A new year is often a moment to pause and reflect — about what we’ve been doing well that we’d like to carry forward into 2025, and some things that we’ll be glad to leave behind in 2024. But reflecting on ourselves in an objective, productive way can be difficult — especially in the absence of external perspectives.
We at CEP know that funders are constantly challenging themselves to be more effective partners to their grantees. But gathering candid, constructive feedback isn’t always straightforward. Given the flow of grantmaking dollars, there will almost always be a skew towards the positive when nonprofit organizations are being asked by their funders to offer their input, insights, and certainly their criticism. This is exactly why the Grantee Perception Report (GPR) is a helpful tool: the GPR allows grantmakers to receive confidential, anonymous feedback from those who are closest to the ground and best positioned to let funders know what they’re doing well and what they might look to improve.
Some of the most meaningful and illustrative feedback from the GPR comes from grantees’ qualitative responses to our survey’s open-ended questions. These direct, unvarnished comments can not only reinforce the GPR’s quantitative measures, but also crystallize grantees’ perceptions, getting right to the core of what matters most in their partnership with funders. So, in this moment of reflection in the new year, and in considering what practices, approaches, and strategies to leave behind in 2024 and bring forward into 2025, we wanted to share some suggestions and acknowledgements directly from grantees.
NB: these quotes have been edited for clarity and to maintain the confidentiality of grantees who responded to CEP’s survey.
What are we leaving behind in 2024?
Lacking a deeper understanding of grantees’ work:
“I believe [this funder] wants to do justice to the communities [that] our organization continues to serve. But, I doubt [this funder] has a complete understanding of what we do, the specific goals we have and are accomplishing, and what our future plans are.”
Challenges in responsiveness:
“The program staff are extremely hard to reach, and unresponsive when we send important or timely updates; and in this way, they are unusual among all of our foundation partners. I would go as far as to say that they are aloof and unavailable, and that results in so many missed opportunities to help [this funder] have more impact in our area, specific to their written/stated funding goals.”
Limited support for organizational wellbeing:
“I wish the philanthropic field as a whole would re-balance its priorities to provide greater support for general operating. I understand why the concept of administration and ‘overhead’ is less attractive. It’s more difficult to name and promote impact. But as long as leadership at non-profit organizations are pulling their hair out every day trying to stay apace with increasing costs, there is no time for true strategic planning and organizational imagination. Every effort to be innovative, envision and activate change, exists on top of the daily struggle. And this innately leads to overwhelm and burnout across these organizations. To support leadership and staff, to nurture their creativity and nourish their aspirations to serve their communities at the level they wish to serve them, a larger commitment to the daily enterprise would be hugely meaningful.”
Unclear funding guidelines and requirements:
“[This funder’s] commitment to thoroughness by asking for detailed follow-ups to our proposal is commendable and we ultimately appreciated receiving funding at a slightly higher level than anticipated. However, the timeline and process could have been clearer — it felt slower and more opaque at first, then closer to the grant award it was often challenging to respond to follow-ups and provide materials on the timelines requested. These tight timelines necessitated a significant investment of staff time on our part to coordinate and produce information quickly.”
Reporting metrics that aren’t aligned with grantees’ contexts:
“[Throughout the course of developing our proposal], we discovered that our program plan needed to conform to a set of metrics that were not at all relevant or even possible to measure given the type of work our organization does. Our program officer advised us to do our best to fit into the metrics, even if it meant setting a target completion date that was not at all achievable because the targets were required to be within the grant period. As a result, we ended up with a project that has been challenging for our organization both to implement and to track.”
What are we bringing forward to 2025?
Strong, trusting relationships:
“The relationship built with [this funder] is founded on trust, mutual respect, and a shared commitment to making a positive impact. Their dedication to creating a supportive environment has fostered a collaborative atmosphere where ideas are exchanged openly, and challenges are addressed constructively.”
Field leadership and network-building:
“[This funder] has a significant and positive influence on our field, community, and organization. Beyond their financial support, they play a crucial role in advancing the goals and initiatives within the sector. Their commitment to fostering innovation and promoting best practices helps set high standards across the industry. By funding impactful projects and facilitating knowledge-sharing opportunities, [this funder] helps drive progress and encourages collaboration among organizations with similar missions.”
Flexible, long-term grant funding:
“[This funder] recognizes the expertise of our organization in understanding our own needs and priorities. By providing flexible, multi-year funding, [this funder] allows organizations like ours to focus on our core mission without being overly burdened by restrictive grant requirements. This freedom to allocate resources where they are most needed is transformative, as it enables us to address both immediate challenges and long-term strategic goals.”
Streamlined, collaborative grant processes:
“We had one of the best application experiences with [this funder]. We connected closely with the funder, which allowed us to provide context about our work and refine our grant objectives alongside our program officer, who acted as a valuable thought partner. We feel accountable to both the grant and [the funder] without being burdened by excessive reporting.”
Mutual admiration and support:
“I love [this funder]. This was true long before we were funded by them. I have always admired their vision and mission. Now as a grantee I see all this up close and my admiration has only grown. I love how [the whole team] treats us with such respect and encourages us to really meet our full potential. The commitment to [their fields of focus], vulnerable populations, and equity is so admirable. Thank you, [funder].”
Emma Relle is a Senior Analyst on the Assessment and Advisory Services team at CEP. Find her on LinkedIn.
