Foundations Rate Strong Capacity in Leadership and Adaptive Areas
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•519 views
In Spring 2016, 54 diverse foundations took TCC Group’s Foundation Core Capacity Assessment Tool (FCCAT), assessing capacity strengths and challenges of their respective institutions. This slidedeck, for participants who took the FCCAT in 2016, shares the aggregate data. We’ll explore what we learned regarding strengths and challenges in five core arenas: leadership, management, adaptive, technical, and organizational culture capacity, probing interesting results across foundations of all types and sizes. The video of this webinar is available on TCC Group's YouTube page: https://youtu.be/FP3kFHQJd3g
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Foundations Rate Strong Capacity in Leadership and Adaptive Areas
Similar to Foundations Rate Strong Capacity in Leadership and Adaptive Areas (20)
More from TCC Group
More from TCC Group (9)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Foundations Rate Strong Capacity in Leadership and Adaptive Areas
- 1. December 6, 2016 Foundation Capacity: Preliminary Findings from FCCAT Data Melinda Fine, Ed.D. Jared Raynor Deepti Sood Director of Philanthropy & Strategic Partnerships Director of Evaluation Senior Consultant
- 2. 2 Agenda 2 o Background & Context o Findings from the FCCAT aggregate sample o Discussion
- 5. 5 FCCAT History FCCAT Pilot WE ARE HERE 2007 2015 2016
- 6. 6 • Focus on learning • Self-assessment Tool Background • Measures behaviors, not attitudes • Five core capacities (and 43 sub-capacities)
- 7. 7 2016 Administration 58participating foundations 54in aggregate sample 3+staff per foundation
- 9. 9 Sub-capacities • Advocacy • Board championship • Board-staff relationship • Commitment to DEI • External leadership • Foundation vision • Internal decision- making • Financial mission management • Grant portfolio management • Grantee relationship management • Grantmaking processes • Risk approach • Staff communication • Staff development • Staff performance management • Data-informed approach • Environmental learning • Evaluation • Foundation networks • Innovation and experimentation • Networking grantees • Strategy development • Cultural competency • Facilities • Technology • Cohesion • Demonstrating accountability • Demonstrating clear and lived values • Demonstrating transparency • Empowerment • Encouraging collaboration • Supporting staff sustainability • Valuing different perspectives • Valuing learning • Skills (advocacy, evaluation, financial management, fundraising, grantmaking, knowledge management, legal, technology, strategic communications)
- 10. 10 Who took the FCCAT? 34% 24% 18% 16% 6% 2% Private foundations Community foundations Family foundations Public foundations Operating foundations Corporate foundations Foundation Type 44% 32% 16% 8% Locally Regionally Nationally Internationally Foundation Grantmaking Scope 14% 30% 18% 14% More than $400M Between $100-$4000M Between $50-100M Between $10-50M Total Asset Size
- 11. 11 What are FCCAT participants engaged in? 83% 74% 71% 59% 40% 26% Program grants Capacity building grants General operating support grants Multi-year grants Capital project support grants Research grants What sort of grants do you provide? 79% 76% 74% 36% Support grantee convening & networking Support capacity building Provide direct grants Run operating programs What sort of activities do you use your funding for?
- 12. 1212 Findings
- 13. 13 • Foundations rate themselves relatively similarly regardless of: oAsset size oAmount of annual giving oGeographic scope oFoundation type High-level Takeaway 1
- 14. 14 • Foundations rate their capacity across the five core concepts are “strong” or “satisfactory” • FCCAT scores are categorized as follows: High-level Takeaway 2 Score Category 230 and greater Strong 190 – 229 Satisfactory Less than 190 Challenging
- 15. 1515 POLL: Which core capacity was highest?
