BEST Nonprofit Survey Report September 18, 2007

2007CNM/BEST Project

1

BEST Nonprofit BEST Nonprofit Survey ReportSurvey ReportSeptember 18, 2007September 18, 2007


2

Survey ApproachSurvey Approach

Questionnaire developed jointly by Center for Nonprofit Management and BEST Project• More than 60 questions; 6 pages

total• Mailing late January/re-mail mid-

February Responses confidential; Mailed

directly to CNM CNM provided BEST with final

report and analysis Incentive for participation:

Laptop awarded to Insight Recovery

Distributed to Genesee County nonprofits• Resource Center Sourcebook Data• Funders’ Grantee Mailing Lists


3

Genesee Co. Genesee Co. NonprofitNonprofit SurveySurvey

Focus AreasFocus Areas Respondent demographics

including finances Agencies’ perceived

capacity building needs including training

Trends in collaboration and strategic partnerships

Organizations’ interest in potentially participating in the BEST Project in the future

Feedback on perceptions and knowledge of the BEST Project


4

Responding AgenciesResponding Agencies

21% or 102 agencies

23% Flint

15% Genesee County

16 of 19 first/second cohort agencies

Covered all areas of the sector and all budget sizes


5

Key GroupsKey Groups

Participants: First cohort agencies Second cohort agencies

Non-participants: Small budgets=

< $150,000 Medium budgets=

$150,000-$1,500,000 Large budgets=

$1,5000,000+


6

Section I:Section I:

Respondent Respondent DemographicsDemographics


7

Type of AgencyType of Agency

Social action, 4.1

Arts, etc, 6.2

Environment, 7.2

Community improvement,

5.2other, 10.3

Housing, 5.2

Employment, 2.1

Physical/mental health,

13.4

Human Services,

35.1

Education, 11.3

n=100


8

““Age” of AgencyAge” of Agency

2000 +, 16.5

1980-1999, 38.8

1950-1979, 27.1

before 1950, 17.6

n=100


9

Key GroupsKey Groups

NA, 6non-cohort lrg budget,

19

non-cohort sml budget,

27

non-cohort med

budgets, 32

current cohorts, 16


10

Awareness of BESTAwareness of BEST

not aware, 46.8

aware, 53.2

n=77

Non-participants:


11

Section II:Section II: Financial Information Financial Information

40% had a balanced budget last year (2005/2006)

34-50% operating budgets spent on

salaries and benefits

85% agency spending on vendors/ services within Genesee Co.

Economy has diminished amounts raised; forced fundraising to forefront


12

29.7

40.6

29.7

28.6

50.0

21.4

22.6

41.9

35.5

32.0

44.0

24.0

36.8

26.3

36.8

Total(n=100)

Currentcohorts(n=16)

Smallbudget(n=31)

Medbudget(n=27)

Lrgbudget(n=19)

% deficit % on budget % surplus

2005/2006 Budgets2005/2006 Budgets


13

Ways agencies cut back Ways agencies cut back on expenses past 3 yrson expenses past 3 yrs

Participants/Non-participants:

Reduced staff/salaries/benefits

Forced professional development and technical assistance to be a very low priority

Reduced services

Cut back on office expenses

Cut marketing efforts and/or events


14

16.3

23.1

25.8

1.2

33.7

18.9

32.3

9.72.4

36.7

20.9

7.1

40.5

1

30.5

18.7

14.6

31.6

1.5

33.7

6.2

57.8

5.40.2

30.4

Total(n=100)


Smallbudget(n=31)

Medbudget(n=27)

Lrgbudget(n=19)

% from grants % gov't contracts % individual giving% from United Way %other

Operating Budget Operating Budget SourcesSources


15

Ways economy has Ways economy has impacted financial impacted financial resources overallresources overall


Reduced private donations

Fundraising more difficult

Reduced government funding


16

Ways current economic Ways current economic climate resulted in more time climate resulted in more time

spent on resource dev.spent on resource dev.


Shrinking grant money and more competition; Looking outside of Genesee Co. for funds

Fewer staff to spend the additional time needed to find resources

Services suffer due to time spent on

seeking resources


17

Section III: Section III: CollaborationsCollaborations


60% believe with relevant collaborative efforts, clients and customers better served

45% believe their organization is ready for a collaboration

84% have at least discussed collaborations within their organizations

Over 50% of respondents have had a successful collaboration


18

Section III: Section III: CollaborationsCollaborations

Participants/Non-participants: 25% have had a failed

collaboration attempt Those who have not tried a

collaborative attempt see themselves ready for a change; not as ready as those who have already tried (failed/successful)

30% answered they are seeing more collaborative efforts (incl. mergers) AND are concerned about that


19

Collaborative Collaborative AttemptsAttempts

% both success & failure, 18

% neither (haven't tried), 35

% only failure, 7

% only successful,

40


20

7.5

8.4

9.0

6.8

8.2

7.1

7.0

7.6

8.0

4.8

5.7

6.3

6.1

7.9

8.9

6.0

5.9

7.5

5.1

7.7

8.7

6.3

5.9

6.4

Noticing MORE collaborative efforts acrossFlint/Genesee Co.

