evaluation of the best initiative: a report on year 2 findings for cohort 2

1

Evaluation of the BEST Initiative: A Report on Year 2 Findings for

Cohort 2

July 2007

2

Evaluation Overview: Cohort Model

Cohort 1: 11 organizations* Data include pre-assessment, 1st year post

assessment and 2nd year post-post assessment (10 organizations), plus interviews

Cohort 2: 7 organizations* Data include pre-assessment and interviews

*Each cohort had one organization not included in the data analysis.

3

Evaluation Overview: Data Collection

Surveys: Post-test re-administered to Cohort 1 (14 responses

from 11 organizations) Pre-test administered to Cohort 2 (14 responses

from 7 organizations) Interviews:

17 with Executive Directors and/or Board Chairs 13 with Consultants 5 with Funders 2 BEST Staff

Secondary Data: Best Survey Report 2006 from Center for Nonprofit Management (CNM)*

* This report was prepared by Debb Wilcox at CNM for the BEST Project. The report has generously

been shared with TCC to supplement the overall evaluation.

4

Overview

Similar demographics in Cohort 2 as compared to Cohort 1

Assessment process valuable for organizations

Program continues to be implemented well and organizations show evidence of improvement

Training component continues to struggle with buy-in/value for participants

5

Organizational Background

Overview of Organizations’ Demographics

6

Organizational Background: Leadership

Cohort 2 organizations have existed as 501(c)3s for longer and have slightly larger budgets

Cohort 2 organizations have executive directors with shorter tenures with the organization

Organizational Leader Tenure

15%

23%

69%

86%

14%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

<1 year 1-3 years >3 years

% o

f O

rgan

izat

ion

s

Cohort 1 Cohort 2

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Cohort 1 mean

(N=11 org leaders)

$857,618 $942,246 $970,752

Cohort 2 mean $1,579,329 $1,614,599 $1,644,509

Cohort 1 median

(N=11 org leaders)

$616,626 $634,000 $577,262

Cohort 2 median $682,000 $867,000 $886,000

Organizational Budget (as reported by organizations)

7

Organizational Background: Leadership—C2

Similar to when C1 started, no C2 organization indicated having an executive transition plan

29% have a formal plan regarding board member terms (compared to 64% for C1)

Have very active boards, as seen in chart below, representing a strong leadership foundation

Percent of Active Board Members (Active/Total Board Members)

2004 % active 2005 % active 2006 % active

Cohort 2 mean 97% 95% 87%

Cohort 2 median 100% 100% 100%

8

Organizational Background: Adaptive Capacity

C2 and C1 show similar collaboration patterns in most areasC2 organizations are slightly less likely to share information with other nonprofit leaders in the community than are C1 organizations

Types of Collaborations Organizations Participated in with Other NFPs and/or Community Leaders

93%79%

86%79%

71% 71%86% 86%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

To share generalinformation with other

NFP leaders in thecommunity

To help other NFPleaders learn about

opportunities toincrease and/or

improve theirprograms and

services

To seek funding toaddress a specific

community problem

To jointly advocate toaddress a particularcommunity problem

% o

f O

rgs

that

Co

llab

ora

ted

Cohort 1 Cohort 2

9

Organizational Background:Special Note

Additional organizational background information, especially quantitative graphs, for Cohort 2 is included in several of the graphs in the outcomes section. Since the Cohort 2 data are pre-assessment the data in those graphs are all about organizational background, whereas it represents outcomes progress for Cohort 1.

10

Assessment Process

Cohort 2 Experience

11

Assessment Process

There continued to be high levels of engagement in the assessment process across the organizations, including board, executive directors and other staff

General agreement that the assessment process was a critical component of BEST, as it forced organizations to look at their organizations holistically and provided a test to assumptions about what was working and what wasn’t

The assessment process, followed by the planning process, helped organizations think about change in a structured and long-term fashion

“The BEST assessment process gave the staff a sense of ‘emotional readiness’ to do this tough work and created a vested staff.”—BEST Consultant

86% 86%

71%71% 71%

86%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

The final detailed orgassessment report was

completelyunderstandable to all org.

staff

The final org.assessment report was

very useful to ourorganization

As a result of the orgassessment process,

our board, staff,volunteers have

improved their view ofself-assessment

% o

f org

s w

ho "

Agr

ee"

or "

Str

ongl

y A

gree

" Cohort 1 Cohort 2

12

Assessment Process, cont.