- 19. 19 Leadership Capacity Advocacy Board Championship Board-staff Relationship Commitment to DEI External Leadership Foundation Vision Internal Decision- making Strong 15 24 34 6 44 40 32 Satisfactory 14 22 15 16 8 12 20 Challenging 25 8 5 32 2 2 2
- 20. 20 Adaptive Capacity Data- informed approach Environmental learning Evaluation Foundation networks Innovation & experi- mentation Networking grantees Strategy Development Strong 12 29 3 46 26 43 19 Satisfactory 20 24 20 7 26 10 24 Challenging 22 1 31 1 2 1 11
- 22. 22 Management Capacity Risk approach Staff communication Staff development Staff performance management Strong 21 31 30 29 Satisfactory 26 21 23 21 Challenging 7 2 1 4 Financial mission management Grant portfolio management Grantee relationship management Grantmaking processes Strong 29 47 47 34 Satisfactory 22 6 7 19 Challenging 3 1 0 1
- 24. 24 Technical Capacity Advocacy skills Cultural competency Evaluation skills Facilities Financial management skills Fundraising skills Strong 25 38 22 35 48 14 Satisfactory 19 15 19 17 6 7 Challenging 10 1 13 2 0 11 Grantmaking skills Knowledge management skills Legal skills Strategic communication skills Technology Technology skills Strong 37 25 34 32 22 27 Satisfactory 16 27 10 16 22 17 Challenging 1 2 10 6 10 10
- 26. 26 Culture Cohesion Demonstrating accountability Demonstrating clear and lived values Demonstrating transparency Empowerment Strong 2 29 34 11 30 Satisfactory 49 23 15 26 22 Challenging 3 2 5 17 2 Encouraging collaboration Supporting staff sustainability Valuing different perspectives Valuing learning Strong 13 29 6 24 Satisfactory 41 17 42 25 Challenging 0 8 6 5
- 28. 28 • Clarifications? • Surprises or confirmed expectations? • Areas you’d like to probe further? • Suggestions for further research? • Insights from your foundation results findings that you’d like to share? Discussion
- 29. 29 • Learning together o Available for interpretation dialogues o Please share insights, questions, suggestions • Building the data set o Consider expanding data sample within your foundation o Space available for interested foundations • Sharing knowledge o Upcoming reports and articles o Webinars, funder conference presentations • Digging deeper o Continued investigation of data (DEI, collaboration, relation between foundations and nonprofits) o Invite your suggestions Next Steps for FCCAT
- 30. 30 THANK YOU Jared Raynor Director of Evaluation jraynor@tccgrp.com Deepti Sood Senior Consultant dsood@tccgrp.com Melinda Fine, Ed.D. Director of Philanthropy & Strategic Partnerships mfine@tccgrp.com www.tccccat.com/foundationCCAT
- 31. 3131 Appendices
- 32. 32 Core Capacity Model External Environment Resources Organization Adaptive Capacity the ability of a nonprofit organization to monitor, assess and respond to internal and external changes Organizational Culture HistoryLanguage Technical Capacity the ability of a nonprofit organization to implement all of the key organizational and programmatic functions Key Resources the one or more critically needed resources that most directly support programs and services Finances/ Funding Program Design and Model Time Technology Facilities Human Resources Management Capacity the ability of a nonprofit organization to ensure the effective and efficient use of organizational resources Leadership Capacity the ability of all organizational leaders to create and sustain the vision, inspire, model, prioritize, make decisions, provide direction and innovate, all in an effort to achieve the organizational mission
Editor's Notes
- MELINDA
- MELINDA WELCOME AND 2 SECOND OVERVIEW
- MELINDA MF: NOTE THAT I SWTICHED ORDER OF SLIDES – WILL TAKE FROM REPORT -Historical attention to nonprofit capacity, with much less emphasis on foundation capacity Focus on foundation capacity to date in XYZ areas (see paper) Limited – argue for comprehensive look -Must turn mirror inward too to explore institutional strengths and areas for growth - Purpose two-fold: - help individual foundations begin this convo and help elevate attn. across phil sector
- DEEPTI
- DEEPTI CCAT history: Over 5,500 since 2007 Funder partnership and expressed interest Research: absence of assessment tools Pilot: 2015, 23 foundations, all w interpretations Production of revised instrument 2016: Ford grant secured for wide distribution
- DEEPTI
- DEEPTI -58 foundation participants; 54 foundations in aggregate sample -3 or more staff per foundation (NOTES: say something re: average per institution to give sense of saturation) -Taken primarily by staff, secondarily by board -Administered spring 2016