Feel my organization is ready to pursuecollaborations with others

With Relevant collaborations, clients/customers willbe better served

I am very concerned about the number of mergersin Flint/Genesee Co.

I am seeing greater collaboration between/amongfunder groups

I am seeing greater pressure from funders foragencies to particiate in collaborative efforts with

others

Current cohorts (n=16) Small budget (n=31) Med budget (n=27) Lrg budget (n=19)

Collaboration RatingsCollaboration Ratings


21

84.0

80.0

76.0

25.0

58.0

93.8

93.8

93.8

31.3

75.0

75.0

71.9

65.6

21.9

50.0

81.5

81.5

74.1

14.8

55.6

89.5

78.9

78.9

31.6

63.2

conversationswithin org about

possiblecollaboration

efforts

research intopotentialpartners

conversationswith potential

partners

non-successfulcollaborative

attempts

successfulcollaboration

total current cohorts small budget medium budget large budget

Collaborative EffortsCollaborative Efforts


22

Cited optimal Cited optimal collaboration collaboration

outcomesoutcomes


Improved & expanded services

Lower overhead costs

Better funding

Better sustainability/stability

Sharing of information

Shared office-type space and services


23

Why agencies are Why agencies are uncomfortable in uncomfortable in

collaboration attemptcollaboration attempt


Competition/conflicts of interest

Fewer mentions included:

Staff/staff time

Loss of control

Lack of leadership

Finding the right partner


24

Section III:Section III: Capacity Building Capacity Building

Most agree capacity building is best way to improve services

Few believe agency is in a financial position to address cb; (higher among small budget non- participants)

40% with small budgets feel their organizations aren’t in a position to consider cb activities

Participants don’t see capacity building as such a dilemma

Stronger degree of readiness is seen in non-participants with large budgets


25

9.2

7.8

7.7

6.8

5.2

7.1

7.9

4.8

6.1

5.9

2.5

3.7

8.1

6.1

5.0

5.5

3.1

4.7

7.8

7.7

5.1

5.9

5.0

5.7

Building capacity is the best way to improveservices to our clients/consumers.

Our organization is really not in a position toconsider/address capacity building at this time*

Area funders really seem to understand the needand methods to achieve capacity building.

I am very concerned that the emphasis on capacitybuilding is detracting from other issues my

organization faces.*

Although I understand the need to build capacity, myorganization is not in a financial position to address

it in any significant way.*

Although I understand the need to build capacity, myorganization does not have the technical ability to

address it in any significant way.*

Current cohorts (n=16) Small budget (n=31) Med budget (n=27) Lrg budget (n=19)

CB/TA RatingsCB/TA Ratings


26

Top 3 barriers inhibiting Top 3 barriers inhibiting capacity buildingcapacity building

Non-participants:

Funding

Limited time/fewer staff

Few mentions of limited knowledge, expertise and technology


27

Section IV: Section IV: Training/workshopsTraining/workshops

Most see value and benefit of training; 50% training imperative to organization’s success

Most agree gap in affordable/available training

Current participants likely include training senior staff, intermediate personnel, and board members in budget

Training paid for by grants or sponsorships; attendees own pockets

Participants needs different from non- participant needs; participants focus on resource dev. &communications

Needs of non-participants dependent on budget size


28

50.641.2

32.9

32.9

31.8

28.2

25.9

24.7

21.2

17.6

17.6

16.5

16.5

16.5

15.3

15.3

14.1

11.8

11.8

11.8

11.8

9.4

8.2

7.1

5.9

5.9

5.9

5.9

2.4

1.2

20

40

53.3

20

26.7

13.3

73.3

53.3

13.3

6.7

26.7

6.7

6.7

20

20

6.7

6.7

6.7

6.7

13.3

6.7

13.3

6.7

6.7

Strategic planning

Board development

Marketing plans

Proposal & grant writing

Information/technology

Public relations/promotions

Major gifts

Annual campaign

Staffing plans

Coaching

Planned giving

Committee development

Grassroots fundraising

Endowments

Needs assessment

Special events

Evaluation

Staff roles & responsibilities

Personnel policies

Staff performance/evaluation

Client relations/satisfaction

For profit ventures

Feasibility studies

Cost/benefit analysis

Board/staff relations

Job descriptions

Logic models

Budgeting

Audit

Internal controls

total

current cohorts

Organizational Needs Next 3 yrs.Organizational Needs Next 3 yrs.


