Insight
Reporting and metrics are not always perceived as useful and valuable to grantees.
Co-designing metrics and reporting formats to be specific to the needs of the grantee can lead to more meaningful and valuable impact measurement for both funders and grantees.
“I’m not sure anyone reads our reports. They say they’ll let us know if they have questions, but we never get feedback.”
Reporting Processes
In the best case, quarterly and annual reports serve as much more than just an update or checkup. Reporting can be an integral part of creating a common understanding of the organization’s goals and core mission. Some participants stated that creating reports helped them hone their organizational focus.
But in other cases, reporting was seen as busy work that takes time away from what organizations saw as their “real work.” These participants viewed the report as a deliverable external to their organizational goals. This group also expressed doubts about the utility of their reports to GCE, since they rarely heard feedback after submitting reports.
Among the people who were the most satisfied with reports, many of them had negotiated a reporting format that worked for them. For example, some organizations sent one standardized report to all of their funders, so they didn’t have to spend time preparing multiple reports. Others worked with GCE to develop a specific format that best fit both their needs and GCE’s. We noticed that the organizations who took the initiative to make reporting work well for them were more likely to see the real outcome as not the report itself, but as a benefit to their organization’s health. On average, organizations reported that narrative reports are more cumbersome to produce than financial reports, but almost all respondents felt narrative reports were a clearer reflection of the organization.
Metrics & Benchmarks
When we explored the topic of reporting with interviewees, the conversation often turned to the metrics that are, for organizations, tightly linked with reporting.
Most organizations had experience with impact measurement of some kind, though sometimes at a less rigorous level than GCE’s standards. As with reporting formats, participants who pushed back on initial metrics, and as a result collaborated to create metrics they found more meaningful and useful, were the most satisfied and positive about their metrics. The chance to create impact metrics together with GCE was described as a helpful learning experience. In particular, some participants noted the value of being exposed to learning measurement techniques associated with the commercial sector.
The negative comments about metrics came from participants who felt that metrics were handed to them without opportunities for discussion and revision, and thus were neither reasonable nor applicable to their strategy and impact model. One participant noted that they were “burdened with measurable but unfair metrics and expectations.” Another commented that meeting metrics would only be possible if they behaved unethically. These organizations generally saw metrics as a way to quantitatively describe outputs, rather than a way to monitor outcomes.
Quotes
“We appreciate the freedom to write the narrative report we think is most helpful.”
“[GCE] taught us to think about impact.”
“They respect you if you push back. When we said we wanted to do the same report for all our funders, they agreed. They were really flexible and accommodating.”
“We made an ethical decision to not meet our metric.”
“The reporting burden has been by far the most negative aspect of the relationship with the GCE team… at the moment, the reporting requirements are onerous and do not support meaningful organizational monitoring, evaluation and learning.”
Related Recommendations
All Recommendations arrow_forwardInvite grantees to propose metrics or impact measurement frameworks that best reflect their strategy, impact model, and desired outcomes.
Give sufficient time to develop an impact measurement framework that a grantee is comfortable with, e.g., consider allocating time at the beginning of a grant term to dedicate to working on co-designing indicators that are outcome-driven and aligned with the grantee organization’s strategy.
Where possible, align metrics with organizations’ existing frameworks for monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL), and where organizations lack a coherent MEL framework, consider offering support in building out MEL within the organization (as part of the grant or in the form of portfolio support).
Where possible, identify an opportunity to sync impact measurement and reporting across co-funders to alleviate the burden on grantees.
Be explicit about the purpose of grant reporting and where possible offer guidance and options around formats.
Proactively talk with grantees about how reporting can better fit into their existing workflow and improve their organizational health.
Create processes for gathering and incorporating organizational feedback on metrics over the course of the funding period and offer flexibility with how metrics are structured and used.
Provide timely feedback on reports provided by grantees.
Related Resources
A practical guide to outcome-focused philanthropy
A philanthropic framework that emphasizes rigor, results, learning, and adaptation. This guidebook and set of worksheets helps foundation staff integrate this approach across all stages of philanthropic work.
Knowledge Base
Source: Lori Grange, Hewlett FoundationAnnual reports: Stop the madness!
This article discusses the poor benefit/cost ratio for annual reports and advises nonprofit leaders on alternative ways to allocate their energy to strategic fundraising communications and efforts.
Article
Source: Ruth Levine, Hewlett FoundationResponsible Data Practices
Adopting responsible data practices can feel daunting. The issues involved range widely, from privacy to ethics, to many other grey areas around making good judgements when it comes to working with data. This resource covers a few considerations that arise repeatedly when thinking about and practising responsible data in the community.
Article
Source: Responsible DataData Handling Best Practices
Doing data handling with privacy and security in mind means spending some time to identify different threats, culminating in a threat model, and coming up with strategies that fit the particular threat model. We’ve compiled some best practices for both risk assessment and security strategies.
Knowledge Base
Source: Simply SecureCo-Design
Resources on co-design as a participatory process that can address systemic inequalities and power imbalances.
Knowledge Base
Source: Sasha Costanza-Schock, MIT Civic MediaIDEO Service Design Tools
An open collection of communication tools used in design proccesses that deal with complex systems.
Knowledge Base
Source: IDEODealing with Divergent Requests
A resource, from the user experience research, on understanding how to hear the intent behind a request.
Knowledge Base
Source: Simply SecureHigh Risk User Research
A video on working with high-risk users or in contexts where security and privacy are critical.
Knowledge Base
Source: Simply SecureOn Trust & Transparency: Full Report
Download the full report.
Report
Source: Simply SecureOn Trust & Transparency: Interview Guide
The interview guide used for the participant interviews during the Partner Perspectives project.
Report
Source: Simply SecureOn Trust & Transparency: Survey Guide
The survey guide used for the Partner Perspectives project. This was hosted in LimeSurvey an open-source survey tool that can be self-hosted or hosted via Limesurvey’s website.
Report
Source: Simply SecureOn Trust & Transparency: Reporting and Metrics
Download the insight section on reporting and metrics.
Report
Source: Simply Secure