- DEEPTI Leadership capacity: the ability of all organizational leaders to create and sustain the foundation’s vision. This includes the capacity of leaders to inspire, prioritize, make decisions, innovate, and provide appropriate direction to achieve an organization’s mission; Adaptive capacity: the ability of a foundation to monitor, assess and respond to changes in the internal and external environment; Management capacity: the ability of a foundation to ensure the effective and efficient use of its diverse organizational resources; Technical capacity: the ability of a foundation to implement its key organizational and programmatic functions through available technologies, tools, and staff skills; and Organizational culture: the values, assumptions and behavioral norms that guide how a foundation carries out its work. All the capacities taken together give us a holistic model of organizational effectiveness. The capacities work together as a team: a deficiency in any one of these will be a detriment to the others, by the same token, a strength in any one of these can drive some of the others to happen. The amorphous organizational culture underlies all of these but is largely a function of leadership – they can encourage positive culture changes. This is why we asked senior leadership to participate in the assessment. In fact capacity building requires a culture of learning– how leaders use this data can serve as an example. Of course the core capacities do not exist in a vacuum, they organization’s resources also affect organizational effectiveness. Further, there are other forces at play in determining an organization’s effectiveness outside of the organization: external environment. These forces impact the ways in which the core capacities can function. Being aware of the external factors that you can’t control is important, but we focus in on the internal factors that you can control: core capacities. These are the basis for the tool – and provide organizations with a framework so that they are not just thinking about one part of organizational effectiveness – it puts capacity-building actions in context. Factors affecting core capacities: Organizational mission, vision, programs and services Organizational culture Existing organizational resources The external environment Organizational lifecycle We’d posit that 4 capacity arenas identified as critical for making sense of NP capacity hold true for foundations as well Something to be gained by foundations holding mirror to themselves – exploring same capacity arenas that they consider relevant in their grantees FCCAT intentionally designed to mirror CCAT – while pivoting “scales” and items (within same four core capacity arenas) so they hitch to particular work of foundations Added additional capacity – organizational culture (embedded within CCAT – made more explicit here for FCCAT – following GEO’s leadership in calling out increased attention to this as critical factor in enabling or impeding advancing mission
- DEEPTI sub-capacities are specifically focusing on elements essential to foundations
- DEEPTI Generally taken for the foundation overall (not a portfolio) X% of staff took the tool Primarily private, local, and mid-sized fdns (explain in way that simply notes asked to identify themselves since in fact some of the categories are duplicative (private/family)
- DEEPTI -Activities reflect range of ways foundations invest in their respective fields - Surprised by how high the capacity building figure is because think this is not representative of sector at large – ie higher percentage of sample supports CB than is case beyond sample – But perhaps not surprising that those foundations motivated to take this for themselves are those more engaged in providing these kinds of supports to their grantees
- JARED
- JARED LET’S FRAME THIS IN POSITIVE RATHER THAN NEGATIVE FIRST – IT SOUNDS BETTER. EG – FIRST FINDING IS THAT THERE’S GREAT COHERENCE/SIMILARITY ACROSS FDN TYPES IN TERMS OF CAPACITY, REGARDLESS OF THEIR SPECIFIC FOUNDATION DEMOGRAPHICS no noteworthy differences in perspective (indicated as “variance”) emerge between foundation respondents in the aggregate context (though differences did necessarily appear on the institutional level). foundations rate core capacity strengths similarly, regardless of foundation type, asset size, and scope.
- JARED NOTE THAT I INSERTED THIS SLIDE -- I THINK THAT BEFORE YOU GET INTO THE POLLING YOU NEED TO MAKE THIS POINT – THEN AFTER THIS YOU ASK THEM TO GUESS ABOUT STRENGTHS. BUT IF YOU DON’T SAY THEY WERE STRONG ACROSS THE BOARD, IT PUTS TOO MUCH STRESS ON WHAT CAME UP STRONGEST, NO?
- JARED NY Office (either Deepti or Hana): Switch screen to go from PPT to Webex page with poll – have Jared narrate and ask people to vote. options will be the 5 core capacities, answer will be management. I THINK YOU MUST PRESENT THIS IN QUALIFIED WAY HOWEVER SINCE ALL ARE SOLID AND DIFFERENCES BTW THEM ARE OF MINIMAL IMPORTANCE SINCE UNDER 20 POINTS, NO???