29

6554

27

42

23

35

8

15

23

27

15

23

27

15

19

19

12

12

12

8

12

15

4

4

8

4

4

4

58

33

33

29

46

29

21

25

21

17

8

17

8

13

21

8

29

13

13

13

4

21

4

4

8

13

4

4

4

50

38

13

25

25

19

25

13

25

19

25

19

13

25

19

6

6

19

19

25

19

13

13

25

6

13

Strategic planning

Board development

Marketing plans

Proposal & grant writing

Information/technology

Public relations/promotions

Major gifts

Annual campaign

Staffing plans

Coaching

Planned giving

Committee development

Grassroots fundraising

Endowments

Needs assessment

Special events

Evaluation

Staff roles & responsibilities

Personnel policies

Staff performance/evaluation

Client relations/satisfaction

For profit ventures

Feasibility studies

Cost/benefit analysis

Board/staff relations

Job descriptions

Logic models

Budgeting

Audit

Internal controls

small budgetmed budgetlg budget

Organizational Needs Organizational Needs Next 3 yrs.Next 3 yrs.


30

Topics cited as not Topics cited as not being able to being able to

find/affordfind/afford

Participants: Grant writing/fund development Staff development Leadership development


31

Topics cited as not Topics cited as not being able to being able to

find/affordfind/afford

Non-participants:

Service improvement

Staff skills/motivation

Information Technology

Grant writing/resource dev.

Customer service

Board development


32

Section V:Section V:BEST Project AwarenessBEST Project Awareness

More than 1/2 Non-participants claim to have heard of BEST;

Those unaware of BEST tended to be: not executive directors and/or agencies with large budget

Most likely to be aware from medium-sized agencies budgets

Most likely learned of BEST form someone other than a participant


33

Awareness of BESTAwareness of BEST

not aware, 46.8

aware, 53.2

Non-participants:


34

58.6

44.8

66.7

84.5

39.7

66.7

35.2

41.9

30.8

53.8

69.2

15.4

63.6

7.7

70.4

36.8

52.6

89.5

31.6

76.9

23.5

47.4

20.0

44.4

60.0

10.0

60.0

11.1

aware

visited website

spoken to aparticipant

heard fromsomeone else

contacted BESTstaff

heard from "other"source

contacted BESTfor referral

total(n=58) small budget (n=13**)medium budget (n=19) large budget (n=9**)

BEST AwarenessBEST Awareness


35

What firstWhat firstcomes to mind when thinking comes to mind when thinking

of the BEST Projectof the BEST Project

Non-participants: Some commented on the “lack

of available information” and “exclusiveness” of BEST

Most comments were positive saying that BEST was needed and perceived as a partnership

Participants: Most said “capacity building” or

“sustainability”


36

Section VI:Section VI:Opinions of & Interest in Opinions of & Interest in

BEST ParticipationBEST Participation

Ratings for BEST are fairly good (7.0); participants much higher (8.0- 9.0)

More the case that people really do not know about BEST rather than feeling negatively about it

33% of non-participants claim have no real idea what BEST is all about

50% say they hear or read very little about BEST or its participants.


37

Section VI:Section VI:Opinions of & Interest in Opinions of & Interest in

BEST ParticipationBEST Participation

Nearly all respondents want to participate:

• 100% of the current cohorts

• 100% of the non-participants with large budgets

• 69% of the non-participants with medium-sized budgets

• 78% of the non-participants with small budgets

.


38

84.1

15.9

100.0

77.8

22.2

69.2

30.8

100.0

Total(n=58)


Smallbudget(n=13)

Medbudget(n=19)

Lrg budget(n=9)

% interested % not interested

Interest in BEST Interest in BEST ParticipationParticipation


39

Non-participants with negative interest:

Not interested/no need

Organization not ready

Not enough internal resources

ChurchThose who are not interested tended to be not new agencies



40


Non-participants with positive interest:

Confidence in BEST/4 funders Need money Want to improve services/build

capacity Need technical assistance Sounds good/really need help

Awaiting to hear if project will expand

Would help us tremendously


41

QuestionsQuestions

??????


42

Jennifer AcreeJennifer AcreeDirector of ProgramsDirector of Programs

BEST ProjectBEST Project

ANDAND

Ron ButlerRon ButlerExecutive DirectorExecutive Director

United Way of Genesee United Way of Genesee CountyCounty

BEST Nonprofit Survey Report September 18, 2007

Documents

Transcript of BEST Nonprofit Survey Report September 18, 2007