What we learned from listening to our partners, and what we are doing to improve our practice

By Olivia Leland, Rakesh Rajani and Varja Lipovsek

In 2021, Co-Impact engaged the Center for Effective Philanthropy (CEP) to ask our program partners^[1] and applicants to provide candid and confidential feedback on our work, approach and relationships. We take these findings seriously, and use them to improve our approach and practice to be more clear, respectful and effective.

In this blogpost we report on key features of the exercise, what we heard and learned, and the actions that we commit to take to do better. We share these here to be transparent about our thinking, to invite readers to hold us to account, and to contribute to shared learning in the philanthropic community.

Approach

Co-Impact makes relatively few (until now less than 10 per year), large-sized (US $2 to $25 million), and long-term grants (up to 6 years) focused on deep systems change. We seek to learn from program partners and other funders on how to improve grantmaking, and how to be maximally supportive to program partners.

Accordingly, between February and March 2021, CEP wrote to 494 current Co-Impact partners and declined applicants and received a total of 224 responses^[2]. It was important to include applicants who did not receive a grant from us, as they provide valuable different perspectives on our application process. In addition to the quantitative survey, CEP conducted a total of 45 in-depth interviews with our current program partners. The complementing insights of the quantitative assessment with the qualitative interviews have been very useful in helping us to unpack and more deeply understand the feedback.

This is Co-Impact’s second CEP survey; the first one was conducted in 2019. At that time, Co-Impact was less than two years old, had just a handful of partners, and was in the early stages of defining its approach. The insights from the first CEP survey were incredibly helpful in clarifying our values, theory of change and approach, which we codified in our Handbook (we used the second CEP survey to update our Handbook too).

In the section below we summarize key findings from the second CEP survey, followed by a section on concrete actions we pledge to take in response to the findings.

Key findings

The clear sense from partners about Co-Impact is one of enthusiasm, with nearly three-quarters indicating a largely positive experience and the remaining partners indicating a mix of positive and negative experiences. Even for partners with mixed experiences, their criticisms were underscored by optimism that nothing was “unfixable,”and they provided valuable suggestions on what would help us fine-tune the way in which we work. The full narrative report produced by CEP can be accessed here. We highlight five major findings below:

• Co-Impact’s vision for systems change resonates with our program partners. They see communication on the topic as increasingly clear. Moreover, partners particularly appreciate Co-Impact’s expanded focus on gender, which centers on advancing gender equality through systems change. That said, partners shared mixed perceptions of how well Co-Impact’s approach allows them to incorporate challenges and circumstances particular to their local contexts. They also suggested ways in which to make theoretical approaches on systems change more concrete, hands-on, and practical.
• Partners view the design grant as a unique and valuable experience and as a strong benefit to their organizations. Still, partners describe the process as intense and complex; many suggest reducing the number of check-ins and theoretical exercises required throughout the process.
• Many partners praise the expertise of and thought partnership with Co-Impact staff. Survey measures indicate that funded partners’ perceptions of staff’s approachability and responsiveness have meaningfully improved. Opportunities remain to address some challenging partnership dynamics and to clarify with partners the priorities and expectations of Co-Impact’s donors.
• Co-Impact’s application and reporting processes are seen as both challenging and a helpful opportunity for partners to hone their ideas and reflect on their work. To strengthen the process and reduce the burden on their organizations, partners shared requests to provide more specific examples and guidelines, and to adjust expectations for time and resources required by partners.
• Partners note that, in addition to its funding, Co-Impact’s partnership has strengthened their organizations by helping them bolster their strategic thinking and approach. Staff’s expertise and advice and Co-Impact’s webinars and workshops are valued resources. Partners asked for continued support to link with other funding sources for their work.

Actions to do better

We are grateful for the recognition of what we do well, and we are keen to do better. In the CEP feedback we heard loud and clear that we need to: 1) trust partners who understand their contexts to make decisions; 2) reduce the intensity of our processes and demands on partner time; 3) be more transparent about budget envelopes and decision-making timelines; 4) provide practical examples of what good looks like; and 5) help partners strengthen their capacities and networks to raise funds.

Accordingly, we are making the following changes to be better funders:

• Instead of bringing a complex menu of expectations to our program partners, we will now focus on three core elements: 1) systems change/impact at scale; 2) intersectional gender equality; and 3) organizational strengthening. For each, we will seek to learn how partners construct their approaches, rather than impose our own templates. We will continue to offer our candid point of view and practical examples of components we consider helpful, such as political economy analysis and constituency feedback. But we will do so as optional offers rather than requirements. In short, the core of our approach will be to understand and engage with the partner’s own thinking.
• Our 8-10 month “design grants” that precede major systems change grants were considered to be super helpful, but too intensive. Accordingly, we have reduced the design grant focus to cover 4 core modules, and reduced our check-in moments with program partners. We are improving clarity and predictability by providing details about what is expected in proposals, organizational due diligence, decision-making timelines and budget envelopes earlier in the design phase process.
• We are helping program partners to procure contextually relevant, proximate expertise and thought partners, rather than relying too much on our team or on our funding partners. This avoids awkward donor power dynamics and better supports tailored organizational growth and learning. We will also further support our program partners to strengthen their fundraising muscles and networks to raise sufficient, long-term, flexible capital.
• We will develop and publish a simple and accessible Wiki with practical tools, stories and examples to help illustrate the many ways in which systems change and gender equality initiatives are designed, implemented, and evaluated. The Wiki will build on our own experience, as well as that of our program partners, other funders, and researchers. It will also feature what we and our partners are learning from and with each other.
• Once a grant is made, we will put even more emphasis on learning and adaptation because life is complex and smartly managing a changing context is a far better marker of success than adherence to a proposal. We already encourage partners to learn from successes and failures, and we will further adapt our processes to trust our partners to make the necessary adjustments for better results. This will include additional levels of budget flexibility.
• For our major grants, we are reducing check-ins with program partners from about 7-10 to about 3-4 times per year. During check-ins, we will strive to listen more than we talk, and ensure that the agenda focuses on topics the partner wishes to discuss. Between check-ins, we will keep any additional requests from our side to a minimum.
• To reduce reporting burdens, we will reduce the frequency of formal reports from twice to once a year. Moreover, we will work with partners and their other funders to align and accept common reports to the extent possible. When we comment on reports and drafts we commit to limit our feedback to a handful of key elements.
• We will streamline our grantmaking workflow, to make the process work better for program partners. We will also review our grants sourcing processes, with the goal of reducing time and burden of applying, and increasing clarity and simplicity.

At core, our approach is about trusting program partners. Through the CEP Survey, our partners have helped us better understand what it takes to live out these values in practice. Our hope is that the concrete actions we are taking and commitments we have made in response will help us become better funders. This includes decentering ourselves and our power as funders, and instead focus on ways that work best for partners and enable them to thrive.

^[1] These surveys are typically known as grantee perception reports. We prefer to use “program partners” instead of “grantees” because we do not believe that social change organizations should be defined by the fact that they seek funds from donors.

^[2] Response rates exceeded 70% for partners; response rate of declined applicants was 39%. All response rates exceeded CEP’s targets.