In the fall of 2012, as part of our commitment to effective grantmaking, we fielded a survey of grantees and scholars to assess what kinds of technical assistance and support might be useful as the Hartford Foundation transitions out of its academic capacity building grants. The survey was part of our ongoing effort to ensure that we are providing comprehensive assistance beyond the grant check.
According to the Center for Effective Philanthropy, the majority of grantees of a typical large foundation receive no assistance beyond the grant, and providing just two or three types of assistance to grantees appears to be ineffective. Moreover, it is only in the minority of cases when grantees receive a comprehensive set of assistance activities or a set of mainly field-focused types of assistance that they have a substantially more positive experience with their foundation funders than grantees receiving no assistance. Because technical assistance requires a significant investment on our part, feedback from grantees is essential for us to track its impact and make any improvements.
I’m delighted to report that we received 40 responses from institutional grantees overseeing the administration of sponsored projects or awards, and an additional 53 responses from individual scholars from our scholarship and fellowship programs. Thank you to all who responded.
The survey showed that a majority of institutional grantees had already received some kind of technical assistance from the Hartford Foundation and were “somewhat” (38 percent) or “very much” (47 percent) pleased. One respondent reported that the technical assistance “enabled us to think more strategically about ‘next steps’ once the grant funding period ended, and helped to foster new partnerships and collaborations.” Another said that it aided efforts to “attain subsequent funding for support of our aging-related practicum options after funding ended. We have revamped our School’s mission and vision as well as course objectives throughout our curriculum to address aging content in some way.”
The survey also showed that an overwhelming 73 percent of those overseeing the administration of grants wanted more services. For many, transition planning advice on new opportunities and organizational directions topped the list. Further assistance on business planning, communications, marketing, stakeholder engagement, and fundraising was also highly valued. As one respondent put it, “most of us ended up in our leadership role because of content expertise of some type, yet the skills we need to sustain and grow our organizations are completely different.” More than 70 percent of those who requested these services wanted access to consultants with expertise in these areas.
The responses from individual scholars were similar: 70 percent were “very much” pleased, and 91 percent wanted to receive access to additional technical resources and training. One scholar reported that “the training, resources, and services I have received through my association with JAHF-funded programs has helped with jump-starting my career and given me additional training that I would not otherwise have received.” Another said that the “resources provided by the Hartford Foundation were free of charge and often could not be obtained by any other source.”
Individual scholars also expressed the need for further introductions to other funders; continued opportunities for networking at events; and introductions to collaborators or partners working nationally both within and across disciplines. One scholar suggested that alumni organize peer-to-peer support networks in order to benefit from their collective experience, knowledge, and expertise—for example, in writing post-doc applications. Another recommended that a web-based resource be developed to enable alumni to link to potential collaborators, not just those working in their discipline or area of expertise.
The survey also showed that scholars want further training in communications and leadership, and that they recognize its importance to their career development. As one alumnus put it, “the communication seminars [facilitated by Strategic Communications and Planning] and the Bandwidth websites were helpful in learning how to craft my research message into something understandable and meaningful to a wide array of individuals. Participating in the Leadership Conference was a great way to connect with fellow pre-doctoral scholars as well as facilitating introduction to other funders….” Another said that the training “helped me communicate to others about my research. [As a result,] I have now been involved in press releases and am working on a TV spot about my research. The communications workshops/offerings have helped me with my confidence in doing this. The Hartford network [was also instrumental in gaining] references for promotion and tenure.”
Although we know that the transition for some grantees focused on academic geriatrics and training will be challenging, optimism remains high: while 44 percent of grantee respondents expect their funding from Hartford to decrease, almost half (47 percent) expect an overall increase in their funding from all sources over the next three years.
The feedback from 93 respondents has enabled the Hartford Foundation to develop transition grants incorporating much of their information. In the months ahead, the Foundation will continue to explore ways of helping grantees by way of technical assistance and organizational capacity building. Stay tuned to the Health AGEnda blog for more details about follow-up activities from the Hartford Foundation.