C2 organizations are actively using the assessment findings, even beyond developing the CB plan. The rates of use are much higher than C1, despite C2 scoring lower on the usefulness of the report. This is a very positive development, and likely reflects a concerted effort on the part of the program to emphasize broader use of assessment results. Also, consultants might have a better understanding of the reports and therefore be more effective at helping organizations use the reports, though there is less evidence of that conclusion

Evaluation of the Assessment Report's Utility

93%

43%29%

86%71% 73%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Our org used thereport to developour CB proposal

Since receiving thereport, our org has

referred to it tomake a decision

Our org has usedthe report to write

additional CB grants

% o

f org

s w

ho "

Agr

ee"

or "

Stro

ngly

A

gree

"

Cohort 1 Cohort 2

13


Board involvement is crucial to buy-in and change, and the assessment process did an excellent job of integrating boards

As with Cohort 1, Cohort 2 leaders appear to be underestimating the intensity/time commitment associated with a CB consultant

The creation of a CB plan is an important step to integrate directly into the process because it moves the capacity building work from theory to practice

“The assessment part is extremely useful because usually these organizations are moving so fast on a day to day [basis] and keeping their heads above ground they don’t have time to evaluate themselves. BEST says in the beginning, ‘everybody slow down here and let take a look at what’s important and what’s not.’ That part is extremely beneficial.”—BEST Consultant

14


C2 was slightly less likely than C1 to establish a task force, though more than 85% of organizations in both cohorts did so; the task force (internal team) continued to play an important role in helping organizations deliberately involve multiple people in the capacity building in an organized and productive way

86%

100%

79%

93%86%

100% 100%

71%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

The intendedtimeline, scope,

and content of theprocess was clear

& realistic

We were able tomake adjustments

to the timeline,scope, & content of

the process

The internal teamfor this process

made it moreefficient & effective

The organizationalassessmentprocess was

adequately tailoredto our needs

% o

f o

rgs

wh

o "

Ag

ree

" o

r "S

tro

ng

ly A

gre

e"

Cohort 1 Cohort 2

The flexibility of the process and overall timeline continue to be important characteristics of BEST

C2 organizations were less likely to feel the process was tailored to their needs. This may be the result of a more polished program that has a greater sense of clear operations

15

Quality of Consulting Process

93%86%

100%

86%

71%

100% 100%

86%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Key Leaders from ourorg had enough time toget acquainted with theconsultant conducting

assessment

In the beginning, theconsultant clearly

outlined communicationstrategies for the

assessment process

The consultantdemonstrated respect,

appreciation, andempathy for ourorganization's

work/challenges

Consultant helped ourorganization interpret

the survey data

% o

f org

s w

ho "

Agr

ee"

or "

Str

ongl

y A

gree

" Cohort 1 Cohort 2

Quality of Consulting Substance

100%

86%

100%

71%

86% 86%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Consultant was able toprovide clear guidance onimplementing the survey

instrument

Consultant reflected onsurvey findings when they

conducted their orgassessment interviews

Consultants clearly reviewedour bylaws, financial reports,

audit, annual report,marketing, planning docs

% o

f org

s w

ho "

Agr

ee"

or "

Str

ongl

y A

gree

"

Cohort 1 Cohort 2


Narrative on the graphs can be found on the following slide.

Narrative on the graphs can be found on the following slide.

