While this is a particularly sad moment to think about the Lunar New Year here in California, nonetheless I wanted to to look back at 2022 and forward to 2023 and beyond. I wanted to take the opportunity to reflect on one of the most important measures of our impact and success – the expert opinions of our grantees. Given that a foundation like Archstone can only be successful through the excellence of its grantees, these are more than just opinions, like “I like chocolate” or “I ‘heart’ New York.” Instead, they are the considered views of some of the people who know our work best and whose very efforts create “our” success.
These views are all the more valuable having been recently collected at our request by the outstanding people at the Center for Effective Philanthropy (CEP). A nonprofit with a mission to help individual and institutional donors improve their effectiveness, CEP provided us technical expertise in survey construction, anonymity for the respondents, and, most importantly, a national sample of results for similar foundations against which our results were benchmarked. As one might expect, the average rating given to foundations by their grantees is quite high, but when scores are put on a curve, we see how our ratings compare with those of our peers.
So, are we on top, the 100th percentile? Or are we average, the 50th percentile? A drum roll, please….We are doing very well on many measures of our impact and processes, showing us where we should keep going and the strengths we can build on. We also received some very sobering feedback on how our efforts to address diversity, equity, and inclusion are perceived, showing us areas for important improvements. The full report can be seen here and I welcome questions, suggestions, or observations that grantees or others might have.
Combining Value, Strategy, and Relationships to Achieve Impact
The CEP believes a foundation’s impact comes from the clarity of its strategies, the value of its funding/support, and its relationships with its grantees. Looking at this bundle of related concepts, we feel very proud. Our grantees rate us at the 81st percentile for impact on our field and 70th percentile for impact on their organizations. We were also placed in the 98th percentile for “advancing the state of knowledge” in the field and the 83rd percentile for impact on “public policy in the field.” Given the impressive work of our many peer foundations, we are humbled and delighted to rank so well among them. We also asked a custom question, whether we are “on the right track to improve the health and wellbeing of California’s older adults.” The average score was 6.31 out of a possible 7, which feels very good indeed.
Despite the newness of our Three Ts strategy (Teams, Training, and Technology) we ranked in the 96th percentile on the clarity of communication of our goals and strategy to our grantees and in the 81st percentile on grantee understanding of how their work fits into the Foundation’s broader efforts. (Given that we are still wrestling with these issues ourselves, I am touched by our grantees’ belief in us.)
The value of our funding also received high marks. We were rated in the 86th percentile for our understanding of the needs of the people and communities we serve, and in the 80th percentile for our understanding of the social, cultural, or socioeconomic factors affecting grantees’ work.
Our grantees reported only average pressure to modify their priorities to obtain a grant, 2.26 out of 7 points (or 50th percentile). They also lauded us (97th percentile) for an extremely helpful selection process that “strengthen[ed] the efforts funded by the grant.” Although we rarely provide general operating support because of the nature of our strategies, our grantees seem to agree with us that we can add value through the co-development of project plans and budgets with our grantees. Similarly, our reporting processes were rated in the 94th, 91st, and 87th percentiles for straightforwardness, relevance, and providing a learning opportunity, respectively.
On relationship measures, we also continue to do well. We scored in the 90th percentile on approachability in the case of problems and in the 96th percentile for demonstrating respect. We ranked in the 72nd percentile for our candor, showing us something we can work on, but in the 97th percentile for our level of trust in grantee staff. Overall, we were in the 84th percentile for responsiveness to grantees.
These are tremendous results, and we will continue to build on them by seeking additional ways to help grantees and advance our mission in 2023 and beyond.
However, we are very disappointed and concerned about the generally low ratings connected to our efforts to advance justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion in our work. We ranked in the 43rd percentile for the clarity of communications on the issues and on the 22nd percentile for demonstrating an explicit commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Strengthening Our DEI Commitment Throughout Our Work
Let me seek to be clearer about our commitments: While we strongly believe there needs to be improvement in the care and support of all older adults and that older people are themselves a marginalized group, we also know very well that some of the heaviest burdens of aging fall on those from racial, ethnic, and other groups whose members have faced life-long and historical marginalization. And we are committed to reducing these disparities among older Californians as we work to improve the health and well-being of all. We are opposed to racism – structural and individual. And we believe that health and well-being in aging is a right of every person – and that differences in such outcomes between various social groups are unjust and a stain on our society.
Figuring out how we can address these injustices has been a focus of our efforts in the last year, including at our first Board retreat in more than six years. Given the complexity of intersecting social group memberships of the people we care about (age and race, sexual orientation, gender, ability, and geography) and our belief that what is needed is broad systems change, it has been a difficult task. And what we are doing about our commitments is still evolving – but already significant.
Despite their concerns, 68 percent of our grantees in the CEP survey said their grant from us was primarily to benefit historically disadvantaged groups – in line with a 70 percent national average. And as this chart shows, those two-thirds of our grantees report serving an enormous diversity of people.
In our assessment, more than half of our main Three T system change grants are focused on reducing disparities and increasing equity because of the population being served or the issue being addressed. For example, our work with the AC Care Alliance confronts both disparities and equity by supporting Black churches and leaders as they help their members feel more comfortable and safe taking advantage of hospice and other serious illness and end of life services – where there is a large service utilization difference by race.
We see something similar in the 20 grants we have made in our capacity building program, one-year grants of as much as $50,000 for direct service organizations. Although 10 were awarded specifically under a DEI-focused call for proposals, a total of 17 have goals of enhancing equity and reducing health disparities. To ensure a level playing field of competition, we had a separate application track for organizations that serve diverse elders – our DEI-focused opportunity “Supporting Diverse Communities and Advancing Racial and Health Equity for Older Adults Through Capacity Building.” But, beyond that, the majority of organizations we have funded from the unrestricted track are also focused primarily on diverse elders.
Finally, recognizing that many aging organizations need to think through and develop strategies to address diversity, equity, and inclusion in their work, we have allocated additional spending specifically to support them. This has supported efforts such as LeadingAGE California’s development of a DEI training library and road map for its members and the ASA RISE leadership fellows. This is just a small allocation of funding to complement the large interweaving of DEI efforts throughout our Three T work.
Indeed, as more aging organizations complete plans to address diversity, equity and inclusion –and incorporate those plans in their operating budgets – we may very well be able to reallocate those dollars to our Three T or capacity building work. Because those efforts are where we believe we can have our biggest impact on reducing disparities and increasing equity.