- JARED Explanation for technical -- This core construct broadly addresses a foundation’s capacity to carry out its key organizational and programmatic functions through available technologies, tools, and skills. This construct does not refer to technological skills and goods alone; rather, it more expansively encompasses the myriad of skillsets and resources needed to conduct a foundation’s overall work (including, for example, advocacy, grantmaking, legal, and evaluation skills, as well as material resources, such as facilities and technological equipment).
- JARED Three of the top five sub-capacities relate to management: grantee relationship management, grant portfolio strategy development, and financial management skills. Interestingly, three of the top five sub-capacities also relate to relationships, another core aspect of foundation work. Building effective foundation networks, field leadership in their chosen areas, and grantee relationship management span the core stakeholder groups with which foundations interact. Please also note that Melinda will talk more about collaboration later on in this presentation
- JARED DEI scores lowest in the leadership capacity arena and falls within the “challenge” range across all foundation demographics. In the aggregate sample, FCCAT respondents within institutions also significantly differ in their appraisals of foundation capacity in this arena. (These differences are indicated as “variance” within FCCAT reports.) The aggregate FCCAT’s low DEI capacity score is in keeping with findings from D5, a five year, coalitional effort to advance philanthropy’s diversity, equity, and inclusion, which illuminated challenges foundations commonly face in addressing the critical issues of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). It is noteworthy that FCCAT respondents indicate their institutions demonstrate a “strong” commitment to recruiting diverse staff. The apparent disjuncture the high score attributed to a specific DEI element and the low score attributed to DEI capacity overall may suggest that foundations face challenges in identifying, hiring, onboarding, and/or retaining diverse staff, rather than in committing to the imperative of doing so. MAY BE TOO COMPLEX FOR PP PRES BUT MAY WANT TO TEMPER THIS BY DISCUSSING RELATION TO CULTURAL COMPETENCY RATINGS AS I DO IN REPORT – MAKES FOR A MORE NUANCED PICTURE. ALTERNTAIVELY COULD JUST NOD HERE TO FACT THAT WE SEE STRENGTHS IN RELATED AREAS AND AS THIS IS SUCH AN IMPORTANT ARENA WE ARE JUST BRIEFLY MENTIONING NOW BUT WOULD BE HAPPY TO DISCUSS MORE DEEPLY IN Q AND A IF OF INTEREST…
- MELINDA MF PICKS UP AGAIN – WILL BE TWEAKING NOTES THROUGHOUT CONSISTENT WITH TEXT IN LATEST VERSION OF REPORT – QUESTION: PLEAE GUIDE ME IN HOW TO FRAME THE IMPORTANCE OF SHOWING THEM THE SPREAD ACROSS SAMPLE FOR NUMBERS IN EACH OF THESE CATEGORIES BY RATING CATEGORY. IT’S A LOT OF DETAIL AND I’M NOT SURE WHAT THEY (OR I) AM TO MAKE OF THE SPREAD OVERALL – SINCE EVEN WITH SPREAD, ONLY AREA THAT IS STRONG ENOUGH TO COME UP AS VARIANCE IS IN TECHNICAL, YES? ALSO NEED TO KNOW WAY YOU’D LIKE ME TO FRAME HOW THIS IS BUNDLED UP INTO THE SCORE ITSELF. Some subcapacities – like external leadership and foundation vision emerge as clear strengths, while DEI and advocacy are more challenging areas. Foundation leadership capacity appears grounded in the external leadership role they play in their communities and the vision that they have for pursing their mission. It is interesting that the strongest perceived area of capacity in leadership is externally oriented, rather than internally oriented
- MELINDA WILL TWEAK NOTES AND LIFT UP REL BTW INNOVATION AND COLLAB AMONG OTHER THINGS Eval stands out as a challenge area (distinct from evaluation skills), and data-informed approach is also a bit lower. Strategy development and innovation and experimentation are mostly satisfactory. Networking capacities – foundation networks and networking grantees – emerge as clear areas of strength across the cohort. These findings are consistent with a recent field report published by the Center for Effective Philanthropy, indicating a number of challenges foundations commonly face in incorporating evaluation and learning practices within their institutional practice, and in applying lessons learned to grantmaking activities.