16

Quality of consulting during the assessment process continues to be very high on most indicators

C2 organizations were significantly less likely to feel that key leaders were able to get acquainted with the consultant conducting the assessment. Again, it is not clear why this is the case for C2. Experience shows that leader buy-in to CB is critical for long-term success, though it is not clear how much involvement with the consultant is necessary


17

Quality of the Technology Audit

86% 86%71% 71%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

The tech auditincluded review of

current tech needs,long term needs,

AND specificrecommendations

regarding tech for ourorg

The findings from thetech audit were

clearlycommunicated, sothat all of the org

leaders, board andstaff couldunderstand

The tech auditfindings were

integrated with theoverall process, so

that therecommendations

were related to overallorg needs

The tech auditfindings were relevant

and appropriate forour org’s overall

needs

% o

f o

rgs

wh

o "

Ag

ree"

or

"Str

on

gly

Ag

ree"

Cohort 2


The technology audit, new for Cohort 2, received high process ratings, but qualitative findings indicate there may be a need to better integrate the audits with general organizational needs and ensure that it doesn’t stand out as a totally separate assessment

18

Evaluation of the BEST Organizational Assessment Process

Evaluation of the Assessment Process

100%

36%

79%86%86%

27%

86%71%

93% 86%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Addressedissues

essential to thedevelopment of

our org

Was easy tounderstand

Identified priorityareas that our

org had notpreviouslyconsidered

Was madeavailable to

everyone in ourorg

Everyone hadan opportunityfor feedback

% o

f org

s w

ho

"A

gre

e"

or

"Str

on

gly

Ag

ree

"

Cohort 1 Cohort 2

The Assessment Process continued to get high marks for understandability and addressing essential issuesThe Assessment Process helps about one quarter of organizations identify priority areas not previously considered by the organizations. This is not uncommon, as the value of an assessment process tends to be more around how to compartmentalize information, get everyone on the same page and think about taking actionThe process did push people’s assumptions about what was and wasn’t working, giving them a broader perspective on their organization

“Rather than continue replacing one computer at a time, our organization used the assessment to prioritize our entire technology needs, leading to a long-term plan.”—Board Chair

19

BEST Strategies

Quality Indicators

20

BEST Strategies

Organization's participation in BEST's assessment & capacity building

57%

79% 77%

46%

86%

71%

86% 86%

71%

86%

100%

93%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Has access to anadequate # of

experienced/skilledconsultants

Has manyopportunities to

interact with peers& learn about

effective mgmt &CB practices

Has access tomany high-quality

trainingopportunities

Has sufficientaccess to CB

research,publications and

tools

Has access toadequate financial

resources thatsupport our CB

efforts

Has sufficient/clearcommunicationsfrom BEST staff

regardingexpectations for

participation

Has been able toaccess BEST stafffor info/assistance

% o

f org

s w

ho "A

gre

e"

or

"Str

ongly

Agre

e"

Cohort 1 Cohort 2

Organizations are very happy with their consultant-pair experience and the consultants appear to be utilizing ‘best practices’ in their work

The training program component continues to struggle with buy-in, and organizations desire more interaction with peers, indicating that the ‘cohort’ approach may not be as effective as possible (though the Executive Director’s Roundtable appears highly successful)

BEST staff are perceived to be highly accessible and clear

21

BEST Strategies, cont.Consulting

Consultants were most satisfied when they worked with an organization throughout the entire BEST process – assessment through implementation. This led to stronger performance, as the consultant didn’t need to repeatedly go through a learning curve

Executive Directors appreciated the large consultant pool and that they had a large role in selecting the consultant

Consultants were concerned that the pool may be too big, with some indicating they were not getting enough work. The tension made some less interested in the project, though it is not clear that this had an actual negative impact on the project

Consultants may benefit from additional formal, structured opportunities to get together, learn from each other, and share ideas in order to enhance their own work

“[The consultants] did a superb job. They targeted our needs. We had a lot of input into [the process]. They leveraged our strength and were very candid about telling us what our weaknesses were. They brought us together with other organizations, shared input, even from people outside the state, on how we can better improve ourselves.”—Executive Director

22

BEST Strategies, cont.Professional Development

Participants generally appreciated the BEST sponsored professional development workshops, noting that “By BEST placing a priority on it, it becomes important conceptually”

Some interviewees felt that the majority of speakers were not as good as they could be and felt there may be opportunities to tap local knowledge of those in the program, though they did indicate that it has improved since last year

BEST includes so many facets of capacity building that it appeared difficult to find topics that were of specific interest to the majority of agencies and capacity builders

