation Weingart Foundation Wilburforce Foundation William Penn Foundation

INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTORS Michael Bailin Kevin Bolduc Phil Buchanan Alyse d’Amico John Davidson Robert Eckardt Phil Giudice Tiffany Cooper Gueye Crystal Hayling Paul Heggarty Bob Hughes Barbara Kibbe Latia King Patricia Kozu Kathryn E. Merchant Grace Nicolette Richard Ober Alex Ocasio Grant Oliphant Hilary Pennington Christy Pichel Nadya K. Shmavonian Fay Twersky Jen Vorse Wilka Lynn Perry Wooten

$500,000 OR MORE Fund for Shared Insight Robert Wood Johnson Foundation The Rockefeller Foundation The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation

$200,000 TO $499,999 The David and Lucile Packard Foundation Ford Foundation W.K. Kellogg Foundation

$100,000 TO $199,999 Barr Foundation The James Irvine Foundation The Kresge Foundation Rockefeller Brothers Fund S.D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation

$50,000 TO $99,999 Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation The Wallace Foundation

$20,000 TO $49,999 Carnegie Corporation of New York Charles Stewart Mott Foundation The Duke Endowment John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Lumina Foundation Surdna Foundation W. Clement and Jessie V. Stone Foundation

UP TO $19,999 The Assisi Foundation of Memphis California HealthCare Foundation The Colorado Health Foundation The Columbus Foundation The Commonwealth Fund Doris Duke Charitable Foundation Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund The Heinz Endowments Henry Luce Foundation Houston Endowment Kansas Health Foundation

| BENCHMARKING FOUNDATION EVALUATION PRACTICES44

675 Massachusetts Avenue 7th Floor

Cambridge, MA 02139 (617) 492-0800

131 Steuart Street #501

San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 391-3070

1625 K Street, NW Suite 1050

Washington, DC 20006 (202) 728-0727 ext.116