- MELINDA Virtually all strengths here except risk approach. it makes sense that foundations would score will in management given that much of the work that they do is related to management—managing payout, managing grant agreements, managing grant reporting, etc. Management capacity is, by contrast, frequently identified as a “challenge” area for nonprofit organizations. This finding may suggest that foundations are better able to apply their comparatively greater resources to ensuring effective management of their various central responsibilities.
- MELINDA Virtually all strengths here except risk approach. it makes sense that foundations would score will in management given that much of the work that they do is related to management—managing payout, managing grant agreements, managing grant reporting, etc. Management capacity is, by contrast, frequently identified as a “challenge” area for nonprofit organizations. This finding may suggest that foundations are better able to apply their comparatively greater resources to ensuring effective management of their various central responsibilities.
- MELINDA
- MELINDA Only 32 foundations filled out fundraising questions (all other scales were answered by all foundations) Mostly strengths here – knowledge management, technology, technology skills, and fundraising emerge as the more difficult areas. This construct does not refer to technological skills and goods alone; rather, it more expansively encompasses the myriad of skillsets and resources needed to conduct a foundation’s overall work (including, for example, advocacy, grantmaking, legal, and evaluation skills, as well as material resources, such as facilities and technological equipment). foundation respondents evidence a significant difference of opinion regarding their assessments of technical capacity, with seven out of 12 sub-capacities indicating variance in their results. This finding may suggest that staff and/or board members are differently aware of – or able to take advantage – available institutional goods, and/or that staff display different skill competency across portfolio and operational areas. technological capacity is frequently identified as a “challenge” area for nonprofit organizations. This finding may suggest that foundations are better able to apply their comparatively greater resources to ensuring effective management of their various central responsibilities
- MELINDA
- MELINDA HERE AND FOR REPORT – I’M CONFUSED RE: CULTURE FINDINGS – IS IT THE CASE THAT THIS IS THE WEAKEST OF THE FIVE CORE CONSTRUCTS (AS WE SAY ELSEWHERE?) – EVEN THOUGH SCORES ARE PRETTY HIGH OVERALL??? the FCCAT is best understood as a tool for gauging how parties internal to a foundation perceive the demonstrated behaviors and attitudes of an institution; it is not an objective assessment that ascribes value to the traits perceived no variance between FCCAT respondents in each of these sub-capacity areas Less clear strengths for culture – demonstrating clear and lived values and empowerment come to the top. Foundations are struggling a bit more with encouraging collaboration and valuing different perspectives and cohesion
- JARED
- JARED
- MELINDA
- Leadership capacity: the ability of all organizational leaders to create and sustain the foundation’s vision. This includes the capacity of leaders to inspire, prioritize, make decisions, innovate, and provide appropriate direction to achieve an organization’s mission; Adaptive capacity: the ability of a foundation to monitor, assess and respond to changes in the internal and external environment; Management capacity: the ability of a foundation to ensure the effective and efficient use of its diverse organizational resources; Technical capacity: the ability of a foundation to implement its key organizational and programmatic functions through available technologies, tools, and staff skills; and Organizational culture: the values, assumptions and behavioral norms that guide how a foundation carries out its work. All the capacities taken together give us a holistic model of organizational effectiveness. The capacities work together as a team: a deficiency in any one of these will be a detriment to the others, by the same token, a strength in any one of these can drive some of the others to happen. The amorphous organizational culture underlies all of these but is largely a function of leadership – they can encourage positive culture changes. This is why we asked senior leadership to participate in the assessment. In fact capacity building requires a culture of learning– how leaders use this data can serve as an example. Of course the core capacities do not exist in a vacuum, they organization’s resources also affect organizational effectiveness. Further, there are other forces at play in determining an organization’s effectiveness outside of the organization: external environment. These forces impact the ways in which the core capacities can function. Being aware of the external factors that you can’t control is important, but we focus in on the internal factors that you can control: core capacities. These are the basis for the tool – and provide organizations with a framework so that they are not just thinking about one part of organizational effectiveness – it puts capacity-building actions in context. Factors affecting core capacities: Organizational mission, vision, programs and services Organizational culture Existing organizational resources The external environment Organizational lifecycle