Participants valued the workshops mostly for their value in bringing the BEST group together. It seems like there are significant additional opportunities for the participants to share information and experiences, that may be as beneficial as professional workshops

“This kind of professional development isn’t just about individual capacity building, but a kind of peer learning which is of very important value.”—Executive Director

“The professional development opportunities are mostly worthwhile, even if just to be in the same room and share information and experiences.” —BEST Consultant

23

BEST's assessment and CB to date

85%

100% 100%

71%

100%

86%

100%

86%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Incorporated formalprocesses for gettingeveryone’s feedback

about progress

Provided training/skilldevelopment to keyorganizational staff

members that w ill helpto sustain the w ork

beyond the engagement

Furthered ourorganization’s ability to

achieve its mission

The facilitator/consultantdemonstrated a clear

expertise in the area oforganizationaldevelopment

I can clearly articulatean outcome of the

w orkshop/training/peerexchange session

The facilitator/consultantclearly communicatedinformation, next steps

and ideas to ourorganization

Sessions/meetingsincluded a formalized

and w ritten curriculum,and associated

handouts, w orksheets,resources and tools

When severalorganizationsparticipated,

sessions/meetingsprovided time for

general peer sharingand netw orking

% o

f o

rgs

wh

o "

Ag

ree"

or

"Str

on

gly

Ag

ree"

Cohort 2 Pre

This chart provides additional evidence for the previous slide on Professional Development

BEST Strategies, cont.Professional Development

24

BEST Strategies, cont.Website

The website is generally perceived to be of high quality

Several interviewees indicated they had looked at case studies of change

Interest in greater interaction via website among participants

25

BEST Strategies, cont. BEST Overall Process

Interviewees were very grateful that the BEST project was as flexible and robust as it was

Sustainability continues to be a frequently raised issue by all stakeholders (grantees, consultants and funders)

There are some questions about the ‘cohort’ model and the extent to which this approach is valuable and/or being adequately capitalized on

BEST staff are highly professional, skilled and respected by grantees and consultants

“We were pleasantly surprised how open [the funders] were to our needs and how generous they were to give us what we actually needed.” — Executive Director

“If you had a line from 1-5, I would have a 5 for highest level of trust and flexibility [for BEST staff]. They are always responsive and very supportive.” —Executive Director

26

BEST Strategies, cont.BEST Funders Collaborative

Grantees continue to express the uniqueness and value of funders working together—they value the effort

Funders feeling a sense of common ownership of the program, a sign of a balanced and functioning collaborative

Funders continue to feel they are learning more about the sector and their grantees

“There is a strong sense that we will be better together than we will separately in years to come as we try to help the sector.” –Funder

27

BEST Outcomes

Four Core Capacities

28

Outcomes:Core Capacities*

Outcomes are presented in each of four core capacity areas: Leadership, Adaptive, Management and Technical, as well as outcomes in Program Quality. The chart below shows information for three of four capacities and Program Quality**

*All data from pre-assessment on graphs are in regard to Non-BEST capacity building improvements in the year preceding BEST involvement. As a result, pre scores may reflect either the relative amount of focus on a particular area or the relative quality of the capacity building.

**Program Quality is a one-item assessment of the amount of perceived improvement in program quality as a result of the BEST capacity building activities.

Organizational Outcomes: Capacities

3.7

0

3.7

7 4.0

1

5.3

6

3.6

8

4.1

0

3.8

9

4.5

0

5.5

1

4.9

8

4.8

9

5.9

5

5.1

7

5.0

1

5.1

6

5.2

8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Leadership Capacity Adaptive Capacity Management Capacity Program Quality

Me

an S

core

(1=N

ot a

t A

ll to

7=G

reat

ly)

Cohort 2 Pre Cohort 1 Pre Cohort 1 Post Cohort 1 Post-Post

29

Outcomes:Core Capacities

Organizations are showing strong immediate improvements in leadership and program capacity, with improvements in adaptive and management capacity coming over time. By the post-post, all four capacities show improvements to about the same level. Two reasons likely account for the difference in the improvement trends: The types of projects undertaken often reflected specific

leadership needs, like board development, and were framed around the work they do: program capacity

The assessment process and resulting capacity building plan is a way for leaders to tackle organizational issues head on, which is a way to build leadership credibility and visibility

30

Outcomes:Core Capacities

Over the long-term, adaptive and management improvements evidenced greater stability, while leadership and program capacities had slight declines. Again, two reasons likely account for the difference: The overall gains from the baseline year were greater for

leadership and program. Just as the focus on these areas during capacity building led to their increases, there is a logical “settling” process that occurs when the focus on those areas is reduced

Adaptive and management improvements often are the result of changes in the way that things are done and establishing new systems and processes. Change associated with these tends to be harder to establish, but once in place has greater staying power, whereas leadership and program capacities are more exposed to environmental changes

31

Outcomes: Leadership

The process of being selected as a BEST participant is, in itself, a boost in confidence for organizations

Several organizations showed improvements in areas of mission, vision and strategic direction

“As a result of BEST, our board…spends more time on strategic issues and long-term vision. It makes board meetings more interesting and efficient.”—Executive Director

“We worked on a sustainability plan and did a succession plan. Our ED just left so this plan is working beautifully.”—Board Chair

Organizational Outcomes: Leadership Capacity

3.64

4.21

4.07

2.86

3.55 3.

95

3.60 3.72

6.09

5.73

5.36

4.86

5.4 5.

8

4.9

4.6

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

Alig

ning

all

orga

niza

tiona

l/pro

gram

mat

icst

rate

gies

and

goa

ls w

ith th

em

issi

on

Hav

ing

orga

niza

tiona

lle

ader

s w

ho e

ffect

ivel

yco

mm

unic

ate

the

mis

sion

and

visi

on

Hav

ing

an e

ngag

ed a

ndre

pres

enta

tive

boar

d th

atef

fect

ivel

y ov

erse

es th

epo

licie

s, p

rogr

ams,

oper

atio

ns

Str

ateg

ic p

lan

guid

es d

ay to

day

activ

ities

Mea

n S

core

(1=

No

t at

All

to 7

=G

reat

ly)


32


Leadership sustainability and reliance on one leader has significantly improved for C1 (C2 has remarkably good sustainability indicators already)

Leadership Indicators4.

07

3.50

1.86

4.074.

31

3.23

4.00 4.

38

4.25

3.42

3.83

4.29

4.2

3.4

2.6

4.2

1

2

3

4

5

Staff members arealways appropriately

involved inorganizational

decision-making

Currently there arestaff members whoare now ready to

becomeorganizational leaders

There is one leaderwho, if he/she left,would temporarily

slow-down ourorganization

The organizationalleaders and staff have

regular interactionand a strong working

relationship

Mea

n S

core

(1=

Str

on

gly

Dis

agre

e to

5=

Str

on

gly

A

gre

e)


33

Board Effectiveness Indicators

4.0

7

3.7

1 4.2

1

3.3

6

3.1

4

3.0

7

3.6

4

3.6

5

3.2

7

3.8

8

3.3

5

2.9

6

3.1

2

3.7

34.1

7

3.7

9

3.6

3

3.2

1 3.7

1

3.7

9

3.9

2

3.4

3.3 3.5

3.5

3.4 3.

8 4.0

1

2

3

4

5

All boardmembers are

passionate aboutachieving the org

mission and vision

Many of our boardmembers are

effective in gettingothers in thecommunity toinvest in org

Our boardconsists of

individuals whocan reach out to,connect with and

inspire

All boardmembers couldclearly describe

our mission,vision, and goals

All boardmembers show upfor meetings andevents and follow

through on helpingthe org

The board fullymeets its roles

andresponsibilities

Board membersalways hold org.

leadersaccountable for

making progresstoward mission

Mea

n S

core

(1=

Str

on

gly

Dis

agre

e to

5=

Str

on

gly

A

gre

e)



Boards are being greatly strengthened in some areas, as they become more involved, trained and committed to the organization. For example, one ED reported that his board went from being 40% engaged to 75-80% engaged after BEST

34


Boards seem to be getting worse at being able to reach out and inspire. This might be the result of a focus on more mundane board responsibilities, but still presents a significant concern that organizations might begin to lose good board members The focus on board development has led to several persons dropping off boards in ways that have made the board stronger“[As a result of BEST diversity workshop], our board has become more cohesive. We now have a process for board nominations that is making the board more diversified.”—Board Chair

“It galvanized our board, which is fairly new. We never had a strategic planning process that involved the board, union reps and administration. The BEST process brought all of them to the table. This wouldn’t have happened as easily without having an umbrella of BEST supporting us.”—Executive Director

35


C1 is showing indications of utilizing strategic plans, both in leading to program improvements and regularly reviewing progress. This shows that effective development of a strategic plan can have longer-term impacts on program improvements

Strategic Planning

3.71

3.29

3.213.

54

4.42

3.85

3.71 4.

00 4.38

4.1

3.9 4.

3

1

2

3

4

5

Our strategic plan's goals,objectives, and action steps

have led directly toimprovements in programs

As we develop our strategicplan, we solicit and use

stakeholder input

Our organization formallyshares progress on the

strategic plan's goals andobjectives

Mea

n S

core

(1=

Str

on

gly

Dis

agre

e to

5=

Str

on

gly

A

gre

e)


36

Outcomes: Adaptive

The process of going through the assessment phase itself is having a positive impact on the organization’s adaptive capacity

Entire organizations, from boards to staff members, are becoming more vested in the capacity building process and strategic change. In one case it was noted by a consultant that the staff’s “whole attitude has changed.”

Organizational Outcomes: Adaptive Capacity

3.36

3.86 4.

07

3.64 3.

93

3.61

4.10 4.20

3.83

4.55

5.36

5.23

4.86 5.00

4.45

5.8

4.7 4.

9 5.1

4.6

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

Engaging in regular,results-oriented,

strategic and self-reflective planning

Having org leaderswho actively assesscommunity needsand realities on an

ongoing basis

Developing andconducting

outcome-basedprogram evaluations

Using evaluationfindings to effectively

serve ongoingplanning, as well as

informing thestrategic goals

Identified newfunding sources and

opportunities

Mea

n S

core

(1=

No

t at

All

to 7

=G

reat

ly)


37

Outcomes: Adaptive

Strategic planning is being done on a much more regular basis and this has been able to be sustained over time

Evaluation is more on the radar screens of the organizations, and many organizations are using evaluation findings to inform decision-making

There has not been a significant change in ability to identify new funding sources/opportunities, though revenue diversification has improved (see management section)

38

Outcomes: Adaptive

Collaboration levels remain fairly high, though the post-post showed decreases in some areas. While it is difficult to attribute the change to BEST, the lower levels might reflect a decrease in intensity after the program period, indicating that the convenings were a stronger motivator for collaboration than the development of a cohort. The collaboration changes might also reflect organizations looking more internally to address issues, such as management, and therefore less energy to look externally for collaborations

Types of Collaborations Organizations Participated in with Other NPs and/or Community Leaders

71% 71%

86% 86%93%

79%86%

79%

92%

77%

62%

85%

73%64% 64%

82%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

To share generalinformation with other NFPleaders in the community

To help other NFP leaderslearn about opportunities to

increase and/or improvetheir programs and

services

To seek funding to addressa specific community

problem

To jointly advocate toaddress a particularcommunity problem

% o

f O

rgs

that

Co

llab

ora

ted


39

Outcomes: Management

Management capacity shows steady increases over time

Organizational Outcomes: Management Capacity

4.43

3.50

4.14

4.93

3.43 3.

64

3.50 3.65

4.35 4.45

3.72

3.65

4.45 4.

82 5.05 5.

27

5.14

4.594.

9

4.7

5.4

5.3

4.9

5.7

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

Ensuring that therevenues arediversified,

stable, sufficient,and sustainable

for achievingmission/goals

Developing andimplementing a

resourcedevelopment

plan

Having efficientand effectiveoperations

Managing andreflecting sound

financialoperations,including

adherence toaccountingprinciples

Utilizingtechnology toeffectively and

efficientlysupport

organizationaloperations,

management,program

Recruiting,developing, and

retaining capablestaff

Mea

n S

core

(1=

No

t at

All

to 7

=G

reat

ly)


40

Outcomes: Management

Organizations have improved their financial stability. While organizations have not identified new funders (see adaptive), the improvement is likely the result of several things: Better resource development plans More efficient operations, which have been

improving steadily

Organizations have also improved the effectiveness of operations, likely due to: Much better use of technology to support work Improved recruitment, development and

retention of staff

“Our budget shows that we have extended from a four to a five million dollar organization. This has to do with careful planning and budgeting and new leadership roles.”—Executive Director

41

Outcomes: Technical

Organizations did not focus much on technical capacities (capacities specifically related to implementing organizational and programmatic functions), so limited outcomes in this area

One area with improvements is around fundraising skills, including the hiring of new development staff

Marketing and technology were two other areas where organizations saw some improvements. It will be interesting to see the effect that the technology audits have on this area for C2

“We have an annual fund (which we didn’t have before) that we have established and an annual fund plan, which includes a 100% board giving goal and recently raised $150,000.”—Executive Director

“We have been able to improve our programs. Because of the fact that we are able to market better our program has grown double the size.”—Executive Director

42

Outcomes: Program

Organizations are much more focused on their overall mission (see leadership capacity) and as a result of that focus are viewing programs through the mission lens

Organizational Outcomes: Capacities5

.36

4.5

0

5.9

5

5.2

8

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

Program Quality

Me

an

Sc

ore

(1

=N

ot

at

All

to 7

=G

rea

tly

)


43

BEST Organizations

Perceived Capacity Building Needs and Sustainability

44

Perceived CB Needs

Strategic planning is much less of a perceived need, reflecting the focus by many organizations in C1 (this is also confirmed in the CNM data, where BEST organizations were significantly less likely to report needing SP CB)

Resource development/fundraising continues to be the highest perceived need, followed by operational management, evaluation and leadership development (CNM data revealed development/fundraising items as top organization-reported needs, followed by marketing plans. Evaluation was rated low and the other two items were not part of the CNM survey)

45

Perceived CB Needs

6.29

4.57

5.57

4.57

4.64

5.50

5.00

3.43

4.93

4.14

3.86

4.50

6.43

6.50

5.92

5.25

3.96

5.33

6.79

5.75

4.21

4.29

4.79

3.46

4.00

4.17

5.21

2.96

5.83

3.67

3.58

4.46

6.42

4.17

4.8

5.1

3.6

3.8

3.9

4.8

5.0

2.8

5.3

4.2

3.8

4.5

5.9

4.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

BoardDevelopment/Governance

Evaluation

Facilities Planning

Financial Management

Human ResourceDevelopment/Management

Information TechnologySystems

Leadership Development

Legal

Marketing

Operational Management

Organizational Assessment

Program Development

ResourceDevelopment/Fundraising

Strategic Planning

1=Not Needed to 7=Greatly Needed


46

Sustainability

Sustainability continues to be a large concern. There is evidence that organizations are integrating capacity building into the way they do business, but it is not clear if that is sustainable over the long-term

While organizations are showing evidence of sustaining existing capacity building, there is some concern that they are not engaging in new bigger projects, due to lack of resources

47

BEST Recommendations

48

RecommendationsAssessment

Help new cohorts understand how time consuming good assessment and capacity building can be

Ensure that organizations have broad internal participation during the assessment process

Consider an assessment that can be administered over time to help keep an organization on track

49

RecommendationsStrategies

Work to maximize the use of the cohort model by: Continuing facilitation of interaction Using convenings for organizations to exchange

information Perhaps provide other incentives for interaction, like

small planning grants (this could even include more prodding from consultants or the funders)

Use life-cycle to help organizations self-identify with cohorts

Continue to refine the workshop model, focusing on where organizations are in their life-cycle so that they derive greater benefit from the workshops

50

Start to consider potential ways to allow organizations to access capacity building funding on an ongoing basis so that needed changes are not put aside and momentum can be sustained

Focus more deliberately on consultant development—perhaps through specific workshops targeted directly at them

Recommendations Strategies, cont.

evaluation of the best initiative: a report on year 2 findings for cohort 2

Documents